Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Speedwell]

I can proclaim myself the winner too.

Was that all you wanted was to win? You should have said so at the beginning.

OK, you win. And, you managed to do it without having to learn anything about what the theory of evolution actually says--extra points for style.

 

[Kylie]

You produced drawings of a primitive 'mousetrap' design that exists only in someone's mind, the same place where those primitive biological systems reside. Like the mousetrap there are no examples of those primitive systems. They exist only on paper, within the 'theory", in the minds of scientists.

You don't know how science works, do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can proclaim myself the winner too.

Do you also care to address the issues raised, or will you keep it at this silly one-liner?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You don't know how science works, do you?

In the present discussion 'science' is a theory presented as fact with no supporting evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, Kylie, it appears that the answer to your question is "no."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Wow... You don't know what it means for an idea to be "falsifiable" apparantly.
That's okay, I'll explain - just make sure you remember.

It means that the idea is falsifiable in principle.
It kind of goes hand in hand with being verifiable in some way or another.
It means that the idea makes a couple testable predictions in such a way that if the predictions are tested and if these tests fail, then the idea is falsified.

So an idea being "falsifiable" doesn't mean that it CAN be shown to be false. It means that it COULD be shown to be false, if it is indeed false.

As opposed to an unfalsifiable idea.. such an idea is impossible to being demonstrated as false, even if it is false, because it makes no testable predictions. Because there is nothing to test.

So to summarize, an idea isn't "falsifiable" when it can be shown to be false. An idea is "falsifiable" when it could be shown to be false in case that it is.

There is no evidence in this conversation that you and others consider the ToE in any way 'falsifiable'. Am I correct in this?

 

[Speedwell]

There is no evidence in this conversation that you and others consider the ToE in any way 'falsifiable'. Am I correct in this?

Quite wrong. We have repeatedly asserted that it is falsifiable and given examples of what kind of evidence would falsify it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Quite wrong. We have repeatedly asserted that it is falsifiable and given examples of what kind of evidence would falsify it.

Thanks. That's reassuring.

 

[rjs330]

Idunno. Every time I look into any particular aspect of our natural world, I'm always amazed at how much we do know. And our understanding of the natural world is increasing at exponential rates.

Glass half full, I guess.

The thing is it's what we learn. The complexity of life and the universe is astounding and the more we learn the more we understand it's complexity. It points us to God, but we are not looking. Our focus is too narrow. We are so enamored with the what that we ignore the how and why.

 

[Speedwell]

The thing is it's what we learn. The complexity of life and the universe is astounding and the more we learn the more we understand it's complexity. It points us to God...

As a Christian I agree with that. As the Psalm says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork..." But it does not point us to YECism.

 

[AV1611VET]

As a Christian I agree with that. As the Psalm says, "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his handiwork..." But it does not point us to YECism.

Does it point atheists to God?

 

[Speedwell]

Does it point atheists to God?

It may.

 

[HitchSlap]

The thing is it's what we learn. The complexity of life and the universe is astounding and the more we learn the more we understand it's complexity. It points us to God, but we are not looking. Our focus is too narrow. We are so enamored with the what that we ignore the how and why.

IMO, you seem to be describing religion, here.

 

[HitchSlap]

Does it point atheists to God?

Evidence, and the courage to accept things as we find them, is what began my journey to atheism.

 

[AV1611VET]

It may.

Well does it or doesn't it?

If you want YECs to change their beliefs based on such powerful evidence as the universe, why isn't this powerful evidence powerful enough to change atheists' beliefs?

Who gave them an EXEMPT card?

(Never mind. I know who did.)

 

[AV1611VET]

Evidence, and the courage to accept things as we find them, is what began my journey to atheism.

Well ain't you brave?

 

[Speedwell]

Well does it or doesn't it?

If you want YECs to change their beliefs based on such powerful evidence as the universe, why isn't this powerful evidence powerful enough to change atheists' beliefs?

Who gave them an EXEMPT card?

(Never mind. I know who did.)

Don't YECs believe in God already? Why should I want them to change?

 

[HitchSlap]

Well ain't you brave?

Aw, shucks.

 

[HitchSlap]

Don't YECs believe in God already? Why should I want them to change?

I think what he's trying to say, since he won't come out and say it, is that if you don't believe G1 like he does, you've been influenced by Satan.

 

[Kylie]

In the present discussion 'science' is a theory presented as fact with no supporting evidence.

Well, Kylie, it appears that the answer to your question is "no."

Speedwell, it does indeed.

OldWiseGuy, that could not be further from science if you tried.