Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Unfalsifiable


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#41 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 - 02:22 PM

The reason no one is willing to make a list is because they would be sticking their foot in their mouth when they do. So it is better to come up with a work around answer (your question is flawed) instead of facing the reality of this issue.

It also proves why so many now state that evolution is a true fact (implied truth). No one (who believes in evolution) can or ever will, make such a statement or a list that evolution has ever or will have a problem.

NO problem = an implied absolute. And implied absolute = a true fact. A believed true fact that cannot be proven = religion.

#42 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 30 January 2009 - 01:10 AM

Here is Naked Sciences theory test of evolution.Notice every little piece of evidence is proof against an entire fossil record that says no or inconclusive at best.

Note that Darwin's tree of life is upended by at least 50 phyla being present in the cambrian and only 38 phyla exitsing today.

Also notice that they claim natural selection is able to account for all the diversity we see around us.If natural selection is even a valid biological theory it can do nothing more than maintain a healthy population.Keeping a population healthy does'nt explain the origin of the population.

142ht0DwAVo&hl=en&fs=1

HvVklr0vMPs&hl=en&fs=1

l4GQR_6No4k&hl=en&fs=1

Are cynobacteria simple?Can they really confirm they arose from non-life as they claim?Can they really throw away dates until they get one to agree with what they already beleive?

#43 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 02 February 2009 - 11:32 PM

I think I know why no evolutionists have stepped up to your challenge of providing conditions for falsifying evolution, and it's not the reason you think it is. Any evolutionist worth his salt can come up with conditions for falsifying evolution with a bit of thought; fossils in completely wrong geologic strata (the proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian) or phylogenetic trees based on different genes not matching up are my two favorites.

Of course, looking at those two items, the creationists on this forum will undoubtedly think "That's silly! Human tracks have been found alongside dinosaur tracks, and phylogenetic trees don't match up well at all." I, being a stubborn evolutionist, will remain unconvinced, even if these "facts" are pointed out to me. The creationists will then get upset over how I'm shifting goal-posts and conclude that evolution is not falsifiable.

The problem is, nowhere in our hypothetical situation did I actually abandon my predictions. That's what makes them predictions; they're necessary consequences of every form of evolution I find reasonable, and to disprove the predictions would be to disprove evolution itself. What I did was deny the "facts" that I was presented with, thus making whether they agree with my predictions a moot point. The Paluxy tracks seem rather popular around here, but plenty of seemingly neutral sources tell me that even most creationists have abandoned the tracks as legitimate evidence. Creationists never seem to tire of saying that phylogenetic trees don't match, but most of the evidence they provide seems to be mined quotes, and examples I've seen of actual phylogenetic trees being compared tend to match pretty well (it's telling that while you laughed at numbers' performance in the Cytochrome C thread, I was actually amazed at how well he did with a back-of-the-envelope calculation).

Bottom line, "evolution is not falsifiable" is a bad argument to be making, since it focuses the debate in the wrong place. The real issue is that evolutionists laugh off as baseless drivel what creationists accept as proven fact. If a creationist could actually convince the scientific community that man walked alongside dinosaurs, the current model of evolution WOULD be disproven, and while I'm sure some counter-theory to creationism would still persist, it would be vastly different from modern evolutionary theory. So instead of starting a thread to prove that "evolutionists don't make falsifiable predictions", start one to prove that "evolutionists don't accept creationist evidence nearly as readily as creationists do." I'm sure almost everyone could agree with that claim.

#44 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 03 February 2009 - 03:02 AM

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1976

You can't falsify that which does not exist.

#45 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

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

Posted 03 February 2009 - 06:56 AM

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.


Your opinion is of little value.

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 comment simply shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Saying that a 'giraffe giving birth to a dog' would NOT falsify the theory of evolution is wrong. There are no words to describe how wrong this is.

It would be like someone saying 'moses survived the flood because he was an excelent surfer'. The only way someone can say something like this in seriousness would be if the person was completely ignorent on the topic.

But this is surely easy to remedy. Why not email any biology department of any reputable university with the question? And if you DON'T believe me, why not? Do you have any reason not to trust me?

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

Fred

View Post


You will have to walk me through your logic here. I don't see how you reach this conclusion.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 03 February 2009 - 07:40 AM

Your opinion is of little value.

You will have to walk me through your logic here. I don't see how you reach this conclusion.

View Post

The problem BVZ is that no one has walked us through the theory of evolution because it looks ridiculous when you see the industrial size vacuum it is, that can suck anything up showing that it's not a theory but an ideology, a religion if you please.

Do you have a theory we can examine? We've been trying to go after this subject from a couple different angles:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1976

#47 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 03 February 2009 - 03:54 PM

Hmm. Thread says "evolutionists make no testable predictions." I list a couple of testable predictions. Response: "It doesn't matter because the theory of evolution doesn't actually exist!" ... forgive me for being unconvinced.

Also, the less-than-stellar creationist performance on this thread:
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1992
doesn't give you much room to argue. Throwing stones in glass houses and all that.

#48 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 04 February 2009 - 10:26 PM

Hi Master Buffalax,

fossils in completely wrong geologic strata (the proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian)


Ofcourse you do realize that rabbits don't live in the bottom of the ocean.Thats the result of ecology not evolution.

Rabbits have been found living in the same ecological niche as dinosaurs,besides where is this verifiable geologic column?

or phylogenetic trees based on different genes not matching up are my two favorites.


Last year,a team at the University of Texas at Arlington found a peculiar chunk of DNA in the genomes of eight animals - the mouse, rat, bushbaby, little brown bat, tenrec, opossum, anole lizard and African clawed frog - but not in 25 others, including humans, elephants, chickens and fish. This patchy distribution suggests that the sequence must have entered each genome independently by horizontal transfer (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p 17023).

(note the term "must have" just because it's not what evolution predicts creation cannot be the answer)

For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.

All they had to do is test their own assumptions about geologic time and see that nearly twice as many phyla are present during the cambrian than their is now.



Thanks.

#49 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:00 PM

First off, jason: thank you for consistently providing sensible, polite arguments that engage the issues at hand. That makes it far easier and more pleasant to have debates with you than with some other individuals on this forum.

Second, as I'm sure you're well aware, the "rabbit in the Cambrian" is just a figure of speech; any living thing, regardless of its ecological niche, would count against evolution if it was found in completely the wrong time period. I realize that you have plenty of arguments as to why this prediction hasn't panned out, or even why the whole geologic column is a myth. I'm not interested in having that debate, mainly because geology is not my strong suit. I'm just saying that it's a prediction evolutionists make, and that's really all this thread is asking for.

As for the lateral gene transfer thing, that did catch me off guard. When looking for links to verify your claim, I stumbled upon
the article you pulled that quote from. Fascinating stuff, to be sure. I couldn't help but notice this line, a bit further down than where you pulled your quote from:

Nobody is arguing - yet - that the tree concept has outlived its usefulness in animals and plants. While vertical descent is no longer the only game in town, it is still the best way of explaining how multicellular organisms are related to one another - a tree of 51 per cent, maybe.

I feel like even a rough, noisy tree is grounds to give evolutionary theory some credit, mainly because I can't think of any particular reason why the structure of life would be even remotely tree-like in the absence of evolution. I will concede, though, that lateral gene transfer plays a much bigger role in the theory of evolution than I realized, and the tree of life is not as strong of a prediction as I thought it was. It's still a prediction, though - even if viral DNA adds some noise to the phylogenetic tree, there has to be a tree at the core for evolution to make any sense.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 05 February 2009 - 09:29 AM

Second, as I'm sure you're well aware, the "rabbit in the Cambrian" is just a figure of speech; any living thing, regardless of its ecological niche, would count against evolution if it was found in completely the wrong time period.

View Post


No. It would either be ignored or scoffed at like polystrate fossils and Oop Art.

#51 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 11:16 AM

No. It would either be ignored or scoffed at like polystrate fossils and Oop Art.

View Post

There is a perfectly good explanation of polystrate fossils that doesn't rely on any creationist theory. A brief discussion can be found here; the "are such fossils forming today?" section seems particularly illuminating. Granted, these fossils make the task of ordering things a bit trickier, but there are such techniques as carbon dating to back up the information from fossil strata. I'm confident that for any given fossil, evolutionists will come up with something more convincing than "Huh, it's in the wrong place so I guess something must have been unusual about it." Bear in mind that absent evolution, there isn't really a reason to expect anything resembling stratification, so even a general layering with some exceptions that can be attributed to one geologic phenomenon or another counts in favor of evolution.

As for OOPArts, I wasn't familiar with the term so I hopped over to Wikipedia and looked at their examples. None of them was especially convincing, so I think you'll have to cut evolutionists some slack for not taking OOPArts seriously.

#52 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:02 PM

For evolutionists.

In order for evolution to be a theory, it has to remain falsifiable. To remain flasifiable, it cannot be implied as an absolute, and those who believe in it have to acknowledge there are problems with it that need to be solved.

So, as a believer in evolution, what problems with evolution can you list that would make the idea into a theory that is being solved? Or has it been proven and is now a implied absolute?

Some thing to ponder: If you had to really look to find problems in order to list them. And then were reluctant to do so. Then in your mind you have just made the idea into a non-workable theory by denying the process in which any truth about it is found.

And if your answer to this is because it's a proven fact, then you are making it into an implied absolute which is not a theory. All theories have problems and that is why they are still theories. So what are the problems that evolution has that a evolutionist will admit to?

View Post


There seems to be a number of ideas that are confused in the thread. First off, a theory is the highest level of explanatory power. A theory represents a unifying principle or set of principles that explain a wide range of known phenomena.

You may consider it a 'fact' that if I drop a rock it will fall down. However, the theory of gravity must explain much more than this simple fact. Gravitational Theory is the highest level of explanation for gravitational phenomena. The full theory attempts an explanation of how galaxies spin, how black holes form and even includes components of questionable 'string theory' at the particle level.

It is not required that a theory have problems, but most all do. You can open a journal in evolutionary biology or a journal of astrophysics and see how scientists address the problems with the current theory. I will provide a few examples of problems with evolutionary theory. However, it is important to remember that a problem with evolutionary theory does not imply that creationist belief will provide a better explanation.

Gravitational theory has problems with predicting how spiral galaxies spin (this is one of the reasons we have the new idea of "dark matter"). However, does the problem with spin provide support for an earth centered universe or a 6000 year old universe or a flat earth? Of course not.

In the same way, evidence of a problem with current evolutionary theory does not imply that creationist ideas can provide a better explanation. Even the current fallible theory of evolution can explain thousands of more phenomenon than any creationist account. The goal of scientists working in any scientific field is to modify the current theory to explain more facts and provide better predictions.

So if we say that evolutionary theory is falsifiable, it means that our current explanation of phenomena can be demonstrated to be wrong with new facts. So consider a statement like

"A meteor 65 million years ago killed off the dinosaurs"

This is a falsifiable component of evolutionary theory. The evidence is very very strong that no dinosaur (other than birds) survived the KT extinction event. However, there is other new evidence that many dinosaur species were dieing off for several million years before the meteor hit. Huge lava flows (the Deccan traps) were poisoning the planet, there were large weather changes and sea level changes. The meteor that hit the Yucatan may have only been the last straw. From all this evidence, many scientists (but certainly not all) think that the statement above has been falsified.

Does this change in the theory imply that creationism provides a better explanation? Of course not.

Another new problem with the standard evolutionary theory comes from the area of epigenetics. http://en.wikipedia....iki/Epigenetics

This line of work suggests that we can pass on some degree of hereditary information outside of our DNA. In some cases the offspring will express different genes depending on the environment of the parent. This actually suggests that Lemarckian evolution was not entirely incorrect. Many scientists see this as a major revision standard evolutionary theory. Darwinian evolution as the sole cause of hereditary change has been falsified

Does this suggest that creationists have a better explanation? Of course not.

There are many parts of evolutionary theory where we have no clear answers and various falsifiable ideas have been proposed. For example: What caused the "apparent" Cambrian explosion?

At one time, it was believed that that Cambrian was the first time in the fossil record that one could find complex lifeforms (no animals with internal skeletons but a number of strange new animals). Before that, it was believed that the fossil record showed 3 billion years of delicate single cell life forms but nothing complex. There were a number of falsifiable hypotheses explaining the data. For example,

1. Evolution at the beginning of the Cambrain was occurring dramatically fast due to increases in oxygen, increases in temperature etc

2. Species evolved more slowly in different places on the planet, and we haven't found these places yet.

3. Species evolved more slowly but did not leave good fossils, but may have left other chemical signatures.

In the last 30 years, more and more evidence has been showing up for pre-Cambrian animals. There are the fascinating Ediacaran animals which may have been the precursors to animals like the trilobites and even starfish. The number of genera has increased dramatically in recent years
Posted Image

Just this week, there was a report in Nature describing evidence of sponges in sedimentary rock that dates 635 million years old or 100 million years older than the Cambrian. The suggestion that sponges might have been the first complex lifeform was even suggested by Darwin.
http://news.scotsman...ted.4948566.jpg

They have found evidence of the oldest animal life yet discovered on Earth – ancient sponges that lived 635 million years ago.

Darwin always believed life developed from biologically basic organisms, such as sponges, which he put at the bottom of his famous Tree of Life.

However, he was puzzled by the lack of evidence for the most simple lifeforms.

Now a team led by Scottish scientist, Dr Gordon Love, from the University of California, has found evidence of very basic organisms that lived about 100 million years before the Cambrian period.

Dr Love said: "Darwin had his so-called dilemma. He couldn't understand why we would see this Cambrian explosion – the appearance of all these animal forms – but nothing earlier. He thought there must be huge chunks of fossil evidence missing. He was puzzled.

"Now, as we have started to celebrate his legacy, we have shown his gut instinct was correct."

Dr Love agreed the discovery could have put the great scientist's mind at rest.


So what do we conclude when we see that the quick "explosion" in the Cambrian explosion has been falsified with the evidence and was not really that quick. Does it imply that creationists have a better account of the fossil record? Of course not.

Creationists are welcome to provide an account of the fossil record and explain why we see the strange Cambrian and pre-cambrian animals in the places where we see them, but without a testable theory it won't be taken seriously.

James

#53 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 05 February 2009 - 12:34 PM

Which brings up another problem. With all the workarounds that evolution now has for any current or future problems that may crop up. What problem can crop up that something from that list cannot be chosen to poof it away?

Like:
Problem: Macro-evolution is not observable.
Workaround: Just add a few micro-evolution changes and it just happens.
Problem: Millions of years of the process of claimed evolution cannot be observed.
Workaround: Just look at the bones dug up, it proves what you cannot observe.
Problem: Millions of years of claimed evolution cannot be tested or re-tested in a lab.
Workaround: It takes to much time, so we don't have to test or re-test it.
Problem: Millers test done on abiogenesis was only done once, so it was not re-tested to confirm the results.
Workaround: Once is enough. Even though the scientific method may require more.
etc...

How can anyone prove a theory wrong when there is a workaround for every problem that basically proves nothing? And when logically tested is only an excuse.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 05 February 2009 - 01:03 PM

Oh Ikester, you're just being critical. Instead, of just pointing out the problems why don't you get busy and help those poor hard working evolutionists?

Nice post. <_<

#55 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 05 February 2009 - 02:22 PM

How can anyone prove a theory wrong when there is a workaround for every problem ....

View Post



A theory is typically rejected when a new theory accounts for more of the known data. Simply because a theory is falsifiable does not imply that any of the competing theories is the best theory. Therefore when there are new data that conflict with the current theory, the first step is almost always attempt to modify the theory to accommodate the new data. This is true of all areas of science. There is nothing special about evolutionary theory in this.


Standard gravitational theory does not explain the spin of galaxies, so the "workaround" is to create a new form of matter called dark matter and leave the basic math of gravitation the same. Other astrophysicists believe that a new theory of gravity with new math must be proposed. Both groups of scientists will use their new approach to make predictions about the universe. The theory that provides the best set of predictions wins.

It is very easy to make a list of issues that would would falsify the deep structure of evolutionary theory and not just falsify the current theory allowing a modified theory.

If you saw macro-evolution (with the thousands of genetics changes) occur in a single generation
If you could provide evidence that all the sedimentary layers on earth came from a single flood (e.g., some sort of dating on flood layers versus post flood layers).
If you found whale bones or halibut bones in the first 3 billion years of earth's layers (e.g. a rabbit in the Cambrian). Yes, it is possible for an animal (or the bones) to fall into a well or a crevice and alter the apparent age of the fossil. However, such events are extremely unlikely, the surrounding area will show evidence of the cliff and the find will not be replicable. One also needs to be careful of hoaxes as described here.
http://www.slate.com...ad/1605054.aspx
If you could demonstrate that the earth was less than 100 million years old. This would require showing why all the thousands of converging facts on earths age are all wrong.
If you could show that all genetic differences within a "kind" or genera or whatever, provided a genetic date of 6000 years old. That is all the genetic differences between frogs, or between elephants are explained in terms of accumulated genetic difference in the last 6000 years (the current model requires millions of years).

The list could be much longer, but no such evidence currently exists (as far as I know).

It would be possible to come up with a set of falsifiable predictions for YEC if that is what you need. Of course, most such predictions have already been falsified.

#56 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 05 February 2009 - 07:37 PM

A theory is typically rejected when a new theory accounts for more of the known data. Simply because a theory is falsifiable does not imply that any of the competing theories is the best theory. Therefore when there are new data that conflict with the current theory, the first step is almost always attempt to modify the theory to accommodate the new data. This is true of all areas of science. There is nothing special about evolutionary theory in this.
Standard gravitational theory does not explain the spin of galaxies, so the "workaround" is to create a new form of matter called dark matter and leave the basic math of gravitation the same. Other astrophysicists believe that a new theory of gravity with new math must be proposed. Both groups of scientists will use their new approach to make predictions about the universe. The theory that provides the best set of predictions wins.

It is very easy to make a list of issues that would would falsify the deep structure of evolutionary theory and not just falsify the current theory allowing a modified theory.

If you saw macro-evolution (with the thousands of genetics changes) occur in a single generation
If you could provide evidence that all the sedimentary layers on earth came from a single flood (e.g., some sort of dating on flood layers versus post flood layers).
If you found whale bones or halibut bones in the first 3 billion years of earth's layers (e.g. a rabbit in the Cambrian). Yes, it is possible for an animal (or the bones) to fall into a well or a crevice and alter the apparent age of the fossil. However, such events are extremely unlikely, the surrounding area will show evidence of the cliff and the find will not be replicable. One also needs to be careful of hoaxes as described here.
  http://www.slate.com...ad/1605054.aspx
If you could demonstrate that the earth was less than 100 million years old. This would require showing why all the thousands of converging facts on earths age are all wrong.
If you could show that all genetic differences within a "kind" or genera or whatever, provided a genetic date of 6000 years old. That is all the genetic differences between frogs, or between elephants are explained in terms of accumulated genetic difference in the last 6000 years (the current model requires millions of years).

The list could be much longer, but no such evidence currently exists (as far as I know).

It would be possible to come up with a set of falsifiable predictions for YEC if that is what you need. Of course, most such predictions have already been falsified.

View Post


Question: Can you prove, that from day one, the laws of this universe have always been the same? No? Then the possibility of feasible ideas concerning laws that change are a possibility. Which by the way is what I believe.

But, not laws that change any old way to suite what I believe. But an actual set of rules pondered from how a sinless-eternal universe might work. Why? The first 6 days of creation were done before sin changed everything. It is made clear in the Bible that time minus sin equals eternity. Which means some major laws that we observe were different. Which also means that the laws we currently know cannot explain what we currently see according to what the Bible claims.

So what it boils down to is:
1) Are we wrong because we don't understand how the laws of a eternal universe might work?
2) Or is the Bible wrong because the laws of this universe were always constant and never changing?

You see the whole theory of evolution is based on several things "remaining" a constant through all of time. But what if that is wrong? What if everything we see was created in a very different universe with very different laws?

Has not it been proven that time can be altered (time dilation)? And if time can be altered, then every law attached to it can be altered as well. Then every law attached to those laws are also candidates to be altered. It's like a trickle down effect.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

That verse describes the difference between how two separate universes work. One (where we are) is compared to where God is. And if you break down the math it's basically saying that time in heaven is 365,000 times faster than earth. Which is basically time dilation. Heaven goes so fast that it is eternal. In other words, time basically stops (it's actually the aging process that stops). Knowing this. How do you think a creation can be done in a universe where age-less time exists? Could we explain it by the laws we currently observe? No. So to explain how, we would have to ponder how such a universe would work.

But science is not willing to ponder such things because it might prove God exists. But they were willing to ponder things such as string theory, which by the way, is close to how this other universe may work.

#57 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 05 February 2009 - 10:48 PM

Hi James,

So what do we conclude when we see that the quick "explosion" in the Cambrian explosion has been falsified with the evidence and was not really that quick. Does it imply that creationists have a better account of the fossil record? Of course not.

Creationists are welcome to provide an account of the fossil record and explain why we see the strange Cambrian and pre-cambrian animals in the places where we see them, but without a testable theory it won't be taken seriously.


How could we take a simple to complex theory when a nautilus has been found in the cambrian?Only marine mammals and other members of the cephlapod family are more intelligent and complex.

http://palaeo.gly.br.....lopoda/fossil...


How could anybody account for that and at the same time claim all the cambrian fauna are primitive?Our theory is testable at least.We all know that the nautilus lives in the deep ocean and swims slower than fish so it would be found in the lower flood deposit layers.




Thanks.

#58 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 06 February 2009 - 12:54 AM

If you saw macro-evolution (with the thousands of genetics changes) occur in a single generation


All of those genetic changes have never been observed...ever.

If you could provide evidence that all the sedimentary layers on earth came from a single flood (e.g., some sort of dating on flood layers versus post flood layers).


Posted Image

At least it falsifies the evolutionists geologic column to any one that knows what interbedded layers mean.

If you found whale bones or halibut bones in the first 3 billion years of earth's layers (e.g. a rabbit in the Cambrian).


Posted Image

If you could demonstrate that the earth was less than 100 million years old. This would require showing why all the thousands of converging facts on earths age are all wrong.


Helium diffusion is one type of nuclear decay dealing with the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a biproduct of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time.

http://creationwiki....elium_diffusion

If you could show that all genetic differences within a "kind" or genera or whatever, provided a genetic date of 6000 years old.


In 1997, a paper entitled A High Observed Substitution Rate in the Human Mitochondrial DNA Control Region by Parsons, Thomas J., et al. was published in Nature Genetics. They compared the mtDNA of many mother-child pairs and found that mutations in mtDNA occur about 20 times more rapidly than previously thought. Based on these measurements, they calculated Mitochondrial Eve lived only about 6,500 years ago.

http://creationwiki....tochondrial_Eve

All of those conditions have been met,yet all we hear are work around answers or why these emperical methods should be discarded because they support the biblical account.

It would be possible to come up with a set of falsifiable predictions for YEC if that is what you need. Of course, most such predictions have already been falsified.


Some people have come up with ideas in the past that did'nt pan out,but none of the creation or flood accounts in the book of genesis have been falsified.



Thanks.

#59 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 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 07 February 2009 - 10:06 PM

Your opinion is of little value.

View Post


Are you intentionally trying to get fourth-and-longed (a former name for a family cat :))? I guess I will humor you for a while…



Me: 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 comment simply shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

Saying that a 'giraffe giving birth to a dog' would NOT falsify the theory of evolution is wrong. There are no words to describe how wrong this is.

It would be like someone saying 'moses survived the flood because he was an excelent surfer'. The only way someone can say something like this in seriousness would be if the person was completely ignorent on the topic.

But this is surely easy to remedy. Why not email any biology department of any reputable university with the question? And if you DON'T believe me, why not? Do you have any reason not to trust me?


Maybe to the dismay of the sophisticated evolutionist, BVZ provides a good illustration of why evolution is built on a house of sand or he wouldn’t have to pick this particular goofy hill to die on. Surely the education of our youth is providing better counter-arguments to us silly creationists? To defend “a giraffe giving birth to a dog” as valid test of the theory of evolution, is, well, as simply as I can put it, dumber than rocks. But that’s just my opinion, as worthless as it is. :)

BVZ, are you going to declare here and now, for all your friends to hear, that “a giraffe giving birth to a dog” is a reasonable test for the theory of evolution? That is the point of my post, and this thread, isn’t it?

Since you like analogies, let me help, we are here to help after all. :) Hey, I can use the same test as the analogy! What if a creationist is asked to provide a good test for creation, and his response was “a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify creation”. I mean, after all the Bible does say all life comes after its own kind, right? So hey, I could for the sake of argument be really dumb and offer this really stupid test and say that since a giraffe giving birth to a dog is an example of life not coming after its own kind, it would therefore be a good way to falsify creation! But here’s the problem. Everyone knows it will never happen, science has proven such a concept is completely ridiculous. So it would therefore be just as ridiculous for me to offer this as a test of creation. So I ask you again, for all your friends to hear: “is a giraffe giving birth to a dog” a reasonable test for the theory of evolution?” Good luck with your answer, we are all hoping you come through with flying colors!

Fred

#60 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 11 February 2009 - 08:27 AM

Maybe to the dismay of the sophisticated evolutionist, BVZ provides a good illustration of why evolution is built on a house of sand or he wouldn’t have to pick this particular goofy hill to die on. Surely the education of our youth is providing better counter-arguments to us silly creationists? To defend “a giraffe giving birth to a dog” as valid test of the theory of evolution, is, well, as simply as I can put it, dumber than rocks. But that’s just my opinion, as worthless as it is. :lol:

BVZ, are you going to declare here and now, for all your friends to hear, that “a giraffe giving birth to a dog” is a reasonable test for the theory of evolution? That is the point of my post, and this thread, isn’t it?

Since you like analogies, let me help, we are here to help after all. :) Hey, I can use the same test as the analogy! What if a creationist is asked to provide a good test for creation, and his response was “a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify creation”. I mean, after all the Bible does say all life comes after its own kind, right? So hey, I could for the sake of argument be really dumb and offer this really stupid test and say that since a giraffe giving birth to a dog is an example of life not coming after its own kind, it would therefore be a good way to falsify creation! But here’s the problem. Everyone knows it will never happen, science has proven such a concept is completely ridiculous. So it would therefore be just as ridiculous for me to offer this as a test of creation. So I ask you again, for all your friends to hear: “is a giraffe giving birth to a dog” a reasonable test for the theory of evolution?” Good luck with your answer, we are all hoping you come through with flying colors!

Fred

View Post


I would like to take this on because I think there is an important misunderstanding here. Let us consider three questions

1. Would true macroevolution in a single generation (e.g. a giraffe giving birth to a dog) falsify evolutionary theory?
Yes, absolutely.

2. Would true macroevolution in a single generation (e.g. a giraffe giving birth to a dog) falsify young earth creationism?
Yes (although I am not as confident)

3. Would true macroevolution in a single generation (e.g. a giraffe giving birth to a dog) falsify intelligent design?
As far as I can tell, No. Intelligent design doesn't appear falsifiable

Therefore, if you were looking for a test that distinguished between evolution and creationism, this would be a poor test. If macro-evolution occurred in a single generation or even in a hundred generations, both current ideas of creationism and current ideas of evolution would need to be rejected. Does the example show that both creationism and evolution can, in theory, be falsified? Yes. It sounds like a silly example because we all know it won't happen, but it demonstrates the philosophical point.

Intelligent design however makes no clear predictions and therefore can not be falsified. It is like saying that you believe there are fairies in my house but they always stay hidden.

However, I like this macro-evolution example for two reasons. First, some creationists propose that in order to prove that evolution occurs, macro-evolution should be apparent in a small number of generations. What they don't realize is that rather than prove evolution, such an event would actually falsify evolutionary theory. The core of the theory of evolution depends on the accumulation of many small genetic changes over a large amount of time.

The second reason I like this example is that it demonstrates that falsifying one theory does imply that the alternative theory wins. In many cases, new data falsifies all of the current theories. Theories do not win by default. One must show how an alternative theory explains both the new data and all the other available data in the scientific literature. The theory that accounts for the most data wins.

Do the results of epigenetics falsify the standard theory of evolution? Yes. Does creationism provide a better account? No. Can evolutionary theory be modified to include these results without a major overhaul of the core ideas? Very likely.

Do these modifications to the theory violate some scientific principle? Not at all. They actually demonstrate one of the most important features of the scientific method. They demonstrate that theories can and will change in the face of overwhelming evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users