Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
39 online now:
jar, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 36 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,489 Year: 20,525/19,786 Month: 922/2,023 Week: 430/392 Day: 46/74 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 272 of 373 (647128)
01-08-2012 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 6:54 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Huh? Chuck, what are you talking about?

So you want creationists to try to falsify a strawman position?

Huh?

No, I want you to try and falsify the Theory of Evolution.

What strawman are you talking about?

By saying only one little rabbitt will falify our false theory?

No, I think you have hold of the wrong end of the stick. The pre-Cambrian rabbit is an iconic example of a potential piece of evidence that would falsify the ToE. Check it out;

quote:
At one time, "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" rock samples became popular imagery in debates about the validity of the theory of evolution and the scientific field of evolutionary biology. The images are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory and the field of study. Many of his statements about his scientific research were popularized in his lifetime.

Some accounts use this response to rebut claims that the theory of evolution is not falsifiable by any empirical evidence. This followed an assertion by philosopher, Karl Popper, who had proposed that falsifiability is an essential feature of a scientific theory. Popper also expressed doubts about the scientific status of evolutionary theory, although he later concluded that the field of study was genuinely scientific.

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, although, if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process. Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Hundreds of millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian.


From Wiki.

If the TOE is untrue how can something that is already false be falsified?

My dear fellow, I am claiming that the ToE is true.

You are claiming that the ToE is false.

If you think the ToE is false, you should be able to point to evidence that falsifies it.

I think that the Toe is true, so I am under no such obligation.

You see how this works?

It's setup to cover anything that would dare come againt it. Like the definition of a "scientific theory"

I think that you are drifting into paranoia here. Trust me Chuck, the philosophy of science was not created to irk creationists. Real scientists have better things to do. Despite the comforting delusions of creationists who like to view themselves as being persecuted by a conspiracy of evil atheistic scientists, most actual scientists couldn't give a toss about creationism. It isn't even on their radar.

Well then what exactly is the scientific method. Do you agree that science follows the scientific method for the TOE?

Defining the scientific method isn't really part of the scope of this thread, but yes, I do think that evolutionary biology follows the scientific method. You disagree? Show me where you think it diverges from the method.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 6:54 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 273 of 373 (647131)
01-08-2012 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 269 by PaulK
01-08-2012 7:05 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying.

To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:05 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:23 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Chuck77 has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15554
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 274 of 373 (647133)
01-08-2012 7:23 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:10 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:

No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying.

To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading.


Then you haven't bothered to understand the point. Our understanding of evolution has no land vertebrates in the Cambrian, let alone modern mammals like rabbits. Such a find would be astounding and at the least require dramatic revisions to our understanding of evolutionary theory. It would be far better evidence against evolution than what we actually see in the Cambrian, which seems to be mainly due to the limitations of the fossil record ( e.g. very small life forms, and life without hard parts are only rarely fossilised).

And do you understand what falsification actually means now ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:10 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


(1)
Message 275 of 373 (647136)
01-08-2012 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:10 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
No, it's a strawman to say that a rabbit would falsify the theory, that is what i'm saying.

To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period and then to say "find a rabbit in it" is misleading.

Again it seems that your desire to say something outreaches your command of the English language.

Start by looking up "strawman". A "strawman" is when you misrepresent someone else's argument, as in the bizarre phrase: "To say that the cambrian is "evolutions" little time period ..."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:10 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:37 AM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 277 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:40 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 276 of 373 (647137)
01-08-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
outreaches your command of the English language.

Insults is your best quality. If you would like to start a thread on the english language go for it. If not leave your insults at the door Doc. It's very unbecoming of you. Well, not really... <---compliments cavediver


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:47 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 373 (647139)
01-08-2012 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Dr Adequate
01-08-2012 7:28 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position.

Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:28 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2012 7:45 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 280 by PaulK, posted 01-08-2012 7:55 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 281 by Granny Magda, posted 01-08-2012 7:58 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 278 of 373 (647141)
01-08-2012 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position.

Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat.

It's not actually our fault you can't find anything that falsifies evolution. It's 'cos of it not actually being false. Go and yell at reality and see if it cares.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:40 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 279 of 373 (647142)
01-08-2012 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:37 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Insults is your best quality.

You may have found it insulting. It's also true: you haven't been making much sense these past few posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:37 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15554
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 280 of 373 (647143)
01-08-2012 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
quote:

Yes, a strawman is when someone misrepresents their opponents position.

And in fact the only strawman was your invention...

quote:

Maybe that was the wrong word to use. Lie would have been better. So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with. Like the cambrian explosion for example. How neat.

I guess that is nastier and more dishonest. I don't see that as being "better".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:40 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2380
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 281 of 373 (647144)
01-08-2012 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Chuck77
01-08-2012 7:40 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
So the TOE is a lie and made up and to boot, just find a nice little rabitt where we say it can't exist and you have falisified our lie that cannot be falisified...

Chuck... for fuck's sake...

The ToE cannot be both unfalsifiable and a lie.

If it's unfalsifiable, that means that you can't prove it false.

If you can't prove it false, you can't call it a lie.

Obviously.

...because we wont let it be falsified with all of the false information we use to craft the theory to begin with.

Well no, we won't let false information falsify a theory. Why would we?

If, on the other hand, you have any real information that would falsify the theory, please present it.

Of course, we all know that you don't have anything of the kind. In fact, you aren't even interested in looking for it.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Chuck77, posted 01-08-2012 7:40 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 419 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 282 of 373 (647145)
01-08-2012 8:03 AM


Topic warning
I'm kind of enjoying the exchange about falsifying evolution, but this thread is really about verifying some variation of Intelligent Design. The two are not necessarily synonymous. If you want to talk about falsifying evolution, or the lies/misrepresentations of those that claim it is in principle possible to do so - could I ask that a new thread be proposed?

  
DWIII
Member (Idle past 67 days)
Posts: 72
From: United States
Joined: 06-30-2011


Message 283 of 373 (647158)
01-08-2012 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Just being real
01-08-2012 6:33 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:


Since your only support is unfalsifiable assertions, your "proof" (so far) utterly fails. All that is left is the real-world evidences which (contrary to your beliefs) point in the opposite direction.

Excuse me? Unfalsifiable? Lets look again and see if that is true.

Scientific observation A: Something has never been observed coming from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing one case of something coming from nothing.)

It's not apparent what is meant by "nothing" in this context. Does empty space qualify as nothing? Quantum mechanics postulates a seething foam of virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence, and has been indirectly verified with such experiments as the Casimir effect. Quantum mechanics is (so far) a vastly successful model of physical reality.

If, instead, "nothingness" is some state of affairs which cannot by definition be experienced, then the notion of no thing "coming from nothing" is inherently unfalsifiable.

Here's a little sauce for the gander: Scientific observation A-prime. No thing has ever been observed in the act of being created from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing just one case of somebody creating something else out of nothing in violation of the conservation of mass-energy; conjuring tricks or Genesis 1:1 notwithstanding.)


Scientific observation F: The 122 parameters of the Earth, such as size, position, angle, atmosphere, moon position, rotation speed, water content, and planetary orbital order, that make life possible here, are a clear display of highly specified life support systems. (Can be falsified by observing one other case of another planetary system with the existence of native life)

You are treading very thin ground here. I doubt that the general concept of intelligent design would be in any way falsified by a successful detection of alien life; on the contrary, it could conceivably bolster it. All it would really falsify is your presumed arrogance that life on this one planet must be the Pinnacle of All Creation.


DWIII

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 6:33 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM DWIII has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 284 of 373 (647159)
01-08-2012 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:

Since we only know about the life that is found on Earth, we have no grounds with which to even speculate. Any speculation of how life could form (or be created) had the universe been different, would be pure H.G. Wells fantasy. Right now we know that carbon is one of the key elements necessary to have life.

So when you say "life" what you really mean is "life as we know it." Life based on other chemistries and physics need not apply no matter that it has metabolism, reproduces, and is subject to evolution. And you're interpreting the lack of evidence of this other life as evidence that it can't exist.

Any slight change in just one of the proportions of virtually all the laws of physics would render the existence of carbon impossible.

Just as we don't know if or how life might be based upon other chemistries and physics, neither do we know what element or elements might take the place of carbon were such life possible. The important point to take away is that you're drawing conclusions in an area of great ignorance, and the usual good advice is that of what one does not know one must remain silent.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18975
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 285 of 373 (647161)
01-08-2012 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Just being real
01-08-2012 12:21 AM


Re: Evidence for a designer
Just being real writes:

My point again is that we have never observed something come from nothing.

Since you define nothing as the era "before" the existence of anything, how could anything exist to observe this nothing. Another consequence of your definition is that since nothing has never been observed, how can you reach any conclusions about its qualities, such as what can come from it?

You seem to be seeking your evidence of the designer in regions of science where there is very, very little evidence and where no firm conclusions are possible.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 12:21 AM Just being real has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 58 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 286 of 373 (647184)
01-08-2012 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Just being real
01-08-2012 5:34 AM


It was an intelligently designed computer running an intelligently programmed algorithm. The algorithm began with a random set of wire arrangements. The algorithm determined which of that set functioned best then randomly combined those together to get a new set. This process repeated.

Please show me at what point in that algorithm intelligence was a factor.


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 5:34 AM Just being real has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Just being real, posted 01-08-2012 10:23 PM subbie has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019