Evolution Denies - Please Refute this

[dad]

If one has any knowledge of what evolutionary theory actually says, one can literally think of millions of potential falsifications.

- A mammal found in Cambrian strata.

Just because there are no mammals found in the strata you cited (and other items listed) does not mean evolutiondidit. I expect no mammal remains there generally either.

Just because we do not find a bird with arms and wings does not mean somehow that the theory of evolution holds water.

Creationists claims that's because evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable, but that's simply a lie as my list above shows.

Hey, you are trying to set up 'in house' criteria to falsify your own theory. What is not able to be shown true or false is what matters. Your whole premise of using current rules as if they applied is not falsifiable.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Just because there are no mammals found in the strata you cited (and other items listed) does not mean evolutiondidit.

Am I surprised that you don't know what the purpose of falsification is? Not even a little bit.

 

[MrsLurking]

Am I surprised that you don't know what the purpose of falsification is? Not even a little bit.

I'm new to these forums but I'm surprised that the evolution-deniers (a) have no idea what evolution is, and (b) it doesn't appear that they've even tried to organize any arguments for their perspective. For example, the no-mammals-in-the-strata is nothing more than an afterthought denial. Pitiful.

Do you ever get any competent people to represent "creation science" in these forums? (I'm not trying to set anyone up for a punchline. I just expected some kind of organized offense against evolution, even if just copy-and-pasted from creation.com and that silly "15 questions for evolutionists" brochure.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Do you ever get any competent people to represent "creation science" in these forums?

If there's single one with the slightest clue what they're talking about, I've yet to encounter them.

That goes for the world at large, not just this forum.

 

[MrsLurking]

If there's single one with the slightest clue what they're talking about, I've yet to encounter them.

That goes for the world at large, not just this forum.

I was at least hoping for an "organized approach" that had some structure and direction to it. All I've seen so far is just blank denial and random thrashing about. (Of course, while I was still lurking for a while and reading various boards, I also found a lot of outright lying in misrepresenting what science has observed and discovered.)

It appears "creation science" is largely dead as a doornail. And even though the hard-core creation science crowd likes to distance themselves from Intelligent Design and the Dover Trial, I think that debacle really hit them with a fatal blow. They are even realizing that their future in the courtroom is going to be one defeat after another. They sometimes get clueless state legislatures to promote showboat legislation, but it usually dies in committee or at most a house vote.

A high profile Christian who speaks affirmatively of evolution, such as Dr. Francis Collins of NIH, is another major blow to the "creation science" movement----because he is a continuous reminder that millions of evangelicals have no problems with the theory of evolution. And whenever some fundamentalist denounces Dr. Collins as "not a true Christian" because of his stance on evolution, C.S. drops another point in credibility.

 

[dad]

I'm new to these forums but I'm surprised that the evolution-deniers (a) have no idea what evolution is, and (b) it doesn't appear that they've even tried to organize any arguments for their perspective. For example, the no-mammals-in-the-strata is nothing more than an afterthought denial. Pitiful.

False. That is no more true than saying 1000 year life spans are still here. In the former state apparently we did have them, and also it appears man and most mammals could not fossilize. Why would they be in the strata and record??

Do you ever get any competent people to represent "creation science" in these forums? (I'm not trying to set anyone up for a punchline. I just expected some kind of organized offense against evolution, even if just copy-and-pasted from creation.com and that silly "15 questions for evolutionists" brochure.

The way to win is not to fight by the enemies rules!

 

[dad]

Am I surprised that you don't know what the purpose of falsification is? Not even a little bit.

I am not surprised that the same state past all the so called science is based on is not falsifiable. Not one little bit.

 

[driewerf]

False. That is no more true than saying 1000 year life spans are still here.

But 1000 years life span are still here:
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dad]

But 1000 years life span are still here:
List of oldest trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not for man.

 

[driewerf]

Not for man.

These times never were.

 

[OllieFranz]

I am not surprised that the same state past all the so called science is based on is not falsifiable. Not one little bit.

But it is. There are evidences that a change in a fundamental law of nature (such as, for one example, a change in the rate of decay of radioactive material) would leave behind. Scientists have searched for those evidences and have not found them.

Or, alternatively, the rate may be changing subtly but continuously, which would not leave evidence of a discontinuity, but would be detectible in comparing the rate today with the rate when the phenominon was first recognized.

 

[MrsLurking]

If there's single one with the slightest clue what they're talking about, I've yet to encounter them.

That goes for the world at large, not just this forum.

I'm just surprised that on CF they don't even seem to try.

 

[And-U-Say]

Just because there are no mammals found in the strata you cited (and other items listed) does not mean evolutiondidit. I expect no mammal remains there generally either.

Just because we do not find a bird with arms and wings does not mean somehow that the theory of evolution holds water.

Hey, you are trying to set up 'in house' criteria to falsify your own theory. What is not able to be shown true or false is what matters. Your whole premise of using current rules as if they applied is not falsifiable.

This word, "falsifiable", I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[dad]

But it is. There are evidences that a change in a fundamental law of nature (such as, for one example, a change in the rate of decay of radioactive material) would leave behind. Scientists have searched for those evidences and have not found them.

Absurd. No change IN this present state is expected...we ARE the change!

 

[dad]

This word, "falsifiable", I do not think it means what you think it means.

Fine, then falsify the claim that this state was the same in the past?

 

[dad]

These times never were.

No? How nice. Keep us posted on what times were then.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Fine, then falsify the claim that this state was the same in the past?

No such evidence to do so has ever been found.

 

[dad]

No such evidence to do so has ever been found.

Then you admit the basis for all science claims about the past cannot be falsified!

 

[MrsLurking]

Fine, then falsify the claim that this state was the same in the past?

You are misusing the terms. You also need to understand the Null Hypothesis.

But there HAVE been attempts at falsification of the consistency of the universe. But the universe has always been demonstrated to be "rational". In fact, Christian scholars and scientists have been emphasizing that fact about creation for many centuries now. ("A rational God has created a rational universe!") So how ironic that you are trying to denying what Biblical theology has long accepted and taught. As usual, Dad is on the wrong side of the Bible's teachings about creation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then you admit the basis for all science claims about the past cannot be falsified!

No, only that they have not... not yet.

That's your job -- get to it.