I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[AV1611VET]

I went back and read them. I am not sure of the point you are trying to make. Could you expand a little.

Dizredux

There are two ways God reveals Himself to mankind: creation and His word.

Technically we call those general revelation and special revelation respectively.

Psalm 19 brings both types of revelation together: with vss. 1-6 speaking of general revelation, and vss. 7-14 speaking of special revelation.

The two types (general & special) should not contradict each other.

Today's science, with its "amazing discoveries", do just that; driving a wedge between Psalm 19:6 and Psalm 19:7.

 

[AV1611VET]

From everything you post, I would have to say scientists.

Dizredux

Scientists are God's gifts to mankind.

There are two types of scientists: Nimrods & True.

Nimrod, as you know, started out using his God-given talent to become a "mighty hunter before the LORD," but ended up building one of the most evil empires on the face of the earth.

 

[Zosimus]

How do you do so, without affirming the consequent?

Wouldn't you need to make predictions? Would observing those predictions absolutely prove that the theory is false?



How so? There could be alternative explanations, such as invisible fairies moving bodies about to make it look like they violate the Newton's theory of instantaneous gravity.

No, it does not involve affirming the consequent.

If someone says, "Dropped objects always accelerate downwards at 15 m/s/s" that can easily be proved false using a modus tollens argument.

 

[Zosimus]

Then show me an alternative theory that is testable and falsifiable.

Why?

That's exactly what you do. When the evidence starts to stack against you, you trot out the claim that peer reviewed papers are always wrong so that you don't have to deal with the evidence.

There is no evidence against agnosticism.

False. You can make testable predictions using natural selection, such as the prediction that bacteria with random mutations that produce antibiotic resistance will come to dominate a population in an environment containing antibiotics.

Let me see... antibiotic resistant bacteria will become more numerous in the presence of antibiotics. And the bacteria is known to be resistant because it becomes more numerous in the presence of antibiotics.

Very convincing.

An unfalsifiable belief is not a valid scientific alternative to a supported and falsifiable theory. You do know that, don't you?

Do you have a point?

That's like saying that a non-Biblical alternative is not a valid alternative to a Biblical one. You may find it comforting to state, but it doesn't make it true.

You (and many others on this forum) have stated that a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You have claimed "An unfalsifiable belief is not a valid scientific alternative to a supported and falsifiable theory," but you have provided no evidence to support this idea. Using your own standard of dismissal, I dismiss your claim without presenting any evidence against it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it does not involve affirming the consequent.

If someone says, "Dropped objects always accelerate downwards at 15 m/s/s" that can easily be proved false using a modus tollens argument.

Dropped objects don't always fall at 15 m/s/s. Feathers don't. Objects on the Moon don't.

 

[Zosimus]

Evolution has been tested by mountains of tests, and that is why it is accepted.



That's quite hilarious coming from someone who clings to an unfalsifiable belief.

I said, "Natural selection is not falsifiable."

You said, "Evolution has been tested..."

At this point I would normally drop in a comment about poor reading comprehension skills, but the censors of the forum would surely jump down my throat, so I guess I'll just have to think it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why?

Are you saying that there isn't a scientific alternative theory afterall?

Let me see... antibiotic resistant bacteria will become more numerous in the presence of antibiotics. And the bacteria is known to be resistant because it becomes more numerous in the presence of antibiotics.

It is known to be antibiotic resistance because of the changes in protein and antibiotic interaction caused by the mutation. The mechanism of antibiotic resistance can be demonstrated independently of population effects.

Do you have a point?

You claimed that there were alternate theories. That isn't true. As you have shown, you can't produce these alternate theories.

That's like saying that a non-Biblical alternative is not a valid alternative to a Biblical one. You may find it comforting to state, but it doesn't make it true.

Show us the alternate scientific theory to evolution. Show how it is testable and falsifiable.

You (and many others on this forum) have stated that a claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

That is why we are dismissing your claim that there are alternate theories. You can't produce one.

You have claimed "An unfalsifiable belief is not a valid scientific alternative to a supported and falsifiable theory," but you have provided no evidence to support this idea.

Sure I have. A designer can produce any type of pattern for shared features. Therefore, claiming that the predictions are the same for evolution and intelligent design is false. ID is unfalsifiable while the theory of evolution makes falsifiable predictions.

 

[Zosimus]

OK, what other scientific is out there with some base of evidence? The current Theory of Evolution is the only one that I am aware of that has any kind of scientific support. That could change tomorrow but for now the TOE is it as far a science goes.

Interesting since it is has been tested in the lab and in the field and has passed every test for falsification for the past 150 or so years. Got something right.

I suspect or at least hope you can do better that this.

Dizredux

All right, I'll bite.

Imagine that we have an island inhabited by a large number of finches. We release a breeding pair of domestic house cats on the island and observe the results.

What result could be obtained that would not be compatible with the theory of natural selection?

 

[Loudmouth]

I said, "Natural selection is not falsifiable."

And I showed you how it is falsifiable.

 

[Loudmouth]

What result could be obtained that would not be compatible with the theory of natural selection?

Cats would sprout wings in a span of a generation in response to needing wings.

 

[Zosimus]

Dropped objects don't always fall at 15 m/s/s. Feathers don't. Objects on the Moon don't.

Are you agreeing with me? Because it sure sounds that way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are you agreeing with me? Because it sure sounds that way.

Are you agreeing that accurate predictions lend support to a theory?

 

[Zosimus]

Are you saying that there isn't a scientific alternative theory afterall?



It is known to be antibiotic resistance because of the changes in protein and antibiotic interaction caused by the mutation. The mechanism of antibiotic resistance can be demonstrated independently of population effects.



You claimed that there were alternate theories. That isn't true. As you have shown, you can't produce these alternate theories.



Show us the alternate scientific theory to evolution. Show how it is testable and falsifiable.



That is why we are dismissing your claim that there are alternate theories. You can't produce one.



Sure I have. A designer can produce any type of pattern for shared features. Therefore, claiming that the predictions are the same for evolution and intelligent design is false. ID is unfalsifiable while the theory of evolution makes falsifiable predictions.

Do you actually read what you respond to, or do you just throw out a bunch of random sentences that don't address the person's main argument at all?

Because it strongly seems to be the latter.

 

[Zosimus]

Are you agreeing that accurate predictions lend support to a theory?

Accurate predictions do not lend support to a theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you actually read what you respond to, or do you just throw out a bunch of random sentences that don't address the person's main argument at all?

Because it strongly seems to be the latter.

"Observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing when said observations also match the alternative hypothesis."-Zosimus


What is the alternate scientific theory to evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

Accurate predictions do not lend support to a theory.

Why not?

 

[Zosimus]

"Observations that match the hypothesis mean nothing when said observations also match the alternative hypothesis."-Zosimus


What is the alternate scientific theory to evolution?

Since evolution is the theory that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, I would say that the alternate scientific theory would be:

The frequency of alleles cannot change from generation to generation.

What does this have to do with Darwinism?

Oh that's right... NOTHING.

 

[HitchSlap]

Accurate predictions do not lend support to a theory.

Wut??! Having trouble taking you seriously.

Predictions are a hallmark for a robust theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

Since evolution is the theory that the frequency of alleles can change from generation to generation, I would say that the alternate scientific theory would be:

The frequency of alleles cannot change from generation to generation.

That is wrong. You said that the alternate theory makes the same prediction. What is the alternate scientific theory to evolution that makes the same predictions?

What does this have to do with Darwinism?

Are you trying to claim that other theories make the same predictions that the theory of evolution does?

 

[Loudmouth]

Wut??! Having trouble taking you seriously.

Predictions are a hallmark for a robust theory.

Zosimus seems to be of the opinion that something is either 100% proven or it is meaningless.