Jump to content


Photo

Proving A Negative


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 27 September 2016 - 12:36 PM

What he did, was make a joke. You didn't seem to get it.  ;)

 

---

 

Under evolution, one would expect transitionals.

Under evolution, we all are transitionals.

 

Therefor the argument that evolution is internally inconsistent based on the transition aspect fails completely.

 

Actually NO. You won't "expect" them, you would have to have them as a prerequisite: No billions of transitional - no bacteria to baker Evolution. 

And even if you'd assume Evolution, That still wouldn't mean that "we are all transitionals", some maybe dead ends, other may be the top of perfectibility. 

One can of course argue for "in kind" transitional. For instance the original "superhorse" may have had several "transitionals" before turning out stable in horses, donkeys and zebras. 

 

But that's change within type, not change from type to type. For instance, what about the common ancestor of horses and cows? Where are all the millions of "transitionals" between that hypothetical "common ancestor" and the present forms we can observe in nature? In fact, where is the fossils of that hypothetical common ancestor?

 

The Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution appears to the neutral observer as an enterprise that found a couple of letters and words and then designed an epic science fiction script about it meeting requirements of a vague philosophical mould. Because of the contradicting interpretations and facts found, they keep on changing the narrative and then say "hey, science is self-correcting - so don't worry".  That their is something wrong with their paradigm doesn't seem to come to their little minds.  

 

Let's face it the Evolution Theme is based on very few hard verifiable facts,a lot of  innuendo, extrapolation, non-sequiturs, appeals to authority, popularity, mockery of critics, public funding, ignoring contradicting evidence and a blind faith in implied ontological and required methodological materialism (which they prefer to call Naturalism).  

 

That theory dominates origins biology for reasons not in line with good scientific practice, but ideological, pop-cultural and political ones. And it's perverting other sciences as well. I'm just thinking about the "gender is a social construct" crowd. But I think there are many other examples. 



#62 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,748 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 01 October 2016 - 01:10 AM

Actually NO. You won't "expect" them, you would have to have them as a prerequisite: No billions of transitional - no bacteria to baker Evolution. 

And even if you'd assume Evolution, That still wouldn't mean that "we are all transitionals", some maybe dead ends, other may be the top of perfectibility. 

One can of course argue for "in kind" transitional. For instance the original "superhorse" may have had several "transitionals" before turning out stable in horses, donkeys and zebras. 

Under evolution = assuming evolution is true.

Assuming evolution is true, you would expect to find transitional fossils. This is the core assumption needed by the original poster:

 

- If evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils.

I didn't make it as strong as the original, since I disagree with the "the majority" part, as I've explained before.

 

If you disagree with my "if evolution is true, transitionals would be found in the fossils", you also disagree with the more limited "if evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils."

 

Whether or not some transitionals are a dead end or not, I'd say that is a technicality, though you are correct in that respect. The only difference between a transitional and a non-transitional being that the transitional dies out without descendants.



#63 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,243 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 11 October 2016 - 05:58 AM

Under evolution = assuming evolution is true.

Assuming evolution is true, you would expect to find transitional fossils. This is the core assumption needed by the original poster:

...

Even more, you'd expect to find them as a fairly large percentage. E.g. transitional fossils with legs turning into wings, tails into flippers etc.

 

Is that what we find? Except for mentioned debunked examples, we get cop outs like "fossilization is a rare occurrence", "we've found just a tiny percentage, yet", "your demand for evidence is unreasonable high". Well guys, if you tell us we developed from single cell organisms to fish, from fish to fishermen, etc. in a gradual evolutionary process and that's your explanation for variety within fauna and flora on Earth, I guess that demand for evidence isn't really high at all. It's merely a good start. Shouldn't one have the evidence, before making such proposition prescribed textbook content in compulsory schooling?



#64 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 29 October 2016 - 10:15 AM

 

But beyond that it is impossible to prove the negative it seems.

 

 

 

2 - 4 = - 2   :gigglesmile:

 

And (lol particularly hard), "You can't Prove a Negative" is ITSELF... "A NEGATIVE"; Ergo, if you could prove the statement true, it would inherently be FALSE !!

 

This is "Parroted" and quipped incessantly without the least bit of scrutiny; the ACTUAL Argument is:

 

 

"You can't disprove Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacy)".  e.g.,

 

 

Dark Matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole. Disprove IT!  If not, Therefore... it must be TRUE!!   :rotfl:

 

 

regards



#65 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 October 2016 - 03:32 AM

 

EnochDark Matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole. Disprove IT!  If not, Therefore... it must be TRUE!!

 

Yeah. Another example; "There's no evidence Bob wasn't the murderer therefore he was."

 

But like you say I think we can prove evolution false by negative evidence. Everyone would accept that the absence of 1 billion dolphins would disprove the claim of 1 billion dolphins.

 

Personally I think the public dupe themselves because negative evidence isn't tangible. Think about it, all of the "evidence" they show for evolution, even if only a scrap of the full percentage required, they show in the museums as tangible evidence, but all of the evidence evolution didn't happen, MUST be invisible, logically. So can you imagine if we were to create waxworks or clay sculptures of all of the evidence that is missing for evolution? In 20 years we would still be erecting the museums needed just to display them. :get_a_clue: 

 

can you see the trick? People are much more likely to buy into evidence they can see, than evidence they can't see, but the evidence we can't see is something like 99.999% compared to the 0.003% evidence for evolution, which could also be evidence much more parsimoniously, for variation of created kinds.

 

So then the only possible evidence for evolution not happening, is obviously the lack of transitionals, but that evidence does not come in tangible form, like with the missing dolphins. Can you imagine someone complaining thus; "you haven't shown the tangible evidence for the lack of dolphins." ;)

 

In such a case we can only show that what should be expected to be there if the claim was true, was not there like it should be.  



#66 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 October 2016 - 10:31 AM

 

Personally I think the public dupe themselves because negative evidence isn't tangible. Think about it, all of the "evidence" they show for evolution, even if only a scrap of the full percentage required, they show in the museums as tangible evidence, but all of the evidence evolution didn't happen, MUST be invisible, logically.

 

 

The Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence; HOWEVER (and that's a BIG 'however')... when it is 'reasonable' to expect evidence, and there is NONE, THEN the Absence of evidence IS evidence of Absence.

 

 

That brings up something funny, I told this guy the other day that TIME is not "Physical"...he said PROVE IT !!  :laugh_point:   I said, Post the Chemical Formula and location of "Time"...?  He ignored that retort right quick and said I couldn't 'Prove it'.

 

Then I said the Absence/Non-Existence of the Physical attributes of 'TIME' is THE EVIDENCE of the Absence of the Physical Attributes of TIME. (lol)

 

That was a 'Bridge Too Far' for him.

 

 

regards 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#67 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 30 October 2016 - 11:02 AM

 

 

Enoch: The Absence of evidence isn't evidence of Absence; HOWEVER (and that's a BIG 'however')... when it is 'reasonable' to expect evidence, and there is NONE, THEN the Absence of evidence IS evidence of Absence

 

Quite correct Sir. Sometimes I refer to it as the, "conspicuous absence of evidence", but some people seem to think it is the same as an argument from ignorance.

 

As you pointed out, we can prove negatives reasonably by absence of X, in many cases, if it is conspicuous. So if you claimed to be wearing socks, if I asked to see them and you took off your shoe and had none on, that is exactly the evidence we would require to prove the negative. I think people don't realise this, even though it's simple. They don't seem to understand you can have an induction of negative evidence which sometimes could even be represented tangibly. For example, we could form clay moulds of all of the evolutionary transitionals that should exist and put them in the 1 million museums we would need to display them, ;) and then we could say, "this is the evidence against evolution", and I suspect hundreds of thousands of people would likely no longer believe in evolution, because compared to the evidence for it, well, the evidence for it would be swamped.

 

It's unfortunate that the evidence for it, is tangible. (though of course as creationists, we don't really accept there is evidence for it, because that evidence is adequately explained by variation of created kinds.)



#68 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 30 October 2016 - 06:14 PM

 

For example, we could form clay moulds of all of the evolutionary transitionals that should exist and put them in the 1 million museums we would need to display them, ;) and then we could say, "this is the evidence against evolution", and I suspect hundreds of thousands of people would likely no longer believe in evolution, because compared to the evidence for it, well, the evidence for it would be swamped.

 

 

An interesting twist...Very Well Played  thumbsup.gif

 

Then have a Billboard @ each station a promoting a Contest:  'Define the "Scientific Theory" of evolution'...guess how many different answers you'd get ?  :laugh_point:   I doubt they would rival the BLANK sheets of Paper  :gigglesmile: .

 

The winner gets an imitation fossilized Finch Beak!

 

regards



#69 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 30 October 2016 - 10:56 PM

:kaffeetrinker: 

2 - 4 = - 2   :gigglesmile:

 

And (lol particularly hard), "You can't Prove a Negative" is ITSELF... "A NEGATIVE"; Ergo, if you could prove the statement true, it would inherently be FALSE !!

 

This is "Parroted" and quipped incessantly without the least bit of scrutiny; the ACTUAL Argument is:

 

 

"You can't disprove Arguments from Ignorance (Fallacy)".  e.g.,

 

 

Dark Matter is created by Invisible 3 Toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula throwing pixie dust in a Black Hole. Disprove IT!  If not, Therefore... it must be TRUE!!   :rotfl:

 

 

regards

 

Yes, "you cant prove a negative" if poorly worded.. More accurate would be to say " You cannot prove that something Doesn't Exist"  Or in Darwinian Pseudo Speak "you cant prove that something isn't possible" followed by sticking out their tongue and saying Nah Nah na Nah Nah. :kaffeetrinker:



#70 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 31 October 2016 - 03:04 AM

 

 

Enoch: Then have a Billboard @ each station a promoting a Contest:  'Define the "Scientific Theory" of evolution'...guess how many different answers you'd get ?  

 

I'm so sorry Enoch, but you seem to have said a code word I don't understand in this sentence, whatever does it mean, "evolution"? 

 

;)

 

But of course our task to replicate fictional transitional forms would be most difficult, I suppose we could just copy some monsters from Star Trek, guys.  :rotfl3: 



#71 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 06 December 2016 - 05:03 AM

Unanswered questions:

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?

 

 

 

Well, Mike the Wiz, your analogy fails.
Because real evolutionary scientists, not the imaginary ones you portray, do actively research evidence to test the ToE.
What do you think that paleontologists do, when they dig up fossils? look for evidence or hiding a lack of evidence?
What do you think people like Richard Lenski (the Lenski experiment)?
What was the purpose of the Miller-Urey experiment? Hide a lack of evidence or discover evidence for the theory?

You OP is one big fail, because in the real world exactly the opposite happens of what you describe.

Mike the Wiz, 

in your OP you make an analogy of missing dolphins and someone trying to wriggle out of the lack of dead dolphins with evolutionists.

I object your analogy: evolutionary biologists are doing research and are bringing forward evidence, they are not hiding a lack of evidence. I asked you these questions above, that you ignored. 

 

Do you care to react?



#72 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy
  • Age: 54
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Southern NY State

Posted 11 December 2016 - 02:04 AM

Yes, "you cant prove a negative" if poorly worded.. More accurate would be to say " You cannot prove that something Doesn't Exist"  Or in Darwinian Pseudo Speak "you cant prove that something isn't possible" followed by sticking out their tongue and saying Nah Nah na Nah Nah. :kaffeetrinker:

I feel your pain.

#73 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 308 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 21 February 2017 - 11:50 PM

Under evolution = assuming evolution is true.

Assuming evolution is true, you would expect to find transitional fossils. This is the core assumption needed by the original poster:

 

I didn't make it as strong as the original, since I disagree with the "the majority" part, as I've explained before.

 

If you disagree with my "if evolution is true, transitionals would be found in the fossils", you also disagree with the more limited "if evolution is true, it is unavoidable that the majority of the transitionals would be found in the fossils."

 

Whether or not some transitionals are a dead end or not, I'd say that is a technicality, though you are correct in that respect. The only difference between a transitional and a non-transitional being that the transitional dies out without descendants.

 

I feel your pain.

 

 

I thought it might be a good idea to set the record straight on who REALLY believes in "Magic"..  Creationists believe that an Omnipotent God, Who lives outside the realm of Time / Matter / Space That HE Created was the causation for all of the wonderment, order, design and complexity we see in the world / universe today..



Darwinists / Atheists have written the book on magic.. What I would consider to be Hypocrisy on Steroids..



It goes something like this



In the beginning NOTHING (Or a miniscule dot) Exploded and created all of the matter in the known universe.. no "Magic" needed  LOL..



THEN, self replicating DNA molecules, encoded with millions of lines of specified / irreducibly complexity were able to mindlessly create themselves out of Dirt, Air, Heat and Water... when Man, with all of his knowledge, technology, resources, and the ability to artificially control atmospheric and chemical conditions CANT EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE how to create DNA,!!!!    No "Magic" there ..LOL



Or the fact that Mans 10 Vital interdependent organs and their support systems have to ALL be working together in tandem or we DIE and GO EXTINCT..   Which was the "Order" for their "Evolution"? Stomach first? Brain second? Lungs third?  Or did they all "Evolve" TOGETHER?? No "Magic" Required"  LOL



Oh.. How about the chicken or Egg,?? Which came first? Oh, The Egg?? OK, Just how did all of those genetic blueprints / Specified DNA for that "Proto" Chicken GET INSIDE THAT EGG?? WHO OR WHAT PUT IT THERE????    No.. No magic Needed huh??


Or


How about 100 MYO Dinosaur Red Blood Cells, Soft Tissue, and DNA fragments being able to last 100,000,000 Years WITHOUT BIODEGRADING COMPLETELY IN 10,000 YEARS!!!!  Noo... No Magic required there....

Or


How about the European Green woodpecker that has a tongue that wraps around the back of its head, over the top of its brain and through its right nostril, We OBSERVE that WITHOUT that special tongue, The bird CANT EAT and DIES,,,, How did that tongue "Evolve" over millions of years?  Nice Trick HUH??

Or

The hummingbird has wings that flap at up to 100 times per second so it can hover at eat. Without those special wings, It CANT EAT and DIES, According to the Mindless MYO mud to Man Myth, That hummingbied supposedly evolved over 20 million years from a Tree Swift (Common glider)  Who has enough Imagination to believe THAT???

I suggest you Atheists / Darwinists take another look at your hypothetical hypothesis of mindless MYO Mud to Man Myth

We have been brainwashed and indoctrinated into believing a Lie that has ZERO Empirical Scientific Evidence to support it..



I believe that you have an emotional attachment to an A Priori assumption that Abio / Darwinism is true.. Not because it is part of science (Which it is NOT) but because...



"Evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"

RICHARD DAWKINS


 



#74 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:44 AM

Unanswered questions:

 

Mike the Wiz, 

in your OP you make an analogy of missing dolphins and someone trying to wriggle out of the lack of dead dolphins with evolutionists.

I object your analogy: evolutionary biologists are doing research and are bringing forward evidence, they are not hiding a lack of evidence. I asked you these questions above, that you ignored. 

 

Do you care to react?

Still nothing from Mike. Sad.



#75 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 22 February 2017 - 12:15 PM

I object your analogy: evolutionary biologists are doing research and are bringing forward evidence, they are not hiding a lack of evidence.

what, exactly, is the difference between hiding and ignoring?

what do you call it when a scientist brings demonstrated evidence to the table that says "your central tenet of gradual accumulations is wrong", and the other scientists dismiss it?
this little scenario happened in the mid 1940s, but yet what do we get FORCED down our throats?
you can take it to the bank that this isn't the only such . . . travesty.
added to that, there is no evidence natural selection encourages complexity, what does this mean to you????
you cannot possibly say my sources are creationist.

yes, it is indeed a travesty, because of someones dogmatic faith in something they haven't proved, we may NEVER learn the true secrets of evolution.
yes, they are secrets, because no one actually knows how it happens.

#76 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,602 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 February 2017 - 12:25 PM

I appreciate your opinion, "What If", but Driewerf has fundamentally not understood my original argument. 

 

The analogy of the dolphins is to present falsification evidence as the evidence which is not tangible or visible.

 

As you know, the transitionals are absent, and if macro evolution is true there is no escaping they would have been found, and no excuses are good enough, logically, those conjectures about why those transitionals are missing, are just escapes.

 

So basically I am describing the fallacy of slothful induction. Slothful induction occurs when a person or people, ignore the majority of the evidence, and base their conclusion on the minority evidence, instead of inferring a conclusion based on the majority evidence.

 

So as an example, imagine we walked into a forest and we counted five bare trees and didn't bother looking for the 5 million trees with leaves on, and we only focused on those 5 and concluded, "therefore this forest is bare".

 

It's the same with macro evolution, quite literally something like 99.999999999999% of the transitionals that would have had to exist had it occurred, simply are not there, which means to obey logical rules, by avoiding slothful induction, we must conclude what the majority of the evidence points to, which is, "not macro evolution."

 

Now just because we can't SEE the negative evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't count. For example we also could not SEE the missing billion dolphins.

 

So Driewerf's argument is a red-herring, because he is ignoring the vastly missing evidence and focusing on the evidence they CLAIM favours macro evolution, which we could fit into a matchbox.

 

Bonedigger recently gave a very good example of how it is easy to explain away the so called "evidence" for macro, with his examination of Tiktaalik. This is a prime example of how easy it is to come up with an explanation without evolution.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users