Replies

If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science.

Are you trying to prove yourself incapable to hold a conversation? Because unless I misunderstand you, you have succeeded admirably. Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong.

The argument from information theory is not based on simply finding flaws with evolution, but on demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with information theory.

Perhaps you are misapplying information theory. Please define "information."

It is also possible to prove a theory incorrect by contraindicating experimental evidence. In fact, it is generally accepted that this is a requirement of any theory: falsifiability. This is one of the major valid criticisms of evolution. You cannot prove a theory without supporting experimental evidence. It is not sufficient to simply observe.

Every single fossil is a potential falsification of evolution. I covered this in my last post. I provided a specific observation that would falsify evolution. You even quoted me in your response. Then you forge right ahead with this "evolution is not falsifiable" nonsense. Why is that? While you're at it, what observation would falsify the Intelligent Design hypothesis?

In you passion to defend evolution you have chosen to label me as incompetent and, in doing so, you don't even realize that you are attacking your own statement.

You said, "The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations." You did not say that observations can rule out theories. You said that theories can and do rule out observations.

I replied, "If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science."

You responded, "Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong." Yes, observations can prove theories wrong. This is why I said that the opposite (what you said), that theories can prove observations wrong, is not science.

So we agree. Observations can prove theories wrong, but theories cannot prove observations wrong. It is you who made the error, but your deep bias against anyone who rejects evolutionary theory causes you to label them as incompetent. I pointed out your error but your bias blinded you so that you convinced yourself that is was me who made the error.

I submit that this is a common problem in discussions about creation and evolution. There is way too much passion and not enough careful, civil and objective debate of the facts. Once the name calling starts, we end up back at the school yard playground.