Educate your YEC: Evolutionism IS falsifiable

Originally posted by RJHinds
Evolution is both falsifiable and unfalsifiable by man as I have already pointed out.

I'm sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by lemon lime
I didn't say it doesn't take faith to believe the claims of evolution. 'Falsifiable' and 'faith-based' are not mutually exclusive.

Why, yes they are. If it's falsifiable, you don't need faith to accept it as true or false.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Give me examples of other possible scenarios of biogenesis, because I'm not aware of any other than life spontaneously arising from natural forces.

But that is not what you claim to have evidence against. You claim to have evidence against large quantities of nitrogen rich prebiotic soup. Are you sure that is the only way life can spontaneously arise? As I said, feel free to start a thread on the subject and we can go into it in detail.

And taking cheap shots at creationism does nothing to validate or prove evolution...
I never said nor implied it did.

if evolutionists weren't worried about their theory failing they wouldn't bother with creationism.
They generally don't. If you think I am here discussing this topic because I am concerned that creationism might win out against evolution, you are sadly mistaken.

And if they weren't worried over what ID could do to their theory they wouldn't feel the need to tie it directly to creationism.
The fight over ID, has to do with creationists wanting to have it taught as science in schools. Scientists are not concerned it might be correct. Quite the opposite. They know perfectly well it is nonsense and don't want it taught as science to unsuspecting children.
Similarly if someone tried to push astrology into the science classroom, scientists and other sensible people would try and stop it.

ID and creationism are not interchangeable. ID can be applied to archaeology, paleontology, forensics and a whole host of other disciplines that have nothing to do with creationism.
Well feel free to go and apply it. Just don't pretend its science when it isn't.

This kind of dishonest and skewed reasoning on the part of evolutionists (who try to discredit anything that threatens their theory) borders on desperation.
The only dishonesty I see in this thread is coming from all the posters who pretend they can't understand a simple word like 'falsifiable'. Have you noticed that every creationist in the thread misunderstood its meaning, and not one single non-creationist has a problem understanding it? You tell me, are creationists just poorly educated, or lying?

Originally posted by C Hess
Why, yes they are. If it's falsifiable, you don't need faith to accept it as true or false.

Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Evolution can be falsifiable and still require faith to maintain belief in it. This scenario has been played out innumerable times in the past by scientists who were slow to giving up a cherished scientific belief long after most other scientists had abandoned it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
But we aren't talking about hundreds (or thousands) of years, are we. We are talking about a minimum of 65.5 million up to a whopping 199.6 million years ago. So how long would a proposed level of preservation have to be to get those critical thinking skills of yours to kick in? A billion years? 200 billion years? Or is your capacity for gullibility limitless?

Maybe you should tell us. How long can such tissue last, and how would you know? Please show us some sort of evidence that it would change over billions of years. What is the chemistry involved?

Originally posted by lemon lime
Oh, come on! So let me get this straight, you're telling me the point of this thread is to foist a straw man argument on creationists by [b]telling them they say evolution is not falsifiable?

What a stupid waste of intellectual capital! It didn't occur to me anyone here would try pulling a cheap trick like that.[/b]

it's not a cheap trick. it is how a debate should be conducted, rather than what we have most of the times(a rant)

you identify the point your opponent is making:
in this case some creationists whine that evolution is not falsifiable.

you present evidence that prove evolution is in fact falsifiable and then you move on to the next lesson.
you don't say that because of this fact evolution is correct, that would be stupid (i am assuming that is why you think this is a strawman)


i don't quite understand what point you are trying to make here. if you don't like the subject and you think it is too easy for your majesty, you could always not post. or read

Originally posted by lemon lime
[b]and your point is?
The OP clearly states that it is addressing creationists who make that claim. Whether you have or have not heard a creationist making that claim is neither here nor there.

Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them.[/b]

"Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them."

how about you google "objections to evolutionism"

once you actually know what some creationists claim, we can talk. right now you are ignorant.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Do you know what mutually exclusive means? Evolution can be falsifiable and still require faith to maintain belief in it. This scenario has been played out innumerable times in the past by scientists who were slow to giving up a cherished scientific belief long after most other scientists had abandoned it.

The difference between being stubborn and having faith, is that the first requires overwhelming evidence before changing position, while the latter will maintain a position even in face of overwhelming evidence. Faith is to science what cancer is to the body. It needs to be vehemently opposed whenever it rears its' ugly head.

Evolution is not a theory that rests on faith, but overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
The difference between being stubborn and having faith, is that the first requires overwhelming evidence before changing position, while the latter will maintain a position even in face of overwhelming evidence. Faith is to science what cancer is to the body. It needs to be vehemently opposed whenever it rears its' ugly head.

Evolution is not a theory that rests on faith, but overwhelming evidence.

There is little evidence, if any for Darwin's theory of evolution.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it's not a cheap trick. it is how a debate should be conducted, rather than what we have most of the times(a rant)

you identify the point your opponent is making:
in this case some creationists whine that evolution is not falsifiable.

you present evidence that prove evolution is in fact falsifiable and then you move on to the next lesson.
you don ...[text shortened]... ke the subject and you think it is too easy for your majesty, you could always not post. or read

I read your OP and didn't realize what your purpose was. Somehow I missed how you defined the parameters and then expected creationists to simply follow along without questioning your premise, which I admit to have completely missed or misunderstood.

Both C Hess and twhitehead have revealed that I'm expected to defend one side of what can only be called a strawman argument. I'm not here to defend your indefensible strawman, and if I knew that going in I wouldn't have bothered with any of this. And yes, it is a strawman when you presume to know what all creationists believe and don't know as opposed to what you think you know and can prove.

Supreme irony indeed... that bit I wrote about controlling information and manipulating public opinion was all about what I'm seeing here and taking it to its logical extreme.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them."

how about you google "objections to evolutionism"

once you actually know what some creationists claim, we can talk. right now you are ignorant.

once you actually know what some creationists claim, we can talk. right now you are ignorant.

So according to you, I must also be ignorant of what I know and believe. I don't presume to speak for any other creationist or evolutionist, so like it or not your own presumptions do nothing for you except to make you look foolish and petty.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Both C Hess and twhitehead have revealed that I'm expected to defend one side of what can only be called a strawman argument.

Please provide evidence of this. When did I expect you to defend a strawman argument?

And yes, it is a strawman when you presume to know what all creationists believe and don't know as opposed to what you think you know and can prove.
When did I, C Hess or Zahlanzi presume to know what all creationists believe and don't know?
I strongly suggest you go back and re-read the OP and you will realize that you misread it - or whichever post you think was the offending post.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Please provide evidence of this. When did I expect you to defend a strawman argument?

[b]And yes, it is a strawman when you presume to know what all creationists believe and don't know as opposed to what you think you know and can prove.
When did I, C Hess or Zahlanzi presume to know what all creationists believe and don't know?
I strongl ...[text shortened]... P and you will realize that you misread it - or whichever post you think was the offending post.[/b]

You said:

[a]nd your point is?
The OP clearly states that it is addressing creationists who make that claim. Whether you have or have not heard a creationist making that claim is neither here nor there.

... and I responded with:

"Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them."

C Hess said:

Well, that is the whole point of this thread. If you have no problem with that, then why are we even talking about it?

... and I responded with:

"Oh, come on! So let me get this straight, you're telling me the point of this thread is to foist a straw man argument on creationists by telling them they say evolution is not falsifiable?

What a stupid waste of intellectual capital! It didn't occur to me anyone here would try pulling a cheap trick like that."


When my daughters were very young, they could persuade me into playing with dolls and participate in role playing games. But this does not mean I can be persuaded by grown men and women into playing with strawman dolls or pretend I'm someone they want me to be.

Originally posted by C Hess
Why, yes they are. If it's falsifiable, you don't need faith to accept it as true or false.

I don't have enough faith to accept the theory of evolution as true. It seems too much like a fairy tale I have heard to be true, like a frog becoming a prince. 😏

Originally posted by lemon lime
"Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them."

C Hess said:

[b]Well, that is the whole point of this thread. If you have no problem with that, then why are we even talking about it?

Perhaps, it is you now, good sire, building out of puny straws a doll? To save face? Alas, drawing more attention to this little post exchange faus pas of yours. I'd back out the room now if I were you. Ay, save dignity, as though never caught playing with dolls, of own stitching no less.