12 Nov 14
There are a number of problems yecs have with evolution. while that is sad, when some of the problems stated stem from a poor understanding of science, it becomes sadded. and funnier.
So i wish to institute a program: educate your yec.
lesson 1: Evolutionism IS falsifiable.
Directly from wiki:
evolution is considered falsifiable because it can make predictions that, were they contradicted by the evidence, would falsify evolution. Several kinds of evidence could falsify evolution, such as the fossil record showing no change over time, confirmation that mutations are prevented from accumulating, or observations showing organisms being created supernaturally or spontaneously.[53] Many of Darwin's ideas and assertions of fact have been falsified as evolutionary science has developed and has continued to confirm his central concepts.[55][56] Despite this, creationism consists largely of unsubstantiated claims that evolution has been falsified.[53] In contrast, creationist explanations involving the direct intervention of the supernatural in the physical world are not falsifiable, because any result of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
12 Nov 14
1 edit
Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.
It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years later you realise you're in a very different body from how it used to be; you're old. Speciation is also a smooth, hardly noticable process on the surface, and then one day the difference between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by C HessBeing able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.
It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
distant past.
As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
means is where things fall apart.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by C Hess"Speciation is also a smooth, hardly noticable process on the surface, and then one day the difference between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species."
Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.
It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
"Hardly noticeable process"? Then how do you know it happened?
I've been around for 61 years and I noticed the process of aging. I have evidence from personal observation of the facts of my own existence.
Where is the irrefutable evidence for this so called "process" of evolution? And I'm not talking about some quasi theory based on some microscopic mathematical equations. I'm talking about hard facts.
Like the hard facts of direct observation of the irrefutable evidence of my own aging.
Dawkins analogy is mythological!
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by ZahlanziEvolution is falsifiable?
There are a number of problems yecs have with evolution. while that is sad, when some of the problems stated stem from a poor understanding of science, it becomes sadded. and funnier.
So i wish to institute a program: educate your yec.
lesson 1: Evolutionism IS falsifiable.
Directly from wiki:
evolution is considered falsifiable because it can ...[text shortened]... esult of an experiment or investigation could be the unpredictable action of an omnipotent deity
Then why believe it? 🙄
Truth can't be falsified.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwThere is plenty of irrefutable evidence of evolution taking place. It does however require that you learn a little about it which is a little different from aging which most people understand intuitively.
Where is the irrefutable evidence for this so called "process" of evolution? And I'm not talking about some quasi theory based on some microscopic mathematical equations. I'm talking about hard facts.
Like the hard facts of direct observation of the irrefutable evidence of my own aging.
Dawkins analogy is mythological!
If you were to do just about any modern course in Biology you should be presented with many examples of evolution and its effects being observed directly.
I would recommend you start here:
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
12 Nov 14
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwThe first word is your clue. "Hardly noticable", not "not noticable". I.e. hardly noticable in real-time, but just as age is evident eventually, so is speciation evident after the fact.
"Hardly noticeable process"? Then how do you know it happened?
Leaving fossil record, homology, vestigial organs and so on aside, it's noticable in the genome alone. If we take the genome of all your children, they will all differ ever so slightly, both from each other and from you, but it will be clear that they all have the same father - you. The same method used to positively identify them as siblings can be used to tell that you and your cousins have a common grandad, even without knowing your grandads DNA. We can take the same approach back in time to say something of your ancestors thousands of years back (european, african and so on).
Now, ask yourself, why would the rules suddenly change when you compare the genome of two species, and find that they too have commonalities that allows us to draw the same conclusion from the exact same kind of evidence, that they too had a common ancestor at some point in the more distant past? Why is religious woo-woo necessary to explain the same kind of evidence when it starts pointing to different species having common ancestors?
Logic dictates that this is evidence for common descent, not unique creation. It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of following the evidence to their only logical conclusion.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by josephwThe word 'falsifiable' means that if it is false, it is possible to find evidence that it is false. Most of your religious beliefs are not falsifiable because even if they are false, it would not be possible to find evidence that they are false.
Evolution is falsifiable?
Then why believe it? 🙄
Truth can't be falsified.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by KellyJayClaims about the distant past are of course falsifiable. If I claimed that the earth was covered in ice from the time it was formed until 10 thousand years ago, that claim is falsifiable. You just need to find solid evidence that it was not covered in ice at some point in that time period.
Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
distant past.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by KellyJayBeing able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
distant past.
As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
means is where things fall apart.
distant past are not things that can be falsifiable
that's not what falsifiable means.
a statement is falsifiable if there is a test that could be made that would prove some claims made by that statement false.
evolution is falsifiable because read my original post and argue on what i stated, not babble incoherently.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by KellyJayintelligent design is NOT falsifiable for example. as it stands today, you cannot devise a test that would prove that there isn't an intelligent created because no "intelligent designist" has ever defined what exactly is that intelligent original designer.
Being able to make claims and showing that those claims are true in the
distant past are not things that can be falsifiable, they can be accepted,
believed, but not proved wrong when we again are talking about the
distant past.
As far as I know no one dismisses the claims that people have about life
today that are going to happen and do, it is what they say about what that
means is where things fall apart.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by C Hessyes, but let's keep to one lesson per thread, you shouldn't overload the poor yecs with too much information. please make another thread. i plan to make several more anyway.
Lesson 2 (if I may): It's a gradual process.
It's not: monkey -> monkey -> monkey -> human. The progeny is always the same species as the progenitor(s). Dawkins gave an excellent analogy using age. It's not that you go to bed in the evening and in the morning you're old. It's a smooth, hardly noticable process of change from hour to hour, and then years l ...[text shortened]... e between the original population and the latest is so big, that you in fact have a new species.
12 Nov 14
Originally posted by C Hess"Now, ask yourself, why would the rules suddenly change when you compare the genome of two species, and find that they too have commonalities that allows us to draw the same conclusion from the exact same kind of evidence, that they too had a common ancestor at some point in the more distant past?"
The first word is your clue. "Hardly noticable", not "not noticable". I.e. hardly noticable in real-time, but just as age is evident eventually, so is speciation evident after the fact.
Leaving fossil record, homology, vestigial organs and so on aside, it's noticable in the genome alone. If we take the genome of all your children, they will all differ ever ...[text shortened]... tter of belief, it's a matter of following the evidence to their only logical conclusion.
How does the commonalities of the genome of two species cause you to draw the conclusion that they had a common ancestor? As if to say there is cross fertilization of species. It's no mystery to me that all physical bodies have commonalities, but that doesn't cause me to think evolution is a valid argument for the existence of biological life.