Jump to content


Photo

Is Evolution Unfalsifiable


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 January 2009 - 09:43 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?

#2 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 09 January 2009 - 02:40 PM

So what are the problems that evolution has that a evolutionist will admit to?

View Post

One of the main reasons I stop by here is to educate myself about the problems.
Not being a scientist in any field that is useful to support any side without having to rely on information of others, I see many people here who are.

The different angle that is used here to look at and interpret the information is refreshing food for thought. While it has not, and probably will not, change my personal view it does add to my knowledge and sharpens my senses.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 January 2009 - 09:49 PM

One of the main reasons I stop by here is to educate myself about the problems.
Not being a scientist in any field that is useful to support any side without having to rely on information of others, I see many people here who are.

The different angle that is used here to look at and interpret the information is refreshing food for thought. While it has not,  and probably will not, change my personal view it does add to my knowledge and sharpens my senses.

View Post


Well you just found out the reason why we run this forum the way we do. Those who are willing to learn from either side can. I post what I do to try and get people to think out side of the belief box they are in.

So really it does not bother me that it strengthens your faith in what you currently believe. Why? Because through choice and free will, which the Bible promotes, it's your right to do so. In the stories about how Christ approached people, you never saw where he actually chased someone from town to town, to cram what He was there for, down everyone's throat. Though some Christians don't understand that.

But if your learning something, that's our goal. That's why this forum is different. It's also why we don't put up with the normal stuff (arguments , name calling, etc...) that goes on in other forums. Those forums stay where they are at in this E vs C debates. While we try, and often do move forward in ours.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 January 2009 - 06:22 AM

I guess evolution is not a workable theory, but an implied absolute. 4 days and no one will list the problems associated with it.

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 12 January 2009 - 12:05 PM

I guess evolution is not a workable theory, but an implied absolute. 4 days and no one will list the problems associated with it.

View Post


Thats exactly what I was thinking, because hardly anyone has even tried to list any problems. I think one problem is that the evolutionist don't want to admit that there are any problems.

#6 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:01 AM

Thats exactly what I was thinking, because hardly anyone has even tried to list any problems.  I think one problem is that the evolutionist don't want to admit that there are any problems.

View Post


So by faith, it becomes a true fact as so many will say. Well that was an easy test. Evolution failed.

#7 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 13 January 2009 - 03:58 PM

Oh, go on then... ;)

There are two things to consider here:

Populations change over time. This is a proven fact. It's observable, repeatable and testable. Most creationists accept this fact, but they call it something else. Adaptation, microevolution, whatever. Doesn't matter. the point is that populations change over time. We call it evolution, you call it something else.

The Theory of Evolution attempts to explain how and why populations change over time, and this is the bit that creationists take exception to.

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.


There are of course gaps in our knowledge and understanding. Creationists see this as a failure of the theory, but evolutionists see this simply as something still to be learned. As we better our understanding, the theory is adapted and modified to accommodate the new knowledge, but so far there has been no reason to abandon it's core premise. No contradictory evidence has thus far been presented to suggest that the theory is fundamentally wrong.

As far as evolutionionary scientists are concerned, sufficient evidence has been gathered to argue that essentially the theory correctly explains changes in populations over time. The theory is used to make predictions about new discoveries, and so far it has held up. It also makes predictions about what we will not find (rabbit in the Cambrian, for example), and this is what most obviously makes it falsifiableand again, so far it has held up.

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?

ToE is extremely complicated, and I personally don't have a complete enough knowledge of it to list the 'problems' (your term) or 'gaps in knowledge' (my term).

The ToE is assumed to be correct, but it is not an absolute, implied or otherwise, since it leaves the door open to being upturned by contradictory evidence.

#8 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 13 January 2009 - 05:41 PM

I guess evolution is not a workable theory, but an implied absolute. 4 days and no one will list the problems associated with it.

View Post


Sorry! Didn't realise there was a deadline. You know you'd probably be better off talking to someone that researches evolution for a living, like a biologist or something.

#9 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 January 2009 - 08:52 PM

I agree that more time should be allowed.

I don't believe that one can form a very certain opinion on a black box. If people don't understand the "theory" well enough to explain any of the problems, their conclusion that it is correct must be based on something other than understanding.

We can trust the judgment of others - we do it all the time. If a friend says such-and-such company makes good tires, or poor pie, we trust them. But when we do so, we should acknowledge what we're doing. I wouldn't long argue that such-and-such pie is poor against someone who likes the pie on this basis. My friends aren't all perfect.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 13 January 2009 - 10:00 PM

Hi falcone,

It also makes predictions about what we will not find (rabbit in the Cambrian, for example), and this is what most obviously makes it falsifiableand again, so far it has held up.


Rather than admit there are problems,you just prefer to move the goal post?

Evolution predicts that no bird footprints would ever be found below the Jurassic....have they?

From the Triassic 212 million years ago
Posted Image

Bird footprints from the Permian Hermit Shale and from the Carboniferous in Nova Scotia.

http://www.grisda.or...igins/09067.htm

Evolution also predicts that live birth would not be found below the mid-Jurassic 180mya....Has it?

An Extinct Placoderm from the Devonian 380 million years ago,fossilized with umbilical cord and embryo.

http://news.national...her-fossil.html

Evolution predicts that no flowering plant will ever be found below the Cretaceous 140mya...Has it?

From the Cambrian in India.

In chapter 3, I present a case of fossil evidence showing that the current Darwinian picture of the evolution of nonhuman species is also in need of revision. Beginning in the 1940s, geologists and paleobotanists working with the Geological Survey of India explored the Salt Range Mountains in what is now Pakistan. They found deep in salt mines evidence for the existence of advanced flowering plants and insects in the early Cambrian periods, about 600 million years ago. According to standard evolutionary ideas, no land plants or animals existed at that time. Flowering plants and insects are thought to have come into existence hundreds of millions of years later. To explain the evidence some geologists proposed that there must have been a massive overthrust, by which Eocene layers, about 50 million years old, were thrust under Cambrian layers, over 550 million years old. Others pointed out that there were no geological signs of such an overthrust. According to these scientists, the layers bearing the fossils of the advanced plants and insects were found in normal position, beneath strata containing trilobites, the characteristic fossil of the Cambrian. One of these scientists, E. R. Gee, a geologist working with the Geological Survey of India, proposed a novel solution to the problem. In the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of India for the year 1945 (section B, v. 16, pp. xlv–xlvi), paleobotanist Birbal Sahni noted: “Quite recently, an alternative explanation has been offered by Mr. Gee. The suggestion is that the angiosperms, gymnosperms and insects of the Saline Series may represent a highly evolved Cambrian or Precambrian flora and fauna! In other words, it is suggested that these plants and animals made their appearance in the Salt Range area several hundred million years earlier than they did anywhere else in the world. One would scarcely have believed that such an idea would be seriously put forward by any geologist today.” The controversy was left unresolved. In the 1990s, petroleum geologists, unaware of the earlier controversy, restudied the area. They determined that the salt deposits below the Cambrian deposits containing trilobites were early Cambrian or Precambrian. In other words, they found no evidence of an overthrust. The salt deposits were in a natural position below the Cambrian deposits. This supports Gee’s suggestion that the plant and insect remains in the salt deposits were evidence of an advanced fauna and flora existing in the early Cambrian. This evidence contradicts not only the Darwinian concept of the evolution of humans but of other species as well.

http://www.humandevolution.com/

All of these examples falsify the predictions of evolution just as surely as finding a rabbit in the Cambrian.Faith in naturalism is what causes most people to just ignore the evidence and predictions,while continuing to claim evolution is a science and not a religion.

Not to mention the fact that evolutionists have faith in geologic time and a geologic column that they can't even show anybody,while we can show hundreds of examples of catastrophic deposition.


Thanks.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 14 January 2009 - 12:51 AM

Here's the thing. So many on the web claim or make out like they are evolution experts. There are gobs of websites on the subject as well. Now, if evolution were such a workable theory, it would have workable problems. Understand? And all the sites and people who promote it as such should have no problem what so ever admitting to this, and actually showing the rest of the world what those problems are.

In fact, as many views as this thread has already had. Someone should have already listed them. In fact, there should be websites that the list can be obtained from, right? In that way, anyone who wanted to help work out the problems could do so.

But that is not what we see is it? In fact the only people who point out the problems are creationists. And for doing so we are deemed as an enemy. And then discredited in some form or another. When in fact, we do make evolution a theory by pointing out it's problems.

So by evolutionists ignoring these problems, not listing them on their sites, making anyone who does list them feel as if they have done some terrible thing, and making fun of the idea that evolution has even one problem. You paint your own reality where evolution is perfect, which means it's not a theory anymore.

You see the moment that evolution went from theory unto religion was when it was exalted to the highest level as being a theory. Why was this done? Darwinist had to make the theory look like it was progressing. But in reality, it has progressed very little.

More of the same type of evidence is not a progression in any direction. Because how often is anything new really found? The mountains of evidence that is often referred to is actually a bunch of the same type of evidence that supports the same interpretation that the first one did in that group.

It would be like me saying there are billions of Bibles, so we have mountains of evidence to prove God. Well, something wrong is that this is not a progression of evidence as science would require. It's the same type of evidence. Stacking it puts you no more closer to proving one thing than it does another.

So to compensate, you guys have taken a theory, promoted it to scientific theory. And because it really does not meet that criteria, you have to show so much faith that it does and always will. That all of it's problems have to be ignored to maintain the position. Is that science? I don't think so.

And in the process, to do this requires everyone to have unfounded faith in something that is not supposed to require it. Faith means that you believe in something regardless of what you see, hear, or test. How many support pillars for evolution actually require this in order for evolution to be true? A bunch. And even some of evolution itself requires faith.

But it would not if evolution would have stayed where it was supposed to be. Which is being a normal theory with a lot of potential instead of a scientific theory that requires faith.

Faith makes a Christian ignore problems because faith is stronger than the problem because it also requires belief. So when you guys ignore the problems of evolution to help it maintain it's position of scientific theory, you actually did more harm than good to the theory. How?

When you ignore the problems at hand, don't list them, don't debate them or talk about them. you basically have given up your best resource for helping you prove evolution by making all of your peers also believe there are no problems.

This is because more time is spent defending what is already known, and not working on solving the current problems. How many minds could you have working on the problem of evolution all over the world, if you guys were not so busy defending it's position that it cannot maintain?

Not being able to list the problems actually shows that I'm right about this. You guys have made your own theory stuck in the mud by bypassing scientific methods and protocols to promote a theory to a level it cannot maintain. That my friend is the reason so many feel the need and urge to go to forums where such things are debated.

What would happen if no one defended evolution at the places it is often debated. And allowed it to try and maintain it's position by it's own merits and evidence? You know what would happen. And it has nothing to do with the other side either. It has everything to do with the theory not being what it is supposed to be. And therefore by fact of test, it cannot and will not hold up to public opinion.

So basically, the theory has to have a constant barrage of volunteer spokes people who constantly defend it, promote it, and put it in our face every where we go. A true fact does not have to be constantly promoted in this fashion. Nor should it take a billion dollars a year to keep people interested by making movies about it.

If the people were mainly convinced that it is true by it's own merits they already would have been convinced. But the constant promotion of the theory shows that they are not, and those working in the field know this even though they are unwilling to admit to it.

So:
1) If evolution were actually falsifiable, a copy and paste answer with a list of problems would have been already provided.
2) If evolution where a theory, no one would have had a problem listing those problems to show it is a workable theory in the process of being solved.
3) And one or both of these should have been already done.

Now if someone wants to make that list now, there is still time. There was no time limit. I posted what I did to speed up the process.

Question: If evolution were a theory, what I asked should have been a no brainer right? So what does that say about the supposed theory?

#12 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2009 - 12:50 AM

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


I'm not really sure what you're asking here.

What problems would you find with gravitation, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, etc?? We've observed diversity in animal species here on Earth. Evolutionary theory uses what we know, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, to explain that diversity. That's a theory.

Problems with evolution?? I can't think of any, but it might be my own personal bias. What problems do you see with it. I'm no expert, but I'd love to try to answer them.

Hey Jason,

Are there any fossil birds in the Triassic? If they were found you can bet the current theory of evolution would be falsified.

#13 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 15 January 2009 - 01:18 AM

Hi tharock220,welcome aboard.

Are there any fossil birds in the Triassic? If they were found you can bet the current theory of evolution would be falsified.


I would agree,but evolution is a philosophical world view that is unfalsifiable.Protoavis dates older than those triassic footprints ~225 million years ago.Among all the bones found that align it with birds is a keeled sternum that is only found in strong flying birds.Chatterjee found evidence of it being a better flier than Archaeopteryx.

http://www.truthinsc...nt/view/231/65/

Protoavis is probably the most controversial of the fossil birds. Chatterjee (1991) believes it to be a Triassic bird, older than Archaeopteryx. Only fragments have been found, but its discoverer considers it to have many features associated with flight, for example a keel-like sternum indicating that it would have been a better flyer than Archaeopteryx. Its skull was lightly built and pneumatised, with a temporal region similar to modern birds. It also had a relatively large brain with an avian brain architecture similar to modern birds with neurosensory specialisations associated with balance, coordination, flight, agility and high metabolic activity. Claw morphology suggests that Protoavis could climb trees, yet the development of a supracoracoideus (the principal muscles that lift the wing) pulley indicates that it was able to fly.


It puts evolutionists in the same position of special pleading they were in 150 years ago,hoping that future discoveries will produce a feathered reptile ancestor in the permian.



Thanks.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 15 January 2009 - 02:25 AM

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. 

What problems would you find with gravitation, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, etc??  We've observed diversity in animal species here on Earth.  Evolutionary theory uses what we know, mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, to explain that diversity.  That's a theory.

Problems with evolution??  I can't think of any, but it might be my own personal bias.  What problems do you see with it.  I'm no expert, but I'd love to try to answer them.

Hey Jason,

Are there any fossil birds in the Triassic?  If they were found you can bet the current theory of evolution would be falsified.

View Post


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

#15 BVZ

BVZ

    Junior Member

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

Posted 15 January 2009 - 06:19 AM

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


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.

But if you really MUST have a problem with the theory of evolutio, here is one: The theory of evolution does not explain why two bodies with mass attract one another.

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 15 January 2009 - 11:50 AM

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.

View Post

Nonsense. They'd just revert to the faith of their fathers. I can think of more than one individual who'd be ecstatic, (and I mean that as an understatement).

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.

That's impossible. Anything can be arranged into patterns, including the "nested hierarchy". You might as well claim if I jump from here to Orion and whip him with his own belt it's falsified. Stating impossible conditions as falsification criteria is a transparent ploy to hide from falsification. Real science doesn't do this.

But if you really MUST have a problem with the theory of evolutio, here is one: The theory of evolution does not explain why two bodies with mass attract one another.

Then pitch it. As the atheist origin myth, it must explain the origin of everything.

#17 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 16 January 2009 - 01:13 AM

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.


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.

For instance, a giraffe giving birth to a dog would falsify the theory of evolution.


How?

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.


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?

But if you really MUST have a problem with the theory of evolution, here is one: The theory of evolution does not explain why two bodies with mass attract one another.

View Post


Yes this is true. But when the time-line needed for evolution to work is disproved, the theory is disproved also.

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.

#18 Guest_theredfox_*

Guest_theredfox_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2009 - 05:00 AM

"Theory", in the scientific sense of the word, doesnt mean the same as theory as in: "we think this happened". The latter gives room for error - for doubt. Rather, the scientific use of "theory" is applied to explain a body of facts. Regarding evolution, then, it is absolutely certain that life evolved, but it is the scientific community's "theory" that the modern synthesis (i.e. selection, common ancestry, mutation etc) explains it. Do not think that it somehow implies any doubt in the reality of evolution, or indeed evolutionary processes. Any theory, in the scientific sense, is essentially a "gold standard"; a hypothesis that has been tested to the limit, and to date, cannot be assailed by any contrary evidence - because there is none. In summary, the acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community is not "one" possibility - its the only possibility, and moreover, one that has been independantly verified by rigorous testing time and time again.

Respectfully,

theredfox

#19 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Administrator

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6894 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 16 January 2009 - 10:47 AM

"Theory", in the scientific sense of the word, doesnt mean the same as theory as in: "we think this happened". The latter gives room for error - for doubt. Rather, the scientific use of "theory" is applied to explain a body of facts. Regarding evolution, then, it is absolutely certain that life evolved, but it is the scientific community's "theory" that the modern synthesis (i.e. selection, common ancestry, mutation etc) explains it. Do not think that it somehow implies any doubt in the reality of evolution, or indeed evolutionary processes. Any theory, in the scientific sense, is essentially a "gold standard"; a hypothesis that has been tested to the limit, and to date, cannot be assailed by any contrary evidence - because there is none. In summary, the acceptance of evolutionary theory by the scientific community is not "one" possibility - its the only possibility, and moreover, one that has been independantly verified by rigorous testing time and time again.

Respectfully,

theredfox

View Post


Hey theredfox,

Can I offer a little reading material?

http://www.evolution...m/forum_faq.htm

http://www.evolution...ndefinition.htm

#20 Guest_theredfox_*

Guest_theredfox_*
  • Guests

Posted 16 January 2009 - 11:15 AM

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. Im not trying to break the forum rules or anything, i just think we should take an impartial and honest view of things. 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. My argument is more sophisticated, and more adaptable, then that. I do know enough about evolution, however, to state that rigidly defining and enforcing a creationist "definition" is ultimately self-limiting and potentially misleading. I have no such "definition" of creationist theory. Why should you have one, or need one, for evolutionary theory?

Respectfully,

theredfox




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users