What's wrong with evolution?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You could falsify it if you like. Shouldn't like to think why you'd want to though.

Of course, it's entire possible to check if any of the parameters are wrong. You can go out, find old rocks, look for signs of oxygen, for example. You shouldn't find any. If you do, and it can't be explained, then that's evidence against this theory.

We haven ...[text shortened]... ne.

As I say, feel free, from the available evidence, to prove me wrong on any point.

You could falsify it if you like.

How would I be able to falsify this evidence without going back in time?

Shouldn't like to think why you'd want to though.

It would only stand as true evidence if it were falsifiable.

Of course, it's entire possible to check if any of the parameters are wrong. You can go out, find old rocks, look for signs of oxygen, for example. You shouldn't find any. If you do, and it can't be explained, then that's evidence against this theory.

How would you know for certain what it was like 4,000,000,000 years ago ?

We haven't, of course, created life yet (which I know is what you're getting at), but give us the funding and time and there is no reason why it could not be done.

If you were to create life in the lab, would you not be proving that intelligence is needed to create life?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]You could falsify it if you like.

How would I be able to falsify this evidence without going back in time?

Shouldn't like to think why you'd want to though.

It would only stand as true evidence if it were falsifiable.

Of course, it's entire possible to check if any of the parameters are wrong. You can go out, find old rocks ...[text shortened]... te life in the lab, would you not be proving that intelligence is needed to create life?

You could falsify it if you like.

How would I be able to falsify this evidence without going back in time?

I don't know - you're the one proposing academic dishonesty. I imagine you could just change your lab book entries.


How would you know for certain what it was like 4,000,000,000 years ago?

Do you know about the conditions now? You cannot possibly say "yes" now, can you deej? That would require complete knowledge, right? Remember deej, I was very specific. I said "according to all available evidence".

If you were to create life in the lab, would you not be proving that intelligence is needed to create life?

Not if you just dumped the chemical precursors that were available at the time in a reconstructed environment similar to that at the time and then merely sampled for life.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You could falsify it if you like.

[b]How would I be able to falsify this evidence without going back in time?

I don't know - you're the one proposing academic dishonesty. I imagine you could just change your lab book entries.


How would you know for certain what it was like 4,000,000,000 years ago?

Do you know about the ...[text shortened]... a reconstructed environment similar to that at the time and then merely sampled for life.[/b]

You don't get it. For evidence to be scientifically viable it needs to be falsifiable. If you don't understand the term 'falsifiability", I suggest you read it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't get it. For evidence to be scientifically viable it needs to be falsifiable. If you don't understand the term 'falsifiability", I suggest you read it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Perhaps you need to go look at a dictionary.

From dictionary.com

Falsifiable.

1. to make false or incorrect, esp. so as to deceive: to falsify income-tax reports.
2. to alter fraudulently.
3. to represent falsely: He falsified the history of his family to conceal his humble origins.
4. to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.
–verb (used without object) 5. to make false statements.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Perhaps you need to go look at a dictionary.

From dictionary.com

Falsifiable.

1. to make false or incorrect, esp. so as to deceive: to falsify income-tax reports.
2. to alter fraudulently.
3. to represent falsely: He falsified the history of his family to conceal his humble origins.
4. to show or prove to be false; disprove: to falsify a theory.
–verb (used without object) 5. to make false statements.

Maybe if you read the link I provided you will see that I used the word within a scientific context.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Maybe if you read the link I provided you will see that I used the word within a scientific context.

I KNOW what it means from a scientific prespective. I AM a scientist, you idiot. I was merely playing with your words - you are apparently too stupid to get it.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I KNOW what it means from a scientific prespective. I AM a scientist, you idiot. I was merely playing with your words - you are apparently too stupid to get it.

I was merely playing with your words

Is that what you do when you get stumped?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I was merely playing with your words

Is that what you do when you get stumped?[/b]

No it's the only thing anyone can do when you are still posting the same crap after 1900 posts.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
No it's the only thing anyone can do when you are still posting the same crap after 1900 posts.

It seems the only way you can debate is by hurling childish insults.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It seems the only way you can debate is by hurling childish insults.

Everyone here has tried reason, logic and simply pointing out absurdity but you just don't listen dj. You've been asked to provide evidence any number of times. You've been asked to account for the mountains of evidence pointing to Evolution more than I can count. And every single time you dodge the issue by complaining about something different or just plain disappearing for a few days/weeks/whatever.

Here's the thing, everyone here is sick of pandering to your obstinate belief in a wrong-headed backward concept that has been refuted by every scientific result to date.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
Everyone here has tried reason, logic and simply pointing out absurdity but you just don't listen dj. You've been asked to provide evidence any number of times. You've been asked to account for the mountains of evidence pointing to Evolution more than I can count. And every single time you dodge the issue by complaining about something different or just pl ...[text shortened]... in a wrong-headed backward concept that has been refuted by every scientific result to date.

All I asked was whether the mountains of evidence that you present is falsifiable.

Instead of answering the question you resort to childish insults.

Originally posted by dj2becker
All I asked was whether the mountains of evidence that you present is falsifiable.

Instead of answering the question you resort to childish insults.

To be a scientific theory Evolution must be falsifiable. So yes it is.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
To be a scientific theory Evolution must be falsifiable. So yes it is.

How do you faslify conditions which supposedly existed 4,000,000,000 years ago?

Originally posted by dj2becker
How do you faslify conditions which supposedly existed 4,000,000,000 years ago?

To do that one has to accept that physical processes are such that evidence of conditions 4,000,000,000 years ago can be reasonably inferred from the current state.

This seems to be something a lot of literalist Great Flood believers for instance reject. They want to leave lots of wiggle room so physical processes can change almost arbitrarily if necessary (e.g., the speed of light changes monotonically and rapidly over time, the independent decay rates of various isotope pairs vary considerably across time, the rate of diversification through microevolution of Ark-borne animals increased rapidly right after the Flood).

Originally posted by telerion
To do that one has to accept that physical processes are such that evidence of conditions 4,000,000,000 years ago can be reasonably inferred from the current state.

This seems to be something a lot of literalist Great Flood believers for instance reject. They want to leave lots of wiggle room so physical processes can change almost arbitrarily if nece ...[text shortened]... sification through microevolution of Ark-borne animals increased rapidly right after the Flood).

And you think that uniformitarianism will stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny?