What is Evolution?

Shane Roach · Apr 10, 2002

Originally posted by Ray K

Evolution is a scientific theory that makes predictions and is subject to falsification. Creationism makes no predictions, so it cannot be falsified, and is therefore not scientific.

Evolution can not be falsified. I even posted a quote from a pro-evolution website stating as such. Scientists admit the thing is not proveable. It is still "science" because it is valid to use evidence we do have to make guesses, educated guesses, about what has gone on before, but there are problems with evolution, and one of them is that it is indeed non-falsifiable.

Shane Roach · Apr 10, 2002

Heh heh heh. "I even posted a quote". Ok perhaps not overwhelming evidence, but the point is most scientists are well aware of the non-falsifiability of large parts of evolutionary theory.

2infinity · Apr 10, 2002

The theory of evolution is as far fetched as Erich von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods"

John Davison, Professor of Biology at the University of Vermont, has essencially dismissed Darwinian evolution. He has conclusively demonstrated that sexually reproducing organisms simply cannot evolve, since sexual reproduction conserves and preserves characteristics. In a similar vein, the vast majority of ecologists regard natural selection as working to preserve species, not change them.
Evolutionary scientists are no longer academic superstars who are cited as authoritative truth, but rather becomming obscure eccentrics with outdated sentiments.

Evolution is one of the most devastating philosophies to dominate the public arena. Science is determined to explain all aspects of reality, and that ambition sometimes tempts scientists to theorize extravagantly from part of the evidence, while ignoring or explaining away the facts that don't fit the theory.

Jesus Christ will be a living reality long after Darwinism has been relegated to the history curriculum

Ray K · Apr 10, 2002

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Evolution can not be falsified. I even posted a quote from a pro-evolution website stating as such. Scientists admit the thing is not proveable. It is still "science" because it is valid to use evidence we do have to make guesses, educated guesses, about what has gone on before, but there are problems with evolution, and one of them is that it is indeed non-falsifiable.

It makes predictions and is falsifiable. Sorry to disappoint you.

I will post potential falsifications of evolution in a separate thread.

LouisBooth · Apr 10, 2002

shane it is falseafiable, that's why it falls under the tool of science And just for the record..what do you think a PRO-evolutionist web site is going to say no no..we are wrong..blah blah....they hold onto the theory tighter then any religion I have studied!

Ray K · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by LouisBooth
shane it is falseafiable, that's why it falls under the tool of science And just for the record..what do you think a PRO-evolutionist web site is going to say no no..we are wrong..blah blah....they hold onto the theory tighter then any religion I have studied!

Well, if it is falsifiable (as you agree), then why shouldn't they hold onto it until it is falsified?

Comparisons to religion are inappropriate since religions are not scientific nor falsifiable.

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

Any finding of a striking half-mammal, half-bird intermediate would be highly inconsistent with common descent. Many other examples of prohibited intermediates can be thought of, based on the standard tree (Kemp 1982; Stanley 1993; Carroll 1997; Chaterjee 1997).

How would this falsify the whole thing? They would just hypothesize that all three had a common ancestor and keep on trucking. There is no way to prove that something in the unrecorded and unknowable past did or didn't happen. All they have to do is jiggle the theory a little to account for whatever irregularity they come up with and keep goiong. And indeed, that is what they do. That is exactly the source of all the 4 different definitions of "species" and all the use of adaptive population models that don't change species at all as if they were proof.

Ray K · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Shane Roach
How would this falsify the whole thing? They would just hypothesize that all three had a common ancestor and keep on trucking. There is no way to prove that something in the unrecorded and unknowable past did or didn't happen.

I love your brilliant logic. It seems to go like this:

"Evolution hasn't been falsified, but if it ever IS falsified, I am convinced that the scientists would deny the falsification anyway. Therefore, I believe evolution is not a scientific theory."

In other words, you are discrediting evolution based on a hypothetical situation that has not only never occurred, but has also never occurred with any other scientific theory.

It is amazing the lengths some people will go to discredit a scientific theory just so they can cling onto their personal religious beliefs.

TheBear · Apr 11, 2002

Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Ray K

I love your brilliant logic. It seems to go like this:

"Evolution hasn't been falsified, but if it ever IS falsified, I am convinced that the scientists would deny the falsification anyway. Therefore, I believe evolution is not a scientific theory."

In other words, you are discrediting evolution based on a hypothetical situation that has not only never occurred, but has also never occurred with any other scientific theory.

It is amazing the lengths some people will go to discredit a scientific theory just so they can cling onto their personal religious beliefs.

The phylogenic tree by its very nature works in that fashion. It has been said that you could properly place a chair or table in the phylogenic tree if you wanted to. The very process of making the phylogenic tree is such that this would be the case. The error comes from pretending that something that didn't fit nicely into the phylogenic tree would somehow totally debunk the theory. In the begining, there were problems with the phylogenic tree, and to this day there are debates about precisely how it should be contructed in individual cases.

Please, don't let me confuse you with the facts though. Your problem is with the word "falsifiable" and the very history of the phylogenic tree, not with me or my argument.

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by TheBear
Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind is made up!

This, I presume, is not an attempt to ignore evidence or spout a cliche', as you accuse people of doing in regards to evolution?

Ray K · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Shane Roach
Please, don't let me confuse you with the facts though. Your problem is with the word "falsifiable" and the very history of the phylogenic tree, not with me or my argument.

Here is the fact. The source you cited specified a concrete falsification to evolution, which is something you claim does not exist. In fact, many more specific examples were cited.

Rather than accept those as legitimate falsifications, you instead resort to accusing the scientific community of dishonesty. In essence, you are saying:

"Here is a so-called falsification of evolution. I think they're being insincere, so it doesn't count. And neither do those other 28 potential falsifications"

If you refuse to take people at their word, even when they state it emphatically and in print for all to see, then there is obviously nothing that would convince you of anything that you do not already want to believe. No matter what evidence is presented, you will assume the source is dishonest.

I'm through trying to reason with this brick wall.

TheBear · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Shane Roach

This, I presume, is not an attempt to ignore evidence or spout a cliche', as you accuse people of doing in regards to evolution?

LOL!!! There's an old saying....

"If you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one who barks first, is the one who got hit."

TheBear · Apr 11, 2002

I would suggest, for anyone concerned, to take a close look at the following link. If you have disagreements, please post the areas of disagreements, your scientific reasons why, and your own scientific explainations and conclusions.

Evidence for Evolution

Thank you,
John

LouisBooth · Apr 11, 2002

"then why shouldn't they hold onto it until it is falsified? "

Ray, they should, but is has been. The comparison about them holding onto it like a religion is very applicable. Why? They do, they deny evidience, make doctered statements and throw out things they don't like to "prove" their THEORY. Yes, it is a THEORY, and a wrong one at that.

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Ray K

Here is the fact. The source you cited specified a concrete falsification to evolution, which is something you claim does not exist. In fact, many more specific examples were cited.

You can't even begin to support the idea that it is a concrete falsification. Evidence to the contrary is in the very nature of how the phylogenic tree was contructed in the first place.

You can't even pick one out that would prove falsification. The theory of evolution states that diversity evolved. Finding one animal that doesn't fit into the phylogenic tree does not falsify that theory in any way shape or form. This means this is not a falsification of the theory. This is the definition of falsifiability. This is not a debate, this is, as you say, "the fact".

Your "fact" is what is colloquialy refered to as "your opinion", which of course you have every right to. I just wish you people wouldn't insist your opinion is scientific fact, or in some way more "scientific" than any other idea that cannot be totally verified through science.

Zadok · Apr 11, 2002

Funny, I can disprove that the biblical flood laid down the fossil record in one sweeping sentence.

"Multiple stacking of surface features cannot form in the middle of a diluge."

There you go boys, I just flat out disproved that the biblical flood did NOT lay down the fossil record. If any of you creationists care to explain how footprints, wind-blown sand dunes, surface burrows, layered forests with soil still intact, meteorites and meteorite craters, rain drops, river channels, fossil forests in coal mines with footprints and evidence of forest fires, and the la-brea tarpits without mixing of out of place fossils could form in the middle of a FLOOD?

Instead of bickering about biological problematics involving evolution, why don't you go STRAIGHT to the source. THE EARTH!!!

I am tired of backing creationists against the wall when geological evidence is presented and getting ZERO responses while everyone changes subjects over and over.

Until creationists can give reasonable answers to the geological evidence AND be compatible with scripture, they have zilcho on evolutionary theory.

Also, when creationists are presented with the fact that the fossil record dosn't intermingle, they point out "fossil graveyards" as evidence for the flood model. Funny, at the DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT in Utah and Colorado, intermingling DOSN'T EXIST!!! You won't find a single cow, chicken, dog, cat, human, saber-toothed tiger, or squirrle mixed with the other fossils. Different fossil graveyards exist in CANADA and EUROPE but they show NOT ONE SINGLE SPECIES OUT OF PLACE FROM WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN THAT GEOLOGICAL ERA!!!!!

I wish you creationists would address this problem instead of ignoring it. WE WON'T GET ANYWHERE ARGUING IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM!!!!!

unworthyone · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Zadok
I wish you creationists would address this problem instead of ignoring it. WE WON'T GET ANYWHERE ARGUING IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM!!!!!

I'll make my last smart aleck remark (for the day ):

God made the animals die all together like that. And those footprints are from Satan. He made them so we would believe the flood wasn't real! And he came in the form of Darwin as the Antichrist and made everyone dislike Christians. Then he made the dinosaur bones, cuz Satan can do that. Then he told the Italian scientist he knew what he was doing and that he could go ahead and make the clones. Satan told him so he could possess the 666th body created from cloning and then we would find this creature to be a great miracle and he had us all fooled. God never existed, it was only Satan, Satan did it all!

(if you believe a word of this I'm going to kick you in the head.)

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

Originally posted by Zadok
Funny, I can disprove that the biblical flood laid down the fossil record in one sweeping sentence.

"Multiple stacking of surface features cannot form in the middle of a diluge."

There you go boys, I just flat out disproved that the biblical flood did NOT lay down the fossil record. If any of you creationists care to explain how footprints, wind-blown sand dunes, surface burrows, layered forests with soil still intact, meteorites and meteorite craters, rain drops, river channels, fossil forests in coal mines with footprints and evidence of forest fires, and the la-brea tarpits without mixing of out of place fossils could form in the middle of a FLOOD?

Instead of bickering about biological problematics involving evolution, why don't you go STRAIGHT to the source. THE EARTH!!!

I am tired of backing creationists against the wall when geological evidence is presented and getting ZERO responses while everyone changes subjects over and over.

Until creationists can give reasonable answers to the geological evidence AND be compatible with scripture, they have zilcho on evolutionary theory.

Also, when creationists are presented with the fact that the fossil record dosn't intermingle, they point out "fossil graveyards" as evidence for the flood model. Funny, at the DINOSAUR NATIONAL MONUMENT in Utah and Colorado, intermingling DOSN'T EXIST!!! You won't find a single cow, chicken, dog, cat, human, saber-toothed tiger, or squirrle mixed with the other fossils. Different fossil graveyards exist in CANADA and EUROPE but they show NOT ONE SINGLE SPECIES OUT OF PLACE FROM WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND IN THAT GEOLOGICAL ERA!!!!!

I wish you creationists would address this problem instead of ignoring it. WE WON'T GET ANYWHERE ARGUING IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM!!!!!

My only problem is that this does not prove evolution. I have stated repeatedly that I don't think any of this can be proven or disporven. There are problems with both ideas about how the world was formed and where life comes from, but instead of admiting that you just continually resis tthe fact that you cannot prove the assertion.

I'm not MAKING an assertion. I'm saying, I don't believe your theory and you aren't able to prove it.

If a species that was "out of place" were found in any of these graveyards, the conculsion would be, oh, that species existed at the same time. The alternate explanation for the graveyards that springs to mind is that there are a limited set of circumstances under which fossilization occurs, and you just aren't going to get an entire cross section of all the animals in the world from looking at different collections of fossils.

It's impossible.

Shane Roach · Apr 11, 2002

How did we decide which animals belong in which age to begin with? Just because they were there, that's how. So any animal that is there belongs there. Bingo.

If you want to go step by step and prove evolution, then do it. Show it to the world. The problem is, unlike gravity, you can't toss an evolution in the air and watch it bite the dust every time.

It is a problem with the theory, not with everyone who disagrees with you.

What is Evolution?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Cogito ergo sum

Well-Known Member

Cogito ergo sum

Well-Known Member

Cogito ergo sum

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Cogito ergo sum

NON-WOKED

NON-WOKED

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Fossil Hound

Yes this is me! Like my glasses?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency