AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial" - Page 3

post #81 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
This is not a doctrine, it's a scientifical thesis.

Imagine that someone call christianism a superstition instead of a religion. I bet you won't be happy with that, and you will be right.

Actually...Christianity is a faith...sometimes surrounded by religion.
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:23am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Yes.

Then you shouldn't be surprised that you can't have a meaningful discussion about science, the scientific method, and what is or is not scientific with anyone else. Not even people like Behe and Dembski would be willing to go along with your idea of "science".

What you're doing is proposing is a conception of science which is almost entirely closed off to past events. There couldn't even be forensic science used in courtrooms... by your definition, all we can have is "forensic faith".

Can you recommend good reasons anyone should adopt your idea of what science is? To me, it's looking a whole lot like a deliberately crippled conception of science devised to make it easier for anyone to project whatever they wish to believe on the past and place those beliefs safely above question.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #83 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:25am
CC:

Quote:
Do I smell a diversionary, broad-sweeping statement about a huge group of people for which the generalized statement surely doesn't apply to all?
Yep, sure do.

Surely?
The fabrication of stories is what preachers are paid to do. The followers repeat this deceit among themselves and out in the general public. That's why someone like me constantly gets e-mail forwards filled with bullshit stories by Christian emotionalists.

It's spreading the good word with *ahem* "parables".

Quote:
I'll ask you, plainly, what would convince you that things were created (not "created" by some random set of events over a gazillion years...but created by some kind of creator)? What would you need to see? Hear? Touch? Taste? Feel?

The creator would have to be shown in some way. Perhaps even the necessity of a creator would have to be shown.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #84 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:26am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Actually...Christianity is a faith...sometimes surrounded by religion.

Yes, and the word doctrine don't apply for science.

See Wilkipedia :
Quote:
Doctrine, from Latin doctrina, (compare doctor), means "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.
Often doctrine specifically connotes a corpus of religious dogma as it is promulgated by a church, but not necessarily: doctrine is also used to refer to a principle of law, in the common law traditions, established through a history of past decisions, such as the doctrine of self-defense, or the principle of fair use, or the more narrowly applicable first-sale doctrine.
In matters of foreign policy, a doctrine is a body of axioms fundamental to the exercise of a nation's foreign policy. Hence, "doctrine,' in this sense, has come to suggest a broad consistency that holds true across a spectrum of acts and actions. Doctrines of this sort are almost always presented as the personal creations of one particular political leader, whom they are named after. Examples include the Monroe Doctrine, the Stimson Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Brezhnev Doctrine, and the less catchy Bush administration doctrine of military preemption, and the Kirkpatrick doctrine.
In the US it has become something of a tradition for each President to have his own doctrine. See list of US Presidential Doctrines.
Sometimes 'doctrine' is an ambitious word for a mere slogan: the slogan 'Peace through strength' is termed a 'doctrine' at Wikipedia.
The term also applies to the concept of an established procedure to a complex operation in warfare. The typical example is tactical doctrine in which a standard set of maneuvers, kinds of troops and weapons are employed as a default approach to a kind of attack.
Examples of religious doctrines include:
Christian Trinity and virgin birth
Roman Catholic transubstantiation and immaculate conception
Pentecostal Jesus-Only doctrine
Calvinist predestination
Methodist Prevenient Grace
Mormon doctrine of the Heavenly Mother
See also the Roman Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Examples of military doctrines include:
Blitzkrieg of World War II
Hit-and-run tactics
Mutually assured destruction of the Cold War
Shock and Awe
See also Hallstein Doctrine.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
To me, it's looking a whole lot like a deliberately crippled conception of science devised to make it easier for anyone to project whatever they wish to believe on the past and place those beliefs safely above question. [/B]

Ding ding ding ding!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #86 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:32am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Then you shouldn't be surprised that you can't have a meaningful discussion about science, the scientific method, and what is or is not scientific with anyone else.

I think I have been very clear what the scientific method is. Tell me I am wrong. Go ahead.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
There couldn't even be forensic science used in courtrooms... by your definition, all we can have is "forensic faith".

This is completely untrue and shows how badly you misunderstand.

Of course forensic science can be used. But it can only tell so much. I can only convey certain facts and information. As an example...at a murder scene (historical event) all that can be said by forensic science is (for example) that a blood stain is of a certain type, age, etc. I cannot say how the blood stain happened. It can hypothesize...and perhaps with some confidence. But that is all.

So with evolution...what can be said (regarding the fossil evidence)?

- We have found X fossil at Y location.

We can hypothesize about how it arrived at that location and when.

- We have found multiple fossils that bear (in what we have) a structural resemblance to one another.

We can hypothesize that this resemblance is a result of one having evolved from the other or both having evolved from a common (yet unfound) "ancestor".

But that is all.

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Can you recommend good reasons anyone should adopt your idea of what science is?

You mean...the scientific method? Hmmm...well...I'll have to think on that for a while I guess.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:33am
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
The creator would have to be shown in some way. Perhaps even the necessity of a creator would have to be shown.

So you'd have to see it to believe it?
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
To me, it's looking a whole lot like a deliberately crippled conception of science

The scientific method is a "deliberately crippled conception of science"? Okay. Now I know what I am dealing with.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The scientific method is a "deliberately crippled conception of science"?

No, your conception of the scientific method is what's deliberately crippled. The scientific method -- at least as far as practically anyone else on this planet besides yourself with any education in science -- can easily be applied to past historical events.

I'd challenge you to find any reputable scientist -- hell, I'd even challenge you to find much in the way of so-called scientists on the lunatic fringe -- who show any sign that they'd concur with your amazing cramped view of the purview of the scientific method, who would concur that practically all past historical events are cut off from scientific investigation.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #90 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:46am
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
No, your conception of the scientific method is what's deliberately crippled. The scientific method -- at least as far as practically anyone else on this planet besides yourself with any education in science -- can easily be applied to past historical events.

Of course it can. Only certain things are testable. It can only say so much about past historical events. You want it to say much more than it can. That's not my fault.
Reply
Reply
post #91 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course it can. Only certain things are testable. It can only say so much about past historical events. You want it to say much more than it can. That's not my fault.

What is your fault, however, is your conception of "testable". Before bandying any more words about concerning this, just think about what you're claiming really means.

Do you disbelieve me when I say you're practically alone in this world when it comes to the idea of what can be "tested" about the past?

Do you imagine that everyone else really does understand the same meaning of what can and cannot be tested that you're proposing, but they're just conveniently fudging around it an awful lot of the time?
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #92 of 576
11/1/05 at 11:59am
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course it can. Only certain things are testable. It can only say so much about past historical events. You want it to say much more than it can. That's not my fault.

The funny thing, is that the study of astronomy, is the studying of past historical events. The more deeper you look in space, the more you look in the past. Perhaps astronomy is not really a science : it rely too much on past historical events.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Do you disbelieve me when I say you're practically alone in this world when it comes to the idea of what can be "tested" about the past?

Do you imagine that everyone else really does understand the same meaning of what can and cannot be tested that you're proposing, but they're just conveniently fudging around it an awful lot of the time?

What I think is that you expect the testing of historical evidence to tell you more than it really can. This is quite obvious. You just fail to see (or admit) it. It can tell you about the blood stain...from there you can only hypothesize about how the blood stain came to be at that place, at that time, etc.

P.S. I know is a common tactic (of yours and others) to try the "Gee, well I try and shame him into agreeing with me, because that will a) work, and b) make me feel much better about my own misunderstandings" It won't work. The "well everyone else believes this" argument is weak at best.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
The funny thing, is that the study of astronomy, is the studying of past historical events. The more deeper you look in space, the more you look in the past. Perhaps astronomy is not really a science : it rely too much on past historical events.

No...it is just limited in what it can tell us.
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Of course it can. Only certain things are testable. It can only say so much about past historical events. You want it to say much more than it can. That's not my fault.

All experiments depend upon so level of concept of time passage. I set up an experiment which takes time, measure some value which takes time, and report the results as a function of the set up that no one but myself has seen. It is reasonably assumed that my take of events is true until proven otherwise, but it is provable otherwise because another five individuals can follow my proceedure, perform my measurements, and obtain my result.

That is to say, historical documents, in this case my notebook, are trusted until you can prove otherwise. For instance, a set of historical documents that claims that atlantis fell into the sea which have been appropriately aged are given the benefit of the doubt until evidence arises that they were false, either that a testable detail within them is shown not to be true.

This is to say that creationism and intelligent design have made no testable claims, and have ultimately made no predictions. They are not a science. History is a science.

Events may be obfuscated in history, but there is an underlying kernel of truth that is discoverable or else it isn't validated. This is the same of any experimental set up I as a scientist can create.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #96 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:23pm
I think Chris is saying that prediction provides more certainty than retrospective studies, and in that sense, I think it's correct. But prediction need not always be of the future. Einstein predicted certain findings in space - the phenomena he predicted had always been there, but hadn't been checked yet. That was a prediction. In the same way, geologists can predict certain things about the fossil record, for example. Those predictions can then be checked. They're predictions about things that previously happened, but they're still predictions in the sense that a theory provides a falsifiable set of conditions that can be checked..
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:26pm
There is a theory that "black holes" are formed when the density of a collapsing star forms a gravitational field too strong for any matter or energy to escape from.

But it's only a theory. We have never made a direct observation of a black hole, indeed, the theory precludes that. We can only ever view the circumstantial evidence, in this case, the output of the highly energetic penumbra of destruction that surrounds it.

Now, granted, this theory is consistent with, not only to what we can observe, but a rather large body of thinking about cosmology, including Einstein's general theory of relativity. That's why it's a generally accepted theory: it does a good job of explaining what we can observe, while maintaining consistency with the larger framework of understanding that we have evolved regarding how the universe works.

No matter. Because it is only a theory, because we cannot apply direct observation, we must allow for any other explanation we care to apply. To do otherwise would fly in the face of the spirit of free inquiry which science claims to uphold.

So: I believe the Universe is sentient, and so called "black holes" actually represent the Universe's efforts to communicate.

Oh sure, so called "astronomers" will pompously reject my theory, but that's only because they are so invested in their own little world view.

After all, they're both "theories". We just choose to evaluate the evidence differently. Instead of railing against my theory, how about you produce one of these "black holes" you're so fond of? You can't, can you? So who's "faith based" now?

It is you that are closed minded! Isn't science all about examining all the possibilities?

Now, I would submit that the only difference between "black holes are the language of a sentient universe" and "Intelligent Design" is that ID has the support of a dominate, politically powerful religion.

That's it. There isn't any more evidence for ID than there is for "BHATLOASU", which is, they are both poetic notions that flatter the sensibilities and spiritual leanings of a certain audience.

It's just that the audience for "BHATLOASU" is much smaller, so we don't have to endure their endless, ignorant mangling of grade school notions of what a theory is, how it is supported and why we might choose to accept one over the other.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #98 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I think Chris is saying that prediction provides more certainty than retrospective studies

Actually, I think the opposite...If I understand you correctly. Historical evidence/facts/data have a certain (high) "truth value". What I am talking about is what we are able to say about these datum. That is much less certain. Again, the blood stain at the murder scene. We've seen this million times on our favorite crime drama shows...a piece of evidence appears to point one direction so our faithful detectives hypothesis and predict based on it...later they are found to be wrong, and another perfectly reasonable explanation is given.

As we stand here and look back (and the further back we look, the more problematic it can be) at certain datum...we can hypoethesize about what the data says/means...even predict based on it. But, as stated earlier, if we only have 1/10 of 1% of the data, our hypothesis and predications should be qualified with even greater caution.

Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
They're predictions about things that previously happened, but they're still predictions in the sense that a theory provides a falsifiable set of conditions that can be checked.

So let me ask this. What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution (at least looking backward) as an explanation for the origin of the species?
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:56pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I think Chris is saying that prediction provides more certainty than retrospective studies, and in that sense, I think it's correct.

You aren't getting at how radically cramped Chris's idea of a "test" is.

Dig up a fossil. Look at it. Measure it. Try to extract DNA. Count teeth in the jaw bones you find. Those are all observations.

Repeat the above many times. Make a prediction: "If my theory about this creature is true, then if I dig down two more feet, I expect to find more fossils like this, but with two more teeth."

Dig deeper. Dig up more fossils. Measure them. Count their teeth. Congratulations, most of the fossil jaw bones have two more teeth. But wait... don't break out the champagne yet. Have you found evidence which helps support your hypothesis? Have you tested your hypothesis?

Not according to my best understanding so far of Science According to Chris.

All you have accomplished is more observing. In Chris's world, all you can do with these fossils is catalog more and more observations. There's some mysterious line between what constitutes an "observation" and what constitutes a "test", and if you're studying anything related to the past (even the near past, like George Washington's presidency), and presumably things out in space far enough away that you can't reach out and touch them, nothing that I can gleen from Chris can truly, in his view, be considered a "test" of those things.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #100 of 576
11/1/05 at 12:59pm
Let's just cut away all of the crap, rhetoric, mis-direction, confusion, straw men, etc. Screw this obsessive focus on "Chris this" and "Chris that". Screw creation...ID and everything else. Screw it all.

One simple question:

What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution?
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution?

Can you falsify something that's a theory?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #102 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:06pm
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Can you falsify something that's a theory?

It is my understanding (from many of the experts here) as well as my own reading on the subject that not only must a (scientific) theory be falsifiable, but that (in fact) many of the direct criticisms of things like ID and/or creationism is that they are decidedly not scientific theories expressly because they do not propose a falsifiable theory.

So...

What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution?
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:15pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution?

Falsifying evolution in the historical, not theoretical, sense of evolution would certainly tend to falsify the theory of evolution. If evidence could be unearthed that somehow the past century and a half of paleontological data has somehow been organized into a completely wrong history of things, that would certainly knock a big hole in evolution.

The theory of evolution is a unifying concept which covers our understanding of, among other things (like genetics, comparative anatomy, and the current geographical distribution of species), the time line of life on this planet, on that we've organized based on fossil evidence. Show good reasons to invalidate that history, and the theory is in trouble.

What else could you do? Well, if ID-ers were ever successful at developing ideas such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" to the point where one can clearly distinguish a positive sign of design from a mere failure of imagination to see how natural non-intelligent processes might do the same thing, that might also serve to invalidate the theory of evolution. However, even Behe and Dembski will admit they simply haven't gotten that far yet.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #104 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Let's just cut away all of the crap, rhetoric, mis-direction, confusion, straw men, etc. Screw this obsessive focus on "Chris this" and "Chris that". Screw creation...ID and everything else. Screw it all.

One simple question:

What discovery would falsify the theory of evolution?

If organisms didn't pass on their traits to their progeny. If the age of the earth was thousands of years rather than billions. If fossils were scattered around the geological layers randomly. Maybe others could add more.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:26pm
Holy crap. I just realized that I'm sitting, chained, to the floor of a cave, and that behind me there's a great fire and that occasionally some people walk in front of it and cast a shadow on the wall in front of me and that all this time I've been thinking that the shadows on the wall are "real"!

Anyway.

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

What BRussell said:

1) Scientific proof that genetic traits are not passed on. Insert Bush family offspring joke here.

3) Scientific proof that geology is wrong.

3) That paleontologists have got it all wrong and that all those fossills are just funny looking rocks.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #106 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
If evidence could be unearthed that somehow the past century and a half of paleontological data has somehow been organized into a completely wrong history of things, that would certainly knock a big hole in evolution.

That's what I am asking. What evidence would it need to be?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
Show good reasons to invalidate that history, and the theory is in trouble.

That's what I am asking. What are the "good" reasons?

Quote:
Originally posted by shetline
"irreducible complexity"

Okay...finally, a little more concrete. If some biological system, mechanism, or device can be shown to be irreducibly complex. What would show that?
Reply
Reply
post #107 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
3) Scientific proof that geology is wrong.

What would be required to prove this?
Reply
Reply
post #108 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What would be required to prove this?

I dunno. Maybe some thinktank populated by evangelical PhDs in English writing position papers and stocking the school boards of medium-sized towns in red states?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #109 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:30pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
If organisms didn't pass on their traits to their progeny. If the age of the earth was thousands of years rather than billions. If fossils were scattered around the geological layers randomly. Maybe others could add more.

Hang on here.

1. Organisms can still pass their traits to their progeny but still not spawn new species. You need to work harder here.

2. How does "fossils were scattered around the geological layers randomly" falsify?
Reply
Reply
post #110 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
I dunno. Maybe some thinktank populated by evangelical PhDs in English writing position papers and stocking the school boards of medium-sized towns in red states?

So you really don't want (or are able) to debate. I thought as much.
Reply
Reply
post #111 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What would be required to prove this?

To start with you have to demonstrate that the rate of radioactive decay for specific elements changes over time. In otherwords all the observations made since Madame Curie until now have to somehow not be true in the past.
Reply
Reply
post #112 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
So you really don't want (or are able) to debate. I thought as much.

Aw, diddums! I didn't mean toOW! OW!!! What's that in my mouth!?! A HOOK!! AAAAAHHH!!! I'M BEING PULLED BY THE HOOK!!! AHHHHHH!!! THERE'S SOME KIND OF LINE ATTACHED TO IT!!

Here's a couple of questions for you to chew on, since I'm incapable of debating darkness versus enlightenmentand am unwilling to give the time of day to an argument that is a return to the 18th century wrapped in a PR campaign about fairness.

1) Did evolution bother you before ID came around?

2) Does the idea that humans have evolved bother you because a) it contrasts with your religious beliefs or b) it's just plain bad ol' science, and how dare all those scientists not have noticed in all this time?

2a) Which came first for you? A or B? This is important.

3) Why do you feel compelled to debate this issue with psychologists and English professors and whatever the hell addabox does? Say you did "win" this debate here (and I have no idea what that would look like). Let's just say. That "victory" would mean nothing, since, of course, none of us are actually experts in this field. The obverse, of course, is true as well. You have nothing to lose from a crushing defeat by any of us, because, well, you're not an expert either.

3a) What could you possibly have to gain from this debate?


Anyway. Back to work now.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #113 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
To start with you have to demonstrate that the rate of radioactive decay for specific elements changes over time. In otherwords all the observations made since Madame Curie until now have to somehow not be true in the past.

I can see how this would falsify the theories about the age of things (fossils, the earth)....but we're really not there. I admit, it would certainly put a dent into evolution to have a younger earth. But I don't think it necessarily falsifies it.

How does this falsify the theory about evolutionary speciation?
Reply
Reply
post #114 of 576
11/1/05 at 1:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Hang on here.

1. Organisms can still pass their traits to their progeny but still not spawn new species. You need to work harder here.

You asked for findings that would falsify evolution. If traits were not passed on, evolution could not be true. Don't change your question. No, the passing on of traits isn't a sufficient condition for evolution. But there is no truly sufficient piece of evidence. You can always find a reason why any given piece of evidence doesn't prove theory X. That's why falsification is important, right?

Quote:
2. How does "fossils were scattered around the geological layers randomly" falsify?

I don't see why that's not clear. Evolution predicts that fossils of evolutionarily earlier organisms will be found in older layers. If that wasn't the case, it would be strong evidence against evolution.
Reply
Reply
post #115 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
You asked for findings that would falsify evolution. If traits were not passed on, evolution could not be true.

This is true.
Reply
Reply
post #116 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I don't see why that's not clear. Evolution predicts that fossils of evolutionarily earlier organisms will be found in older layers. If that wasn't the case, it would be strong evidence against evolution.

So if things aren't found where they are supposed to be found, there is a problem with evolution?
Reply
Reply
post #117 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:08pm
So far we have:

1. No trait transmission.

2. Randomized fossil locations/layering (this seems pretty weak...the theory can easily be adjusted to account for this...but okay).

3. Ireducible complexity.

4. Aging (again, not necessarily falsifiable...but puts a dent into the theory).

#1 and #3 seem to be the best possibilities for falsification.

What (if anything) would demonstrate #3?
Reply
Reply
post #118 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I can see how this would falsify the theories about the age of things (fossils, the earth)....but we're really not there. I admit, it would certainly put a dent into evolution to have a younger earth. But I don't think it necessarily falsifies it.

How does this falsify the theory about evolutionary speciation?

A lot can be deduced in geology in terms of relative ages (e.g. that layer is under that layer). Throw the fossil record into this mix and you get a general picture that the 'more advanced' species came later. However, you have some people come up with alternative explanations such as the great flood etc (you know the story). One of the best sources of independent confrimation for the geological ages of different rocks is dating based on redioactive elements. It substantiates all the field work and deduction made by geologists and is used to date the fossils. It also proves the whole 'great flood' hypothesis wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #119 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:35pm
Probably also a good time to mention that there can be a great deal of variation in geological layering, owing to such long processes as plate tectonics and glaciation.

However, geologists do not just shrug, when confronted with layering that seems "out of sequence" and say "oh well, we'll just fudge the numbers so we don't have to rethink our theories".

They seek to discover what processes might account for what they are observing, which are consistent with prior observations, and are consistent with the general body of theory as to how the earth was formed and how it has transformed over time.

If geologists started to run into lots of anomalous layering with no apparent process to account for it, they would seek to modify theory in ways that would make sense of the new information.

That's how science works.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #120 of 576
11/1/05 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Probably also a good time to mention that there can be a great deal of variation in geological layering, owing to such long processes as plate tectonics and glaciation.

Might it also be a good time to mention the wide varitions in the various dating techniques?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Kitzmiller v. Dover Board of Ed. -- aka the "Panda Trial"