by hooberus 207 Replies latest watchtower bible
This is an unbelievably long thread about a non event. This thread has probably lasted more days that what the real deluge lasted which some point to as being seven days.
I sent out a dove last night and it came back with a crack pipe this morning. Lets see Noah do that.
funkyderek said: The difference is that a scientist can be persuaded to change his mind. If a theory is falsified, then it must be rejected. Creationism cannot be falsified. No matter how overwhelming the evidence those who truly wish to believe can construct the kind of tortuous scenarios that you continually copy-and-paste from answersingenesis.org. When backed into a corner, they can simply claim a miracle or invoke the mysterious will of God.
Evolutionists have through a number of methods made evolution practically unfalsifiable. No matter how the evidence turns out some sort of evolutionary scenario can be constructed to save evolution.
I sent out a dove last night and it came back with a crack pipe this morning. Lets see Noah do that.
You're funny Shotgun.
~Aztec
Hooberus,
We've been over this many times before. *In principle* Evolution (Common Decent) is falsifiable. In practice, there is no more risk of it being falsified than the heliocentric model of the solar system. This is because the theory is good and has made many correct predictions. Common Decent could be falsified tommorow if you could show that the fossil record is static.
What's that? The fossil record is highly ordered with primitive species at the bottom and modern ones at the top? Funny how a global flood automagically sorted all of those billions of fossils into chronological order!
rem
Evolutionists have through a number of methods made evolution practically unfalsifiable. No matter how the evidence turns out some sort of evolutionary scenario can be constructed to save evolution.
Not true. There is potential evidence possible that, when found, would put the theory into question. One such find could be for example a T-rex with a Homo sapiens in it's belly. However the theory of evolution has undergone ruthless atacks and testing and is still standing. It was not devised to disprove God for it does no such thing. When it was formulated people were very sceptical about it. It took a while even in the scientific community to take hold. When there are mountains of evidence an honest scientist has no choice but to use the model that has the most backing.
Don't think for one second that evolution is a conspiracy by the godless, for if anyone could disprove this theory there would surely be a Nobelprize in Biology. It would bring fame and honor to such a person for it would uproot everything we know about geology, biology, astronomy and countless other fields. That would bing a major paradigm shift.
Greven
rem said:
We've been over this many times before. *In principle* Evolution (Common Decent) is falsifiable.
I the times that we have discussed this before it has been shown that evolution is not falsifiable by even draconian non real world tests.
In practice, there is no more risk of it being falsified than the heliocentric model of the solar system. This is because the theory is good and has made many correct predictions. Common Decent could be falsified tommorow if you could show that the fossil record is static.
A static fossil record would not falsify evolution. Evolutionists could still claim that all of the animals in the fossil record reached a point of stasis. The lack of a tunk and branches for the fossil evolutionary tree could be explained by claiming that in previous sediments there were fossils showing evolution, but that these previous sediments were eroded and that the later sediments which show stasis are all that is extant now.
What's that? The fossil record is highly ordered with primitive species at the bottom and modern ones at the top? Funny how a global flood automagically sorted all of those billions of fossils into chronological order!
FOSSIL PROGRESSION?, DAVID M. RAUP, Chicago Field Museum, Prof. of Geology, Univ. of Chicago, "A large number of welltrained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: lowlevel textbooks, semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been foundyet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks...One of the ironies of the creationevolution debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this 'fact' in their Flood Geology." New Scientist, Vol. 90, p.832, 1981
greven said: Not true. There is potential evidence possible that, when found, would put the theory into question. One such find could be for example a T-rex with a Homo sapiens in it's belly.
This situation would not falsify evolution, evolutionists could simply claim that the homo sapian fossil is a stratigraphic leak, and that it was not contemporary with the T-rex, or even if they had to acknowledge that the two lived together they could simply say that the T-rex was like the coelencath fish, it continued to live yet left no fossils after a certain time period etc. Evolution would still survive.
I think it's easy to see who has the ideological blinders on here. Hooberus, really - you make my case for me better than I ever could by myself.
rem
Creationists have been milking that misquote of Raup for 22 years. Raup was among a handful of scientists that postulated a subtle extinction cycle that followed an as yet unknown biological pattern. He and others like Gould hypothesizeed a punctuated jerking meter to speciation. The comments of Raup partially quoted by Creationists like David Menton reflect the sporadic nature of fossilization and the seeming lack of uniformity in the rate of evolution. Rest assured Raup was not suggesting the Theory of Evolution should be discarded. Recent and improved computer modeling has found that the fossil record is very consistant with Darwinian Evolution, which of recognises the role of local and mass extinctions and the imperfections of rare and random fossilization.
The same way that Jesus fed a multitude with a few loaves, The same way that Moses parted the red sea.
