Re: Evolution Without Evidence!
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>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 falsifiabilityanother concept Juby apparently does not understand.
> 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.
>More scientific nonsense. Evidence is never falsifiable. Evidence is only observable. It is theories which are (or should be) falsifiable.
> 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.
>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.
> Charles P: How can we falsify the claim that "evolution simply conforms to
> whatever evidence it is presented with"?
>Which *predictions* from the oldFirst, tell us what the "old" theory of evolution is. Without that information, no one can answer your question.
> Theory of Evolution have not occurred yet?
>It shouldn't be considered scientific for fossils to conform to any theory old or newand it is not. What is required scientifically is that the theory fit the evidence. Never the reverse.
> 3 Why should it be considered *scientific* to expect fossils to conform to
> an old theory?
>We don't need to assume what is patently obvious.
> Charles P: If we assume that the video is bogus anti-evolution creation
> what scientific non-bogus empirical and verifiable evidenceIt 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.
> should be presented here on Origins Talk to help creationists to understand
--- 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.