it cannot be falsified

[Jazer]

I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. [/SIZE]

Does this mean according to Gould that evolution can be shown not to be true?

 

[Blayz]

No it doesn't

 

[sfs]

Does this mean according to Gould that evolution can be shown not to be true?

No. "Can be shown not to be true" means that it is presently possible to show that evolution is not true; that is not true statement. Gould's statement employed a conditional: evolution would be shown not to be true if certain observations were to be made, and those observations have not been made, at least to date.

 

[juvenissun]

No. "Can be shown not to be true" means that it is presently possible to show that evolution is not true; that is not true statement. Gould's statement employed a conditional: evolution would be shown not to be true if certain observations were to be made, and those observations have not been made, at least to date.

What you said can also be applied to his latter half of the statement. So a creationist "could" also abandon his belief "if" good data is presented.

So, what's the point of his statement? He obviously implied something more than science, which is inappropriate.

 

[Jazer]

So, what's the point of his statement?

I thought that perhaps the point was in order for it to be science then there it has to be verifiable. Thus falsifiable. By his definition then a lot of the Bible is not religion at all, because science can verify that it's true. Only the parts that can not be verified then become religion. Clearly we are told in the Bible to test all things. Science if nothing else gives us a way to test out belief. Lots of what is in the Bible is falsifiable. Not all of the Bible can be falsified, but a lot of the Bible can be shown to be true. No true scientiest would reject the Bible because so much of the Bible can be verified. If you reject the Bible then your also rejecting science. If there is any place ignorance is no excuse it is in science.

 

[juvenissun]

I thought that perhaps the point was in order for it to be science then there it has to be verifiable. Thus falsifiable. By his definition then a lot of the Bible is not religion at all, because science can verify that it's true. Only the parts that can not be verified then become religion. Clearly we are told in the Bible to test all things. Science if nothing else gives us a way to test out belief. Lots of what is in the Bible is falsifiable. Not all of the Bible can be falsified, but a lot of the Bible can be shown to be true. No true scientiest would reject the Bible because so much of the Bible can be verified. If you reject the Bible then your also rejecting science. If there is any place ignorance is no excuse it is in science.

If evolution "could be" falsifiable, so is creation. As a consequence, creation is also a science.

If one said that creation is not falsifiable, neither is the evolution.

So, as a scientist, Stephen's argument is pretty stupid. Somewhere, faith has to be brought into the argument. That is bad.

 

[sfs]

What you said can also be applied to his latter half of the statement. So a creationist "could" also abandon his belief "if" good data is presented.

So, what's the point of his statement? He obviously implied something more than science, which is inappropriate.

His point is precisely that what I said cannot be applied to creationists -- that when presented with contrary evidence, creationists do not abandon their beliefs.

The question is not what he meant, but whether he's correct or not. As a absolute rule, it's obviously false, since there are plenty of creationists who have abandoned their creationism. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of creationists who do reject evidence they don't like, either by explicitly telling it take a hike, or by fudging it, changing the subject or ignoring it.

 

[sfs]

If evolution "could be" falsifiable, so is creation. As a consequence, creation is also a science.

If one said that creation is not falsifiable, neither is the evolution.

As a theory about how the world and life began, young earth creationism is indeed falsifiable -- something made clear by the fact that it was resoundingly falsified, beginning in the late 18th century.

So, as a scientist, Stephen's argument is pretty stupid. Somewhere, faith has to be brought into the argument. That is bad.

Given the long parade of creationists I've seen over the years rejecting, ignoring, obfuscating, misunderstanding and evading evidence, I'd say Gould had a real point.

 

[Jazer]

As a theory about how the world and life began, young earth creationism is indeed falsifiable

Yet the Bible is true. So the problem is people do not understand what they are reading in the Bible. For example we know that Adam and Eve were historical people that lived 6,000 years ago. But also we now know that they were not the only people alive at that time. The Bible is a history of the Middle East. The Bible tells a part of the story about the beginning of civilization. This is a book written 3500 years ago that gives us a glimpse into what life was like 3500 years ago. The Mormons claim to have a book about American and the people living there. But the Bible mostly tells us about the Middle East and the people that were living in that area at that point in time.

Why it is that Harvard professors that are suppose to be so brillant, get so mixed up and confused about a resource that is beyond value? They are critical of YEC's for their understanding of the Bible. Yet the Harvard Professors can not come up with a better understanding of the Bible. They do not even give the Bible the respect that you should give any 3500 year document. Because written records are not so easy to come by from back then. Even we have recorded history going back 4500 years. Stores about Noah and a book about the laws. Should we disregard all of that because so few people understand their meaning and application for us today?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Falsifiable and falsified are not the same thing. Evolution is falsifiable but not falsified. Creationism is falsifiable and falsified

The Bible is not a theory and as such is not falsifiable, per se. It is a book that contains possibly true and possibly false statements.

 

[Split Rock]

Does this mean according to Gould that evolution can be shown not to be true?

He is saying that he can imagine data that would falsify evolution, but he cannot come up with anything that would make creationists abandon creationism. For example, if the genetic sequences of closely related organisms were more different from each other than the sequences of relatively unrelated organisms, then this would falsify evolution, or at least common descent. In fact, this is a test that continues to this day, as more and more genomes are sequenced. On the other hand, what data would make creationists abandon creationism?

 

[Smidlee]

He is saying that he can imagine data that would falsify evolution, but he cannot come up with anything that would make creationists abandon creationism. For example, if the genetic sequences of closely related organisms were more different from each other than the sequences of relatively unrelated organisms, then this would falsify evolution, or at least common descent.

Nope it didn't. There are examples of plants genes that didn't fix the tree. Because of genetics the tree looks like a complete mess especially near the trunk. IMO there is no data that would falsify evolution to a lot of evolutionists. No matter what is found or learned they believe "evolution did it". They are guilty of the very thing they accused creationist of.

 

[RickG]

Does this mean according to Gould that evolution can be shown not to be true?

Not in the least bit. If you can show hominid fossils abundant in Devonian strata and Therapods abundant in Pleistocene strata, that would disprove the theory of evolution.

The thing is, the fossil record describes evolution perfectly. For it not to, it would show fossils of all ages mixed, it never does.

 

[RickG]

Nope it didn't. There are examples of plants genes that didn't fix the tree. Because of genetics the tree looks like a complete mess especially near the trunk. IMO there is no data that would falsify evolution to a lot of evolutionists. No matter what is found or learned they believe "evolution did it". They are guilty of the very thing they accused creationist of.

I see a lot of hand waving and accusations but no examples. Paleobiologists don't just say evolution did it, they demonstrate with physical evidence. Suppose you give an example where plant genes don't fit.

 

[Astridhere]

No. "Can be shown not to be true" means that it is presently possible to show that evolution is not true; that is not true statement. Gould's statement employed a conditional: evolution would be shown not to be true if certain observations were to be made, and those observations have not been made, at least to date.

Short Sharp Science: The twist that shows Lucy wasn't flat-footed

From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'd say a human metatarsel attributed to Lucy that is now seen as a chimp or bonobo ancestor by a leading evolutionary researcher, Richard Dawkins, despite all of Lucys' humanity, is evidence that mankind was created and did not evolve from an ape. Why you may ask? Because you have fossil evidence of modern mankind predating the ancestors we were supposed to have evolved from.

Hence observations have been made that support creation and falsify evolution.

 

[cupid dave]

Does this mean according to Gould that evolution can be shown not to be true?

Yes.
Biological evolution is dependent upon Cosmic Evolution.

We can only hypothesize that the Universe unfolded in a way that developed into the appearance of the stars, which then formed all the elements of the chemistry which we postulate were the dust particles that, through Spontaneous Generation, formed the first life on Earth.

These two axioms are essential to the whole picture which then theorizes that, from such Cosmic Evolution, our evidence for Biological Evolution supports what we say then happened.


Hence, Biological Eolution can not be shown to be true, only a theory, because the first split second of the Big Bang presents conditions which can not be deduced in the light that our physics breaks down.

 

[RickG]

Yes.
Biological evolution is dependent upon Cosmic Evolution.

We can only hypothesize that the Universe unfoldrd on a way that developed into stars which then formed allthe elements of the chemistry which we postulate wqere the dust particles that through Spontaneous Generation form ed the first life on Earth.

These two axioms are essential to the whole picture which then theorizes that, from such Cosmic Evolution, our evidence for Biological Evolution supports what we say happened.


Hence, Biological Eolution can not be shown to be true, only a thepry, because the first split second of the Big Bang presents conditions which can not be deduced in the light that our physics breaks down.

Merry Christmas dave.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you can show hominid fossils abundant in Devonian strata and Therapods abundant in Pleistocene strata, that would disprove the theory of evolution.

If someone would attempt to show a hominid fossil in a Devonian strata (or stratem, or whatever the singular of strata is), what would stop scientists from saying, "It's not Devonian strata," or "It's not a hominid"?

And the key word in your post is 'abundant', isn't it?

 

[cupid dave]

Short Sharp Science: The twist that shows Lucy wasn't flat-footed

From the Cover: Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Ancestor's Tale". According to this theory, chimps and bonobos are descended from Australopithecus gracile type species while gorillas are descended from Paranthropus robustus P. boisei or P. aethiopicus. These apes may have once been bipedal, but then lost this ability when they were forced back into an arboreal habitat, presumably by those australopithecines who eventually became us. In short, the ancestors of chimpanzees and gorillas are A. afarensis and Paranthropus, respectively.
Homininae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I'd say a human metatarsel attributed to Lucy that is now seen as a chimp or bonobo ancestor by a leading evolutionary researcher, Richard Dawkins, despite all of Lucys' humanity, is evidence that mankind was created and did not evolve from an ape. Why you may ask? Because you have fossil evidence of modern mankind predating the ancestors we were supposed to have evolved from.

Hence observations have been made that support creation and falsify evolution.

"Hence observations have been made that support creation and falsify evolution.["

Just because science has not yet caught up with the necessary palentology to parallel the Genesis genelaogy in no way changes the present concensus that we are linked, pretty much, by the about the 22 species mentioned in the Bible:

 

[Astridhere]

"Hence observations have been made that support creation and falsify evolution.["

Just because science has not yet caught up with the necessary palentology to parallel the Genesis genelaogy in no way changes the present concensus that we are linked, pretty much, by the about the 22 species mentioned in the Bible:

I don't know what you are talking about.

This picture above is outdated by far. For a start the 150 years of knucklewalking Seth or anamensis that evolutionists purported as irrefuteable evidence for common ancestry is now in the garbage with the publication of Ardi.

I responded to a poster who said creationists do not have evidence. That is incorrect. I don't know what you are suggesting in your reply, but up intil Erectus, 7, with Turkana Boy, these are apes as they do not have sophisticated language that goes with higher reasoning ability and abstract thought. These creatures are not human and could not have understood God and His words.

Rudolfensis 5 has undergone a reconstruction and now is an ape head with a brain capacity of 525cc that looks just like Turkana Boys skull

BTW ..The famous evo researcher Dawkins states that Lucy, Afarensis, and all her humanity is a chimp or bonobo ancestor. I am glad she is not in your graph. Like I said I have no idea what you believe in or what you are saying. Surely Seth was not a chimp.

Still..what I said initially applies..There is evidence for creation in observed evidence of mankind predating their supossed ancestors, as evidenced by a human metatarsel that predates Lucy that could not be Lucy's. That is just one support for creation..there are plenty