Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
THere is a difference between "the evolutionary model" and our understanding of natural history.Oncedeceived said:That could be said of many aspects of fossil records. When organisms can be as much as ten's of millions of years earlier than once thought; it puts a new twist on the evolutionary model.
I'd say well evolution does not address that question anyway. That is a matter of natural history.If I said that evolution is untrue due to the fact that it couldn't get off the ground (no pun intended) to begin life at all; what evidence would you provide to support your claim? If you didn't have the evidence would that then disprove evolution all together?
why the Cambrian? Again, I get this feeling that picking the Cambrian is completely arbitrary.Phyla is not necessary as a distinction per se. I feel this fits with the verse because it claims that the waters swarmed with living creatures..great sea monsters. The most important point in the verse is that it says "every living creature that creepeth", which says to me that this is a time when all "kinds" were living in the waters. This time frame makes the most sense when looking at the Cambrian.
What doesn't make sense? That one must have a common ancestor that began the whole process? To have common descent it is imperitive to have a beginning of that process, to have a common beginning to all living things correct?caravelair said:why? how would that make it any more or less falsifiable? that doesn't make sense.
oh come on now, this is practically a kent hovind argument. i consider you above this.
does atomic theory need to tell you about the origin of atoms? goes general relativity need to tell you about the origin of gravity? evolution only describes how populations of imperfectly reproducing organisms change over time. how those organisms got there in the first place is a different question, because they didn't evolve there.
no! do you really think it would? a purely natural origin of life is not a prediction of ToE, so how would it falsify it then? the only way to falsify a theory is to show that one of it's predictions is incorrect. since this is not a prediction of ToE, it can't falsify it.
how the first life got here is irrelevant to the ToE. it could have arisen naturally, through abiogenesis, it could have been seeded here by aliens, or it could have been zapped there by god himself. none of these options have any bearing on the validity of evolution.
Oncedeceived said:They evolve from there and that is the foundation of the whole process. The theory of evolution contains at its very foundation life evolving from a common ancestor. That means that in that regard it is unfalsifiable due to the fact that there is no evidence for life's beginning.
Oncedeceived said:What doesn't make sense? That one must have a common ancestor that began the whole process?
To have common descent it is imperitive to have a beginning of that process, to have a common beginning to all living things correct?
I'll take that as a compliment.
They evolve from there and that is the foundation of the whole process.
The theory of evolution contains at its very foundation life evolving from a common ancestor. That means that in that regard it is unfalsifiable due to the fact that there is no evidence for life's beginning.
A purely natural explanation is inperitive in Science. It is not necessarily a prediction of ToE but it is of Science as a whole.
Jet Black said:THere is a difference between "the evolutionary model" and our understanding of natural history.
I'd say well evolution does not address that question anyway. That is a matter of natural history.
why the Cambrian? Again, I get this feeling that picking the Cambrian is completely arbitrary.
caravelair said:what doesn't make sense is the idea that how that common ancestor got there has some bearing on whether or not common ancestry is falsifiable. it's falsifiable regardless of how the first got there. finding a centaur, for example, would falsify it. this is true regardless of how the first organism came into being.
there had to be a first organism, yes, because evolution doesn't start until we have one. like i said, how that ancestor got there has no bearing on evolution or common descent.
you should! you're one of the only intellectually honest creationists on this board.
just as once you have mass, you have gravity, but general relativity, our theory of gravity, does not explain how mass came into being, nor does it need to.
could you tell me in your own words what you think unfalsifiable means, because what you said above does not make sense to me. not having evidence for something does not make that thing unfalsifiable, it just makes it unevidenced. there is some evidence that gives us clues to life's beginning though.
but either way, it still has no bearing on the falsifiability of common descent. here are 29 ways you can falsify common descent:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
none of these ways of falsifying common descent are in any way changed by how the first organisms got here. like i said, it could have arisen naturally, or aliens could have put it there, or god could have zapped it there. these 29 tests work either way.
so you're saying that science as a whole is unfalsifiable? that's probably true, but specific theories within science are, including common descent.
Oncedeceived said:Finding a centaur would falsify Genesis as well.
Okay, the ToE as defined Is falsifiable.
What I disagree with is that when referring to common descent, one must have evidence of the first life form from which this process began. Do you see the difference?
But it does. IF life began from non-life it must be then shown. If it were planted here from space, it must be shown. If it was created by God then it must be shown. Can it be shown that life began from non-living matter (or chemicals)...no, not at this time. Can it be shown to have come here from space, again not at this time. Can it be shown to be created by God, you say no. So what is the difference?
But Gravity is in existance now and we can test it now.
We can not by Scientific standards test how life began from non-living materials. Well let me clarify. We have not at this time shown how living organisms have come from non-living materials.
I a theory or idea that can not be tested or verified by experiment or observation.
I must be blind but I can't find anything that shows 29 ways to falsify common descent????
caravelair said:there had to be a first organism, yes, because evolution doesn't start until we have one. like i said, how that ancestor got there has no bearing on evolution or common descent.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?