Dissecting the Evolutionist Approach to Explanation and Persuation

quote:

---

Obviously our knowledge of other evidence (and what Faith would call our preconceptions) is what leads us to not for even a second consider the fossils as flood evidence, so *we* know that we dismiss the evidence for good reason. But how are others unfamiliar with this evidence specifically and with science generally supposed to know?

---

When we do explain it, it is often just rejected out of hand."You can show a person the evidence, but you can't make them acknowledge it."

quote:

---

I think the case for evolution has been a little overstated.

---

No, it really isn't overstated. When every related field of life science, physics, chemistry, etc. ALL strongly confirm the theory, it can not be stated strongly enough that the ToE is extremely well-supported.

quote:

---

People on here have said it's as certain as the earth revolving around the sun.

---

Yes, easily.

quote:

---

I do not get that impression myself.

​

Most of the evidence seems to consist of elimination of possible falsifications (except fossils).

---

Erm, ALL science consists of elimination of possible falsifications.That's how all science works.

quote:

---

You can't "predict" something that you've already found or that you don't know about. All you can say is, if evolution is true, this would likely be the case. Or at any rate, evolution is not falsified.

---

A "prediction" in science is simply a "logical consequence" of the theory.It is not a "prediction" such as a psychic would make.So, you can certainly "predict" a logical consequence of a scientific theory which accounts for evidence that is already known, and also predict what we should find in the future if the theory is correct.Both of these cases are "predictions", or "logical consequences" of the theory.

quote:

---

That kind of prediction doesn't have the convincingness of a real prediction. It really shouldn't be called a "prediction."

---

OK, then call it a "logical consequence of a hypothesis or theory."To most scientists and those who understand the jargon, using "prediction" means exactly the same thing, but if your own personal definition is different than that, then by all means, use the phrase in quotes above.

quote:

---

If ToE is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.

---

If the Germ Theory of Disease is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.If the Theory of Relativity is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.If the Atomic Theory of Matter is true we should see... is a prediction that can never be verified. It's all a matter of interpretation. There may be other explanations of what you predicted to occur and saw. You'll never know because there is no way to test it.

quote:

---

What creationists Frog? You mean those back before Darwin? No current creationist has such a belief that I have ever seen and this is a sad case of misrepresentation that obfuscates the argument.

---

The argument that "God put the fossils in the ground to test our faith" has been extremely common and around a long time after Darwin's ideas began to be accepted, and has only in past decades really fallen out of favor.