How can Evolution be falsified?

[Loudmouth]

How can Evolution be falsified?
Can you falsify something that is false to start with?

ronandcarol

Can you name something that you think would falsify evolution?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where did the matter come from that created the universe?

Apparently, it condensed out of the hot dense state of the big bang as the energy density dropped and the symmetries unifying the forces were broken (at least, that's one way of looking at it).

If the universe is eternal, then why entropy?

Nobody knows the origin of the initial low-entropy state. There are many different ideas.

The quantum fields, that you're probably referring to as "consistencies", don't answer anything.

By consistencies, I just meant certain consistencies of the interactions and relationships we observe in the world. Quantum fields are a useful model for describing those observations.

It is random chance, the universe we perceive now, cannot answer for the non-universe that existed for it.

Sorry, I can't make sense of that. If you mean we can't deduce from our current universe what, if anything, preceded it, that's not clear yet - assuming it makes sense to talk of a 'before'.

The laws here, cannot answer the start of the universe we're in.

Assuming there was a start, and it's not an artifact of our particular perspective.

The conclusion that it is literately impossible for it to have come outta nowhere, should at least put you in the Deist category.

How does 'we don't know' imply a deity? it seems to me a deity is a convenient short-stop that just avoids the question by defining it away, and in doing so raises far more unanswerable questions than it answers, i.e. it doesn't actually explain anything and introduces an inexplicable entity. Not parsimonious.

...Then people want to hang a bunch of anthropomorphic baggage on it to make it feel paternally familiar or personal.

The idea that the universe was not intelligently designed, and in fact nothing created it.
I'm sorry, but no amount of convincing is ever going to get me into that head space.

Someone else here said the same thing recently. It's the fallacy of dogmatism.

But people have said such things and later changed their minds.

 

[Ophiolite]

My uncle holds a PhD, knows quite a lot about this stuff.

I hold a TV remote control, but it's not pertinent to the discussion.

Don't you feel uncomfortable challenging a theory that you demonstrably know almost nothing about?

I don't have an issue with you rejecting evolution because you believe it conflicts with your faith. I regret that you choose to do so, but that is your choice.

I do have an issue with you arguing your case from profound ignorance, then tossing in the educational qualifications of a relative as somehow giving authority to your arguments.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Can you falsify something that is false to start with?

Yes. If something were false, then generally it'd be shortcake to falsify it. This would be the reason why the Theory of Evolution hasn't been falsified despite all the evidence and convergent scientific endeavors accumulated over the past century or two. Also why Creationism isn't even considered by the Scientific community, it's so wrong as to be "not even wrong!" to start with.

 

[AV1611VET]

Also why Creationism isn't even considered by the Scientific community, it's so wrong as to be "not even wrong!" to start with.

Then why do scientists request evidence for creation, when they've examined it already and concluded it is ... well ... this brings up my next point.

I can understand science claiming something doesn't exist; but is science in the habit of declaring creation "wrong"?

Is science making a moral judgment here?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then why do scientists request evidence for creation, when they've examined it already and concluded it is ... well ... this brings up my next point.

I can understand science claiming something doesn't exist; but is science in the habit of declaring creation "wrong"?

Is science making a moral judgment here?

To the extent the claims of Creationism can be explored, they are contradicted by the facts available to us. That is to say, there was never two of nearly everything that perpetuated & radiated all of life on this planet off an ark 4-6 thousand years ago, there was never a worldwide flood and the geological evidence for an old earth and cosmological evidence for an old universe render the Young Earth conjecture to be false. This is as good as being "wrong" - or in scientific terms, "falsified". I understand that reality is a problem for YECs, so it's common for YECs to deny reality in droves & cling to their beliefs, which is why it won't go away and we continually see PRATTs resurfacing as if they've never been offered before... which is why we patiently ask for and go through the (lack of) evidence again.

Science doesn't make moral judgment, that's what people do.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is to say, there was never two of nearly everything that perpetuated & radiated all of life on this planet off an ark ...

What does the Flood have to do with the events of the creation week?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What does the Flood have to do with the events of the creation week?

What does Geology or Cosmology have to do with the Theory of Evolution?

That aside, you'd be hard pressed to find a YEC of the Christian variety that didn't also believe Noah's Ark and the Flood are also literal. Leave it to one side if you like, the Human Race was never started with two people, nor plants and animals created in their "kinds". Pretty much all life on this planet (well, Eukaryotic life, mainly) share a universal common ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

That aside, you'd be hard pressed to find a YEC of the Christian variety that didn't also believe Noah's Ark and the Flood are also literal.

I'm not looking for a "YEC of the Christian variety."

I'm looking for an atheist who adheres to the scientific method to tell me what the Flood has to do with the events of the creation week.

I get tired of hearing how abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution; but then they turn right around and treat creation and the Flood like they have something to do with each other.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not looking for a "YEC of the Christian variety."

I'm looking for an atheist who adheres to the scientific method to tell me what the Flood has to do with the events of the creation week.

I get tired of hearing how abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution; but then they turn right around and treat creation and the Flood like they have something to do with each other.

It's the creationists who tie the two together by insisting that The Flood must account for all the Earth Science evidence which would otherwise indicate an ancient Earth instead of a relatively recent creation week. Have you never read The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris? YECism was all but dead back in the late 50s when Whitcomb and Morris revived it by tying the flood to creation week.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I'm not looking for a "YEC of the Christian variety."

I'm looking for an atheist who adheres to the scientific method to tell me what the Flood has to do with the events of the creation week.

I get tired of hearing how abiogenesis has nothing to do with biological evolution; but then they turn right around and treat creation and the Flood like they have something to do with each other.

If it's a bother, I'm happy to set it aside. I didn't say they were inextricably tied together however as Speedwell mentioned, they're always (until now) a hand-in-hand package when talking to YECs. Arguably, the events of the flood were supposed to be a clean slate restart (i.e. another creation) although Noah (??) talked God out of destroying everything... but the repopulation of the earth from this one boat of wildlife is equally impossible given the evidence, as the original creation week was... so Twice as many data points that disagree with the evidence.

The Theory of Evolution on the other hand doesn't need to know how life got here, just that it's doing what it's doing now it's here. For all intents and purposes, how life got started makes absolutely no difference to the Theory. It could be naturally occurring, could be your God, could be Allah, Bramah, Odin, Zeuss, Great JeuJeu up the mountain, Universe flatulating Unicorns, etc. and nothing would change in the Theory of Evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then why do scientists request evidence for creation, when they've examined it already and concluded it is ... well ... this brings up my next point.

Young Earth creationism is what has been disproven. Old Earth creationism technically hasn't, although it lacks supporting evidence.

I can understand science claiming something doesn't exist; but is science in the habit of declaring creation "wrong"?

Is science making a moral judgment here?

Wrong in the sense of it doesn't reflect reality, not wrong in a moral sense. If you want a more clear word, use "incorrect" or "false".

 

[AV1611VET]

Wrong in the sense of it doesn't reflect reality,

That's because science is myopic ... not because creationists are wrong.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

I like the part from 1:00 - 1:30 where Elisha prays on the wall and Gehazi sees a host of angels and points; but when the leader of Benhadad's army looks where they are pointing, they see nothing there.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's because science is myopic ... not because creationists are wrong.

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.


I like the part from 1:00 - 1:30 where Elisha prays on the wall and Gehazi sees a host of angels and points; but when the leader of Benhadad's army looks where they are pointing, they see nothing there.

You do understand the moral implications of a deity that punishes people for non-belief preventing people from seeing evidence of its existence because they don't believe in it, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do understand the moral implications of a deity that punishes people for non-belief preventing people from seeing evidence of its existence because they don't believe in it, right?

Didn't watch the video, did you?

At 3:40, the captain of Behhadad's host says, "Through the power of [Elisha's] God, we were struck blind and helpless, but He showed us mercy and opened our eyes."

 

[PsychoSarah]

Didn't watch the video, did you?

At 3:40, the captain of Behhadad's host says, "Through the power of [Elisha's] God, we were struck blind and helpless, but He showed us mercy and opened our eyes."

That's hardly the only time in the bible god has prevented people from believing. Also, undoing a harm to someone isn't mercy, nor is it decency.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's hardly the only time in the bible god has prevented people from believing. Also, undoing a harm to someone isn't mercy, nor is it decency.

I thought we were discussing science's myopic view of reality?

 

[KWCrazy]

Young Earth creationism is what has been disproven.

Disproven to whom?
The pastor of my church; a man who has spent much of his life studying the Scriptures; remains convinced that the Scriptures are correct.
Perhaps we didn't get the memo or read the report. What evidence was presented that disproved it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Disproven to whom?
The pastor of my church; a man who has spent much of his life studying the Scriptures; remains convinced that the Scriptures are correct.
Perhaps we didn't get the memo or read the report. What evidence was presented that disproved it?

What evidence would you accept that would disprove young earth creationism?

 

[KWCrazy]

You do understand the moral implications of a deity that punishes people for non-belief preventing people from seeing evidence of its existence because they don't believe in it, right?

People don't go to hell because they don't believe.
They go to Hell because of their sin.
If you ever told a lie you're a liar.
If you ever took something that didn't belong to you you're a thief.
If you ever desired something another owned you're covetous.
If you've ever lusted after a woman other than your wife you're an adulterer.
If you ever hated anyone you're a murderer.
If you ever spoke ill of the deity you're a blasphemer.
If you ever said anything contrary to the Scriptures you're a false teacher.
If you've ever loved something more than God you're an idolater.
These sins follow you and will condemn you because you have no means of escaping them. Without Jesus, you are condemned by your own evil. You are not innocent. You aren't the victim of an unjust God. You're an unforgiven sinner. We're all sinners. The difference is, we have Jesus and we have forgiveness. Your sins haunt you and will never be free unless you are forgiven by through the blood of Christ. Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven. That's why we glorify God who saved us from our own self-destruction.