In the thread "Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation?" Faith claims:
Faith writes:
Oh and by the way, evolution theory is not falsifiable.
The message where Faith makes that assertion.
Is that a valid assertion?
I believe that there are many things that might falsify the TOE, although since it is so well supported by so many different brances of science and so much evidence I honestly cannot imagine many things short of the repeated observation of "Special Creation", a lamb giving birth to a bird or a platapus giving birth to cow that would qualify.
Some potential things though that might cause a major reexamination of the TOE might be:
If we found a whole bunch of anomalous fossils, for example started to regularly find primate fossils in an earlier layer, say Cambrian, and not just the primate fossils but flowering plants and grasses in the Cambrian layers all over the world, that would definitely call things into question. But would that advance the position of classic YEC Biblical Creationism? IMHO, no, not really. The weight of evidence from all other sources still falsifies the idea of a Young Earth or special creation.
If on the other hand, we found a genetic indicator that was present in every living species that pointed to a population bottleneck that happened at the same time for every species, along with a single geological flood layer that could be identified world-wide that could also be dated to the same time as the genetic indicator and also a testable model to explain the distribution of unique species of plants and animals to places such as Australia and Micronesia and also a model that explained the hyper-macro-super-colossal evolution that would explain all the species seen on earth and also if all of those things pointed to a period in time about 4000-5000 years ago and were supported by multiple repeated observations and by several different branches of study, then it might be reasonable to reexamine classic Biblical Creationism as it relates to the flood. However, YEC positions would still be falsified based on all of the other weights of evidence and it would NOT support any theological implications. The flood might be in but it would add no weight to the GODDIDIT position.
The important points to discuss though are "Should the TOE be falsified, would that lend any credence or support to ideas such as Biblical Creationism?"; and "What would falsify the TOE?"
Edited by jar, : revise topic title and minor edit
Edited by jar, : expand examples
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
™ Version 4.2
