Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
de_skudd

Is The Un-falsifiability Doctrine An Evolutionist Ploy?

Recommended Posts

Guest Keith C

Does evolution mean (neo- Darwin evolution theory (NDET):  Random Mutation + Natural Selection (RM+NS)

Modern Evolution Theory (MET) changes that definition in not so subtle ways creating incompatible assumptions. 

 

For example:  What is common decent if you include horizontal gene transfer (HGT)?

Man could have evolved from an................... not an ape.

 

Anouther example: What about the theory That non-genetic variation can sometimes be passed on to offspring.  Maybe this happens through ]junk DNA.  This would affect the theory that Junk DNA can collect random mutations until it creates something useful.

 

Debating micro evolution when you include MET you have to cognizant that assumptions are changed.  Something that proves one theory may contradict another.

 

Keith, if you have a favorite MET theory, like mutations at the embryonic level are more significant,  then lay out a case for the theory.  I would enjoy the debate.

 

Your first question suggests that your view of evolution is wrong in exactly the same way as your view of fossils and biology. Specifically you divide a subject which has progressed continuously into several successive fixed 'species'. The thread which runs continuously from Darwin to today is random change plus natural selection - which is evolution.

There have definitely been specific periods where particular details have been discovered and incorporated. After 1900, there was the rediscovery of Mendel and genes. From about 1920, Thomas Hunt Morgan showed the importance of mutation.

1930-1950 was the period where these were combined with population theory.

Since then we have got gene sequences, many advances in embryology, and realization of endo-symbiosis for origin of organelles. Such filling in of detail will likely continue, but nothing found so far suggests that Darwin's main ideas were incorrect. As for "Something that proves one theory may contradict another.", you need to give an example.

 

Horizontal gene transfer is a complication, but its importance is greatly exaggerated by creationists. The genes which have been transferred can usually be identified and are very distinct from the core genes such as those for ribosomes which are inherited from ancestors. In the same way, genes transferred through infection can be identified, and constitute a small fraction of of the genes translated into protein.

 

As to junk DNA, what is the problem if one section is reactivated as a useful gene while another part does something else? Also, why reject evolution because you think epigenetics is somehow cheating?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your first question suggests that your view of evolution is wrong in exactly the same way as your view of fossils and biology.  Specifically you divide a subject which has progressed continuously into several successive fixed 'species'.  The thread which runs continuously from Darwin to today is random change plus natural selection - which is evolution.

There have definitely been specific periods where particular details have been discovered and incorporated.  After 1900, there was the rediscovery of Mendel and genes.  From about 1920, Thomas Hunt Morgan showed the importance of mutation.

1930-1950 was the period where these were combined with population theory.

Since then we have got gene sequences, many advances in embryology, and realization of endo-symbiosis for origin of organelles.  Such filling in of detail will likely continue, but nothing found so far suggests that Darwin's main ideas were incorrect.  As for "Something that proves one theory may contradict another.", you need to give an example.

 

Horizontal gene transfer is a complication, but its importance is greatly exaggerated by creationists.  The genes which have been transferred can usually be identified and are very distinct from the core genes such as those for ribosomes which are inherited from ancestors.  In the same way, genes transferred through infection can be identified, and constitute a small fraction of of the genes translated into protein.

 

As to junk DNA, what is the problem if one section is reactivated as a useful gene while another part does something else?  Also, why reject evolution because you think epigenetics is somehow cheating?

31119[/snapback]

This is frustrating. Most of what you post are things I agree with.

 

Please be specific about what you consider to be proof of micro evolution. A link would be nice as well. BTW I never even hinted that I thought epigenetics was somehow cheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

This is frustrating.  Most of what you post are things I agree with.

 

Please be specific about what you consider to be proof of micro evolution. A link would be nice as well.  BTW I never even hinted that I thought epigenetics was somehow cheating.

 

What then were you hinting at with this:-

"Anouther example: What about the theory That non-genetic variation can sometimes be passed on to offspring. Maybe this happens through ]junk DNA. This would affect the theory that Junk DNA can collect random mutations until it creates something useful."

 

What does it matter what I consider is proof of microevolution?

Do you have any doubts that it does occur?

 

Or are you trying to say that you find my posts somewhat convincing, but you still do not believe that even microevolution does not occur?

If I knew what you are really asking, I would be better able to respond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What then were you hinting at with this:-

"Anouther example: What about the theory That non-genetic variation can sometimes be passed on to offspring.  Maybe this happens through ]junk DNA.  This would affect the theory that Junk DNA can collect random mutations until it creates something useful."

 

What does it matter what I consider is proof of microevolution?

Do you have any doubts that it does occur?

 

Or are you trying to say that you find my posts somewhat convincing, but you still do not believe that even microevolution does not occur?

If I knew what you are really asking, I would be better able to respond.

31129[/snapback]

 

Hi Keith,

 

We are on separate wave lengths. I sometimes have no idea where you are going and I try and answer your post by what I think you are saying. That is why I am asking for links.

 

I laid out several Modern Evolutionary Theories that I was hoping would generate discussion about mirco or macro evolution.

 

One theory was that junk DNA has a purpose: as gene regulation or DNA that can change and adapt without affecting existing systems and functions.

 

I believe microevolution occurs but is limited in what it can accomplish. That morphological changes necessary for speciation are well beyond what evolution can accomplish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Keith C

I laid out several Modern Evolutionary Theories that I was hoping would generate discussion about mirco or macro evolution.

 

One theory was that junk DNA has a purpose:  as gene regulation or DNA that can change and adapt without affecting existing systems and functions.

 

I believe microevolution occurs but is limited in what it can accomplish.  That morphological changes necessary for speciation are well beyond what evolution can accomplish.

 

I still find your reference to 'several Modern Evolutionary Theories' are distracting. The specific items you have mentioned are genetic mechanisms which clarify how heredity, mutation etc actually work. They are not alternatives to evolution. Rather they are extensions and clarification of Darwin's rather confused understanding. They certainly allow larger steps than single nucleotide changes to DNA. I think that the more we understand about genomics and mechanisms of genetic change, the more plausible evolution becomes.

 

I am also unhappy with the statement that 'junk DNA has a purpose'. Purpose implies some intelligent forethought or plan etc. What I think is more correct is that pseudogenes can sometimes be re-activated and perform some function which is useful, but not the original function of the gene. In the same way transposons etc can produce beneficial changes, even if the actual cause is some viral infection.

 

From your statement that you accept microevolution but not macro, I think the two logical topics would be:-

1. What limits evolutionary change to microevolution or keeps the change within the bounds of 'kind'.?

2. What modifications to genetic change or mutation mechanisms would be necessary to make macro-evolution possible or believable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Keith,

 

We are on separate wave lengths.  I sometimes have no idea where you are going and I try and answer your post by what I think you are saying.  That is why I am asking for links.

 

I laid out several Modern Evolutionary Theories that I was hoping would generate discussion about mirco or macro evolution.

 

One theory was that junk DNA has a purpose:  as gene regulation or DNA that can change and adapt without affecting existing systems and functions.

 

I believe microevolution occurs but is limited in what it can accomplish.  That morphological changes necessary for speciation are well beyond what evolution can accomplish.

31153[/snapback]

If any of these theories measures up, and qualifies as an actual "theory of evolution", I'd like you to present it in my thread for examination.

 

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/in...?showtopic=1976

 

When I chance to be mistaken, I generally prefer to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more accurate statement is that science begins with objectively verifiable facts  ie other observers have to be able to observe the same or similar event.

30817[/snapback]

That is incorrect. Science starts (a great many times) with nothing more than hypotheses, which are hardly “verifiable factsâ€ÂÂ. Although some hypotheses proceed from scant facts, the facts aren’t fleshed out until repeated experimentation is preformed to verify or falsify said hypothesis.

 

 

I think it is interesting if religion were restricted to facts which most observers could agree on.  I suspect that would reduce the number of sects dramatically.

30817[/snapback]

I agree, especially the religion of macro-evolution.

 

 

There is definite value in requiring falsifiability of any theological claims.

30817[/snapback]

Christianity could have been falsified, had it’s detractors provided the dead body of Jesus, or somehow disproved His life, ministry, death, burial and resurrection, and the testimony of the eyewitnesses who then spread His message throughout the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it odd that pseudo-science has gone to great lengths to protect their tabernacle of enshrined evolution. One such firewall they have erected is their Un-falsifiability doctrine. On one web page, I found this statement: “Being disprovable is one essential component of any scientific theory.†And even at this board I find statements like “You can't prove anything scientifically - that's just a contradiction in terms.â€ÂÂ, and “Bear in mind that scientists are not interested in absolute proof - it can never be obtained.â€ÂÂ.

 

Now, before I ask the obvious questions, I will place this disclaimer: I believe, through a lifetime of inductive experimentation, study in logic, philosophy and yes “common senseâ€ÂÂ, that the Un-falsifiability doctrine is retoric and propaganda. So I shall supply my label for that term, to which I define in the “Greek vernacular†“Poppycockusâ€ÂÂ! If I am wrong, I will admit it!!!

 

Having said that, I ask; Does anyone in this forum really believe that science cannot prove anything? More succinctly; is the Un-falsifiability doctrine an evolutionist ploy?

 

If so why? If not why?

 

And this is not a debate open for equivocation, quibbling, prevarication, evasion, hedging or vague, ambiguous and misleading language. You need to back up your statements with facts!

30608[/snapback]

I think there is a third position. Maybe I could explain it this way; Let's say that you were in an automobile accident. Your car was smashed so that it's un-drivable. You may view your accident as bad. How would a tow truck driver view your accident? He may view it as being good for his business because he stands to make to make some money out of your misfortune. How would the automobile body shop repair company look at your accident? They may view it as an opportunity to make some money also. How about the insurance company? They may have mixed feelings about your accident. Your agent is on the scene and he is passing out business cards to observers. His insurance company will have to pay for the accident but the accident could be good advertising to promote the benefits of insurance. Everyone observing the accident has a different point of view. We can see that all of them are valid (true) from each person’s biasâ€â€Âlooking at the same evidence. Maybe we could say that the accident was neither good nor bad but just an accident.

 

Hopefully this example sheds some light on the dilemma of truth--especially if we want to maintain the idea that “truth†is out there somewhere. It seems that all 6.7 billion of us have the ability of being able to decide for ourselves what the truth is (or is not).

 

Karl Popper worked extensively on developing the concept of non fasifiability as a “scientific†concept. Unfortunately he used his mind to do all this. It would seem a difficult task to falsify the human mind (unless you were God) and since that idea is untenable to evolutionary scientists they are left with a non-falsifiable mind deciding what is falsifiable. Any conclusions drawn from a non-falsefiable mind could be deemed “un-scientific†and such a mind’s output would be questionable.

 

Evo scientists therefore have made a “choice†of what to believe and have decided that evolution is a fact. Most of the “evidence†(code) is therefore viewed from their biased point of view. The more anyone tries to point out the incongruicies of their theory (fact) the more evo scientists turn to their innate creativity (which they deny exists vehemently) to generate “plausible†explanations for how evolution despite contradictions nevertheless happened.

 

As the scripture says so eloquently, "How long halt ye between two opinions.?" The point is evo scientists have declared their opinion fact and any other opinion gets labeled with their universal rubber stamp of rejection as Bam! "Unscientific!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of whether anything at all can be known as certain has been puzzling philosophers for millennia. Plato discussed shadows on the wall of a cave, Descartes set out on the noble quest of doubting everything he possibly could - and found himself incapable of doubting only his existence and ability to think, and even in pop culture the film The Matrix asks the same question.

 

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

 

Science accepts this limitation with a rueful shrug and goes merrily about the business of describing what we see, whether it's actually real or not.

30628[/snapback]

My position is there are certainly human limitations, but there are things we know within existence as we ALL commonly perceive. When we observe a house, all of us KNOW we are looking at a house. We know by the experimentation of stoichiometry that table salt is sodium chloride. We can ALL commonly perceive this, by the molar measurement done in chemistry when salt is broken down. We have proven that acquired traits are not passed to the next generation. Cut off a dog's tail and breed it. See if any of it's puppies have cut off tails. We know that pangenesis is false, by the study of cell biology.

 

I think this is the difference between operational science and historical science. Operational produces observable raw data, and extrapolations made from that data within the PRESENT. Or at least something that happens the same way in the annuls of recorded science as it does now.

 

But when you start talking about the ancient past, there are things that are apparrently different. At a certain time, our magnetic poles changed, as is observable in the study of minerals near the Atlantic oceanic ridge. We are pretty sure this happened, but we can only hypothesize the reason. We can not know because we were not there.

 

At a certain time the poles were warmer, as is observable by the fossil and frozen fauna and flora there. We know that subtropical plants were there, but we don't the exact Earth conditions, or what caused them, because we weren't there.

 

We don't know by science at what time for sure, because the believed reliability of radiometric dating is based on several scientifically admitted assumptions. Even ischron dating. And this is my beef with modern science. They keep coming at us with a particular model, defending passionately the "evidence" for it, when in fact, it is full of foundational assumptions.

Science Direct

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v...radioactive.asp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.I still find your reference to 'several Modern Evolutionary Theories' are distracting.  The specific items you have mentioned are genetic mechanisms which clarify how heredity, mutation etc actually work.  They are not alternatives to evolution. 

 

2. Rather they are extensions and clarification of Darwin's rather confused understanding.  They certainly allow larger steps than single nucleotide changes to DNA.  I think that the more we understand about genomics and mechanisms of genetic change, the more plausible evolution becomes.

 

3. I am also unhappy with the statement that 'junk DNA has a purpose'.  Purpose implies some intelligent forethought or plan etc.  What I think is more correct is that pseudogenes can sometimes be re-activated and perform some function which is useful, but not the original function of the gene.  In the same way transposons etc can produce beneficial changes, even if the actual cause is some viral infection.

 

 

From your statement that you accept microevolution but not macro, I think the two logical topics would be:-

1.  What limits evolutionary change to microevolution or keeps the change within the bounds of 'kind'.?

2.  What modifications to genetic change or mutation mechanisms would be necessary to make macro-evolution possible or believable?

31199[/snapback]

1. Bruce never intended nor claimed them as alternatives to ToE... He was stating how some parts contradict other parts of the theory, (when thought about logically).

 

2. Again, as Bruce was pointing out to you. If the varied "extentions" contradict each other at some point, then how do they make evolution more "plausable"... (In fact it would / does make ToE laughable).

 

3. Would you rather we not say that anything has a purpose. For example I have no purpose at my Uni and you have no purpose at work. All things that perform a function serves a purpose. Even if you are unhappy about it or not.

 

 

To answer your questions you posted...

 

1. The fact that NEW data needs to be created for the shift to a NEW species. Coinciding this new information, will be the emergence of new promoter proteins specific to the new genetic function. Furthermore, other NEW data will need to present itself in order for the organism to utilise its new function.

 

ie- for a fish to "evolve" legs it needs to have the legs, the support structure, (hips / shoulders), its spine will need to move towards the top of its "back", as well as the motor neurons and brain functionality needed to control the new function.

 

All these things need to "evolve", BEFORE a benefit can be recieved. Hence these mutations will not be selected for during the process of creating the NEW functions as no benefit is recieved until completion.

 

2. A non-detrimental way to increase the genetic data of DNA, and at the same time increase its functionality. This mechanism MUST be observable in ALL species / kinds, (as evolution is about the evolution of ALL life). It must also, (as mentioned before), not be detrimental, as evolution is about adapting to the enviroment to become more FITTER. Furthermore since we do not see deformed creatures that are the result of an evolutionary process that is more detrimental, ergo evolution cannot be detrimental.

 

Since this is science we are discussing, (well a "scientific" theory), I'd ask that it be empirically proven as well. As that is what actual science is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the difficulties with your example is that standards of evidence have changed with time.

30902[/snapback]

The standards of evidence have not changed at all. Although evolutionists wish they would.

 

When the gospels were written, there seems to have been a general view that miracles did happen and eye witnesses were always to be believed.

30902[/snapback]

Once again, incorrect; there a great many people who disbelieved miracles (have you not read any of the paganistic apologetics that railed against Christendom in the first two centuries AD? It would be important to check your sources prior to making statements. A cursory reading of the writings by Pliny the younger, Lucian, Celsus, Tacitus and Suetonius (amongst others) should correct your misunderstanding.

 

We certainly do not have notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers.

30902[/snapback]

First You dont need notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers. You are merely moving the goal posts to fit your need. Do you have notarized statements, taken immediately after the events, from disinterested observers to prove macro-evolution? But you pretend it is a fact.

You have unimpugned testimony, from numerous eye-witnessed sources, that you cannot refute. In any court of law, that is a standard. And they were more than willing to stake their lives (in the face of persecution and torturous and horrendous deaths) against recanting what they saw.

 

Second Provide a definition for disinterested observers, if you can. Because, what youll actually find are those (much like todays evolutionists) who practice the false neutrality fallacy hidden within their a priory world-view!

 

In cases like this, I do not think the only choices are true or false.

30902[/snapback]

The key words here are do not think! Its not what you think, but what you can validate with actual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So, if I told you how to conduct a few simple inductive (repeatable, observable) experiments that would provide empirical evidence of absolute proof, you would recant the above statements?

30650[/snapback]

Yes, I absolutely would.

30674[/snapback]

Okay, but I’ll not allow any equivocating now!

 

 

 

This will be officially labeled “Overture’s Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment†**And will be strictly controlled!!**

 

The items you’ll need for this highly sophisticated scientific experiment =

 

1 each (serviceable) Bic © butane lighter (or any other brand)

 

1 each bare (unencumbered by gloves or ANY other shielding device) human hand (yours, so that you cannot deny the outcome).

 

1 each digital or analogue stop watch

 

1 each “digital†video camera with all the lighting, connections and cables (and fully charged battery) to allow for internet hook-up and recording (so that you cannot deny the outcome).

 

1 each assistant to help with the experiment.

 

1 each tub of ice water

 

1 roll of gauze bandages

 

1 each note pad and pen

 

1 each mode of transportation to the local emergency room

 

 

 

Instructions:

 

Step#1 Set up camera to record incident (I mean experiment) (use auto focus feature and decent lighting).

 

Step#2 Hold exposed hand, with fingers fully extended and joined, palm down, and arm directly in front of your body fully extended and joined at shoulder level.

 

Step#3 Have camera trained on your hand with complete hand (from wrist to fingertip) in frame.

 

Step#4 Have assistant turn on camera, and depress record button (insuring camera is recording incident… I mean experiment).

 

Step#5 Have assistant place butane lighter (working end upward, toward your exposed palm) one inch from your exposed palm, directly under the center of your exposed palm and light the lighter.

 

Step#6 Have assistant keep flame lit and in position for exactly 120 seconds, without you moving your hand from over the flame, or the assistant moving the flame from its position as described above.

 

Step#7 After the 120 seconds of the flames direct exposure to your unprotected hand, check for the following outcome (this is where I predict what happens);

 

A- Your eyes with be more than moist to over flowing with a liquid secretion.

B- The flesh of your exposed (and experimented upon) hand will display redness, blistering and burnt flesh.

C- The flesh of your exposed (and experimented upon) hand may smell bad/strange.

D- You will display the need to rapidly envelop you hand in the tub of ice water due to pain (don’t do this yet, because this experiment involves induction!!).

 

Step#8 Record findings

 

Step#9 Repeat steps 1 – 8 thirty times

 

Step# 10 Convert digital video to format that can be linked to this forum to display results.

 

Step# 11 Insure you have recorded your “recanting of your previous incorrect statementsâ€ÂÂ.

 

 

Test number two will be labeled “Overture’s Sharp Box-cutter Blade to Wrist Experimentâ€ÂÂ

 

Test number three will be labeled “Overture’s Rusty Ice Pick into Pupil Experimentâ€ÂÂ

We’ll give you time to heal up before providing instructions for the next two tests.

 

Interesting, if juvenile.

 

I was hoping you actually had something to talk about.

 

 

 

 

So…. Basically, when someone destroys relativist’s argument; and does so AFTER the relativist says they will recant their false statement this is the best they can come up with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im moving on...

 

I contend before the assembled Jury, that

Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

 

As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

 

So.

 

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

 

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

 

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

 

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.

 

 

The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

 

Let the white swan counting begin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im moving on...

 

You are making the above statement, then make the below assertions? Please elaborate…

 

 

I contend before the assembled Jury, that

Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

 

That is totally dependent upon whether or not you are attempting to promulgate Macro from Micro.

 

If you are simply saying that microevolution (which is merely adaptation) biology, then we can find common ground. But I would further submit, why then would you call it Evolutionary biology? Why not just call it adaptive biology? Why add all the unproven stigma of macroevolution to it? Why pile more upon a hypothesis or model than needs be (see the Law of Parsimony or the Law of Succinctness)?

 

 

As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

 

So.

 

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

 

You can believe in the Falsifiability/ Un-Falsifiability doctrine of thought if that is your wish, but I would further submit that your thesis doesnt follow at all; or at least doesnt follow in most all circumstances; unless you are of the mind that the following statement (by another respondent in this thread) is true? And if so, as the OP asks for, can you back up your statements with facts!

 

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

30628[/snapback]

In which case we have an even deeper evolutionary theological discussion to dig into.

 

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

 

Hey… If you cannot deal with that which corresponds with reality you may not want to get into this debate. Because reality has a tendency to rip the roof off of hypothesis, and expose its underlying intent. AND, adherence to the OP, its questions and its requirements are in play here…

 

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

 

The fallacious Argumentum ad Populum is never a good tact… There was a time when the vast majority believed that African Americans were a sub-species, and we see how that turned out didnt we (there are also many-many other examples of the majority rules falling flat on its collective face)? You further exacerbate your difficulties with the fallacious and prejudicial term evolutionary research, and promulgate the single common ancestor hypothesis (which, by the way, via the evolutionary model, is a must), when this OP is about SCIENCE in general, and the evolutionists tendency to insert relativistic terminology as its back-up.

 

You can complain all you want about De_Skudds Overtures Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment, but the fact that it is empirical science, and it IS (per its parameters) un-falsifiable! Therefore it dismantles your attempt at a falsifiability doctrine. And any (and all) attempts to wriggle out of this tight logic have only been met with squirming by the relativists.

 

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.

 

If the above were true, then absolutely NO evolutionist would (or could) claim that evolution predicts this or evolution predicts that; but we see this ALL THE TIME, do we not? Further, we can, in fact, determine a great many predictions with confidence, because of inductive empirical science, and what we have learnt from the past. If you dont believe me, simply complete De_Skudds Overtures Butane lighter Flame to Palm Experiment, and youll soon find where you are totally wrong!

 

The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

 

Or, how it is irrelevant to science when it comes to truth…

 

Let the white swan counting begin.

 

Okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i dont understand is how some come here and claim to scientists and talk to us about what science they do. i dont know about you. if i worked in a lab all day or what not why would i want to go home and talk about what i did to a bunch of strangers and try to teach them about what i do.

 

i work on cars. i wouldnt join the sae forums or like and blog on how they poorly design cars, though i rant that all the time when i have to work on those things,lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Overture' timestamp='1242978276' post='30628']

The question of whether anything at all can be known as certain has been puzzling philosophers for millennia. Plato discussed shadows on the wall of a cave, Descartes set out on the noble quest of doubting everything he possibly could - and found himself incapable of doubting only his existence and ability to think, and even in pop culture the film The Matrix asks the same question.

 

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

 

Science accepts this limitation with a rueful shrug and goes merrily about the business of describing what we see, whether it's actually real or not.

 

Overture,

 

You posted, "You can't know ANYTHING for sure." Are you sure of that?

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='Overture' timestamp='1243021054' post='30682']

I understand that you are attempting to show that, should I place a lighter to my hand, I would perceive pain, and that my hand burned. However, this fails to address the fundamental question of whether or not I can trust that my perceptions are an accurate reflection of the universe.

 

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. Nor am I trying to be rude, I'm simply observing that this is a major philosophical problem that has been thought about for ages without anyone coming to a satisfactory resolution.

 

If you want to have a philosophical debate, I'm game. If you want to be a jackass have fun on your own.

 

Edit: And since you have not only taken an attitude, but also called someone a cuss word. You are banned for it.

 

Overture,

 

If you could not "trust that your perceptions were an accurate reflection of the universe" when you held a butane lighter under your hand, you are certainly not qualified to conclude him a "jackass." No?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

name='Overture' timestamp='1242978276' post='30628']

The question of whether anything at all can be known as certain has been puzzling philosophers for millennia. Plato discussed shadows on the wall of a cave, Descartes set out on the noble quest of doubting everything he possibly could - and found himself incapable of doubting only his existence and ability to think, and even in pop culture the film The Matrix asks the same question.

 

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

 

Science accepts this limitation with a rueful shrug and goes merrily about the business of describing what we see, whether it's actually real or not.

 

Overture,

 

You posted, "You can't know ANYTHING for sure." Are you sure of that?

 

TeeJay

 

 

 

:lol: I know, I busted him here on that same issue

 

It's not scientific bluster, it's an admission of human limitations. No matter how much you want to, you can't know ANYTHING for sure.

30628[/snapback]

After sifting through all of that, you did finally say what you really thought there. So, if I have this correct, you're saying no absolutes can be proven?

 

But he never responded… Although De_skudd took him to task and totally demolished Overture’s Solipsist’s world view... Read posts 8, and 10 through 17. And Overture has no real reply so he just spews equivocations and side-stepping all over the place. I then busted him out in post 22.

 

What you can gather from this thread in particular, is that materialistic evolutionists in particular, when pressed with actual evidence, rely on massive amounts of faith, and failed metaphysical argumentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='sjl197' timestamp='1319353888' post='76034']

Im moving on...

 

I contend before the assembled Jury, that

Evolutionary biology is based in sound scientific foundations. There is no Doctrine, there is no ploy.

 

As such, Falsifiability is a core concept and necessity, the accusation of UnFalsifiability is false.

 

So.

 

Can you'all come up another (or maybe other -3 maximum) hypotheses to test/experiments involving evolutionary theory or practice?

 

Rather than hand-burning "is what you or I perceive real" ones please?

 

BUT, please only please just about PAST EVOLUTION, as the vast majority of evolutionary research is about past processes and patterns of evolution, WHAT HAPPENED, HOW, WHEN, WHY. And lets go with a single common ancestor is assumed.

 

So nothing on future trajectories. Basically, little evolutionary research is on future consequences, simply because, as in all scientific fields the future is unknowable, and in biology, we typically accept there are too many unknown variables to predict fate of organisms with confidence.

 

 

The aim for evolutionists will be to demonstrate how the hypotheses or experiments can include or interrelate with core Falsifiability.

 

Let the white swan counting begin.

 

If you "assume a single common ancestor" or evolution, you are reasoning in a circle:

 

When it comes to origins of first life or the universe, atheists have no materialistic explanation at the ready. So instead of assuming an agent-causation (such as God), they automatically insert a gap. And they immediately argue, “What! So Goddidit?†The theistic answer of an Agent causing the universe and first life is immediately dismissed out of hand. Atheists refuse to admit that the gap has been plugged by the theist with an adequate explanation because of their belief that since only matter exists, there has to be a materialistic explanation.

 

If we carefully consider this reasoning, it turns out to be Circular Reasoning. There has to be a gap, because there is no materialistic explanation. There has to be a materialistic explanation because naturalism is true. But since it’s naturalism itself which is at issue in the discussion, when atheists assume there is a gapâ€â€Âbecause they have no materialistic explanationâ€â€Âthey are assuming that which needs to be proved.

 

To satisfy Jason who works on cars: If two atheists were studying how a car works they would never dismiss a priori that it must be the result of a car designer and builder before they delved into how it works. But ironically, they dismiss the possiblity of a Creator God out of hand when studying the universe.

 

TeeJay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms