07 May 2008, 11:37 pm
08 May 2008, 12:00 am
Quote:
If you can't falsify your hypothesis, then there's no way for you to prove it. If you can't prove it, will you shut up for good?
You're confusing standards here. I can prove things that can't be falsified (loosely speaking). For example we cannot falsify the hypothesis that God exists. However, if God presents himself to us, we may say that we have proven His existence. Likewise, to a (ideal) conspiracy theorist wack job, the hypothesis that conspiracies exist is pretty much non-falsifiable, but there could certainly be verification. Even if these instances fail, I think you get the idea,
08 May 2008, 12:35 am
08 May 2008, 4:26 am
08 May 2008, 2:10 pm
08 May 2008, 9:08 pm
twoshots wrote:
You're confusing standards here. I can prove things that can't be falsified (loosely speaking). For example we cannot falsify the hypothesis that God exists. However, if God presents himself to us, we may say that we have proven His existence.
I'm not confusing standards here. If god presents himself, that wouls constitute emperical evidence, subject to confirmation/rejection using the scientific method.
Quote:
Likewise, to a (ideal) conspiracy theorist wack job, the hypothesis that conspiracies exist is pretty much non-falsifiable, but there could certainly be verification. Even if these instances fail, I think you get the idea,
If there was evidence presented, once again, it would be subject to verification/falsification.
You still can't get around the need for falsifiability.
08 May 2008, 9:09 pm
08 May 2008, 9:14 pm
08 May 2008, 9:20 pm
08 May 2008, 9:44 pm
08 May 2008, 9:48 pm
jfrmeister wrote:
By what means and with what evidence, would you prove false, the hypothesis that the earth is a few thousand years old, and was created by a supernatural being?
If you can't falsify your hypothesis, then there's no way for you to prove it. If you can't prove it, will you shut up for good?
So let's hear it. How do you prove false, the idea that the world was created by god a few thousand years ago?
If you can't falsify your hypothesis, then there's no way for you to prove it. If you can't prove it, will you shut up for good?
So let's hear it. How do you prove false, the idea that the world was created by god a few thousand years ago?
The only proof creationist need is in the Bible, I have given up trying to be objective with them, and I really don't want to change how they think, why not let them have their beliefs and leave them be. its like this guy is doing -->
08 May 2008, 10:30 pm
jfrmeister wrote:
twoshots wrote:
You're confusing standards here. I can prove things that can't be falsified (loosely speaking). For example we cannot falsify the hypothesis that God exists. However, if God presents himself to us, we may say that we have proven His existence.
I'm not confusing standards here. If god presents himself, that wouls constitute emperical evidence, subject to confirmation/rejection using the scientific method.
Quote:
Likewise, to a (ideal) conspiracy theorist wack job, the hypothesis that conspiracies exist is pretty much non-falsifiable, but there could certainly be verification. Even if these instances fail, I think you get the idea,
If there was evidence presented, once again, it would be subject to verification/falsification.
You still can't get around the need for falsifiability.
Falsifiability is strictly the logical potential to disprove the hypothesis given the right evidence. It in no way coincides with verifiability, or necessarily even meaningfulness. For example, "Falsificationism strictly opposes the view that non-falsifiable statements are meaningless or otherwise inherently bad" even though under Falsificationism a hypothesis requires falsifiability for it to be scientific.
YEC and religion in general are not falsifiable, but this only means they are scientifically meaningless, because they are otherwise entirely verifiable.
08 May 2008, 10:38 pm
08 May 2008, 10:39 pm
LePetitPrince wrote:
Another good question can be asked to these young earth creationists: Why the continents fits into each others like pieces of puzzle?
They'll tell you funny tales to answer you this question.
They'll tell you funny tales to answer you this question.
Also, how do they explain the grand canyon?
The ones that try to argue that it was created by the biblical flood make me laugh. I'm not even educated in geology, yet it makes intuitive sense to me that erosion has to occur gradually to create certain types of patterns.
Erosion by sudden floodwaters looks very different than erosion that came about gradually over millions of years.
Can people guess which one is which?
I think these two pictures disprove the young earth / biblical flood version of creationism. I don't even need to refer to carbon dating or plate tectonics. All it takes is a couple pictures and some physical intuition.
08 May 2008, 11:00 pm
08 May 2008, 11:05 pm
