by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
rem said: Sure, the heirarchical structure of life could be used to strengthen certain theories of creation, but you'd have to explain how and why a non-heirarchical structure would falsify or at least weaken the theory.
. Sure, the heirarchical structure of life could be used to strengthen certain theories of evolution, but you'd have to explain how and why a non-heirarchical structure would falsify or at least weaken the theory.
My point with all these posts (too many may I add) is simply to show that when one applies the same standards to both models of origins they both are practically unfalsible in their general concept, yet each model in its modern form has sub-hypothesis which may be falsible.
A theory being falsible doesn't mean that it is true, but only that it has the potential of being proven false. Falsibility cannot directly take us to the "true origin" of life, it can only show us where we may be wrong.
Hooberus,
Even if it were proven that there are no transitional fossils between the major groups such as Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals, the concept of Evolution could still survive. It would be said that Amphibians are transitional between, Fish and Reptiles, and that Reptilies are transitional between Amphibians and Mammals. The lack of transitional fossils between Fish and Amphibians could be explained away based on either poverty of the fossil record or some sort of rapid evolutionary process.
The key to falsification is the heirarchical structure. If the fossils were in no logical, heirarchical order, then evolution would be falsified. I'm not just talking about transitional fossils. I'm also talking about the order of the fossils in the strata. The same is true with DNA. If there was no decent with modification (replication with mutation), then evolution would be falsified. The world would have to be much different than it is today for the concept of evolution to be falsified, but the fact is that it is most definitely falsifiable.
Based on another interpretation of evidence one could just as easily say: "There's no getting around the fact that transitional fossils have not been found. The lack of transitional fossils do not falsify Evolution, though. It only provide evidence for creation."
Whether or not you agree or disagree with the observation of transitional fossils does not provide evidence for or against creation. This is a common misunderstanding of how evidence works. Evidence against evolution is not evidence for creation and vice versa. Each theory has to stand on its own evidence.
However it might be better to combine both views and say: "The possible existance of transitional fossils falsifies creation to the same extent that the possible lack of transitional fossils falsifies evolution."
The existence of transitional fossils does not in any way falsify creation. A lack of transitional fossils or a different ordering of transitional fossils would definitely falsify evolution.
However most major creationist organizations do not believe that the fossils were laid down during the creation period, but that the fossils were laid down during the later flood. Thus there is no requirement that the two match in relative order. The requirement then becomes for the fossils to match with the flood stages. (I know that you don't believe in the flood, but please try to understand my point here.)
See how a falsifiable theory suddenly becomes non-falsifiable? As soon as you use the ad hoc explanation of the flood (which has no verifiable evidence) the creation theory goes from falsifiable to non-falsifiable. This is the whole point of what I've been talking about when I say that only falsifiable theories are worthwhile ones.
The modern theory of creation is seriously supported by thousands of scientists
If they support a theory of creation that is dependent upon a global flood, then their theory is not falsifiable. This is just one example.
Sure, the heirarchical structure of life could be used to strengthen certain theories of evolution, but you'd have to explain how and why a non-heirarchical structure would falsify or at least weaken the theory.
Because the heirarchical structure of life is the whole foundation of evolution. Evolution does not work without it because evolution is decent with modification. If it worked any other way it would not be evolution.
A theory being falsible doesn't mean that it is true, but only that it has the potential of being proven false. Falsibility cannot directly take us to the "true origin" of life, it can only show us where we may be wrong.
A falsifiable theory also means that we can learn other things from the theory. Again, what diseases has the theory of creation helped us to cure? Since creation is not a falsifiable theory it has not contributed to our modern base of scientific knowledge. It's basically a theory that has done us no good. Evolution, on the other hand, has benefited us in many ways because it is consistent with reality and makes accurate predictions. (See how this comes full circle?)
rem
rem said: The key to falsification is the heirarchical structure. If the fossils were in no logical, heirarchical order, then evolution would be falsified. I'm not just talking about transitional fossils. I'm also talking about the order of the fossils in the strata. The same is true with DNA. If there was no decent with modification (replication with mutation), then evolution would be falsified. The world would have to be much different than it is today for the concept of evolution to be falsified, but the fact is that it is most definitely falsifiable.
The heirarchial structure was already documented before the modern theory of evolution, evolution was derived from it. The same can be said for the the theory of creation by typology which was also derived from the heirarchial structure. Both concepts were derived from the same evidence.
Since the heirarchical structure was known as being true before the modern theory of evolution, it could not really be a true falsification test, but only something which has to be true in order for evolution to be proposed.
Later Note: my above comments relate primarily to the heirarchial pattern derived by classification systems of living animals, I see now after re-reading that you may be talking about three dimensional heirarchies as found in fossils, rather than just the final results of the heirarchies.
Also if "the key to falsification is the heirarchical structure" then any theory (evolutionist or creationist) which is based on the heirarchial structure, has already passed this "key test"
rem said: See how a falsifiable theory suddenly becomes non-falsifiable? As soon as you use the ad hoc explanation of the flood (which has no verifiable evidence) the creation theory goes from falsifiable to non-falsifiable. This is the whole point of what I've been talking about when I say that only falsifiable theories are worthwhile ones.
The flood theory for the formation of the geologic column is just as falsifiable as the long ages concept for the formation of the geologic column.
http://www.trueorigins.org/cfjrgulf.asp
rem said: If they support a theory of creation that is dependent upon a global flood, then their theory is not falsifiable. This is just one example.
If it is not falsifiable, then why do evolutionists spend alot of time trying to falsify models of the geologic column based on the flood ?
rem said: The existence of transitional fossils does not in any way falsify creation. A lack of transitional fossils or a different ordering of transitional fossils would definitely falsify evolution.
While a "lack of transitional fossils" would falsify some evolutionary theories, it would not falsify the general theory of Evolution as I have already shown:
While specific theories of evolution may be fairly falsible by the fossil record. The concept of Evolution itself may not be very falsible by the fossil record. Even if it were proven that there are no transitional fossils between the major groups such as Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, and Mammals, the concept of Evolution could still survive. It would be said that Amphibians are transitional between, Fish and Reptiles, and that Reptilies are transitional between Amphibians and Mammals. The lack of transitional fossils between Fish and Amphibians could be explained away based on either poverty of the fossil record or some sort of rapid evolutionary process.
Also, if one limits oneself only to theories which may have the possibility of being proven wrong, then one may never come to the truth about origins !
Since we are limited to two basic concepts for the origin of life, then we should try to see how the data fits both and then decide which one is true.
The idea that one may be more falsifiable than the other really doesn't matter, since falsibility only tells us that it is possible to prove a theory wrong, not that it is right or true.
Hooberus,
The flood is not falsifiable. Well, it is in the literalist biblical sense, but the problem is that creation apologists keep tweaking the flood theory until it's non-falsifiable. Yes people spend a lot of time showing that there is no evidence that it happened, but creationists continue to put it forward as evidence because they have many ad hoc arguments that keep it from being completely falsifiable.
This whole discussion is getting to be pointless and repetetive. The whole reason I brought up the falsifiability of creation is that it is not useful. It has not helped us learn anything in science. It's principles have not helped us cure any diseases or learn anything substantial about our biology. If you have anything you'd like to share with us that contradicts this, then by all means do. Otherwise, you have to admit that the creation theory is just as useless to us as any other non-falsifiable theory. Theories that aren't useful are less likely correct than useful ones.
rem
