Hi, Ray.
Cold Foreign Object writes:
subbie writes:
CFO writes:
If there is no evidence that contradicts evolution then you are saying that evolution is not falsifiable.
Falsifiability does not mean that there is in fact contradictory evidence. It means that there is possible evidence that, if found, would prove the theory wrong.
As phrased no evidence thus exists.
You need to stop playing games. Everyone knows what falsifiability means. Evolutionists have stuck their foot in their mouth by claiming no evidence exists that contradicts evolution. This belief is prima facie evidence supporting the general claim that evolution is a religion.
Ray, falsifiability means that you could theoretically prove it false by finding contradictory evidence. Falsifiability does not require that contradictory evidence actually exist. Think about that: what you are saying is that, in order for something to be considered scientific, we must have evidence that it's
not true.
Evolution could easily be proven false by, for example, showing that there is no sequential pattern in the fossil record (e.g. you could find advanced mammals in Cambrian sediments). The fact that no such evidence has ever been found, while heaps and heaps of evidence that is fully consistent with evolutionary history have been found, is the reason evolution is an accepted scientific theory.
However, even if creationism were completely wrong, you could never prove it was wrong, simply because any contradictory evidence can simply be ascribed to some esoteric purpose of the designer that is, by definition, beyond our capacity to understand.
There, I've said my piece. It probably won't do much good here, but, at least now it won't be because of my failure to do anything about it.
-Bluejay
Darwin loves you.
™ Version 4.2
