Standards of Evidence

Double post.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

... is not a magic word that magically makes whatever you're saying true.It has a meaning.In particular, preceding a gross logical fallacy with the word "logically" will never make it logical.

Then how is it that scientists of all faiths and none agree on the facts?If one's religious outlook made a difference, you'd expect it to, y'know, make a difference.

... is also not a magic word.

Still wrong, obviously, or theist scientists wouldn't accept evolution, which they do.

In the example given? That the theory has been tested and one of its predictions has been confirmed.This is not a matter of opinion.

If we are testing a theory, the fact either is or is not in line with the predictions of the theory. If it is in line with the predictions, that means that the theory has passed another test, and our confidence in the theory should be strengthened; if not, the theory has been falsified.You notice how it is not necessary to interpret the fact, merely to compare it with the predictions of the theory.

Well, this isn't true, is it? Creationists often claim vociferously to have a theory, as you must know perfectly well.Look, here's one.

quote:

---

A Theory of Creation

​

A Response to the Pretense that No Creation Theory Exists

​

© 2000 Timothy Wallace. All Rights Reserved.

​

A popular practice among many proponents of evolutionism”including the “regulars” at the Talk.Origins newsgroup”is to claim that “no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us,”[1] without which they find it “impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation.”

---

Couldn't you guys just get together in a room somewhere and decide what lies you're going to tell? But this isn't actually true, is it? Which is why you cannot name these imaginary "presuppositions" and say how they allow only one conclusion. This is not true. Creationists ignore most of the evidence and continually make stuff up. For example, your claim that the Egyptian Book of the Dead called the Great Pyramid "the pillar of Enoch". This isn't evidence, this is made-up stuff. Scientists look at the evidence, you look at fantasies of your own invention. And yet curiously enough the people whose research actually produces scientific data disagree with you.Possibly they know something you don't, like what the scientific data actually is. "Fact produced by prediction"?Sheesh.I'm sure if this meant something it would be untrue, but it doesn't.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I'm not sure that I agree with you, but perhaps that's another topic. Well, for example, specific intermediate forms have been predicted. Huxley predicted Archaeopteryx in rather precise detail (I have a book which reproduces his drawing of the skeleton ... spookily accurate). Bloom predicted the intermediate jaws of reptile-mammal intermediates. The discoverers of Tiktaalik knew just where to look for it. Whales with legs were predicted before they were found. Apemen were predicted before they were found. And so on, and so forth.Meanwhile, chimeras which would contradict evolution (griffins, winged pigs, dragons) remain in short supply.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

True, but we have a wealth of observations which we can predict.Other people have a much harder time of it. Consider the problems in finding solutions to the equations of General Relativity, or the poor old quantum physicists, who keep on having to build bigger and bigger steel donuts to do an experiment worth doing.