14 Nov 14
Okay then, apparently 'falsifiable' has been explained here... nothing new to be seen in regards that narrative.
What I have observed here over the past year or so is whenever I've presented evidence that can falsify evolution it's been ignored. Such as high concentrations of nitrates in the early stages of evolution that should be found in soil samples, but cannot be found. Or a paleontologist who said that the level of preservation in tissue found inside a dino bone shouldn't exist, but it did. Evidence contradicting the accepted timeline, and the non existence of high concentrations of nitrates (which should exist in early strata but doesn't), are just two examples of how falsifiable evidence is carefully selected (by evolutionists) while the bulk of such evidence is simply ignored.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've never seen a creationist claim evolution is not falsifiable. I'm not saying a creationist has never made this claim, I'm just saying I've never seen this.
You are incorrect. Nobody is suggesting that if something is falsifiable then it is automatically correct. The thread is a response to the claim by some creationists that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable and therefore not science, because scientific theories must be falsifiable.
If a scientific theory is absolutely correct and never proven to be wrong, can it still be called falsifiable? Can a fact be falsifiable?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeIt was explained here because there are some creationists who clearly do not understand what it means - including several in this thread, and some who think that evolution is not falsifiable - including some in this thread. So for them, it clearly is new. I am glad that you already understood what it means and accept that Evolution is falsifiable.
Okay then, apparently 'falsifiable' has been explained here... nothing new to be seen in regards that narrative.
What I have observed here over the past year or so is whenever I've presented evidence that can falsify evolution it's been ignored.
So did nobody respond, or did you simply not like the responses?
Such as high concentrations of nitrates in the early stages of evolution that should be found in soil samples, but cannot be found.
I have not heard of that one before, so I for one did not ignore you, I just never read the post.
Please start a thread on the subject and tell us more about how this falsifies evolution.
Or a paleontologist who said that the level of preservation in tissue found inside a dino bone shouldn't exist, but it did.
That one I have heard and did not ignore, although I may not have responded to your posts on the subject, I have responded to others in this forum. Again, please start a thread on the subject and I will not ignore you. But be prepared to defend your claim.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limend your point is?
I've never seen a creationist claim evolution is not falsifiable. I'm not saying a creationist has never made this claim, I'm just saying I've never seen this.
The OP clearly states that it is addressing creationists who make that claim. Whether you have or have not heard a creationist making that claim is neither here nor there.
If a scientific theory is absolutely correct and never proven to be wrong, can it still be called falsifiable? Can a fact be falsifiable?
Yes.
Falsifiable means: 'if it is wrong, it should be possible to find evidence that it is wrong'.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo did nobody respond, or did you simply not like the responses?
It was explained here because there are some creationists who clearly do not understand what it means - including several in this thread, and some who think that evolution is not falsifiable - including some in this thread. So for them, it clearly is new. I am glad that you already understood what it means and accept that Evolution [b]is falsifiable. ...[text shortened]... e start a thread on the subject and I will not ignore you. But be prepared to defend your claim.[/b]
You responded to the one about the paleontologist by first saying she wasn't a scientist (I think maybe you were responding too fast by assuming she wasn't qualified), and then you said you didn't see anything unusual about what they discovered. No one responded to what I said about nitrates.
It's not a matter of not liking the responses, but I have no interest in going over the same material and repeating the same thing over and over again year after year. I've already experienced this at two other game sites. I don't know if I'm up against short term memories or if I'm simply fighting an uphill battle against a firmly established belief in evolution.
14 Nov 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadand your point is?
nd your point is?
The OP clearly states that it is addressing creationists who make that claim. Whether you have or have not heard a creationist making that claim is neither here nor there.
[b]If a scientific theory is absolutely correct and never proven to be wrong, can it still be called falsifiable? Can a fact be falsifiable?
Yes.
Fa ...[text shortened]... ifiable means: 'if it is wrong, it should be possible to find evidence that it is wrong'.[/b]
The OP clearly states that it is addressing creationists who make that claim. Whether you have or have not heard a creationist making that claim is neither here nor there.
Someone who opposes creationism makes the claim that creationists claim evolution is not falsifiable... ? Okay, I get it now. Creationists don't actually need to make that claim, because evolutionists will make it for them.
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadPeople have suggested that since they can not falsify creationism, then it is not a scientific theory but just a religious belief so they don't have to deal with it. They can't falsify intelligent design either, so they put that theory in with creationism so they don't have to deal with it. Evolutionists ignore the Law of Biogenesis and will not discuss the origin of life by giving the excuse that that is not part of the evolution theory.
You are incorrect. Nobody is suggesting that if something is falsifiable then it is automatically correct. The thread is a response to the claim by some creationists that the Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable and therefore not science, because scientific theories must be falsifiable.
Even when the theory of evolution has been falsified by Darwin's own criteria, the evolutionists refuse to accept it, but move the goalpost and change definitions. Even when accepting that things in nature appear intelligently designed, they will not accept that it is evidence of intelligent design or evidence of a creator.
I believe the blueprint information progamming in DNA has falsified Darwin's original theory of evolution, but some creationists may have stated that evolution is not falsifiable out of frustration, because the evolutionists remaining faithful to the theory will not allow it to be falsified, but have turned it into their own religion.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeI've also never heard of this one before. If you would be so kind as to start a new thread, with a link to an article on this, or maybe just explain why nitrate concentrations should've been high in early evolution and what we do find in soil samples from the time, I'd be most interested to read it.
...high concentrations of nitrates in the early stages of evolution that should be found in soil samples, but cannot be found...
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsA name-change, that's all it is. And I only wish we didn't have to deal with, but ID-advocates are quite immune to critical thinking and so always attempts to hammer in the same old, debunked arguments ad nauseum. I don't even understand why I'm responding anymore. Well, that's not entirely true, I do know why I respond: because if I didn't there might be some poor sap falling for these arguments of yours, and before you know it there's yet another ID-zombie going: lalalala, earth young, lalalala, evolution false, lalala.
They can't falsify intelligent design either, so they put that theory in with creationism so they don't have to deal with it.
ID: The intellectual fall of mankind.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsWe most certainly do not ignore the law of biogenesis. It's akin to the third tenet of cell theory: "all cells arise from pre-existing, living cells", which is at the foundation of modern evolutionary biology. See, it's when you jumble together the scientific theory of evolution with scientific hypotheses of abiogenesis that you get confused and say silly things like: "evolutionists ignore the Law of Biogenesis".
Evolutionists ignore the Law of Biogenesis...
I wish you'd stop doing that, since clearly the whole idea of evolution is that all living things have common ancestors, thus we all come from living things.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIrreducible complexity has been demonstrated to not be irreducable at all, so Darwin's own criteria, that if it could be demonstrated that some aspects of biological life could not have evolved in gradual steps, has not yet been used to successfully prove evolution invalid. Learn to live with it.
Even when the theory of evolution has been falsified by Darwin's own criteria...
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's not "programming" in the literal sense that requires a programmer. Evolutionary mechanisms explains how this "programming" can evolve, demonstrating that not even DNA is irreducably complex. If you'd actually take the time to delve deeper into the subject yourself (rather than view ID-propaganda), you'll see that. But be careful, you might actually learn something.
I believe the blueprint information progamming in DNA has falsified Darwin's original theory of evolution...
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by lemon limeSo I did respond to one of them. So if you did like my response, then why are you claiming that I ignored you?
It's not a matter of not liking the responses, but I have no interest in going over the same material and repeating the same thing over and over again year after year.
And why do you now suddenly have no interest in going over it again?
I've already experienced this at two other game sites. I don't know if I'm up against short term memories or if I'm simply fighting an uphill battle against a firmly established belief in evolution.
What have you experienced at two other game sites? Who here had a short term memory? It seems that it was you that forgot that you did get a response to one of your claims. As for the other claim, I doubt that I forgot it, I probably didn't happen to read that post. I don't read everything. But I have offered to read the claim now, yet suddenly you have got cold feet.
Perhaps it is firmly established belief against evolution?
A moment ago you had two pieces of hard evidence that evolution was false. You do know that such findings are worthy of the Nobel Prize, and millions of dollars? Yet you don't have the time to go over them? Why?
14 Nov 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou claim to be a programmer. If you are a programmer, you must be piss poor at it. Even human programming requires some intelligence to do it even at the most elementary level. You don't seem to have the intelligence to realize that DNA programming for the human body must have been done by a super intellect as Bill Gates of Microsoft recognized very easily because many good programmers work for him but they have never been able to produce anything close to that complexity.
So I did respond to one of them. So if you did like my response, then why are you claiming that I ignored you?
And why do you now suddenly have no interest in going over it again?
[b]I've already experienced this at two other game sites. I don't know if I'm up against short term memories or if I'm simply fighting an uphill battle against a firmly esta ...[text shortened]... y of the Nobel Prize, and millions of dollars? Yet you don't have the time to go over them? Why?