Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Unfalsifiable


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#21 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 January 2009 - 11:24 AM

Hey theredfox,

Why don't you start a thread telling us which parts of the definitions you disagree with?

Adam

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 16 January 2009 - 10:37 PM

Im afraid, Adam, that those definitions are wrong, or at least, highly misleading. Saying they are right, does not make them so. Theres more, much more, to evolution then that.

View Post

Following the link, I find

What is evolution? – When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution. By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life). By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell).

What got left out? Spiritual evolution, or something?

Im not trying to break the forum rules or anything, i just think we should take an impartial and honest view of things.

Impartial?

Why debate evolution, or more to the point, how can one side convince the other, if we begin the debate with falicy? I wouldnt, for example, dare presume i know enough about creationism, or indeed your beliefs Adam, to set down in stone a rigid set of beliefs that creationist argument is defined by- that should be adhered to. 

Do you mean to suggest this has been done? I'm not aware of any requirement here for evolutionists to adhere to any set of beliefs. I'd consider leaving if one were imposed. The last thing I want is for them to go on believing in falsehood.

My argument is more sophisticated, and more adaptable, then that.

We'll see.

I do know enough about evolution, however, to state that rigidly defining and enforcing a creationist "definition" is ultimately self-limiting and potentially misleading.

Debating that which isn't defined is ultimately a waste of time.

I have no such "definition" of creationist theory. Why should you have one, or need one, for evolutionary theory?

Respectfully,

theredfox

View Post

Why define any term? I think the answer is self-evident, just like motives for misdefining terms are self-evident.

If the forum rules on attempts to redefine 'evolution' are not to your liking, I suggest you contact the management.

#23 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 January 2009 - 11:20 PM

This thread has been entertaining to say the least, as no one seems to be able to offer up a reasonable test of the theory of evolution. So far about all I’ve seen is that “a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify the theory of evolution”. Not only is this not a reasonable “test”, even if it were it would not falsify the theory of evolution because the hopeful monster advocates would be all over it - its already been offered up as something that would be evidence for the theory!

This thread has done much to show the house of sand the evolution “theory” sits on.

Fred

#24 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 17 January 2009 - 11:24 PM

Hey theredfox,

Why don't you start a thread telling us which parts of the definitions you disagree with?

Adam

View Post


Redfox, I too would like to know what you find objectionable to the definition given.

We seem to have gotten a lot of just-so bluster around here lately about how we're all "wrong" about this or that, with no argument presented.

Fred

#25 Guest_theredfox_*

Guest_theredfox_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 January 2009 - 11:35 AM

When the word evolution is used in this forum, it can refer to chemical, cosmic, or biological evolution. By chemical evolution, we mean either the origin of the elements, or abiogenesis (life from non-life). By cosmic evolution we mean the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, etc. By biological evolution, we mean the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell). We do not debate small-scale change and adaptation (termed micro-evolution by evolutionists), on this forum since both sides agree it occurs. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that since micro-evolution is true, then large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution must also be true, or the canard that evolution is simply a shift in allele frequencies (even my college Biology book refrains from using this as a global definition of evolution, but instead refers to this as micro-evolution[1]). An example that occurred on this forum was the fallacious claim that "Domesticated animals are a perfectly valid example of evolution at work." Anyone who continues to use such equivocal arguments for evolution after being referred to this FAQ will be banned from the forum


My first contention is that "cosmic and chemical evolution" are entirely unrelated to the biological theory of evolution, and should not be considered contiguously as one "grand naturalistic theory". Same with the theory of abiogenesis. Such a wide approach cannot possibly generate a meaningful, and testable, hypothesis. From my perspective, it seems you disagree more with the science of biological evolution - you have more "bones to pick with it" so to speak - then most aspects of cosmological or chemical science. You may disagree with aspects of these sciences, but i feel the implications of biological evolution (i.e. an undirected, competitive process) are especially at odds with creationist theory. Basically, i wish to know whether you see biological evolution as a opportunity to critique the whole of science, or is it the main issue?
Further to this, i would argue that it is wrong to state that micro-evolution cannot account for "macroevolutionary" changes, when a enormous amount of evidence suggests it can, including, but not limited to; comparisons of conserved mitochondrial and nuclear ribosomal DNA and protein sequences. Moreover, a possible mechanism that could prevent macroevolutionary events is not suggested, or supported with evidence. Which mechanism, genetic or otherwise, would stop microevolution after a certain "acceptable" limit? Surely, if you accept the reality of DNA and ultimately protein - that of highly labile molecules - you surely appreciate that there is no universal "template" for an organism or indeed a taxanomic group. The only reason any two humans (of appropiate s@x) can breed a child is that genetic, and thus physiological differences, are minimal. There lies the problem. Genetics, from a proto-bacteria to a human, works on a gradient, allowing evolution.
The phrase "molecules to man" is loaded and misleading. Evolutionary science has never postulated that molecules "somehow" evolved overnight into mankind, and the phrase could perhaps imply that evolution somehow degrades humanity. Intead, i feel that evolution puts it into context.
As for domesticated animals, or more specifically, artificial breeding, it quite clearly evidences the evolution and fixation of derived traits (accept we are the selection pressure, rather than other biotic or abiotic factors). Does it show evolution at a high taxonomic level? Of course not, given the enormous timescale needed.

...This non-sequitur is easily exposed by the fact that virtually all of the great scientists of the past, who laid the foundation of all the major branches of science, were creation scientists. The long list includes Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Kelvin, Pasteur, Pascal, Faraday, Von Braun, etc. This naturalistic-only view of science also limits the amount of knowledge obtainable, and therefore subverts the true meaning of science. Consider arson investigation or the SETI project – both have rightly been called scientific, and are used to determine if there is an intelligent source connected to the evidence gathered. It is a double standard to agree this is scientific, yet on the other hand deny that the same principles do not apply to origins and the question of intelligent design. The word science should also not be watered down to such an extent that it embraces speculation. Bottom line: Do not pigeonhole the word science into the naturalistic-only box.


Just because past scientists had religious beliefs - that science was considered to be studying the act of creation- does not mean they would necessarily hold them today. Knowledgable as they were, they quite clearly did not know as much as the scientists of today. Furthermore, evolution, and naturalistic science as a whole, make no claim as to the existence of god or not. A naturalistic approach is needed, however, precisely because god cannot be measured or defined. Which god created everything anyway? Naturalism, if anything, is an ally, not an enemy of religion or free thinking, acting somewhat as a "quality control check". Galileo himself said "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use".

It is widely known that the term species is highly controversial and there is no consensus among scientists of what constitutes a species[2]. The term was invented by the famous creationist Carolus Linnaeus, the father of modern taxonomy, as the lowest taxonomic rank in his classification system (Linnaean classification). Up until the early nineteenth century, 'species' and the biblical 'kind' were considered the same. However as biology progressed and variations were noted, the two definitions drifted apart. For example, populations that diverged after geographic isolation and developed different mating habits/traits are often classified as separate species (called allopatric speciation), even though the species may be capable of interbreeding. Creationists agree that this type of speciation, as it is currently defined, occurs. However, the fact certain varieties may not readily interbreed does not mean they are incapable of doing so. For example, it is now fairly well known that Darwin’s finches can and do interbreed, yet they remain separate species, probably because the finch is such a darling of evolution that the evolutionists are not compelled to correct the classification. With such a loose interpretation of what constitutes a species, one could argue that different varieties of dog that don’t readily interbreed could be classified into separate species (such as the St Bernard and Chihuahua). The muddy waters are further exacerbated by the evidences we’ve uncovered for rapid speciation, which is counter to Neo-Darwinian style evolution since it is mathematically impossible for random mutation(s) to become fixed in the populations cited in the link in only a few generations. Given that the definition of species has become loose and wide, we believe claims that speciation proves evolution is equivocation and intellectually dishonest. Many evolutionists have also failed to recognize the difference between species and kind (baramin), which has invariably led to the remarkably common strawman argument that “Noah could not have possibly fitted millions of species on the ark” (Noah could have easily fit all the required kinds of animals on the ark to populate the earth after the flood – link). In short, discussion on speciation when debating creation vs. evolution should be used with caution and not in the equivocal or strawman manner previously described. Generally speaking, we encourage debating change at the family taxonomic rank or higher, which more closely fits the Biblical kind (baramin). Debating sympatric speciation is also acceptable.


A species is generally defined by a group of interbreeding individuals; crucially, with the ability to produce fertile offspring. Its a real, logical concept. Elsewise, producing infertile offspring is totally counterproductive; both energetically and in terms of fitness (both direct and indirect). Any species that did so would immediately go extinct. In animals, its only ever with the most closely related organisms that hybrids occur, and most often, any offspring are totally infertile. There are a vast variety of limiting factors that prevent cross-species breeding, including geographical, behavioural, mechanical, cellular, and genetic barriers. However, some organisms, for a variety of reasons, have greater degrees of plasticity in regards to cross-breeding, including bacteria, fungi and some plants. Thus, even though "species" is undoubtably an actual biological unit, its effectiveness for universally classifying organisms again works on a gradient. In reality, the "species" concept is a shorthand measure of relative genetic diversity and adaptability, serving testament to the evolutionary processes creating genetic variation and divergence. Simply put, life is not "clean cut" - one species, two species, three species. Rather, successful genetic "models" are "plucked out" tending to coagulate together along a gradient of other possibilities. "It is not the strongest that survive, but those most adaptive to change".

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"1 [emphasis in original].  This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute. It really amounts to minor genetic variation that may result from selective breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress on a population resulting in adaptation to an environment (i.e. the peppered moth in England, or drug-resistant bacteria). Microevolution is a misnomer, since it is not evolution as most people understand the word, but instead is adaptation and variation within a kind of organism - lizards are still lizards, dogs are still dogs, and peppered moths are still peppered moths! Evolutionists invariably appeal to this kind of "evolution" as "proof" for their theory.


But, as has already been discussed, micro- and macroevolution are the same simple process - protein change. The variation that may produce one child with red hair, one with brown and one with blonde, may, over time, be selected for to an extent that having red hair is a strong selective advantage. You tell me how one can objectively distinguish or quantify "micro or macro" between one protein change and another? Or are we judging the possibility of evolution purely from outward appearence? Moreover, how are protein changes limited?


Finally, there is large-scale evolution that may be referred to as molecules-to-man evolution, a theory that organisms over a long period of time have evolved into more complex organisms through the improvement or addition of new organs and bodily structures. This is how the word evolution is generally understood by the public. In fact it was defined this way for many years until evolutionists began evolving the word!4

Molecules-to-man evolution is the type of evolution that my web site seeks to portray as a "fairy tale for grownups".  It is unobservable, untestable, and has little, if any, evidence to support it. At best it should be labeled a low-grade hypothesis. Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as "evidence" that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution.


Im afraid that the phrase "molecules to man evolution" is again highly misleading. No where in the modern synthesis is evolution constrained to produce more complex organs, structures or organisms "From slime to man". If it is understood as so, then it is wrongly understood (and defined), and, furthermore, completely contradictary to available evidence. Complexity, itself a highly subjective measure, comes about as a side-effect of - not the purpose of- evolution.

Respectfully,

theredfox

#26 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,533 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 18 January 2009 - 09:32 PM

Im afraid that the phrase "molecules to man evolution" is again highly misleading. No where in the modern synthesis is evolution constrained to produce more complex organs, structures or organisms "From slime to man".

View Post


And I’m afraid there is little doubt you will waste all of our time here. For starters this sentence is completely nonsensical. NeoDarwinism (biological evolution) claims that all life evolved from a common ancestor. That means that the eyes in your dome, the ears on your head, your brain (well,…), all EVOLVED at some point. Now last I checked these are COMPLEX organs. Your sentence also contradicts your earlier strawman where you wrote “Evolutionary science has never postulated that molecules "somehow" evolved overnight into mankind, and the phrase could perhaps imply that evolution somehow degrades humanity.”

To the cooler you go where you can respond there. You will need to give us a really, really, good reason to let you back into the main forum. Think about why you would want to debate here, since this is a place where we debate ORIGINS, such as “the origin of species from a common ancestor (all life from a single cell)”. Your strawmen and equivocations on evolution simply will not fly in this forum, as our prime directive is to identify time-wasters and send them packing.

Fred

#27 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 19 January 2009 - 05:23 AM

From those who make the rules on what will be accepted and rejected? And then decide who will have to abide by such rules and who won't have to. As long as this much power is controlled by the same people who want evolution to be true, the corruption and bias will continue.


What are you talking about? I am simply telling you what 'falsifiable' means.

If a possible hypothetical situation exists that directly contradicts the theory of evolution, then that theory is falsifiable. Its really that simple.

How?


I don't know. But since this bizarre occurence WILL falsify the theory of evolutio, the theory of evolution must be falsifiable. Thats what falsifiable MEANS.


The platapus comes to mind. That thing looks like something that came from a evolution orgy. But because we also know that several different species are not compatible to mate, that could never happen now could it?
Yes this is true. But when the time-line needed for evolution to work is disproved, the theory is disproved also.


The platypus does not violate the nested hierarchy.
The time-line has not been 'disproved'.

If you think otherwise, you will have to show how you have reached those conclusions.

Question: Why cannot we observe the millions of years of evolution? Time, right? Disprove the amount of time required, all of evolution falls flat on it's face. I am surprised you never knew that.

View Post


I DID know that, and I agree 100%. If you can show that there was not enough time for evolution to happen in, then evolution is in trouble. So all you have to do is show that there was not enough time. I would like you to show me how you do this.

#28 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 19 January 2009 - 07:08 AM

I don't know. But since this bizarre occurence WILL falsify the theory of evolutio, the theory of evolution must be falsifiable. Thats what falsifiable MEANS.

View Post


Hey BVZ,

If you discovered that evolution and what it's become isn't falsifiable, but assumed, would you take a different perspective towards it?

Adam

#29 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 January 2009 - 03:31 PM

So if there are no problems, then evolution is no longer a workable theory. Neither is it falsifiable. All theories have to be falsifiable.

View Post



Like I said, I'm not an expert, but I think there are ways to falsify the current evolutionary theory. If we found a modern cetacean fossil in a lower strata than a modern cetacean it would falsify evolution. That one borders on cliche. The study done on human chromosom 2 where it was shown to be a fusion of 2 ape chromosomes could have gone the other way and been seen by many as falsification. A human being with a layer of peptidoglycan surrounding their skin cells would destroy the nested set hierarchy evolution depends on because such an organism would not fit in with any other organisms.

A lack of issue with a theory doesn't make in unfalsifiable. A problem arises when observed data doesn't fit predictions. At which point the theory must be modified. For example Galileo->Newton->Einstein when describing the history of gravitational theory.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 22 January 2009 - 04:15 PM

I was watching a show on the science channel today and could not help but to laugh at the bias.

I caught the show towards the end, where a climber was searching for fossils on a high mountain top. He found sea shells. Then the question comes: How did they get up here. The commentator made the remark: There is "only one explaination". Then went on to talk about it and show animation of it to sell the idea.

Another viable answer is the flood. Now why make a comment like that unless they deem it as an absolute truth? Or unless they intend that what they already accept as truth (evolution) can work no other way. So nothing else matters.

I find comments often made like this that keep science stuck in the mud on going into any direction. Accepting evidence that only supports a certain accepted view is not science, nor does it support the method in which science is supposed to work.

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 22 January 2009 - 04:20 PM

Yeah but, Ikester, don't you know that evolutionary theory is like 150 years old? It must be true. :D

#32 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:04 PM

I was watching a show on the science channel today and could not help but to laugh at the bias.

I caught the show towards the end, where a climber was searching for fossils on a high mountain top. He found sea shells. Then the question comes: How did they get up here. The commentator made the remark: There is "only one explaination". Then went on to talk about it and show animation of it to sell the idea.

Another viable answer is the flood. Now why make a comment like that unless they deem it as an absolute truth? Or unless they intend that what they already accept as truth (evolution) can work no other way. So nothing else matters.

I find comments often made like this that keep science stuck in the mud on going into any direction. Accepting evidence that only supports a certain accepted view is not science, nor does it support the method in which science is supposed to work.

View Post


I didn't see the show, but I can guess that it had something to do with plate techtonics. It's the most plausible explanation there is to scientists. Science doesn't consider a flood a viable explanation because there currently isn't enough water on the planet to reach the top of a mountain even if all water on the earth were converted to liquid form.

BTW, even mountains conform to the geographical interpretation of evolution. The fossils found in the outermost layers still contain the most recent fossils.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 23 January 2009 - 12:11 AM

I didn't see the show, but I can guess that it had something to do with plate techtonics.  It's the most plausible explanation there is to scientists.  Science doesn't consider a flood a viable explanation because there currently isn't enough water on the planet to reach the top of a mountain even if all water on the earth were converted to liquid form.


There has been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.

http://www.ldolphin....deepwaters.html


BTW, even mountains conform to the geographical interpretation of evolution.  The fossils found in the outermost layers still contain the most recent fossils.

View Post


Expansion due to 30 + oceans of water going under the earth's crust can do the same thing.

So I just listed one problem with the geographical interpretation of evolution. But let's see if any evolutionist will ponder the idea, or pawn it off as nothing so that their theory will remain an implied absolute truth which is not a theory when nothing else will ever be pondered.

The flood also has a better mechanism for getting the water into the mineral called wadsleyite. By pressure caused by the flood (13+ miles worth, every 33 feet is one atmosphere, one atmosphere is little more than 14 psi), the boiling point of the water would have been raised enough to the point of melting lead and higher. Which means it would have gone into the mineral with no problem. Just google the temperature of black smokers.

Now could you produce a mechanism that would put 30 oceans worth of water in a very hot upper mantle mineral? And by the way, the old earth model does not deal with this extra water such as:

1) Where it came from?
2) Was it ever on top of the earth?
3) Was the earth ever flooded by it?
4) By what mechanism was it pushed down there?

And by the way, because all this water causes a problem for evolution and old earth. This evidence is actually ignored. So will you also join your peers and ignore it as well so you theory can remain an implied absolute truth? Or will you admit this causes a problem that needs to be worked out, so that evolution becomes a workable theory?

Also, here is an example of how evolutionists deal with evidence concerning anything to do with creation or the flood.

http://forums.randi....ead.php?t=50628

#34 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2009 - 06:47 PM

There has been testing and research done on the upper mantle of the earth A mineral called wadsleyite, holds about 3% water by weight. And the estimated amount of wadsleyite that exists, the water contained in it works out to be about 30 of our oceans. 30 oceans worth of water is more than enough to flood the earth to the highest mountain.


500 is the high estimate, and you've done no calculations that demonstrate just how high up the water would go.


Expansion due to 30 + oceans of water going under the earth's crust can do the same thing.

So I just listed one problem with the geographical interpretation of evolution. But let's see if any evolutionist will ponder the idea, or pawn it off as nothing so that their theory will remain an implied absolute truth which is not a theory when nothing else will ever be pondered.

The flood also has a better mechanism for getting the water into the mineral called wadsleyite. By pressure caused by the flood (13+ miles worth, every 33 feet is one atmosphere, one atmosphere is little more than 14 psi), the boiling point of the water would have been raised enough to the point of melting lead and higher. Which means it would have gone into the mineral with no problem. Just google the temperature of black smokers.


How can water going under the Earth's crust deposit the rock layers and fossils contained inside the same way on a mountain top as its seen everywhere else in the world???

Black smokers aren't relevent because they have liquid water coming out of them not a hydrous compound like the wadsleyite you mention. You also misunderstand what black smokers demonstrate. The immense pressure prevents the liquid water from vaporizing it doesn't produce the heat neccessary to do anything. So my question to you is where does the heat come from because you're not really explaining anything.

1. What broke the water lose???
2. What put the water back in???


Now could you produce a mechanism that would put 30 oceans worth of water in a very hot upper mantle mineral? And by the way, the old earth model does not deal with this extra water such as:

1) Where it came from?
2) Was it ever on top of the earth?
3) Was the earth ever flooded by it?
4) By what mechanism was it pushed down there?


No I can't, and I won't try as I do not have a PhD in geology, geophysics, or any other discipline for that matter. However, my inability to answer doesn't make your explanations correct.

#35 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:30 PM

tharock220,

Well, we are getting a little off topic here. If you want to start a thread asking the same questions, I will be glad to answer you there.

As far as the thread subject goes, it's into the second page and no evolutionist has even attempted a list with problems associated with evolution theory. Are we to assume:

1) Evolution is a true fact because it has "no problems" what so ever?
2) Evolution is a absolute not a theory?
3) Or by faith, evolution is a religion because by faith there is no problems?

Now you might think that I'm mocking evolution and those who believe that it is true. I am not. It would not have been so easy to get to this point if evolution were as scientific as it is claimed to be. A list would have been provided on the first page. Or a link listing the problems on a evolutionist page. But neither can be provided.

How are evolutionists supposed to work as a team solving the theories problems if you guys won't even admit that any exist? I don't get it really. How can you guys claim that creation is a lie and you won't even follow your own rules. What rules?

1) Stanley Miller supposetly proved abiogenesis, right? Now every finding like this is supposed to be testable and retestable in a lab to prove such findings. Now explain why no one has retested Miller's results to reconfirm what he did? Breaking your own rules.

2) All theories are supposed to remain falsifiable. To keep the theory as an ongoing workable theory, all problems need to be listed so that everyone knows what they are and can work on them. But not one website, or one evolutionist here can do that. And as far as any evidence is concerned, it always points to evolution because it is supposed to. And any problems with it, just get ignored or explained away with one of the usual explain away answers.

3) Evidence is always supposed to lead science into the direction of truth. Evidence is not supposed to be made to fit or conform to current views of that truth. Dr. Lovejoy was recorded on Nova using a power saw and a die grinder to reshape the pelvis and hip joint of Lucy so she could "appear" to have walked up right. Is that science? No. For if a creationist had taken creation evidence and done this, would you guys accept it after he was finished as viable evidence? No more than I will accept Dr. Lovejoys altering of evidence as viable.

As far as I'm concerned, after seeing what Lovejoy (link) did to Lucy to make it "appear" she walked upright. And that the St. Louis Zoo has a wax image of Lucy with human feet and hands. I no longer trust any evolution evidence. All of this is just a repeat of what Dawson (link), and other scientists did with Piltdown man. WhatHaeckel (link) did knowingly, and with intent, to misrepresent drawings.

And now all of these things are explained away. If you evolutionists don't believe this, then what were you just thinking to post while reading this? Was it that these things should not be done. or was it a denial of it and justification for those actions. Such as: Scientists revealed it, so that makes it okay? That's like saying: A thief revealed another thief's bad deed, so that makes the whole robbery okay. What kind of scientific logic is that anyway?

Then some of you will say: I would not be able to have a computer etc... if it were not for science. What? That is supposed to justify lying on purpose? What scientific logic is that? An excuse is a untruth that is cloaked in reason. And every time someone uses one of those types of excuses, I know that they know they believe in a something that is not true. Other wise they need to explain why such supposed truth needs such reason to justify it?

The inability of any evolutionist to provide a list of known problems with evolution has really opened my eyes to what the supposed theory really is. Even Fred (owner of this forum) is amazed at this. I am actually almost speechless in what this thread proves about evolution.

#36 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 10:59 PM

I agree.Creationists are'nt afraid to say distant starlight,etc. are problems for our models.Why are they afraid to admit any?

I suspect admitting problems while adhering to a theory proves faith and none of them will ever admit evolutuion is a religion.

#37 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 26 January 2009 - 11:13 PM

My first contention is that "cosmic and chemical evolution" are entirely unrelated to the biological theory of evolution, and should not be considered contiguously as one "grand naturalistic theory". Same with the theory of abiogenesis. Such a wide approach cannot possibly generate a meaningful, and testable, hypothesis.


Why not?Creationists are bound by a "grand supernatural theory",God created the heavens and the earth.If you can't explain all of it,then why explain any of it?

#38 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 27 January 2009 - 01:11 AM

Some times when I'm bored, I'll surf one of the atheist-evolutionist forums. I found a thread that is basically the same as this one here:
http://richarddawkin...php?f=4&t=68718

Now over there they could not list the problems with a falsifiable theory either. Now how ironic is that?

P.S., Now watch that thread either get deleted, or edited. It has already happened in one thread where I pointed out, on my website once, how evolutionists start violence by burning Bibles in front of churches (they were planning it right on the forum). Yep this was an actual thread allowed on the Dawkins forum. When I pointed out that Dawkins himself could be held liable for promoting such stuff, and someone got hurt. Instead of admitting it was wrong, they edited the original post along with any other post that seemed to promote the violence. They acted like nothing like that was ever said.

So now since I have shown it is even a problem on their own forums to make a list that makes evolution an actual workable theory (falsifiable), they will probably change it.

In fact, I would challenge Dawkins himself to make such a list. I bet the evolutionist expert can't even list 10 things. But I will make it easy and say 5.

#39 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts
  • Age: 27
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • South Africa

Posted 27 January 2009 - 06:25 AM

Hey BVZ,

If you discovered that evolution and what it's become isn't falsifiable, but assumed, would you take a different perspective towards it?

Adam

View Post



Some times when I'm bored, I'll surf one of the atheist-evolutionist forums. I found a thread that is basically the same as this one here:
http://richarddawkin...php?f=4&t=68718

Now over there they could not list the problems with a falsifiable theory either. Now how ironic is that?

P.S., Now watch that thread either get deleted, or edited. It has already happened in one thread where I pointed out, on my website once, how evolutionists start violence by burning Bibles in front of churches (they were planning it right on the forum). Yep this was an actual thread allowed on the Dawkins forum. When I pointed out that Dawkins himself could be held liable for promoting such stuff, and someone got hurt. Instead of admitting it was wrong, they edited the original post along with any other post that seemed to promote the violence. They acted like nothing like that was ever said.

So now since I have shown it is even a problem on their own forums to make a list that makes evolution an actual workable theory (falsifiable), they will probably change it.

In fact, I would challenge Dawkins himself to make such a list. I bet the evolutionist expert can't even list 10 things. But I will make it easy and say 5.

View Post


You are not paying attention. I already told you why your argument is flawed in my first post on this thread. Ill quote myself:

It is not neccesary for a theory to have problems in order for it to be falsifiable. All that is needed is a hypothecal situation that could possibly invalidate the theory. For instance, a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify the theory of evolution. Hence, the theory if falsifiable. Another situtation that would falsify the theory of evolution is the discovery of any creature that does not fit into the nested hiererchy.


Did you miss this?

Heres the important bit: "Having problems" does not equal "falsifiable".

Evolution is falsifiable because a hypothetical situation exists that would falsify it. I mentioned this earlier as well.

I'll quote myself again:

It is not neccesary for a theory to have problems in order for it to be falsifiable. All that is needed is a hypothecal situation that could possibly invalidate the theory. For instance, a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify the theory of evolution. Hence, the theory if falsifiable. Another situtation that would falsify the theory of evolution is the discovery of any creature that does not fit into the nested hiererchy.


Did you miss this as well? I know you didn't because you responded to it!

Let me ask you a question: Do you think that a giraffe giving birth to a dog would NOT falsify evolution?

#40 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 27 January 2009 - 01:11 PM

It is not neccesary for a theory to have problems in order for it to be falsifiable. All that is needed is a hypothecal situation that could possibly invalidate the theory. For instance, a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify the theory of evolution. Hence, the theory if falsifiable. Another situtation that would falsify the theory of evolution is the discovery of any creature that does not fit into the nested hiererchy


A giraffe giving birth to a dog is'nt a falsification,it's an impossibility.Relying on impossibilities to invalidate a theory is goal post shifting with a vengance.Relying on a mental abstract called the geologic column to corroborate the mental abstract called evolution is circular reasoning.You cant validate one assumption with another assumption.

It's also circular to conclude that fish and amphibians exist,therefore one must have evolved into the other.Without putting that theory to the test,it is'nt a theory test.

We can test the nested hiererchy by comparing genomes and when we do we find bird genes in a platypus.Monotremes were never in the bird lineage.

In 2004, researchers at the Australian National University discovered the Platypus has ten s@x chromosomes, compared with two (XY) in most other mammals (for instance, a male Platypus is always XYXYXYXYXY). Although given the XY designation of mammals, the s@x chromosomes of the Platypus are more similar to the ZZ/ZW s@x chromosomes found in birds. The platypus genome also has both reptilian and mammalian genes associated with egg fertilization. It also lacks the mammalian s@x-determining gene SRY, meaning that the process of s@x determination in the Platypus remains unknown. A draft version of the platypus genome sequence was published in Nature on 8 May 2008, revealing both reptilian and mammalian elements, as well as two genes found previously only in birds, amphibians and fish




Thanks.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users