Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Page 6 of 10 [ 143 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

05 Dec 2009, 6:04 pm

Quote:

Ah, but there's the rub.

The "scientific community" for decades has been heavily influenced by the evolutionist sect in their midst. Anyone who disagrees risks being discredited by their evolutionist peers. It's the the equivalent of a researcher finding hard proof that the WTC was in fact brought down by controlled demolitions and the government's "experts" calling the researcher a "conspiracy theorist"...effectively discrediting his research in the public eye via slander because people don't want to associate with a "conspiracy theorist."

We've seen people who believe in God and creation be threatened with not being awarded college degrees because they will not state to their department heads that they accept evolution as FACT. Yes, this has happened. So much for freedom of thought or difference of opinion.

The evolutionist camp amongst the "scientific community" is nowhere near a super majority. However, they speak for the whole as if they are...often deriding those who do not agree by calling them names and applying derogatory labels.

Scientists are humans. We already see with "global warming" and "climate change" hard evidence that if you don't sing the "global warming" song, you don't get research grants. There is a lot of politics behind science (which there should not be) and when you can dictate the welfare of a researcher by cutting off funding if they do not back your agenda, it's amazing how many you can get to join your camp.


why do you talk as though creationists have no incentive to have creationism accepted?
how many people have creationist bodies kicked out for rejecting the idea that god created the world?
you're also using a bad company argument, just because some people who argue against creationism call you names doesn't mean that the position of all who argue against it is equally anti-rational.
I'm yet to see a single creationist offer evidence that god exists/existed - cry all you like about conspiracy theories and freedom of speech etc, it is impossible to evidence this (to take a Kantian line) without eliminating (if god did create the world) the entire point of free will, that is that humans praise god not because they know he exists and that they will definitely have a place in heaven, but without this guarantee. God belongs to the noumenal and scienmce to understanding the phenomenal ( if we posit the possibility that a god exists), access to the noumenal to prove His existence would turn us into mechanical puppets and would defeat the entire point of creation. Is this not correct?

aside from this tangential foray into Kant. I don't see how you challenge the point that creationism hinges on the existence of god. evolution does not require the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity and is therefore a simpler and more elegant concept that fits the available information. evolution is science/reason. Creationism is ideology.



Last edited by TitusLucretiusCarus on 05 Dec 2009, 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

05 Dec 2009, 6:15 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
We've seen people who believe in God and creation be threatened with not being awarded college degrees because they will not state to their department heads that they accept evolution as FACT. Yes, this has happened. So much for freedom of thought or difference of opinion.

Sources for this alleged persecution? The Creationists have an entire university that won't even accept students who refuse to sign a waiver of their intellectual freedoms.

Quote:
The evolutionist camp amongst the "scientific community" is nowhere near a super majority.

Bullshit, they are beyond being a supermajority, they are nearly unanimous.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


wblastyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Apr 2005
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 541
Location: UK

05 Dec 2009, 6:17 pm

I'm not sure I would want to employ someone who believes the earth is flat and at the centre of the universe either... it doesn't say much about their reasoning skills.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

05 Dec 2009, 6:30 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
The "scientific community" for decades has been heavily influenced by the evolutionist sect in their midst. Anyone who disagrees risks being discredited by their evolutionist peers. It's the the equivalent of a researcher finding hard proof that the WTC was in fact brought down by controlled demolitions and the government's "experts" calling the researcher a "conspiracy theorist"...effectively discrediting his research in the public eye via slander because people don't want to associate with a "conspiracy theorist."

Umm... you mean that the scientific community has generally agreed that evolution is correct. Many of the cases of "being discredited" are overstated, as the cases put forward in the movie Expelled have all been shown false. So, I don't see very much basis at this point.

Quote:
We've seen people who believe in God and creation be threatened with not being awarded college degrees because they will not state to their department heads that they accept evolution as FACT. Yes, this has happened. So much for freedom of thought or difference of opinion.

Well, as I pointed out, the cases put forward in the movie Expelled are false, and if there were great non-false examples, then why wouldn't the movie makers use those instead? In any case, the case for evolution is generally considered overwhelming to the extent that many scientists do consider it a "scientific fact" in as much as such things exist.

Quote:
The evolutionist camp amongst the "scientific community" is nowhere near a super majority. However, they speak for the whole as if they are...often deriding those who do not agree by calling them names and applying derogatory labels.

Orwell already posted Project Steve somewhere on this forum. Project Steve is based upon the idea that the evolutionist camp is a super-duper majority, and that the number of evolutionist scientists named Steve outstrips the number of creationist scientists altogether.

Quote:
Scientists are humans. We already see with "global warming" and "climate change" hard evidence that if you don't sing the "global warming" song, you don't get research grants. There is a lot of politics behind science (which there should not be) and when you can dictate the welfare of a researcher by cutting off funding if they do not back your agenda, it's amazing how many you can get to join your camp.

Ok, but you are still a conspiracy theorist. It is not as if creationists and Intelligent Design people show much sign of being less biased, as most of them are pretty solidly Christian and see their efforts as outgrowths of apologetic work. They are clearly biased. I mean, Georgia Purdom shows her position quite clearly in an interview with Michael Shermer that I posted on another one of these threads, and William Dembski seems to have a clear theological motivation: "Thus, in its relation to Christianity, intelligent design should be viewed as a ground-clearing operation that gets rid of the intellectual rubbish that for generations has kept Christianity from receiving serious consideration.", "I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed. [...] And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he’s done — and he's not getting it.".

So, really, who do you think I will be more willing to trust? The overwhelming majority of scientists, mainstream researchers, and a community that seems based around following the evidence, or a small group of fundamentalists who just want to promote the Bible? The former, obviously.

(Note: by this point, I am no longer clear which evolution-creation thread is which.)



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,726
Location: New Jersey

05 Dec 2009, 7:03 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ok, that's why we have multiple sources. In any case, if Dent is trusting the opinion of the scientific community, then he isn't trusting "one source" he is trusting a large number of sources on this matter. This eliminations the issue of bias, and error to a great extent. In fact, part of the idea of science is that people do make errors and have biases, but in a large group, this will essentially balance out to a greater extent.


Ah, but there's the rub.

The "scientific community" for decades has been heavily influenced by the evolutionist sect in their midst.


There is no such "sect". The theory of evolution is a branch of science and is not in anywise a cult or religion. Creationism is a manifestation of the young earth sect of the Protestant faith, which is to say the biblical literalists.

ruveyn



wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

05 Dec 2009, 10:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
wesmontfan wrote:
biblical portrayal of species being immutable.


I'm too tired to address the rest of your argument, but I wanted to point out that this statement is absolutely the excrement of masculine bovines.


Huh?
By 'immutable' I mean that all organisms were created at once exactly as they are now only a few thousand years ago.

Are you saying that the Bible DOESNT say that?
That the Bible itsself implies 'change over time' (ie evolution)?
Fine.
Then what are we arguing about?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

05 Dec 2009, 10:33 pm

wesmontfan wrote:
Huh?
By 'immutable' I mean that all organisms were created at once exactly as they are now only a few thousand years ago.

Are you saying that the Bible DOESNT say that?
That the Bible itsself implies 'change over time' (ie evolution)?
Fine.
Then what are we arguing about?

The currently fashionable view among YECs like parakeet is that there are "kinds" or "baramin" (as far as I can tell, this is roughly equivalent to the normal taxonomic categories of family or genus) and while there can be change within a baramin, there is no crossing that boundary. So lions and tigers have a common ancestor, chimpanzees and orangutans have a common ancestor, but chimpanzees and tigers do not have a common ancestor.

To me, it seems like accepting all the basic principles of evolution, and just rejecting the obvious generalization of those principles.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

05 Dec 2009, 10:52 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Ok, that's why we have multiple sources. In any case, if Dent is trusting the opinion of the scientific community, then he isn't trusting "one source" he is trusting a large number of sources on this matter. This eliminations the issue of bias, and error to a great extent. In fact, part of the idea of science is that people do make errors and have biases, but in a large group, this will essentially balance out to a greater extent.

Ah, but there's the rub.

The "scientific community" for decades has been heavily influenced by the evolutionist sect in their midst. Anyone who disagrees risks being discredited by their evolutionist peers. It's the the equivalent of a researcher finding hard proof that the WTC was in fact brought down by controlled demolitions and the government's "experts" calling the researcher a "conspiracy theorist"...effectively discrediting his research in the public eye via slander because people don't want to associate with a "conspiracy theorist."

We've seen people who believe in God and creation be threatened with not being awarded college degrees because they will not state to their department heads that they accept evolution as FACT. Yes, this has happened. So much for freedom of thought or difference of opinion.
It is not the scientific community's fault that creationism is bullshit.

Science is not about freedom. it is about... science. If you think that "a god/some gods/aliens" did it is an actual answer to any question you are not doing science and hence you are not qualified enough and do not deserve any credential whatsoever. If you want to do science and then go to your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever to pray, go ahead. There are plenty of scientists that do belong to a religion but do not mess with trying to make creationism look like such.

It is ultimately a moot point. The whole matter of religion is faith. Trying to come up with 'scientific' arguments to demonstrate what your religion says shows only that you have no faith. So the guys pushing for 'intelligent design' seriously fail both at science AND religion. It is like that guy in AiG that was playing that massive version of connect the dots, using genetic 'evidence' to prove all dogs descended of two animals in the ark...


_________________
.


Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Dec 2009, 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

05 Dec 2009, 10:56 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
To me the "falsification" of evolution is as it would be for anything else.

You (hypothetically) believe evolution is right. You're supposed to be a scientist, but you deliberately choose to publish findings that only support your theory (or at least in a way you can adapt your theory to make it acceptable).

If you find something that glaringly contradicts your theory, you either ignore it or go to great efforts to discredit it...going to lengths you don't go to in order to affirm the proof you do use.

Whey your bias affects your research, you aren't practicing science, you're practicing a "religion."

There are many scientifically proven rules and there are many items of scientifically upheld evidence that glaringly contradict the evolutionist view of history. Rather than an honest examination of this evidence and a more open-minded view if perhaps evolution is a part of the answer, but not the whole answer, I see dogmatic defense that evolution is the ONLY answer.

Such dogmatic passion is not indicative of science, but of faith.

If science could prove that God is real, would that be such a bad thing?

If science could prove that life was deliberately planted on earth by more evolved beings, would that be such a bad thing?

Only if you dogmatically believe those options can't be the truth.

Science is supposed to be about finding the truth...not affirming preconceived agendas.

So if you mention God, youre NOT being religious. But if you ignore God you ARE being religous.



wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

06 Dec 2009, 2:19 am

Orwell wrote:
wesmontfan wrote:
Huh?
By 'immutable' I mean that all organisms were created at once exactly as they are now only a few thousand years ago.

Are you saying that the Bible DOESNT say that?
That the Bible itsself implies 'change over time' (ie evolution)?
Fine.
Then what are we arguing about?

The currently fashionable view among YECs like parakeet is that there are "kinds" or "baramin" (as far as I can tell, this is roughly equivalent to the normal taxonomic categories of family or genus) and while there can be change within a baramin, there is no crossing that boundary. So lions and tigers have a common ancestor, chimpanzees and orangutans have a common ancestor, but chimpanzees and tigers do not have a common ancestor.

To me, it seems like accepting all the basic principles of evolution, and just rejecting the obvious generalization of those principles.


Thanks for reminding me of this "evolution within basic types' theory.
But that doesnt explain why the least contraversial thing I said was "BS".

Genisis does say God created all the birds animals etc. all at once in their present forms and doesnt mention them changing once they were created. Nor does it mention creatures becoming extinct. Nor does it allow enough time for even sibling species (like lions and tigers) to branch apart (about a million years rather than the 6000 years alowed by Genisis). So how is that line BS?

Maybe this is my mistake: assuming that Creationists are all Biblical literalists.
I guess Im wrong. After all- this theory you said is the vogue among YECs freely rewrites the Bible, and is lot closer to Darwin than it is to Genisis.
Maybe they have the same willingness to abandon the Bible(or atleast a litereal reading thereof) as the do to abandon scientific evidence.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

06 Dec 2009, 3:03 am

If you think that creationists are just modifying their ideas to be more like Darwinism, then you might find this youtube video by comedian Robin Ince amusing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM[/youtube]



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

06 Dec 2009, 3:28 am

Evidently digested Ursus maritimus (Polar bear) fossils in the rib cage of a Liopleurodon would falisfy, if not modify evolutionary timelines beyond any sensible recognition.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,926

06 Dec 2009, 3:37 am

zer0netgain wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:

There are many scientifically proven rules and there are many items of scientifically upheld evidence that glaringly contradict the evolutionist view of history.


Oh please do elaborate


Do your own research. :wink:

It's not that I can't answer you...it's that I know trying to convince you will be as much fun as performing the Bohemian Rhapsody on my testicles with a claw hammer. :P


That reminds me of Gary McKinnon's convient little cop out for having found no evidence of UFOs - "I was caught just before I could take a screenshot!" Same fundamental and ingenius intellectual dishonesty there as here.

I'm willing to wager that every one of these alleged points would've been dealt with a million times already by the fine people at Talk Origins, No Answers in Genesis, or the NCSE.

PS: This debate on "evolution" and "falsifiability" has become muddled due tot the ambiguities with "impartiality", "evidence", and credentialed versus unworthy authorities. I think a discussion of coherentism versus naive evidentialism and foundationalism would be cathargic.



Nambo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2007
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,061
Location: Prussia

06 Dec 2009, 6:07 pm

Unless you personally have dug up a bone, found a fossil, etc etc, I wouldnt belive what scientists tell you as they can lie as easily as polititions, especially when thier grants or carreers depend on it. Dont belive me?, Google "Climate gate"

Christians, Satan is god of this world, he puts his people in positions of power and influence, rewarding them with money and sex, why even bother listening to them?
Listen to God, hes not a lier when he claims to have created everything.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 94
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,876
Location: Finland

06 Dec 2009, 7:35 pm

Nambo wrote:
Unless you personally have dug up a bone, found a fossil, etc etc, I wouldnt belive what scientists tell you as they can lie as easily as polititions, especially when thier grants or carreers depend on it. Dont belive me?, Google "Climate gate"

Christians, Satan is god of this world, he puts his people in positions of power and influence, rewarding them with money and sex, why even bother listening to them?
Listen to God, hes not a lier when he claims to have created everything.


I keep listening. God seems to be totally quiet. Lots of people try to tell me what they think God says but God? Sorry. Hasn't spoken in millenniums. And certainly not to me.