the self replicating watch argument

[xianghua]

Because it would be horrendously out of place in the geological record, because land animals weren't even a thing yet, let alone one that resembles a mammal.

I tell you what, Find such an example and let's see what happens. Either you won't find one (reality) or you'll find one (fantasy).

there is no limitation under evolution theory that such a fossil will not exist. so no, such a fossil will not falsify evolution theory. think about something more simple like a human with a dino.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

there is no limitation under evolution theory that such a fossil will not exist. so no, such a fossil will not falsify evolution theory. think about something more simple like a human with a dino.

Well, you're Wrong. Find one and come back to me.

 

[46AND2]

its very similar too but also different from any known spacecraft.

Cool story, bro. Let me know when we find one we can analyze. I've seen UFOs in the movies that were biological living things. Is it one of those? Can we communicate with any potential pilots? Dude, there is so much information that we don't have about your (yet again) fictional scenario, that there is no way to properly answer your question. It may or may not be able to be identified as designed.

 

[46AND2]

... think about something more simple like a human with a dino.

LOL. That's the same exact argument as a mammal in the Cambrian.

 

[46AND2]

Well, you're Wrong. Find one and come back to me.

To be fair, a single mammal found in the Cambrian would not falsify evolution. It would be an extreme outlier, and would likely have some explanation for why it is there. I'm extremely, but not absolutely, certain that we will never find one, but if we did, that information by itself would not falsify the preponderance of evidence for evolution.

However, if creationism is true, it should be a common occurrence.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

To be fair, a single mammal found in the Cambrian would not falsify evolution. It would be an extreme outlier, and would likely have some explanation for why it is there. I'm extremely, but not absolutely, certain that we will never find one, but if we did, that information by itself would not falsify the preponderance of evidence for evolution.

True. But unlike YEC, science won't just ignore it and pretend like it was never found. It would be investigated ad-nauseum until the reason for it being where it is, can be deduced.

 

[xianghua]

Cool story, bro. Let me know when we find one we can analyze. I've seen UFOs in the movies that were biological living things. Is it one of those? Can we communicate with any potential pilots? Dude, there is so much information that we don't have about your (yet again) fictional scenario, that there is no way to properly answer your question. It may or may not be able to be identified as designed.

lets say its something like that (the image in the right) and we also dont know what is made from since its fly and we cant test it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/PurportedUFO2.jpg

 

[xianghua]

True..

so you admit that such a fossil will not falsify evolution. thanks. this is why evolution isnt scientific.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

lets say its something like that (the image in the right) and we also dont know what is made from since its fly and we cant test it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/PurportedUFO2.jpg

Ooh, Oooh, Me! ME! .... Ready? :

"We Don't Know!"​

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so you admit that such a fossil will not falsify evolution. thanks. this is why evolution isnt scientific.

Nice quote mine, so No.

 

[46AND2]

lets say its something like that (the image in the right) and we also dont know what is made from since its fly and we cant test it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/PurportedUFO2.jpg

As I have already stated, let me know when you find one we can ANALYZE.

A picture tells us nothing.

 

[Speedwell]

lets say its something like that (the image in the right) and we also dont know what is made from since its fly and we cant test it:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/PurportedUFO2.jpg

Then we won't be able to tell. I think that's part of what you are not getting. You want to be able to show "is designed/is not designed" but our alternatives are "is designed/can't tell." Do you see the difference?

Another way of putting it is, it's OK for us if we can't tell if a particular object is designed or not, but you must show design because you have a religious agenda.

 

[46AND2]

so you admit that such a fossil will not falsify evolution. thanks. this is why evolution isnt scientific.

The fact that a single fossil will not falsify evolution does not mean that evolution is not falsifiable. It is absolutely falsifiable, it's just that it's not false. It is SOO not false, that it would take FAR more than a single weird find to overturn, say, the genetic evidence.

Evolution would be false if we didn't observe nested hierarchies.
Evolution would be false if dinosaur bones contained half their original carbon.
Evolution would be false if most of the 200,000+ ERVs found in the human genome were not also in chimps' orthologous locations.
Evolution would be false if fossils were found strewn about in no particular order in the fossil record.

There are many, many more.

The problem with all these, is that evolution passes every single one of these tests, and has for 150-ish years.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so you admit that such a fossil will not falsify evolution. thanks. this is why evolution isnt scientific.

Actually, Let me expand, so you might be somewhat more enlightened.

Here are a handful of reasons that would have to be investigated:

1. the Human was buried in a grave that was dug into the same layer as the Dinosaur fossil.
2. either the Dinosaur fossil, or Human fossil turns out to not be a Dinosaur or Human (i.e. incorrect classification).
3. the layers both fossils were found in are not actually the same layer or have been incorrectly dated/identified.

Until these (and other questions in the opposite direction) can be satisfied, it remains unresolved/undetermined.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution would be false if we didn't observe nested hierarchies.

we also observe non- hiierarchy. so if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

Evolution would be false if dinosaur bones contained half their original carbon.

no. in this case they will claim that dinos are younger then we axpected or for contamination.

Evolution would be false if most of the 200,000+ ERVs found in the human genome were not also in chimps' orthologous locations.

no. in this case we can claim that most ervs were deleted from the genome or that most of those ervs insertions happened after human and chimp split off.

you see how easy its to keep evolution alive?

 

[46AND2]

we also observe non- hiierarchy. so if a nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution then non hierarchy should be evidence against it.

If NO hierarchies existed, evolution would be false. Period. That is a falsification of evolution, which god could easily have provided, had he chosen to.

no. in this case they will claim that dinos are younger then we axpected or for contamination.

No, it would mean that dinosaurs could be no more than 6000 years old. No amount of contamination could account for that, and birds would be unexplained.

Further, if the earth is only 6000 years old, we should never find any bone completely lacking in Carbon 14. Yet we do.

no. in this case we can claim that most ervs were deleted from the genome or that most of those ervs insertions happened after human and chimp split off.

That would be a completely unreasonable explanation, and shows how little you know of the subject.

you see how easy its to keep evolution alive?

It is easy to keep it alive, because it passes all these tests and more. Someday, YEC will be as obscure as flat-earth believers because they will finally have to admit that the reason evolution hasn't been falsified is NOT because it is unfalsifiable, but because it isn't false.

 

[xianghua]

If NO hierarchies existed, evolution would be false. Period. That is a falsification of evolution, which god could easily have provided, had he chosen to.

but we do find cases with no hierarchy. so evolution is already false by this criteria.

That would be a completely unreasonable explanation, and shows how little you know of the subject.

prove it. show me why this explanation will be completely unreasonable. if you cant then im right and even such a case will not falsify evolution.

 

[46AND2]

but we do find cases with no hierarchy. so evolution is already false by this criteria.

Wow. I'll give you a pass since I think english is not your first language.

Why did god fit the VAST majority of life into an order that HAS TO EXIST for evolution to be true? If he wanted to announce his presence, rather than writing a book during a time of primitive superstition, he could have instead made all animals unique and not sortable in such a way.

And, just like the one mammal in the Cambrian, the few outliers here and there cannot discount the literally millions of correct hits. You need to explain the forest, not the trees. Fortunately, all we have to do is explain the trees. In fact, the only reason you even know about the trees is because scientists PUBLISH THEIR FINDINGS CONCERNING THEM>

prove it. show me why this explanation will be completely unreasonable. if you cant then im right and even such a case will not falsify evolution.

If you'd like to discuss ERVs, by all means start another thread on the topic, and I'd be happy to join.

 

[xianghua]

Wow. I'll give you a pass since I think english is not your first language.

its true that english isnt my native. so i may not understand some words.

Why did god fit the VAST majority of life into an order that HAS TO EXIST for evolution to be true? If he wanted to announce his presence, rather than writing a book during a time of primitive superstition, he could have instead made all animals unique and not sortable in such a way.

can you give evidence for that claim?

 

[Larniavc]

so we can claim that another lineage evolved into a mammal from other snimals. what is the problem?

Because mammals evolving identically twice from two separate lineages is NOT predicted by TOE.

Do you know what the concept of falsification as it applies to the scientific method actually means?