Early Man....Question

[Doveaman]

Not if a hypothesis has been falsified. If a hypothesis has been falsified, it by definition cannot be true, and therefore it doesn't matter how consistent the hypothesis is with other evidence.

How do you falsify a hypothesis that is consistent with observed facts?

This is the case with a literal interpretation of Genesis, it has been falsified many times over by many different fields of science.

Nope. If you misinterpret Genesis in the first place, then you are only falsifying your misinterpretation and not Genesis.

There is a perfectly logical explanation for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Your disagreement with that explanation doesn't falsify anything.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you falsify a hypothesis that is consistent with observed facts?

By observing more facts.

There is a perfectly logical explanation for a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Desperation?

"logical" doesn't mean true.

 

[troodon]

How do you falsify a hypothesis that is consistent with observed facts?

It's falsified because it is inconsistent with some fact(s) - it is the other facts that it can be consistent with.

For example, there are actual flood deposits preserved in the geologic record, and these deposits (facts) are consistent with the global flood hypothesis. It is other deposits, and other sequences of deposits (along with a suite of other sorts of evidence), that are inconsistent with a global flood and (therefore) falsify the hypothesis.

It's pretty simple.

Nope. If you misinterpret Genesis in the first place, then you are only falsifying your misinterpretation and not Genesis.

And what is the proper literal interpretation of Genesis? Being as silly as I am I went and used the standard, obvious one that the majority of Creationists use...

 

[Doveaman]

By observing more facts.

How do you falsify a hypothesis that is consistent with those "more facts"?

Desperation?

Denial

"logical" doesn't mean true.

In this case, it does.

 

[Doveaman]

It's falsified because it is inconsistent with some fact(s) - it is the other facts that it can be consistent with.

Is the Big Bang hypothesis/theory consistent with all observed facts.

For example, there are actual flood deposits preserved in the geologic record, and these deposits (facts) are consistent with the global flood hypothesis. It is other deposits, and other sequences of deposits (along with a suite of other sorts of evidence), that are inconsistent with a global flood and (therefore) falsify the hypothesis.

Let's say your falsification method is correct for the sake of argument, have you proven there was no worldwide flood? Yes or No?

And what is the proper literal interpretation of Genesis?

You simply read it as is and interpret it as is, and not seek to interpret it based on what science cannot prove.

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Was it literal? Do you have evidence?

 

[troodon]

Is the Big Bang hypothesis/theory consistent with all observed facts.

To the best of my knowledge, yes. I do not know specifically, I'm a geologist, not an astronomer or physicist. I assume I would have heard about falsifying evidence by now if it existed.

Let's say your falsification method is correct for the sake of argument, have you proven there was no worldwide flood? Yes or No?

It proves that the earth's geologic record is not the result of a global flood, which is the claim most Creationists make in order to account for the earth having so many sedimentary rocks. Without the flood model Creationists can only fall back on the old "God made those rocks with the appearance of age" explanation, which is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You might as well say God made the earth last Thursday.

You simply read it as is and interpret it as is, and not seek to interpret it based on what science cannot prove.

You claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis has not been falsified, why don't you give me some falsifiable claims that are included in your literal interpretation of the book?

 

[mpok1519]

Which one of these two men is a metaphor:

It is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit...

The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven...

And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven. - 1 Cor 15:45-49

Which man is the metaphor, and which man isn’t? and why?

all metaphors bc there's simply no proof of literalism.

 

[Doveaman]

To the best of my knowledge, yes.

To the best of my knowledge, no.

I do not know specifically, I'm a geologist, not an astronomer or physicist. I assume I would have heard about falsifying evidence by now if it existed.

Well, they don't call the observed facts "falsifying evidence", but there are observed facts that are definitely inconsistent with the theory.

You are the one who is suggesting that a hypothesis must be consistent with all observed facts. If this is true, then the Big Bang never happened because the theory is not consistent with all observed facts.

It proves that the earth's geologic record is not the result of a global flood, which is the claim most Creationists make in order to account for the earth having so many sedimentary rocks. Without the flood model Creationists can only fall back on the old "God made those rocks with the appearance of age" explanation, which is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You might as well say God made the earth last Thursday.

I take that as a "no" you haven't proven anything since scientists do not "prove" anything. The most they do is "theorize" or "assume" based on the evidence.

You claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis has not been falsified, why don't you give me some falsifiable claims that are included in your literal interpretation of the book?

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Was it literal? Do you have evidence? Is it falsifiable?

 

[Doveaman]

all metaphors bc there's simply no proof of literalism.

 

[troodon]

Well, they don't call the observed facts "falsifying evidence", but there are observed facts that are definitely inconsistent with the theory.

Please enlighten me.

I take that as a "no" you haven't proven anything since scientists do not "prove" anything. The most they do is "theorize" or "assume" based on the evidence.

Doveaman, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of historical sciences. You can never prove that something did happen, but you can prove that things didn't happen - you can never prove a hypothesis right, you can only prove a hypothesis wrong. For example, I can never prove that the Black Dragon member of the Moenkopi formation was deposited in a shallow sea, because it's always possible that it was deposited in some sort of depositional environment for which we have no modern analogue. At best I can say that the sedimentology of the Black Dragon is consistent with a shallow sea. But I can prove that this sediment wasn't deposited in a river floodplain or in an abyssal plain, because the sediments found in the Black Dragon do not match up with the types of sediments found in those depositional environments.

I eliminate as many falsified hypotheses as possible and see what's left. Of the remaining unfalsified hypotheses I see which is the simplest and is easiest to fit with the data at hand, that is the hypothesis that I favor while acknowledging the possibility of the other unfalsified hypotheses (if any should exist).

It's like the game Clue: the game doesn't tell you who murdered Mr. Body with what and where, it tells you who didn't murder Mr. Body, what wasn't used, and where it didn't happen, and you use that information to deduce the only unfalsified hypothesis.

Do you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Was it literal? Do you have evidence?

Is it falsifiable?

You're really dodging that question, and I'm curious as to why.

Anyways, to answer your questions: Yes, yes, little, and no.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you falsify a hypothesis that is consistent with those "more facts"?

You don't -- fortunately, Neither creationism nor Flood geology qualify.

Denial

That works too -- Creationists are so caught up in their own interpretations of the text that their ego seek any way to avoid the admittance of error.

In this case, it does.

Which case is that?

 

[USincognito]

What's new? Paleontologists don't agree with each other and many Creationists disagree. So what?

Paleontologists might disagree on the relationships between hominids or whether a hominid should be in one genus or another. None of them, however, have any disagreements about whether particular hominids are "fully human" or "fully ape" as Creationists claim. That's what.

I'd like to go through this point by point but since it's a review of the first edition of Lubenow's work and not of the one I referred to which is more than a decade more recent I'll not sidetrack the thread.

I really doubt he did as much revision as you claim. Reading some reviews he's still sticking to debunked arguments like "fully ape/fully human" and Neanderthals are H. sapiens with rickets. Repackaging bogus arguments doesn't suddenly render them factual.

I think your opponent in that debate more than adequately addressed your post.

Well that makes you and he that think so. Others don't agree.

A quick google search and foray into wiki also turns many of your other claims about Piltdown on their head. In any case all I did was mention what enters my head, a personal observation rather than citing the case as my sole cause of doubt.

Since you took the time to look things up, why didn't you take another 30 or 40 seconds and c&p the "turning my claims on their head" for at least one or two of my points?

And, again, the whole point of my debate OP was to show why things have changed in the 90ish years since Piltdown was perpetrated, that it was never fully accepted by segments of the paleontological community and that we've unearthed dozens of hominid fossils since then and none of them have ever been shown to be faked. So why try and poison the well with a homeopathic remedy?

 

[Crankitup]

Paleontologists might disagree on the relationships between hominids or whether a hominid should be in one genus or another. None of them, however, have any disagreements about whether particular hominids are "fully human" or "fully ape" as Creationists claim. That's what.

Really? Are you sure about that? So If I can point to at least one paleontologist who does disagree then your point is shown to be false right?

Off the top of my head, how about Dr. Niles Eldridge just for a start??

I really doubt he did as much revision as you claim. Reading some reviews he's still sticking to debunked arguments like "fully ape/fully human" and Neanderthals are H. sapiens with rickets. Repackaging bogus arguments doesn't suddenly render them factual.

Just because you think they're bogus doesn't make them so. The fact is there is a wide range of skull shapes and brow prominence amongst living humans, some from genetic abnormalities, some from disease, and some from racial differences (e.g. brow prominence in Australian Aboriginals). If they were all dug up in a hundred years time I would hope scientist would recognize this rather than place them all on some evolutionary timescale.

Well that makes you and he that think so.

A little narcissistic of you to think that him and I alone thought you were wrong in that debate but if it makes you feel better I won't try and dissuade you of that notion.

Since you took the time to look things up, why didn't you take another 30 or 40 seconds and c&p the "turning my claims on their head" for at least one or two of my points?

NP.

From the BBC website;

Piltdown Man went from being one of the biggest discoveries of the 20th Century to being its greatest scientific embarrassment. On 21 November 1953, the fossils discovered 40 years earlier and acclaimed as the "missing link" between apes and humans were finally revealed to be forgeries.

Link.

From the wiki page on Piltdown Man;

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

Link.

 

[Nostromo]

Really? Are you sure about that? So If I can point to at least one paleontologist who does disagree then your point is shown to be false right?

Off the top of my head, how about Dr. Niles Eldridge just for a start??

It would be very helpful if you could cite something of his which confirms your point, rather than just throwing out a name.

 

[troodon]

I'm guessing he means this guy, Dr. Niles Eldredge... which, you know, isn't the name he said. I can't find any of his comments about hominids.

 

[Meshach]

Paleontologists might disagree on the relationships between hominids or whether a hominid should be in one genus or another. None of them, however, have any disagreements about whether particular hominids are "fully human" or "fully ape" as Creationists claim. That's what.



I really doubt he did as much revision as you claim. Reading some reviews he's still sticking to debunked arguments like "fully ape/fully human" and Neanderthals are H. sapiens with rickets. Repackaging bogus arguments doesn't suddenly render them factual.



Well that makes you and he that think so. Others don't agree.



Since you took the time to look things up, why didn't you take another 30 or 40 seconds and c&p the "turning my claims on their head" for at least one or two of my points?

And, again, the whole point of my debate OP was to show why things have changed in the 90ish years since Piltdown was perpetrated, that it was never fully accepted by segments of the paleontological community and that we've unearthed dozens of hominid fossils since then and none of them have ever been shown to be faked. So why try and poison the well with a homeopathic remedy?

I bolded that one comment you made above and have to wonder if exaggeration can fall in the catagory of "faked"? You say there are dozens of hominid fossils unearthed. Where do they fall in this statistic?

Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones). Finally, only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consists of primates (humans, apes, monkeys, and lemurs).

The human,ape, monkey and lemur fossils found to date I hear can barely fill a regular size coffin. And to say there is no contraversay or speculation or presupposed assumptions or exaggerations given to what has been found in the 90ish years since Piltdown would be a biased opinion to say the least.

Funny the hush in the evolutionary ranks of Ida .

Here is a statement on Lucy by the founder Johanson himself:

There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258, emp. added).
​

(as quoted in Leakey and Lewin, 1992, pp. 193-194).
When I started to put the skeleton together, I expected it to look human. Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw. I noticed that the ribs were more round in cross-section, more like what you see in apes. Human ribs are flatter in cross-section. But the shape of the rib cage itself was the biggest surprise of all. The human rib cage is barrel shaped, and I just couldn’t get Lucy’s ribs to fit this kind of shape. But I could get them to make a conical-shaped rib cage, like what you see in apes


And I am hearing a LOUD murmer in the camp about Ardi who ironically was brought out on the date of the Darwn celebration. How convenient.


Of course ALL this sort of information that comes out on these fossils fall on deaf ears to those who desire the fossils to be something they are not.
It is fascinating how regularly the hominid tree is pruned. Some people are satisfied with might have, could have and probably. If only we would put more focus on differences.

 

[troodon]

Approximately 95 percent of all known fossils are marine invertebrates, about 4.7 percent are algae and plants, about 0.2 percent are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1 percent are vertebrates (animals with bones).

Ahaha, this sounds about right. Do you know why this statistic is probably true? It's because marine invertebrate fossils are EVERYWHERE and because plant fossils are found in coal, which is quite plentiful in the geologic record. Do you know how many brachiopod or crinoid fossils I've found in the field? Sweet mother...

Vertebrate fossils are very rare, but don't use statistics to pretend they don't exist.

The human,ape, monkey and lemur fossils found to date I hear can barely fill a regular size coffin.

I'd like to see a source for this puppy. I know simian fossils are especially rare but this seems like an exaggeration.

 

[dewaddict84]

Did you know that more then 99.999% of life on earth DIED!? Clearly our time is limited. Clearly.

 

[Doveaman]

Well, they don't call the observed facts "falsifying evidence", but there are observed facts that are definitely inconsistent with the theory.

Please enlighten me.

To a number of scientists, one of the observations that falsified the Big Bang theory is the existence of two different red-shifted objects in close proximity, and even connected:

The Big Bang theory says this is impossible. I’ve debated this many times before with others, so it’s not my desire to debate it with you now, so if you disagree, we can just agree to disagree on this for now.

I eliminate as many falsified hypotheses as possible and see what's left. Of the remaining unfalsified hypotheses I see which is the simplest and is easiest to fit with the data at hand, that is the hypothesis that I favor while acknowledging the possibility of the other unfalsified hypotheses (if any should exist).

So is there any empirical data which fits the hypotheses that Jesus walked on water or turned water into wine?

If not, are those hypotheses scientifically falsified?

And if they are scientifically falsified, does this mean they didn't actually happen?

You claim that a literal interpretation of Genesis has not been falsified, why don't you give me some falsifiable claims that are included in your literal interpretation of the book?

The existence of the present nation of Israel, they descended from a literal Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as recorded in Genesis (Jesus also descended from them).

Do you have evidence Jesus rose from the dead?

little

And what “little” evidence is that?

 

[dad]

What evidence is found in the ark of Noah? As far as most people aware, Christians have never been able to find the ark. Are you hiding something from the rest of the world?

Evidence, that, if it was true, all the kinds were on it. There is lots of indications and evidences of the flood. Science is out of the running in being able to comment one way or the other on it. What evidence does science have against it? None!