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.
Hark is right. Your assumption is unscientific. If a theory is falsified then it must be discarded. It doesn't matter at all whether there is an available alternative.
Are you going to make an attempt to be serious, because if not, then I will have to respectfully ask you to leave this thread.
Hark is right. Your assumption is unscientific. If a theory is falsified then it must be discarded. It doesn't matter at all whether there is an available alternative.
A real scientist would, upon discovering that macroevolution is false, discard it and reply to your question, "Nothing." Or maybe he would have a suggestion about how to unify the data that macroevolution attempts to unify. But there is no scientific onus on him to do so. In science, falsification of a theory does not presuppose replacement of that theory.
That was a serious question; but it was mixed with a touch of humor, in flow with the conversation. I'll respect you wishes to abstain from any lightheartedness; if being playful offends you.
Let's try this one:
Why not Creationism?
Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.
Of course they are replaceable, but that doesn't mean they need to be replaced before they are falsified. The answer to your question is, "Admitted ignorance." It is perfectly possible to just admit that you don't know. Indeed, that is a much better initial way to proceed after a theory is falsified than to concoct newfangled explanations.
Except that my assumption isn't unscientific. All scientific theories are replaceable by another if they are found to be false, and evolution is no different.
If macroevolution is found to be false, then something has to be replace it.
I'm talking about AFTER they've been falsified. IF macroevolution is incorrect, falsified, then what replaces it?
You're arguing an issue that only you yourself are focused on.
This makes the assumption that all can be known. Assumptions aren't science.
And I responded to that, "Which version [of creationism]"?
Because there are numerous versions of creationism with different and often contradictory ideas.
You are laboring under the false and unscientific assumption that a falsified theory needs to be replaced. I will leave you to your labor.
Why shouldn't a falsified theory be replaced with something better?
Why shouldn't a falsified theory be replaced with something better?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced. I am saying that it doesn't need to be.
Your OP is claiming that if someone wants to say that macroevolution is incorrect then they have to proffer an alternative explanation. That's not true. "Nothing" is a perfectly good and scientific answer to your question. You seem to disagree with this.
You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.
You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.
Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.
We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.
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?