Total Posts:367|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is it possible to falsify evolution??

medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 1:19:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Creationists argue that we're trying to kick a field goal through moving goalposts, in attempts to falsify evolution. It's impossible to do since evolutionists adapt the theory to fit whatever the evidence turns out to show.

Ian Juby says in this video that evolution is like water, it takes whatever shape you want to pour it in to. Evolution is assumed, and the evidence is then interpreted so as to fit within the evolutionary paradigm. It has sprouted from the original random mutation/natural selection evolution. In response to evidence that didn't fit the theory, the theory now includes divergent/convergent/reductive/parallel/pre-adaptive evolution.

If it's impossible to falsify a theory by conflicting evidence, then can that theory be considered scientific?? Isn't that the argument against creation science?? If evolution gets a free pass, isn't that special pleading??

0-7:00 he gives a good argument against dating methods.
7:00-28:00 is the rant about the falsifiability of evolution.
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 2:19:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
No way I'm watching a half hour video with some creationist claiming evolution can't be falsified. Obviously this is bollocks.

Here are a few potential falsifications (of many):
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Also remember that living organisms fit into a twin nested hierarchy.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 3:43:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 2:19:14 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
No way I'm watching a half hour video with some creationist claiming evolution can't be falsified. Obviously this is bollocks.

Here are a few potential falsifications (of many):
http://www.talkorigins.org...

No way I'm reading who knows how many paragraphs of some evolutionist claiming that evolution can be falsified. This is obviously bollocks.

Also remember that living organisms fit into a twin nested hierarchy.

And that nesting is based entirely on similarities and assumptions. It in no way helps to establish common descent.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 6:10:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

I'll take your 6000 and raise you 4000.

If the earth is 10,000 years or younger that would falsify evolution.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 6:20:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 6:10:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

I'll take your 6000 and raise you 4000.

If the earth is 10,000 years or younger that would falsify evolution.

Touche, good sir.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 6:23:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 6:20:16 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/26/2012 6:10:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

I'll take your 6000 and raise you 4000.

If the earth is 10,000 years or younger that would falsify evolution.

Touche, good sir.

Double or nothing ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:24:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

To my knowledge it's never been conclusively settled that it isn't 6000 years old. I don't think there is a way to prove the age of the earth, beyond how you want to interpret the evidence. The first 7 minutes of the video gives an argument for how helium leakage rate corresponds with the young earth model.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:45:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 1:19:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Creationists argue that we're trying to kick a field goal through moving goalposts, in attempts to falsify evolution. It's impossible to do since evolutionists adapt the theory to fit whatever the evidence turns out to show.

Ian Juby says in this video that evolution is like water, it takes whatever shape you want to pour it in to. Evolution is assumed, and the evidence is then interpreted so as to fit within the evolutionary paradigm. It has sprouted from the original random mutation/natural selection evolution. In response to evidence that didn't fit the theory, the theory now includes divergent/convergent/reductive/parallel/pre-adaptive evolution.

If it's impossible to falsify a theory by conflicting evidence, then can that theory be considered scientific?? Isn't that the argument against creation science?? If evolution gets a free pass, isn't that special pleading??

0-7:00 he gives a good argument against dating methods.
7:00-28:00 is the rant about the falsifiability of evolution.



LOL. What do you expect? That if the theory is falsified we don't modify it to fit the new evidence? That's how science is supposed to work.

Anyway. It can be falsified:

http://www.talkorigins.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 7:56:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is how you know that creationists aren't all that intelligent.

The thing is, Darwin's theory of evolution turning out to be false, will NEVER validate or even so much as glance in the direction of the creationist argument. There will have to be a new theory that accounts for all of that evidence that brought about evolution in the first place, and because it accounts for the same evidence and more, that new theory will have certain properties that are identical to the old one. The idea of "vanquishing" a theory wholesale isn't how science works....

So, please...Hold your excitement when a scientist questions evolution.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
iamnotwhoiam
Posts: 171
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:07:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 3:43:17 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 2:19:14 PM, iamnotwhoiam wrote:
No way I'm watching a half hour video with some creationist claiming evolution can't be falsified. Obviously this is bollocks.

Here are a few potential falsifications (of many):
http://www.talkorigins.org...

No way I'm reading who knows how many paragraphs of some evolutionist claiming that evolution can be falsified. This is obviously bollocks.

All I'm interested in doing is refuting you. Creationists are no different to flat-earthers. I wouldn't spend half an hour on a flat-earther's video. Science is not on your side. I don't expect you to change, but maybe someone reading might look at the links.

Also remember that living organisms fit into a twin nested hierarchy.

And that nesting is based entirely on similarities and assumptions. It in no way helps to establish common descent.

Of course it helps to establish common descent. It is also rigorously mathematical. http://www.talkorigins.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:20:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 7:24:47 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

To my knowledge it's never been conclusively settled that it isn't 6000 years old. I don't think there is a way to prove the age of the earth, beyond how you want to interpret the evidence. The first 7 minutes of the video gives an argument for how helium leakage rate corresponds with the young earth model.

How would that work? Can I have a timeline? I can't imagine a world that began in the 4th millennium BC.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:22:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 7:56:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is how you know that creationists aren't all that intelligent.

The thing is, Darwin's theory of evolution turning out to be false, will NEVER validate or even so much as glance in the direction of the creationist argument. There will have to be a new theory that accounts for all of that evidence that brought about evolution in the first place, and because it accounts for the same evidence and more, that new theory will have certain properties that are identical to the old one. The idea of "vanquishing" a theory wholesale isn't how science works....

So, please...Hold your excitement when a scientist questions evolution.

I am NOT a creationist, but science is meant to be falsified, as nothing is ever 100% proven. And you only need one reason to disprove anything. So yes, science is about disproving whole theories.

Whether its likely is another issue...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:25:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 7:24:47 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

To my knowledge it's never been conclusively settled that it isn't 6000 years old. I don't think there is a way to prove the age of the earth, beyond how you want to interpret the evidence. The first 7 minutes of the video gives an argument for how helium leakage rate corresponds with the young earth model.

If this is how you get through life, telling yourself these things, then fine ... just try not to voice it publicly.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:26:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:22:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 12/26/2012 7:56:01 PM, 000ike wrote:
This is how you know that creationists aren't all that intelligent.

The thing is, Darwin's theory of evolution turning out to be false, will NEVER validate or even so much as glance in the direction of the creationist argument. There will have to be a new theory that accounts for all of that evidence that brought about evolution in the first place, and because it accounts for the same evidence and more, that new theory will have certain properties that are identical to the old one. The idea of "vanquishing" a theory wholesale isn't how science works....

So, please...Hold your excitement when a scientist questions evolution.

I am NOT a creationist, but science is meant to be falsified, as nothing is ever 100% proven. And you only need one reason to disprove anything. So yes, science is about disproving whole theories.

Whether its likely is another issue...

You totally missed the point.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Then ask yourself, could macro-evolution be possible if life on earth only existed for 6,000 years?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2012 8:29:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 6:10:13 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/26/2012 4:47:57 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
If the earth was found out to be 6000 years old that would falsify evolution quite nicely...

(^_^)

Ahhhh, you beat me to it.

Ditto. I need to look through threads before posting.


I'll take your 6000 and raise you 4000.

If the earth is 10,000 years or younger that would falsify evolution.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 7:56:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 8:28:15 PM, phantom wrote:
Then ask yourself, could macro-evolution be possible if life on earth only existed for 6,000 years?

If we are starting the clock when life started, then yes. Especially considering that the first life-forms were single-celled organisms which reproduce rapidly and in great numbers. We've certainly seen viral and bacterial speciation within our on short life-times.

Now, granted, we wouldn't see the same speciation we see today...
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:30:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:56:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:28:15 PM, phantom wrote:
Then ask yourself, could macro-evolution be possible if life on earth only existed for 6,000 years?

If we are starting the clock when life started, then yes. Especially considering that the first life-forms were single-celled organisms which reproduce rapidly and in great numbers. We've certainly seen viral and bacterial speciation within our on short life-times.

Now, granted, we wouldn't see the same speciation we see today...

So you're saying the first 6,000 years of life, evolution progressed rapidly? Interesting, but we could still quite fairly say that we surely did not evolve from those single celled organisms only in the past 6,000 years.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 12:33:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 12:30:16 PM, phantom wrote:
At 12/27/2012 7:56:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:28:15 PM, phantom wrote:
Then ask yourself, could macro-evolution be possible if life on earth only existed for 6,000 years?

If we are starting the clock when life started, then yes. Especially considering that the first life-forms were single-celled organisms which reproduce rapidly and in great numbers. We've certainly seen viral and bacterial speciation within our on short life-times.

Now, granted, we wouldn't see the same speciation we see today...

So you're saying the first 6,000 years of life, evolution progressed rapidly?

I'm not sure what "rapid" evolution means, nor am I making a comment about how evolution actually progressed here on Earth. I'm merely noting that speciation (which can be subtle or distinct) can happen within the time frame of 6,000 years. This is, essentially, meeting the bare requirements of your question.

Interesting, but we could still quite fairly say that we surely did not evolve from those single celled organisms only in the past 6,000 years.

Yes, I would agree with that.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:22:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/26/2012 7:45:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:19:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Creationists argue that we're trying to kick a field goal through moving goalposts, in attempts to falsify evolution. It's impossible to do since evolutionists adapt the theory to fit whatever the evidence turns out to show.

Ian Juby says in this video that evolution is like water, it takes whatever shape you want to pour it in to. Evolution is assumed, and the evidence is then interpreted so as to fit within the evolutionary paradigm. It has sprouted from the original random mutation/natural selection evolution. In response to evidence that didn't fit the theory, the theory now includes divergent/convergent/reductive/parallel/pre-adaptive evolution.

If it's impossible to falsify a theory by conflicting evidence, then can that theory be considered scientific?? Isn't that the argument against creation science?? If evolution gets a free pass, isn't that special pleading??

0-7:00 he gives a good argument against dating methods.
7:00-28:00 is the rant about the falsifiability of evolution.



LOL. What do you expect? That if the theory is falsified we don't modify it to fit the new evidence? That's how science is supposed to work.

I can buy a few modifications but at what point would you be willing to scrap the theory when you know the alternative is creation?? Right, that's not ever going to happen, so the only option is to come up with new ways to cover all the bases so that no matter what the evidence shows, it can be interpreted under the evolutionary paradigm.

Anyway. It can be falsified:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here is what talkorigins lists as ways to falsify evolution...

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

Define what a static fossil record is.

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

Even though whales and bats are radically different animals, with even radically different environments, they both "evolved" echolocation but their alledged common ancestor doesn't have it. It also appears to originate from the same gene points in both animals. That sounds to me like evidence of a common designer, but let me guess, it proves evolution, right??

Judging by the paragraph, my guess is that you'll say that since they're both mammals, they aren't from "diverse lineages". If that's the case, then it's not possible to falsify by this means since you claim that all life evolved from the same ancestor, therefore anything can be claimed as a gene transfer or switching on of a previously unused gene.

Also, if we were talking about real science here, you'd first have to prove that the bat and whale actually are descended from a common ancestor before claiming that the echolocation example doesn't falsify evolution. But we're not, so you get the luxury of working off the assumption that they are.

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

They can accumulate to a certain point, but there is a limiting mechanism somewhere. We can breed animals, dogs for instance, and can get all different kinds of dogs but we always still end up with a dog. Scientists used e-coli bacteria and went through 40,000+ generations, and still had nothing but e-coli bacteria. They nuked fruit flies and got all sorts of mutations, but they still had nothing but fruit flies.

That begs the question, if intelligence and planning meets with genetic limits then what makes you think a non-intelligent, random process can exceed them??

And once again, this is a case of working off of an assumption and saying that it's up to us to disprove it. You don't have one single proven example of a higher life form evolving from a lower form of a different kind.

observations of organisms being created.

You've got a gargantuan case of special pleading here. We assume evolution is true unless we can "observe" God actually creating something. Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" macro-evolution. Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" life creating itself from non-life, which is necessary if common descent is true. In fact, no one has ever "observed" anything more than a variation within kinds, but let's not let facts stand in the way of the way of the "real science" of evolutionary mythology. *end sarcasm*
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:30:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 7:56:10 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/26/2012 8:28:15 PM, phantom wrote:
Then ask yourself, could macro-evolution be possible if life on earth only existed for 6,000 years?

If we are starting the clock when life started, then yes. Especially considering that the first life-forms were single-celled organisms

How is it possible that people on a debate site can know this to be true with such great certainty, yet the brightest minds in the world can't prove it to be true??

which reproduce rapidly and in great numbers. We've certainly seen viral and bacterial speciation within our on short life-times.

Now, granted, we wouldn't see the same speciation we see today...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2012 1:31:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:22:58 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/26/2012 7:45:17 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 12/26/2012 1:19:20 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Creationists argue that we're trying to kick a field goal through moving goalposts, in attempts to falsify evolution. It's impossible to do since evolutionists adapt the theory to fit whatever the evidence turns out to show.

Ian Juby says in this video that evolution is like water, it takes whatever shape you want to pour it in to. Evolution is assumed, and the evidence is then interpreted so as to fit within the evolutionary paradigm. It has sprouted from the original random mutation/natural selection evolution. In response to evidence that didn't fit the theory, the theory now includes divergent/convergent/reductive/parallel/pre-adaptive evolution.

If it's impossible to falsify a theory by conflicting evidence, then can that theory be considered scientific?? Isn't that the argument against creation science?? If evolution gets a free pass, isn't that special pleading??

0-7:00 he gives a good argument against dating methods.
7:00-28:00 is the rant about the falsifiability of evolution.



LOL. What do you expect? That if the theory is falsified we don't modify it to fit the new evidence? That's how science is supposed to work.

I can buy a few modifications but at what point would you be willing to scrap the theory when you know the alternative is creation??

That's the point: when we know the answer is something else.

Right, that's not ever going to happen, so the only option is to come up with new ways to cover all the bases so that no matter what the evidence shows, it can be interpreted under the evolutionary paradigm.

Again, this is how science is supposed to work. When new observations come up that the theory doesn't cover, the theory is altered to cover the new observations.


Anyway. It can be falsified:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here is what talkorigins lists as ways to falsify evolution...

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

Define what a static fossil record is.

One that doesn't show a progression through time in a sort-of nested hierarchy.


true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

Even though whales and bats are radically different animals, with even radically different environments, they both "evolved" echolocation but their alledged common ancestor doesn't have it. It also appears to originate from the same gene points in both animals. That sounds to me like evidence of a common designer, but let me guess, it proves evolution, right??

Judging by the paragraph, my guess is that you'll say that since they're both mammals, they aren't from "diverse lineages". If that's the case, then it's not possible to falsify by this means since you claim that all life evolved from the same ancestor, therefore anything can be claimed as a gene transfer or switching on of a previously unused gene.

Also, if we were talking about real science here, you'd first have to prove that the bat and whale actually are descended from a common ancestor before claiming that the echolocation example doesn't falsify evolution. But we're not, so you get the luxury of working off the assumption that they are.

If you're going to argue both sides of the conversation, I'm just going to move on.


a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

They can accumulate to a certain point, but there is a limiting mechanism somewhere.

Where?

We can breed animals, dogs for instance, and can get all different kinds of dogs but we always still end up with a dog. Scientists used e-coli bacteria and went through 40,000+ generations, and still had nothing but e-coli bacteria. They nuked fruit flies and got all sorts of mutations, but they still had nothing but fruit flies.

That begs the question, if intelligence and planning meets with genetic limits then what makes you think a non-intelligent, random process can exceed them??

The fact that we have observed evolution and speciation on several occasions.


And once again, this is a case of working off of an assumption and saying that it's up to us to disprove it.

Uhm.... what? You asked if it is possible to falsify evolution and I responded to that question. This wasn't a question of burden of proof.

You don't have one single proven example of a higher life form evolving from a lower form of a different kind.

There are no "higher" or "lower" forms.


observations of organisms being created.

You've got a gargantuan case of special pleading here. We assume evolution is true unless we can "observe" God actually creating something.

Again, no. You asked what can falsify evolution, and this can. Do you disagree that this would falsify evolution?

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" macro-evolution.

Yes we have.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" life creating itself from non-life, which is necessary if common descent is true.

No it isn't. I.e. our common ancestor could have been created; we still evolved from it.

In fact, no one has ever "observed" anything more than a variation within kinds, but let's not let facts stand in the way of the way of the "real science" of evolutionary mythology. *end sarcasm*

"Kinds" isn't a scientific classification.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/27/2012 1:31:00 PM, drafterman wrote:

I can buy a few modifications but at what point would you be willing to scrap the theory when you know the alternative is creation??

That's the point: when we know the answer is something else.

Right, that's not ever going to happen, so the only option is to come up with new ways to cover all the bases so that no matter what the evidence shows, it can be interpreted under the evolutionary paradigm.

Again, this is how science is supposed to work. When new observations come up that the theory doesn't cover, the theory is altered to cover the new observations.

And so you end up with a theory that covers for all contingencies, and no matter what the evidence is, it fits your theory. That's how science is suppose to work?? I don't think so, in fact that's how religion works. You're not following the evidence if the evidence is tunneled into a theory that is adapted to fit any observation it finds.

Anyway. It can be falsified:

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Here is what talkorigins lists as ways to falsify evolution...

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

Define what a static fossil record is.

One that doesn't show a progression through time in a sort-of nested hierarchy.

But that hierarchy assumes that an animal's genome can do something that's never been observed, and contradicts what we HAVE observed every day of the year.

true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;

Even though whales and bats are radically different animals, with even radically different environments, they both "evolved" echolocation but their alledged common ancestor doesn't have it. It also appears to originate from the same gene points in both animals. That sounds to me like evidence of a common designer, but let me guess, it proves evolution, right??

Judging by the paragraph, my guess is that you'll say that since they're both mammals, they aren't from "diverse lineages". If that's the case, then it's not possible to falsify by this means since you claim that all life evolved from the same ancestor, therefore anything can be claimed as a gene transfer or switching on of a previously unused gene.

Also, if we were talking about real science here, you'd first have to prove that the bat and whale actually are descended from a common ancestor before claiming that the echolocation example doesn't falsify evolution. But we're not, so you get the luxury of working off the assumption that they are.

If you're going to argue both sides of the conversation, I'm just going to move on.

lol...that's what I thought.

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

They can accumulate to a certain point, but there is a limiting mechanism somewhere.

Where?

Obviously in the genome or reproductive system.

We can breed animals, dogs for instance, and can get all different kinds of dogs but we always still end up with a dog. Scientists used e-coli bacteria and went through 40,000+ generations, and still had nothing but e-coli bacteria. They nuked fruit flies and got all sorts of mutations, but they still had nothing but fruit flies.

That begs the question, if intelligence and planning meets with genetic limits then what makes you think a non-intelligent, random process can exceed them??

The fact that we have observed evolution and speciation on several occasions.

This is where you win over people who don't care to look further into the subject. You purposely muddy the waters here, because there is some truth to this statement, but all you've observed is adaptation or variation, though it's called micro-evolution.

You've observed speciation, but make that out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. This is the result of speciation...

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com...

Those are two different species, and they don't inter-breed. How in the world does someone believe Darwinian common descent based on a few examples like this of speciation??

And once again, this is a case of working off of an assumption and saying that it's up to us to disprove it.

Uhm.... what? You asked if it is possible to falsify evolution and I responded to that question. This wasn't a question of burden of proof.

I'm just pointing out how evolutionists don't have to prove anything, they can work from the assumption that evolution is true, and it's up to us to disprove it.

You don't have one single proven example of a higher life form evolving from a lower form of a different kind.

There are no "higher" or "lower" forms.

In terms of complexity, there certainly are higher and lower forms.

observations of organisms being created.

You've got a gargantuan case of special pleading here. We assume evolution is true unless we can "observe" God actually creating something.

Again, no. You asked what can falsify evolution, and this can. Do you disagree that this would falsify evolution?

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and special pleading involved. You get to demand "observation" as a means of falsification, but have never had any "observation" of your theory which proves it accurate to begin with.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" macro-evolution.

Yes we have.

Define macro-evolution.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" life creating itself from non-life, which is necessary if common descent is true.

No it isn't. I.e. our common ancestor could have been created; we still evolved from it.

That's your made up version of the theory, that is not how it's taught in the schools and is not the version that is protected by the courts.

In fact, no one has ever "observed" anything more than a variation within kinds, but let's not let facts stand in the way of the way of the "real science" of evolutionary mythology. *end sarcasm*

"Kinds" isn't a scientific classification.

That's just a cop-out, but you can substitute whatever word you want in place of kinds. Bottom line is that you're still claiming that an animal can magically morph into something completely different than what it started out as. That's never been observed, and is contradicted by what IS observed thousands of times a day, every day of the year, no matter what kind of organism you look at.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2012 12:24:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:05:26 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2012 1:31:00 PM, drafterman wrote:

Again, this is how science is supposed to work. When new observations come up that the theory doesn't cover, the theory is altered to cover the new observations.

And so you end up with a theory that covers for all contingencies, and no matter what the evidence is, it fits your theory. That's how science is suppose to work??

Yes, to find a theory that explains the universe. That is the goal of science.

I don't think so, in fact that's how religion works.

Well, not, religion picks an explanation and accepts/rejects evidence depending on whether or not it meets that explanation. They don't modify their explanation in light of new evidence.

You're not following the evidence if the evidence is tunneled into a theory that is adapted to fit any observation it finds.

Uhm... when you modify the theory to fit new evidence, then yes, you are following the evidence.

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

Define what a static fossil record is.

One that doesn't show a progression through time in a sort-of nested hierarchy.

But that hierarchy assumes that an animal's genome can do something that's never been observed, and contradicts what we HAVE observed every day of the year.

No it doesn't.

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

They can accumulate to a certain point, but there is a limiting mechanism somewhere.

Where?

Obviously in the genome or reproductive system.

Where, specifically?

We can breed animals, dogs for instance, and can get all different kinds of dogs but we always still end up with a dog. Scientists used e-coli bacteria and went through 40,000+ generations, and still had nothing but e-coli bacteria. They nuked fruit flies and got all sorts of mutations, but they still had nothing but fruit flies.

That begs the question, if intelligence and planning meets with genetic limits then what makes you think a non-intelligent, random process can exceed them??

The fact that we have observed evolution and speciation on several occasions.

This is where you win over people who don't care to look further into the subject.

Like you?

You purposely muddy the waters here, because there is some truth to this statement, but all you've observed is adaptation or variation, though it's called micro-evolution.

No, we've observed speciation, which is what macro-evolution refers to, when it is not being used as a moving goal-post by dishonest creationists. But you're not one of those, are you?

You've observed speciation, but make that out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. This is the result of speciation...

Good, you admit speciation happens! We're making progress!

And once again, this is a case of working off of an assumption and saying that it's up to us to disprove it.

Uhm.... what? You asked if it is possible to falsify evolution and I responded to that question. This wasn't a question of burden of proof.

I'm just pointing out how evolutionists don't have to prove anything, they can work from the assumption that evolution is true, and it's up to us to disprove it.

Well, from an outsider point of view, you're not doing well in successfully pointing that out.

You don't have one single proven example of a higher life form evolving from a lower form of a different kind.

There are no "higher" or "lower" forms.

In terms of complexity, there certainly are higher and lower forms.

There are more complex and less complex life forms, but that doesn't fit your description as evolution can result in increasing or decreasing complexity. Regardless, some of the examples of speciation observed include increasing complexity.

observations of organisms being created.

You've got a gargantuan case of special pleading here. We assume evolution is true unless we can "observe" God actually creating something.

Again, no. You asked what can falsify evolution, and this can. Do you disagree that this would falsify evolution?

I don't disagree,

Good, moving on.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and special pleading involved. You get to demand "observation" as a means of falsification, but have never had any "observation" of your theory which proves it accurate to begin with.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" macro-evolution.

Yes we have.

Define macro-evolution.

Speciation.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" life creating itself from non-life, which is necessary if common descent is true.

No it isn't. I.e. our common ancestor could have been created; we still evolved from it.

That's your made up version of the theory, that is not how it's taught in the schools and is not the version that is protected by the courts.

Citation, please.
Here's mine:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

In fact, no one has ever "observed" anything more than a variation within kinds, but let's not let facts stand in the way of the way of the "real science" of evolutionary mythology. *end sarcasm*

"Kinds" isn't a scientific classification.

That's just a cop-out, but you can substitute whatever word you want in place of kinds.

Ok. I substitute: "Species" And, regarding species, your statement is patently false, which you have conceded. Moving on.

Bottom line is that you're still claiming that an animal can magically morph into something completely different than what it started out as.

No I'm not.

That's never been observed, and is contradicted by what IS observed thousands of times a day, every day of the year, no matter what kind of organism you look at.

I agree. Animals don't magically become other animals. But evolution doesn't say that they do, so who are you arguing with here regarding this point? Harvey the 6' Bunny?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 7:53:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/28/2012 12:24:25 PM, drafterman wrote:

Well, not, religion picks an explanation and accepts/rejects evidence depending on whether or not it meets that explanation. They don't modify their explanation in light of new evidence.

Evolution does the same thing. It never changes the conclusion, it just adds a new branch so that instead of admitting it's falsified, it can claim the new evidence as further proof of it's conclusion.

You're not following the evidence if the evidence is tunneled into a theory that is adapted to fit any observation it finds.

Uhm... when you modify the theory to fit new evidence, then yes, you are following the evidence.

No, you're tunneling the evidence, no matter what it shows, to fit the conclusion. With that tactic being used, it cannot be falsified. If it cannot be falsified then it's nothing more than a philosophy, not a science.

There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

a static fossil record;

Define what a static fossil record is.

One that doesn't show a progression through time in a sort-of nested hierarchy.

But that hierarchy assumes that an animal's genome can do something that's never been observed, and contradicts what we HAVE observed every day of the year.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. We've never observed a reptile turning into a bird, but we see reptiles bringing forth more reptiles every day.

a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;

They can accumulate to a certain point, but there is a limiting mechanism somewhere.

Where?

Obviously in the genome or reproductive system.

Where, specifically?

What part decides whether we are human, or a frog??

We can breed animals, dogs for instance, and can get all different kinds of dogs but we always still end up with a dog. Scientists used e-coli bacteria and went through 40,000+ generations, and still had nothing but e-coli bacteria. They nuked fruit flies and got all sorts of mutations, but they still had nothing but fruit flies.

That begs the question, if intelligence and planning meets with genetic limits then what makes you think a non-intelligent, random process can exceed them??

The fact that we have observed evolution and speciation on several occasions.

This is where you win over people who don't care to look further into the subject.

Like you?

No, I took the time to look into it. If everyone did that then evolutionists would be a small, lonely group.

You purposely muddy the waters here, because there is some truth to this statement, but all you've observed is adaptation or variation, though it's called micro-evolution.

No, we've observed speciation, which is what macro-evolution refers to, when it is not being used as a moving goal-post by dishonest creationists. But you're not one of those, are you?

Funny you should say that about creationists, when evolutionists are the ones who are being deceptive. They know full well that we don't question variation or adaptation, micro-evolution if you want to call it that. They know full well that we're arguing the issue of the common descent of all life forms from a life form that began from non-living material, through natural processes, as it is taught in the textbooks to kids. They set up a strawman, then knock it down by arguing speciation, as if that is what is at issue in the argument. You're not one of those, are you??

Can you give an example of observed speciation, where you started out with one type of organism, and ended with a different type of organism?? What species were the parent organisms, and what new species was the offspring?? What kind of organism were the parents?? What kind of organism was the offspring, that was a new species??

You've observed speciation, but make that out to be a much bigger deal than it actually is. This is the result of speciation...

Good, you admit speciation happens! We're making progress!

Well of course I admit it. If a fossil is discovered with a longer toe than a similar fossil, previously discovered...BAM!!!...We've discovered a new species (obvious exageration for humorous effect, haha). But like I showed with the pictures of different species of Larus gulls, while they may be different species, they are both still very similar "birds". They are still the same kind of organism, so speciation does not get you to where you need to be to prove common ancestry of different kinds of organisms.

And once again, this is a case of working off of an assumption and saying that it's up to us to disprove it.

Uhm.... what? You asked if it is possible to falsify evolution and I responded to that question. This wasn't a question of burden of proof.

I'm just pointing out how evolutionists don't have to prove anything, they can work from the assumption that evolution is true, and it's up to us to disprove it.

Well, from an outsider point of view, you're not doing well in successfully pointing that out.

You're in denial if you can't see it for yourself to begin with.

You don't have one single proven example of a higher life form evolving from a lower form of a different kind.

There are no "higher" or "lower" forms.

In terms of complexity, there certainly are higher and lower forms.

There are more complex and less complex life forms, but that doesn't fit your description as evolution can result in increasing or decreasing complexity. Regardless, some of the examples of speciation observed include increasing complexity.

Here we go again with speciation. I'm not arguing against speciation, I'm arguing against self created microbe-to-man, onward and upward evolution, common ancestry.

observations of organisms being created.

You've got a gargantuan case of special pleading here. We assume evolution is true unless we can "observe" God actually creating something.

Again, no. You asked what can falsify evolution, and this can. Do you disagree that this would falsify evolution?

I don't disagree,

Good, moving on.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy and special pleading involved. You get to demand "observation" as a means of falsification, but have never had any "observation" of your theory which proves it accurate to begin with.

Nevermind the fact that no one has ever "observed" macro-evolution.

Yes we have.

Define macro-evolution.

Speciation.

lmbo...See, you want to argue about speciation, because that's as far as scientific fact can get you, beyond that there is no science, only faith. But speciation isn't really where we differ, and evolutionists know this. Let me specify exactly what I'm arguing against, and you can keep muddying the waters if you want. I'm borrowing a quote here.

"When we talk about "evolution," we don't mean, "any kind of change." Nor do we mean minor variations that result from natural selection. We use the term "evolution" to mean...The doctrine that unguided natural forces caused chemicals to combine in such a way that life resulted; and that all living things have descended from that common ancestral form of life."

Now it should be crystal clear exactly what my position is. I argue against evolution as it is taught in textbooks in schools. There are actually 6 different kinds of evolution that have to take place for the ToE, as it is taught, to be plausible.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 8:09:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If evolution did not occur, it would not strengthen the idea that Earth is 6,000 or so years old. There are countless other factors that indicate a very old planet.
lannan13
Posts: 23,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:05:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Of course it is possible to falsify evolution, Hell the science for it contradicts itself. Evolution met conservation of mass/ energy. Now this law states that matter can't be created or destroyed, so science itself says that evolution isn't possible.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:10:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:05:27 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Of course it is possible to falsify evolution, Hell the science for it contradicts itself. Evolution met conservation of mass/ energy. Now this law states that matter can't be created or destroyed, so science itself says that evolution isn't possible.

http://images.wikia.com...
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2012 10:26:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/29/2012 10:10:56 AM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 12/29/2012 10:05:27 AM, lannan13 wrote:
Of course it is possible to falsify evolution, Hell the science for it contradicts itself. Evolution met conservation of mass/ energy. Now this law states that matter can't be created or destroyed, so science itself says that evolution isn't possible.

http://images.wikia.com...
This^^^
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.