Having thought about the recent question in the other thread where the poster, River Jordan, complained we can't change science as creationists or offer proof against evolution, I was going to give my arguments against evolution but I think an interesting side-issue is the discussion about proving negatives.
For my example, I would give a reasonable falsification of the positive, as being negative evidence falsified by the tollens. But beyond that it is impossible to prove the negative it seems.
So what am I getting at? Well, imagine as an analogy, a claim that one thousand dolphins had washed ashore on a beach, was claimed. If we got to the beach ten minutes later and there was 5 dolphins, that would mean that according to logical rules, 9,995 pieces of negative, invisible evidence, would falsify the claim.
But what do we say if someone objects and says, "but it still could somehow be true, there could have been 100 lorries waiting to take them away and the waves of the sea have washed away the marks left on the beach."
An absurd post-hoc extra hypothesis, invented to wriggle out of falsification. It's even worse if such excuses are made about things in the past, because we can't verify or falsify those claims, for example in the present, someone might have witnessed the 100 lorries or they might be caught on CCTV, or whatever.
But the fact some idiot can argue such a thing means that technically, how can we disprove a claim?
Is it not the same with evolution? The only thing we can reasonably provide as evidence it didn't happen is to show it didn't happen which would mean that the evidence to falsify evolution would be invisible evidence, like with the dolphins.
99.999999% of the transitionals, like those 9,995 dolphins, are conspicuously missing. (invisible evidence, but nevertheless falsification evidence, because absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence is expected to certainly exist).
Question; how can we disprove evolution if evolutionists won't allow us to?
They are free to create imaginative, "escapes", so that they can forever argue that somehow evolution happened. But logically, the modus tollens rule means evolution is reasonably falsified;
- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.
- The majority of transitionals are NOT found in the fossils, therefore evolution is false.
(CORRECT; modus tollens.)
(The objection that they have found a comparatively small handful of transitionals, related to the full percentage, is slothful induction fallacy.) The ad-hoc excuses as to why the fossils purposefully hide evolution but deliberately show the creatures that have always existed (real lifeforms) is quite silly. If the fossils are a history of time and the evolution of modern forms, it would show it. Instead it only shows factual life forms, not fictional ones.
EXAMPLE: a turtle or a bat or a jellyfish or a starfish, can be found fossilized, but the fictional things that would have evolved into turtles, bats, jellyfish and starfish, are conspicuously absent. But why would the fossils hide the fictional forms and only reveal the true forms, unless only the true forms exist, and the fictional transitional forms are fiction.