Falsifiability

[Speedwell]

lets check it. first we need to be clear. i need to show you a series of fossils like 12534 instead of 12345 (the fossil n5 is out of place in that case)- this is impossible according to your criteria and therefore you will admit that evolution is false. am i right?

I hope you have a new example. Those you have presented previously in support of your claim have all been bogus.

 

[Larniavc]

so if i will show you such an example you will admit that evolution is false?

Say, aren’t you the guy who believed magical car animals exists?

 

[Subduction Zone]

lets check it. first we need to be clear. i need to show you a series of fossils like 12534 instead of 12345 (the fossil n5 is out of place in that case)- this is impossible according to your criteria and therefore you will admit that evolution is false. am i right?

No, that is not the claim. Have you not been paying attention? You need to find a fossil significantly out of place. In the various creationist models this should not be a problem. It is not an unreasonable test. But you and I both know that such fossils are not to be found. Something slightly out of place only tweaks the details of the theory, it can't refute the theory itself. For example, though highly unlikely, finding that we were somehow closer to gorillas than chimps would not refute the theory. You need something closer to a Precambrian Bunny Rabbit.

 

[TBDude65]

I agree with the first part. However the self evidential belief that the external world is real is unexplained, or untrustworthy without first hypothesizing a source of trust. I know that minds are capable of trust so it seems perfectly reasonable to hypothesize such a solution to this existential problem.

Why do you think the objective reality we share is unexplained? Are we not using an extremely specific understanding of its constraints in order to communicate electronically? Again, I think the issue is a human-centered view of reality versus a reality-centered view

 

[xianghua]

You need to find a fossil significantly out of place. In the various creationist models this should not be a problem. It is not an unreasonable test..

so you need to define first what "significantly" means. out of place by 10 my is significant or not? and what about 20 my? if you cant tell where is the limit then your entire argument is meaningless since we cant test it.

 

[Sanoy]

Why do you think the objective reality we share is unexplained? Are we not using an extremely specific understanding of its constraints in order to communicate electronically? Again, I think the issue is a human-centered view of reality versus a reality-centered view

It's unexplained how we can go from making analytic facts about the experienced world to making synthetic (meaning real) facts about the actual world.

It's not true that there is nothing you can do about it. You can, for example, postulate a way that does make the analytic also synthetic (real). However, even if you don't, and there really is nothing you can do, it doesn't save falsefiability from being arbitrarily applied.

 

[TBDude65]

It's unexplained how we can go from making analytic facts about the world to making synthetic (meaning real) facts about the world.

It's not true that there is nothing you can do about it. You can, for example, postulate a way that does make the analytic also synthetic (real). However, even if you don't, and there really is nothing you can do, it doesn't save falsefiability from being arbitrarily applied.

What is the difference between an "analytic" and "synthetic" fact?

 

[Sanoy]

What is the difference between an "analytic" and "synthetic" fact?

Analytic - if vampires exist then they hate holy symbols. (True within the statement)
Synthetic - Vampires don't exist (true in reality)

 

[TBDude65]

Analytic - if vampires exist then they hate holy symbols. (True within the statement)
Synthetic - Vampires don't exist (true in reality)

An internally consistent fact within a fantasy, is clearly different from a fact about our reality. But why do facts about the realties of the imagination (which are by definition subjective to the individuals imagination such that their imagined world does not have to behave according to the rules of reality) have to do with what is or isn't true about reality?

 

[Sanoy]

An internally consistent fact within a fantasy, is clearly different from a fact about our reality. But why do facts about the realties of the imagination (which are by definition subjective to the individuals imagination such that their imagined world does not have to behave according to the rules of reality) have to do with what is or isn't true about reality?

Yep, sounds like you are realizing the distinction from that first sentence. And you have gotten down to the ultimate question we're under. How do I go from analytic facts about how the external world behaves to synthetic facts about how the world behaves. Physics and Chemistry can only establish analytic facts about how the world behaves. It can't establish synthetic (real) facts without a premise. God is a premise that can acquire that traversal.

 

[mark kennedy]

If an idea is not falsifiable, then it cannot be proven to be factual.

Evolution is falsifiable, but has not been falsified. Genetics could have falsified evolution, but did not, further supporting it instead. The fossil record could have falsified evolution, but does not, further supporting it as well.

What is falsifiable about creation that has not been falsified?

Is this a for making natural selection falsifiable?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Clearly human evolution from that of apes is marked by a dramatic expansion of the human line from that of apes.

​

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Now as far as creation being falsifiable, I don't recall it ever being accepted as a viable theory with regards to evolution. However, the genetic basis of the evolution of the human brain is the key developmental issue with regards to the hominid line.

 

[Speedwell]

Yep, sounds like you are realizing the distinction from that first sentence. And you have gotten down to the ultimate question we're under. How do I go from analytic facts about how the external world behaves to synthetic facts about how the world behaves. Physics and Chemistry can only establish analytic facts about how the world behaves. It can't establish synthetic (real) facts without a premise. God is a premise that can acquire that traversal.

Supposing that science makes ontological claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so you need to define first what "significantly" means. out of place by 10 my is significant or not? and what about 20 my? if you cant tell where is the limit then your entire argument is meaningless since we cant test it.

Ten million years is not much in the evolutionary time scale. And I already told you the standards. If a fossil appears before any of its clear predecessors. You have heard of the Precambrian Bunny Rabbit, haven't you?

 

[TBDude65]

Yep, sounds like you are realizing the distinction from that first sentence. And you have gotten down to the ultimate question we're under. How do I go from analytic facts about how the external world behaves to synthetic facts about how the world behaves. Physics and Chemistry can only establish analytic facts about how the world behaves. It can't establish synthetic (real) facts without a premise. God is a premise that can acquire that traversal.

How does a god premise, make any fact any more or less rational?

 

[mark kennedy]

How does a god premise, make any fact any more or less rational?

It goes to cause, surely cause and effect is the key to any discussion of a phenomenon in nature.

 

[TBDude65]

It goes to cause, surely cause and effect is the key to any discussion of a phenomenon in nature.

What cause does it explain? Doesn't an explanation require plausibility? If so, one must show the "cause" as purported is plausible. How does one demonstrate a god is plausible and is therefore a relevant explanation for the "cause" you allude to?

 

[Sanoy]

How does a god premise, make any fact any more or less rational?

Specifically within our discussion here, it makes it more rational to claim that what is described by physics and chemistry is real. I know of no other premise which would make that conclusion follow.

The rainbow I gave you earlier was an accident. I thumbed it I guess.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is this a for making natural selection falsifiable?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
​

Clearly human evolution from that of apes is marked by a dramatic expansion of the human line from that of apes.

​

FIGURE 2. Comparative neuroanatomy of humans and chimpanzees. (Genetics and the making of Homo sapiens. Nature April 2003)

With a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee the molecular basis for this giant leap in evolutionary history is still almost, completely unknown. Changes in brain related genes are characterized by debilitating disease and disorder and yet our decent from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee would have had to be marked by a massive overhaul of brain related genes. I propose that a critical examination of common descent in the light of modern insights into molecular mechanisms of inheritance is the single strongest argument against human/ape common ancestry.

Now as far as creation being falsifiable, I don't recall it ever being accepted as a viable theory with regards to evolution. However, the genetic basis of the evolution of the human brain is the key developmental issue with regards to the hominid line.

Nice strawman. No one is claiming a sudden change in brain size. What we can see is a series of fossils with every increasing brain size and an overlap in brain size between steps:

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, “Rhodesia man,” 300,000 – 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

 

[TBDude65]

Specifically within our discussion here, it makes it more rational to claim that what is described by physics and chemistry is real. I know of no other premise which would make that conclusion follow.

Physics and chemistry being real...is agreed upon. But how do you go from the human-developed fields of physics and chemistry, to a god?

 

[mark kennedy]

What cause does it explain? Doesn't an explanation require plausibility? If so, one must show the "cause" as purported is plausible. How does one demonstrate a god is plausible and is therefore a relevant explanation for the "cause" you allude to?

I'm not debating that you must accept the premise that God working in time and space is plausible. Certainly we all have our own pet rules of epistemology that guide us. I'm just saying that rationally, it is clear that all creation and ID understanding of origins is predicated on believe in a Supreme Being. That logically and reasonably goes to cause.