Jump to content


Photo

Is The Un-falsifiability Doctrine An Evolutionist Ploy?


  • Please log in to reply
68 replies to this topic

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 07:09 AM

One of the difficulties with your example is that standards of evidence have changed with time.

View Post

The standards of evidence have not changed at all. Although evolutionists wish they would.

When the gospels were written, there seems to have been a general view that miracles did happen and eye witnesses were always to be believed.

View Post

Once again, incorrect; there a great many people who disbelieved miracles (have you not read any of the paganistic apologetics that railed against Christendom in the first two centuries AD? It would be important to check your sources prior to making statements. A cursory reading of the writings by Pliny the younger, Lucian, Celsus, Tacitus and Suetonius (amongst others) should correct your misunderstanding.

We certainly do not have notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers.

View Post


First – You don’t need “notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers”. You are merely moving the goal posts to fit your need. Do you have “notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers” to prove macro-evolution? But you pretend it is a fact.
You have unimpugned testimony, from numerous eye-witnessed sources, that you cannot refute. In any court of law, that is a standard. And they were more than willing to stake their lives (in the face of persecution and torturous and horrendous deaths) against recanting what they saw.

Second – Provide a definition for “disinterested observers”, if you can. Because, what you’ll actually find are those (much like today’s evolutionists) who practice the “false neutrality” fallacy hidden within their “a priory” world-view!

In cases like this, I do not think the only choices are true or false.

View Post

The key words here are “do not think”! It’s not what you “think”, but what you can validate with actual evidence.

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 22 October 2011 - 07:23 AM


So, if I told you how to conduct a few simple inductive (repeatable, observable) experiments that would provide empirical evidence of absolute proof, you would recant the above statements?

View Post


Yes, I absolutely would.

View Post


Okay, but I’ll not allow any equivocating now!



This will be officially labeled “Overture’s Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment” **And will be strictly controlled!!**

The items you’ll need for this highly sophisticated scientific experiment =

1 each (serviceable) Bic © butane lighter (or any other brand)

1 each bare (unencumbered by gloves or ANY other shielding device) human hand (yours, so that you cannot deny the outcome).

1 each digital or analogue stop watch

1 each “digital” video camera with all the lighting, connections and cables (and fully charged battery) to allow for internet hook-up and recording (so that you cannot deny the outcome).

1 each assistant to help with the experiment.

1 each tub of ice water

1 roll of gauze bandages

1 each note pad and pen

1 each mode of transportation to the local emergency room



Instructions:

Step#1 Set up camera to record incident (I mean experiment) (use auto focus feature and decent lighting).

Step#2 Hold exposed hand, with fingers fully extended and joined, palm down, and arm directly in front of your body fully extended and joined at shoulder level.

Step#3 Have camera trained on your hand with complete hand (from wrist to fingertip) in frame.

Step#4 Have assistant turn on camera, and depress record button (insuring camera is recording incident… I mean experiment).

Step#5 Have assistant place butane lighter (working end upward, toward your exposed palm) one inch from your exposed palm, directly under the center of your exposed palm and light the lighter.

Step#6 Have assistant keep flame lit and in position for exactly 120 seconds, without you moving your hand from over the flame, or the assistant moving the flame from its position as described above.

Step#7 After the 120 seconds of the flames direct exposure to your unprotected hand, check for the following outcome (this is where I predict what happens);

A- Your eyes with be more than moist to over flowing with a liquid secretion.
B- The flesh of your exposed (and experimented upon) hand will display redness, blistering and burnt flesh.
C- The flesh of your exposed (and experimented upon) hand may smell bad/strange.
D- You will display the need to rapidly envelop you hand in the tub of ice water due to pain (don’t do this yet, because this experiment involves induction!!).

Step#8 Record findings

Step#9 Repeat steps 1 – 8 thirty times

Step# 10 Convert digital video to format that can be linked to this forum to display results.

Step# 11 Insure you have recorded your “recanting of your previous incorrect statements”.


Test number two will be labeled “Overture’s Sharp Box-cutter Blade to Wrist Experiment”

Test number three will be labeled “Overture’s Rusty Ice Pick into Pupil Experiment”
We’ll give you time to heal up before providing instructions for the next two tests.

Interesting, if juvenile.

I was hoping you actually had something to talk about.





So…. Basically, when someone destroys relativist’s argument; and does so AFTER the relativist says they will recant their false statement this is the best they can come up with?

#63 sjl197

sjl197

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 55 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 23 October 2011 - 12:11 AM

Im moving on...

I contend before the assembled Jury, that
Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

So.

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.


The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

Let the white swan counting begin.

#64 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 October 2011 - 07:28 AM

Im moving on...

You are making the above statement, then make the below assertions? Please elaborate…


I contend before the assembled Jury, that
Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

That is totally dependent upon whether or not you are attempting to promulgate Macro from Micro.

If you are simply saying that microevolution (which is merely adaptation) biology, then we can find common ground. But I would further submit, why then would you call it Evolutionary biology? Why not just call it “adaptive biology”? Why add all the unproven stigma of macroevolution to it? Why pile more upon a hypothesis or model than needs be (see the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Succinctness)?


As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

So.

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

You can believe in the “Falsifiability/ Un-Falsifiability” doctrine of thought if that is your wish, but I would further submit that your thesis doesn’t follow at all; or at least doesn’t follow in most all circumstances; unless you are of the mind that the following statement (by another respondent in this thread) is true? And if so, as the OP asks for, can you “back up your statements with facts!”

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

View Post

In which case we have an even deeper evolutionary theological discussion to dig into.

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

Hey… If you cannot deal with “that which corresponds with reality” you may not want to get into this debate. Because “reality” has a tendency to rip the roof off of hypothesis, and expose it’s underlying intent. AND, adherence to the OP, its questions and its requirements are in play here…

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

The fallacious “Argumentum ad Populum” is never a good tact… There was a time when the “vast majority” believed that African Americans were a sub-species, and we see how that turned out didn’t we (there are also many-many other examples of the ‘majority rules’ falling flat on its collective face)? You further exacerbate your difficulties with the fallacious and prejudicial term “evolutionary research”, and promulgate the “single common ancestor” hypothesis (which, by the way, via the evolutionary model, is a must), when this OP is about SCIENCE in general, and the evolutionists tendency to insert relativistic terminology as its back-up.

You can complain all you want about De_Skudd’s “Overture’s Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment”, but the fact that it is empirical science, and it IS (per its parameters) un-falsifiable! Therefore it dismantles your attempt at a falsifiability doctrine. And any (and all) attempts to wriggle out of this tight logic have only been met with squirming by the relativists.

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.

If the above were true, then absolutely NO evolutionist would (or could) claim that “evolution predicts this’ or “evolution predicts that”; but we see this ALL THE TIME, do we not? Further, we can, in fact, determine a great many predictions “with confidence”, because of inductive empirical science, and what we have learnt from the past. If you don’t believe me, simply complete De_Skudd’s “Overture’s Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment”, and you’ll soon find where you are totally wrong!

The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

Or, how it is irrelevant to science when it comes to truth…

Let the white swan counting begin.

Okay.

#65 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 23 October 2011 - 08:18 AM

what i dont understand is how some come here and claim to scientists and talk to us about what science they do. i dont know about you. if i worked in a lab all day or what not why would i want to go home and talk about what i did to a bunch of strangers and try to teach them about what i do.

i work on cars. i wouldnt join the sae forums or like and blog on how they poorly design cars, though i rant that all the time when i have to work on those things,lol

#66 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 October 2011 - 01:56 PM

[quote] name='Overture' timestamp='1242978276' post='30628']
The question of whether anything at all can be known as certain has been puzzling philosophers for millennia. Plato discussed shadows on the wall of a cave, Descartes set out on the noble quest of doubting everything he possibly could - and found himself incapable of doubting only his existence and ability to think, and even in pop culture the film The Matrix asks the same question.

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

Science accepts this limitation with a rueful shrug and goes merrily about the business of describing what we see, whether it's actually real or not.
[/quote]

Overture,

You posted, "You can't know ANYTHING for sure." Are you sure of that?

TeeJay

#67 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 October 2011 - 02:45 PM

[quote] name='Overture' timestamp='1243021054' post='30682']
I understand that you are attempting to show that, should I place a lighter to my hand, I would perceive pain, and that my hand burned. However, this fails to address the fundamental question of whether or not I can trust that my perceptions are an accurate reflection of the universe.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. Nor am I trying to be rude, I'm simply observing that this is a major philosophical problem that has been thought about for ages without anyone coming to a satisfactory resolution.

If you want to have a philosophical debate, I'm game. If you want to be a jackass have fun on your own.

Edit: And since you have not only taken an attitude, but also called someone a cuss word. You are banned for it.
[/quote]

Overture,

If you could not "trust that your perceptions were an accurate reflection of the universe" when you held a butane lighter under your hand, you are certainly not qualified to conclude him a "jackass." No?

#68 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 23 October 2011 - 02:51 PM

name='Overture' timestamp='1242978276' post='30628']
The question of whether anything at all can be known as certain has been puzzling philosophers for millennia. Plato discussed shadows on the wall of a cave, Descartes set out on the noble quest of doubting everything he possibly could - and found himself incapable of doubting only his existence and ability to think, and even in pop culture the film The Matrix asks the same question.

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

Science accepts this limitation with a rueful shrug and goes merrily about the business of describing what we see, whether it's actually real or not.

Overture,

You posted, "You can't know ANYTHING for sure." Are you sure of that?

TeeJay




:lol: I know, I busted him here on that same issue

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

View Post

After sifting through all of that, you did finally say what you really thought there. So, if I have this correct, you're saying no absolutes can be proven?


But he never responded… Although De_skudd took him to task and totally demolished Overture’s Solipsist’s world view... Read posts 8, and 10 through 17. And Overture has no real reply so he just spews equivocations and side-stepping all over the place. I then busted him out in post 22.

What you can gather from this thread in particular, is that materialistic evolutionists in particular, when pressed with actual evidence, rely on massive amounts of faith, and failed metaphysical argumentation.

#69 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 23 October 2011 - 03:03 PM

[quote] name='sjl197' timestamp='1319353888' post='76034']
Im moving on...

I contend before the assembled Jury, that
Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

So.

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.


The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

Let the white swan counting begin.
[/quote]

If you "assume a single common ancestor" or evolution, you are reasoning in a circle:

When it comes to origins of first life or the universe, atheists have no materialistic explanation at the ready. So instead of assuming an agent-causation (such as God), they automatically insert a gap. And they immediately argue, “What! So Goddidit?” The theistic answer of an Agent causing the universe and first life is immediately dismissed out of hand. Atheists refuse to admit that the gap has been plugged by the theist with an adequate explanation because of their belief that since only matter exists, there has to be a materialistic explanation.

If we carefully consider this reasoning, it turns out to be Circular Reasoning. There has to be a gap, because there is no materialistic explanation. There has to be a materialistic explanation because naturalism is true. But since it’s naturalism itself which is at issue in the discussion, when atheists assume there is a gap—because they have no materialistic explanation—they are assuming that which needs to be proved.

To satisfy Jason who works on cars: If two atheists were studying how a car works they would never dismiss a priori that it must be the result of a car designer and builder before they delved into how it works. But ironically, they dismiss the possiblity of a Creator God out of hand when studying the universe.

TeeJay




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users