Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
Any theory that is scientifically falsifiable is scientific. ID can be falsified by several methods. In the distant past, ID was considered to be falsified by scientists because speciation events were claimed to happen slowly, contrary to the prediction of ID for rapid speciation (i.e. a designer introduces a new model car/life form/whatever).
Now that we know that speciation events happen rapidly, ID must once again be considered. The earlier falsification claim was in error, per our fossil record.
Why not?
Are you prepared to stand by your claim above that this example will falsify Evolutionary Theory?
What? your "example" is NOT a disproof. I did not say that all you had to show was that speciation CAN occur without natural selection. Your example is preposterous because it is quite obvious what the causes of speciation ARE!
Your word-twisting silliness is irrelevant. Do you even know what falisification means? Suffice it to say that your "example" from a genetic lab will not get the job done. I suggest you try offering evidence that a creator sufficient to have designed and created all living species (and the fossil evidence, etc.) exists.
On a related note, I see you've dug out your genetic engineer's example. Maybe this time you'll respond. Does this mean we'll soon see the auto junkyard or computer viruses resurected as well? Or do you need to start another thread.
Yes I did. You said they were "extreme". I guess you didn't like them. But they are certainly examples that would falsify evolution.
Here's a few more:
Find an indigenous lemur in siberia. Evolution predicts you won't.
Find a platypus in Britain. Ditto.
Why are there no human remains older than 200,000 years in North or South America? Evolution has an answer - find some, and the theory's in trouble.
Do birds have chlorophyll? Why not? Again, evolution predicts that they shouldn't. If you found one, it'd be a coup.
Find mastodon remains in the same strata and location as T. Rex.
I could go on...
So someone must prove that a Creator exists before you'll accept that Evolution can be falsified?
Methinks that I'm not the one with difficulty comprehending the meaning of "falsification"...
In the "distant past" there was no ID. It was called creationism, and it held that the earth was created by the God of Abraham, as literally described in the Book of Genesis, 6000 years ago.
Again - what exactly IS your theory? And why does the prediction of rapid speciation across time flow from it, rather than a prediction of simultaneous creation at a single moment? WOuld you like to provide some citations to peer-reviewed journals or books that would back you up here?
What sort of theory would predict that designers would create all of their innovations simultaneously? That sounds like a strawman argument rather than ID.
NO, someone should present me with evidence of a creator before I'll admit that creationism is a viable explanation. No creator (or designer), no creation (no design). That's your burden.
Evolution is an independent matter. As I said - they are not mutually exclusive. And evolution could be disproven and replaced with another scientific theory, and that would still not prove creationism.
How do you tell? Maybe if you told us your theory of ID, we could evaluate the strawman-ness of my question. Until you do so, I have to assume it's valid. And, again, how do you know what a creator or designer would or would not do? Sonds like ID has a lot of unstated assumptions regarding the abilities and motives of an unknown and unknowable designer. Maybe it'd be easier if you just told us what they are.
You appear to be ignorant (or feign as such) regarding every facet of this thread. Troll elsewhere.
It is an old and venerable tree. You will need more than hand clippers to chop it down.
Are you prepared to stand by your claim above that this example will falsify Evolutionary Theory? - Southack
"What? your "example" is NOT a disproof. I did not say that all you had to show was that speciation CAN occur without natural selection. ... Do you even know what falisification means? ... I suggest you try offering evidence that a creator sufficient to have designed and created all living species (and the fossil evidence, etc.) exists." - cracker
So someone must prove that a Creator exists before you'll accept that Evolution can be falsified? - Southack
"NO, someone should present me with evidence of a creator before I'll admit that creationism is a viable explanation. No creator (or designer), no creation (no design). That's your burden."Evolution is an independent matter. As I said - they are not mutually exclusive." - cracker
So tell me again why my non-Creator, physical lab example isn't sufficient to falsify Evolution for you...
You are so self-evidenly absurd, I find it hard to beleive you are serious.
I suggest you offer a definition of your theory. Until then, you are so much hot air.
Evolution predicts nothing of the sort.
If a species of non-plants were discovered with similar redox centers it would in no way challenge evolution.
What do Watson (not James) and ID have to do with evolution?
You guys are strangely defensive, and very inconsistent to the point of schizophrenia (figuratively of course).
A hundred posts about how this Watson guy's paper is nonsense and how ID is not even a science, yet then you use not knowing about these nonsensical things means I am not familiar with evolution.
Do you know how absurd your comment was?
Now come up with something serious.
The last five years has brought about the greatest increase of biological data in history.
I am talking about the various genome projects.
These data allow us to now examine and test specific hypotheses concerning evolutionary theory and how evolution is reflected in the genomes.
How about some examples from something like this -- doable questions with yes or no answers.
"You are so self-evidenly absurd, I find it hard to beleive you are serious." - cracker
I see nothing absurd about tangible, scientific lab evidence. You claimed that said evidence was insufficient to falsify Evolutionary Theory. Why?
It would be more than just a problem for evolution.
It would be a problem for all physical sciences as we know them.
Let's be serious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.