Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Evolution Without Evidence!

Expand Messages
  • gluadys
    ... Actually, it is considered a quality of a good theory that it is able to conform to new evidence as it comes to light. Presenting this as a fault
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 30, 2012
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i2OB8JHhIA&feature=em-uploademail In this
      > episode, we explore the different alleged forms of evolution which shows
      > that it is not scientifically falsifiable, but rather that evolution simply
      > conforms to whatever evidence it is presented with.
      >


      Actually, it is considered a quality of a good theory that it is able to conform to new evidence as it comes to light. Presenting this as a "fault" indicates a mind that does not understand science. Further, this has nothing to do with falsifiability—another concept Juby apparently does not understand.




      >
      > Charles P: What we need from the advocates of the old Theory of Evolution
      > is a new list of empirical and verifiable evidence that is falsifiable.
      >


      More scientific nonsense. Evidence is never falsifiable. Evidence is only observable. It is theories which are (or should be) falsifiable.



      >
      > Charles P: How can we falsify the claim that "evolution simply conforms to
      > whatever evidence it is presented with"?


      No need to. A good theory is supposed to conform to the evidence. What would be non-scientific would be attempting to conform the evidence to a theory.




      >Which *predictions* from the old
      > Theory of Evolution have not occurred yet?

      First, tell us what the "old" theory of evolution is. Without that information, no one can answer your question.


      >
      >
      > 3 Why should it be considered *scientific* to expect fossils to conform to
      > an old theory?
      >

      It shouldn't be considered scientific for fossils to conform to any theory old or new—and it is not. What is required scientifically is that the theory fit the evidence. Never the reverse.


      >
      > Charles P: If we assume that the video is bogus anti-evolution creation
      > nonsense,
      >

      We don't need to assume what is patently obvious.



      > what scientific non-bogus empirical and verifiable evidence
      > should be presented here on Origins Talk to help creationists to understand
      > evolution?
      >
      >

      It is not so much evidence that anti-evolution creationists need, but an understanding of a scientific framework to analyze the evidence. One needs to understand concepts like "hypothesis" "theory" "evidence" "prediction" "falsifiable" etc. and how they work together in logical fashion. The video is a good illustration of the illogic and confusion that stems from not comprehending these basic concepts.



      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Charles P: After you have read Shapiro*s book, you might agree that what
      > the study shows is empirical and verifiable evidence consistent with
      > natural genetic engineering.
      >

      Possibly, but it is typical of your responses that this is a complete non-sequitor to the post you quoted.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.