|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying Creation | ||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The author of this silliness either deliberately or through ignorance has completely misunderstood the idea of falsification in science. Falsifiability means that it must be possible, paradoxically, to conceive of evidence that would prove the claim false. This requirement leads to the logic that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false, and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it. If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then whatever evidence exists doesn’t matter. It would be utterly pointless to even look at the evidence, because the conclusion is already known. The claim is thus invulnerable to any possible evidence. Note: this doesn’t imply that the claim is true. On the contrary, it implies that the claim is completely meaningless. It is logically impossible for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim there is ALWAYS some kind of evidence, which if discovered, would make the claim false. In short, every true claim is falsifiable. Welcome to science.
The second major fallacy committed by the author relates to his attempt to force the proponents of the competing hypothesis to invalidate or falsify his claim for him, by showing that theirs is completely true in all possible cases. In other words, yours cannot be proven 100%, therefore mine is true. Let me see if I can make this clear:YOU CANNOT VALIDATE A THEORY BY DEMANDING THAT THE ADHERENTS OF AN OPPOSING THEORY PROVE THEIRS. YOU CAN ONLY VALIDATE A THEORY BY PROVIDING POSITIVE EVIDENCE FOR YOURS. That plain enough for you? The two paragraphs you cited, along with your spurious demand that we prove the ToE, do NOT provide any potential falsification of creationism. [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-31-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: It's patently obvious you have no clue about what you posted, do you? Take a look at your so-called "falsifications". The only way to falsify the examples you posted would be to prove evolution true in 100% of the cases. Perhaps you would care to provide a different interpretation of:
quote: and quote: In other words, prove ToE true or creationism isn't false. Nice try.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Cobra: Unfortunately, as I pointed out to John Paul, comparing one theory to another is not falsification in the sense I posted in message 4 of this thread. Replace the word "validate" with "falsify" in the post, and you'll understand what I mean. The distinction is a false one John Paul came up with because he had no other argument. As to potential falsifications to evolution: I can think of lots and lots!!!! Let me know if you want some (this is a thread about falsifications for creationism, after all) - although you should be able to come up with better than those two. BTW: How is "showing evolution to be possible 100%" different from proving evolution? (Here's why the ones you proposed for evolution aren't true potential falsifications: 1) You can't prove a negative, so logically there is no way you can develop "negative" information like that. 2) Actually, #2 isn't bad. It would certainly cause some major revisions in things like natural selection, etc. I'm not sure what would be left of the ToE after this. It would have to be pretty powerful evidence, however, since it would also have to refute what we know of geology, physics, plate tectonics, Mendelian genetics, paleontology, astronomy, etc. That's a lot of science - but it could happen... You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Excellent point, Retro. Science has no interest in disproving the existence of God or gods. In fact, science has no capability of doing so. The question has no bearing on the validity of evolutionary theory, or any of the other realms upon which science - based on examination of natural phenomena - has jurisdiction.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Sorry Peter (and TC), but I couldn't resist.
quote: Umm, which Flood model are you describing? According to Genesis, the entire world was covered in about 40 days. That's pretty fast by any standards.
quote: It's not a question of the flexibility of the theory, TC (although even if it were, I'm not sure how that could be construed as a negative attribute). The original theory was so elegantly simple, and so well-based on available evidence, that almost all observations since have tended to reinforce the original idea. Some of the mechanisms have had to be tweaked a bit, but considering the numbers of scientific hypotheses that have been jettisoned over the years, the ToE appears to be practically a law of nature. You're correct that the Flood theory is highly speculative (I'm being kind). Also, you're correct that evidence refuting the ToE would indeed have to be extraordinary. Not to say it couldn't happen, but you'll pardon me if I don't hold my breath quote: Except, TC, you have yet to present any positive evidence in support of a global Flood...
quote: Ordered deposition is NOT what would be expected by a flood. Look at ANY modern flood - the deposition of remains is utterly random. Therefore, if there were a Flood (unless your positing that the Noachian Flood didn't follow the basic laws of hydraulics and fluid dynamics), you would expect to commonly find totally random distributions (men with anthracosaurs with rabbits). In spite of possible individual anomalies (like a rabbit running faster or swimming longer than a dimetrodon), statistically the majority would be randomly sorted. This is NOT what is observed. Don't drag in "god of the gaps" inre bats, etc. Besides, you're a YEC, you can't even legitimately USE an argument that shows spontaneous bat creation 50 mya because for you the world has only existed for 6000 years. Even granting you can play with dates, there has been a fair amount of discussion concerning evolution of glider to flyer in mammals already.
quote: TC, listen to yourself. In one breath you are denying the evidence of feline evolution, and in the same breath you are claiming you have no information on feline evolution. There's nothing wrong with saying, "I don't know." At least as long as you don't couple this phrase with "It's all wrong." Before you can assert that something is false, it makes sense to check the evidence to insure you have some basis for the assertion...
quote: Why? This would be precisely required by your Flood. That these anomalies don't exist provides pretty damning evidence against the Flood being real.
quote: You are aware, of course, that the book you base your worldview on makes no mention whatsoever for any ice age? Stands to reason, of course, since the supposed writer(s) lived in a flipping desert. However, large dinos and the other fossils used as evidence for an old earth (at least) are found throughout the world even in places - including Egypt - where ice never came. Odd, isn't it?
quote: How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?
quote: No doubt this explains why there are NO dinos buried ABOVE any large mammal, flightless bird, mammoth, etc. Not even ONE SINGLE FOSSIL out of place.
quote: Wait a sec, now you're conflating the KT extinction - reliably dated to 65 mya - with the Flood? What about the Permian extinction? 90+% of all species on the planet disappeared in a few thousand years. I thought THAT was supposed to be the Flood. How does Flood myhtology account for the other 3 major extinction events - in the most minor of which over 50% of extant species disappeared. Care to comment? (Preferably without absolute denial followed by "I don't know.") Okay, that's about as far as I can go without getting either irritated or repeating myself. Looking forward to hearing TC's comments.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Aaarrgghh! [insert head-banging smilie here]
quote: Au contraire, mon frere. There is literally NO mechanism that can account for fossil stratigraphy EXCEPT geologic time. Let me make this perfectly clear: NO FLOOD MODEL YOU'VE PRESENTED EXPLAINS THE EVIDENCE OF THE FOSSIL RECORD. (Sorry for shouting.) There are NO repeat NO anomalies as would be required by any global flood. Not to mention the utter lack of any geological evidence of rapid deposition. Not to mention the utter inability of a Flood - of any size - to explain things like fossilized mudcracks, raindrops, animal tracks, bioturbation, evaporite formations, etc etc etc.
quote: Why??? You've had the essence of the scientific method explained to you a dozen times. What is it about the formation and testing of hypotheses don't you understand? (Your science teachers down through the years should be taken out and shot.)
quote: In the first place, evolutionary theory is the absolute antithesis of biblical creationism (sorry, creation "science"). It rests on little things like EVIDENCE and OBSERVATION - two elements at least that creationism ain't got. In the second, I have no clue what the heck that second sentence is supposed to mean. Perhaps you'd care to clarify.
quote: Okee dokee, what (in your no doubt VAST experience referenced above) do you consider modifications to Darwin's theory? Please specify anything that might give one to believe there was something sneaky or underhanded going on. The only changes I can see were mechanistic, descriptive or based on new sciences (like genetics). These changes would include such refinements as an understanding of allopatric vs sympatric speciation, population genetics, genetic drift, PE, etc. None (let me repeat for clarity) NONE of these modifications IN ANY WAY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED DARWINIAN THEORY (again apologies for shouting). There has been NO change in common descent, no change in natural selection (except mechanistic - and an ongoing argument about its relative importance), and the addition of random mutation and genetic drift. Darwin's orginal idea still stands after 150 years. Not bad, eh?
quote: On the contrary, that's exactly what you would expect from your Flood theory. In fact, you'd almost HAVE to find such an anomaly - and lots of them - for your theory to have any validity at all. Nice try. Now if you COULD find such a strangeness, especially if it were repeated in various places around the world, ToE could rightly be considered false.
quote: Validity or falsehood of any deposition theory DEPENDS ON THE VALIDITY OF THE FLOOD ITSELF. In other words, if the Flood didn't happen, then the discussion of deposition patterns is moot. In fact, the entire discussion of sorting mechanisms etc is rooted in an attempt to determine whether the Flood occurred. We're all still waiting your positive evidence. Any day - you've only been asked for the same thing about 50 times or so...
quote: No kidding. Therefore the evidence IN SUPPORT of its occurance should be immediately obvious everywhere in the world. Unless you can come up with some wonderous revelation that all the geologists, paleontologists, etc over the last 200 years have missed, there isn't any. Again, we're waiting eagerly for your information.
quote: THEN BLOODY WELL STOP HANDWAVING AND PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE!!!! [insert second head-banging smilie here] quote: Err, that last bit IS god of the gaps - there's a gap in the fossil record, therefore it didn't happen. I've given you an explanation for why this gap exists (remember: small forest dweller, acid forest soil, lousy chance of fossils?). Also, given the number of different species alive today that exhibit some of the adaptations one would expect from critters on the evolutionary pathway to bat-style flight (i.e., glider to flyer), there's absolutely no reason to believe it didn't happen the same way in the past.
quote: GoG.
quote: You mean you've never read anything about the miacid to cat evolution? Lots of fossils, lots of branches, lots of good evidence. 'Course it couldn't possibly have happened in 6000 years, so it must be wrong. quote: Bzzzzzzt. [sound of buzzer] I'm sorry, thanks for playing. Since your genesis story is your only evidence for the Flood, there's no mention (I checked) of nuclear winter or global cooling or an ice age. Even without the bible, there is no evidence that such an event occured 4500 years ago - of ANY stripe. Your theory collapses again for lack of evidence.
quote: Because that's the bleeding mechanism you're touting. If the infallable biblical scholars who invented the whole thing (err, sorry, the divinely inspired authors who were writing the literal and strict word of God), didn't include it - IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Now, if you can show where the bible talks about endless winter or global freezing or an ice age, maybe we can reconsider the question.
quote: Once again, there is neither evidence from your God-given bible NOR from science that indicates a severe global cooling occuring 4500 years ago concurrently with the massive global warming that would have had to occur for your putative non-existent ice sheets to melt - causing the global flood you seem so fond of.
quote: Repeating: "How in the name of Darwin did you arrive at this little gem, TC?"
quote: I decided to bold this one. You're accepting evolutionary theory? 'Cause that's the ONLY conceivable explanation for the statement. I really can't wait to see how you wave this one off.
quote: Wait a sec. We now have two extinctions you admit to. Dates aside, which one coincides with your flood? Permian-Triassic: 90+% of all extant species obliterated. In fact, this one comes closest in sheer scale to your Flood: it nearly cancelled the whole experiment in life of this planet. Life persisted by a whisker, no more. Cretaceous-Tertiary: 60-70% of all extant species obliterated. Fill us in, TC: Which one corresponds to your Flood? And, of course, how do you explain the other one - let alone explain it in the last 4500 years (for which period, btw, we have verifiable archeological, including written, records?) [insert final head-banging smilie here]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Duh-oh. [sheepish] Yeah - what you said. [edited to fix really strange quote mis-arrangement] [This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-03-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Ya got my vote!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024