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.
Can you tell me in your own words why falsification is important for hypothesis testing?It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab. It is educated and elegant guesswork, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.
Supernovas can be directly observed as they're happening.Well, if you put it that way . . . no. Not all physics scientific isn't that it can be tested in the lab -- supernovas, for example, don't fit in laboratories, but they can still be studied by astrophysicists. What makes both physics and evolutionary biology scientific fields is that they can test their hypotheses against empirical data. That means that neither is "guesswork".
No they can't.Supernovas can be directly observed as they're happening.
Because otherwise the hypothesis can be conveniently used to explain everything without anything actually striking it down. It just becomes a self-verifying idea.Can you tell me in your own words why falsification is important for hypothesis testing?
That's a detail, we can make deductions based on observations such as that, taking into account the speed of light etc. We didn't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene.No they can't.
Many many years have passed before the light reaches us.
We can't see it happening. We can only see that it happened.
No it wouldn't. Sorry I didn't get to your question."If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God?"
As one might expect, people can't even address the question.
<Usual set piece waffle and refusal to read>
How do you repeat looking at a fossil record and drawing a conclusion? Do you just look at it again and again?When you call something "guess work" that can be repeated many times over you are simply showing your lack of knowledge and prejudice about the science that you do not like.
I don't claim to know exactly the mechanics of it all. I wasn't there in the distant past. However the onus is not on me, but the one proposing the hypothesis to convince me.Creationism has utterly failed whenever they have tired to use it to explain the biological diversity that we can see today. Creationists are too afraid to even create a proper scientific hypothesis of creationism, much less a theory of creationism.
Bingo.The mammal in the Cambrian layer issue could falsify evolution,
Ah, there you go! I was trying to think of an analogy and you gave it to me.Bingo.
You said it couldn't.
I guess a dog giving birth to a cat would work as a falsification, too.
You do know that's how we can conclude that evolution has happened, don't you?That's a detail, we can make deductions based on observations such as that, taking into account the speed of light etc. We didn't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene.
I just said, we don't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene. You look at the fossils, and then make connections between them, and look at genetic similarities, and draw conclusions from them.You do know that's how we can conclude that evolution has happened, don't you?
Deductions based on observation: no lab needed.
Phew, we got there, we made it!
No one could not. Evolution does not predict a dog giving birth to a cat.One could come up with an evolutionary explanation,
Can we stick to the point?I just said, we don't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene. You look at the fossils, and then make connections between them, and look at genetic similarities, and draw conclusions from them.
However with a supernova, you know the speed of light, and from that you can logically deduce the time etc.
With evolution these are not logical deductions that proceed from a set of determined variables. This is physical data that you look at and try to connect the dots, and genome data that you make conclusions from based on similarities.
Where did I say there was no falsification of evolution?No one could not. Evolution does not predict a dog giving birth to a cat.
In fact if a dog did (without tinkering by the High Evolutionary) give birth to a cat it would falsify evolution.
Just like finding a bunny in the Cambrian or a Crocaduck.
All these are potentially falsification of ToE (you said there were none).
Where did I say there was no potential falsifications for ToE?Can we stick to the point?
You said there were no potential falsifications for ToE.
I showed you that there are.
Got to got to bed, now.But there are those who have come to realise that it has become something outside of empirical science, one that cannot be falsified and has become a dogma.
Ah, there you go! I was trying to think of an analogy and you gave it to me.
Why don't dogs give birth to cats? One could come up with an evolutionary explanation, as well as a non-evolutionary one.
Sure, a dog giving birth to a cat would falsify evolutionary theory as we know it, but is this falsification really worth anything, when other explanations already exist as to why the dog doesn't give birth to a cat?
But is that falsification worth anything if it is as zany as dogs giving birth to cats?Yes. Simply because there could be other reasons Dogs do not give birth to cats does not change the fact that it would falsify evolution if it happened. That something could be a falsification for multiple different hypothesis does not invalidate that it is a falsification for the hypothesis you are evaluating.
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?