What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

No. Just like nobody has demonstrated that it was "not" begun by an extra dimensional unicorn farting, or by undetectable dragons sneezing, or by merlin the wizard saying "abracadabra" or by yours truly traveling back in time and fashioning it out of my dead skin cells.




Try dealing with positive claims instead of unfalsifiable nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would like to say something here: according to what I read, "in science... A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories." Do you agree with this explanation of the difference between a law in science and a theory? Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law? | Evolution FAQ

Facts: observations; data points
Laws: abstractions of sets of facts within a certain scope; descriptive
Hypothesis: testable explanations of facts and laws
Theories: hypothesis that "graduated" by being confirmed through evidence and testing


Laws were never theories.
Theories don't become laws.

Laws describe, theories explain.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

Has anyone ever demonstrated that they are? Or that there is any reason to think that there is a "superior intelligence" in existence that can do such things? Where's the evidence?

 

[gnostic]

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

Since you are the one making positive claim of superior intelligent being, be it Creator or Designer, before there were plants and animals, then please present some verifiable physical evidence that this Creator or Designer exist.

You make the positive claim, then you must be the one to “demonstrate” its existence of this “superior, intelligence” there were plants and animals.

You cannot shift the burden of proof upon everyone else, when you are the one making the claims.

Demonstrate it, YoursTrue!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If i disagree with you does that mean to you that I'm insulting you?
Plus I don't see that the theory of evolution is based on factual evidence considering the idea of the outcome of "natural selection." But if you do, that's the way it is.

You don't think agreeing with someone that is basically claiming anyone that accepts logic, reason and evidence is a liar and being lied to is insulting? Or that claiming I don't ignore logic, reason and evidence when that is clearly false?

It seems insulting to me. Especially when those claiming it are following a particular doctrine that there is no penalty for a Christian not to follow.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Has anyone demonstrated that the emergence of plants and animals were not begun by a superior, intelligence?

How would you do that? How do you demonstrate a negative?

Has anyone showing that volcanos were not started by me?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If i disagree with you does that mean to you that I'm insulting you?
Plus I don't see that the theory of evolution is based on factual evidence considering the idea of the outcome of "natural selection." But if you do, that's the way it is.

Then you are not looking at the evidence and you do not understand the science.

I do not accept the theory that explains the evidence because that is "just the way it is". Unlike some, as a scientist, I have reviewed the evidence and understand it well enough to accept the conclusion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would like to say something here: according to what I read, "in science... A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories." Do you agree with this explanation of the difference between a law in science and a theory? Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law? | Evolution FAQ

What is your point here?

 

[YoursTrue]

What is your point here?

That many of the assertions and/or posits of the scientific realm in favor of the theory of evolution are wayyy open to question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Then you are not looking at the evidence and you do not understand the science.

I do not accept the theory that explains the evidence because that is "just the way it is". Unlike some, as a scientist, I have reviewed the evidence and understand it well enough to accept the conclusion.

I have read many articles, both in scientific literature as well as answers here. So let me be perfectly clear if possible. And yes, I am not a scientist as you are. Your training is much deeper.
I do not think or believe that everything that happens is from God. I am centering this now around the theory of evolution. For instance, there are genetic laws, if I can use that word, that are in effect, and mutations happen. That does not mean that every growth is specifically designated by God, but rather by natural forces.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That many of the assertions and/or posits of the scientific realm in favor of the theory of evolution are wayyy open to question.

Are they? Then you must explain why with either very good reasoning or very good sources. I doubt if you can. Those supporting evolution do not do so just out of a whim.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you do that? How do you demonstrate a negative?

Has anyone showing that volcanos were not started by me?

The last question you ask is, of course, joking. The first ones are not. I really can't go further than what the Bible and my mind tells me. For instance, when I see the earth, the mountains, the clouds, the beautiful color of the sky, I marvel. But that's not the only thing. Another big question is death, or rather the idea that most people don't want to die, living a long conscience time with the idea that we will die. Animals such as birds and lizards have innate instinct to protect themselves. They don't buy life insurance policies. My biology teacher taught that is the "fight or flight" instinct. It is inborn. Humans have a greater thinking capacity in that sense, not necessarily based on instinct, but rather on thinking ability, preparing for the future. (Like buying life insurance.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Are they? Then you must explain why with either very good reasoning or very good sources. I doubt if you can. Those supporting evolution do not do so just out of a whim.

OK, I'm going to stop here for a while because both you and @Dan From Smithville have interesting thoughts, but!! my finite body is telling me I'm tired now, so I'm going to stop here and hopefully start with this thought next time. I will say before I go that once a person gets involved with a THEORY depending on circumstances, some will align themselves with intellectual and other research. When I read some scientific literature I see dates as if those dates are "written in stone." But there is often no backup in those articles to verify the dating process used and how it was done. Now because I am the curious type if I had to do it all over again, I might like to investigate in school more about radioactive decay and dating of artifacts. But now I have only you and a few others to talk to. Who knows? Professors and teachers have been kind enough to answer me in the past, maybe I'll look for an authority here who will be able to explain to me outside of class meaning not enrolling in the school. Because I like to ask questions of experts when I can if it is meaningful enough to me.
I am not denying that various species have developed by genetic distribution and by that I mean possibly mutations. I am also saying that God, however, laid the foundations for this ability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I'm going to stop here for a while because both you and @Dan From Smithville have interesting thoughts, but!! my finite body is telling me I'm tired now, so I'm going to stop here and hopefully start with this thought next time. I will say before I go that once a person gets involved with a THEORY depending on circumstances, some will align themselves with intellectual and other research. When I read some scientific literature I see dates as if those dates are "written in stone." But there is often no backup in those articles to verify the dating process used and how it was done. Now because I am the curious type if I had to do it all over again, I might like to investigate in school more about radioactive decay and dating of artifacts. But now I have only you and a few others to talk to. Who knows? Professors and teachers have been kind enough to answer me in the past, maybe I'll look for an authority here who will be able to explain to me outside of class meaning not enrolling in the school. Because I like to ask questions of experts when I can if it is meaningful enough to me.
I am not denying that various species have developed by genetic distribution and by that I mean possibly mutations. I am also saying that God, however, laid the foundations for this ability.

If you want to know the dates I can probably explain to you who how they arrived at those dates. The usual method is radiometric dating combined with relative dating. Radio metric dating can be used to give us brackets. Before this date and after this date. Relative dating can often give us the information in between.

But if you do not give specific examples I cannot explain.

 

[gnostic]

When I read some scientific literature I see dates as if those dates are "written in stone." But there is often no backup in those articles to verify the dating process used and how it was done. Now because I am the curious type if I had to do it all over again, I might like to investigate in school more about radioactive decay and dating of artifacts. But now I have only you and a few others to talk to.

Before the discovery of radioactive isotopes to use in radiometric dating method, the only way people could date things were through stratigraphy of rock strata.

Second, you can use multiple different isotopes in radiometric dating, that can verify the results and even refined the tests.

That’s one way to back up the date of given object.

You can also take samples to different labs for radiometric testings, to get separate independent test results. That’s another way of backing up the date.

You can also date object using any dating methods of “thermoluminescence” to find out when minerals or other crystalline materials were last exposed to sunlight, like ultraviolet radiation before it was buried.

Look up “thermoluminescence dating”.

Since I am not a geologist, nor paleontologist, there may be other dating methods that can be used to date objects that I don’t know about.

For you to say, there are nothing to back up article’s supplied dates, you are wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Before the discovery of radioactive isotopes to use in radiometric dating method, the only way people could date things were through stratigraphy of rock strata.

Second, you can use multiple different isotopes in radiometric dating, that can verify the results and even refined the tests.

That’s one way to back up the date of given object.

You can also take samples to different labs for radiometric testings, to get separate independent test results. That’s another way of backing up the date.

You can also date object using any dating methods of “thermoluminescence” to find out when minerals or other crystalline materials were last exposed to sunlight, like ultraviolet radiation before it was buried.

Look up “thermoluminescence dating”.

Since I am not a geologist, nor paleontologist, there may be other dating methods that can be used to date objects that I don’t know about.

For you to say, there are nothing to back up article’s supplied dates, you are wrong.

About backup, the methods in detail are usually not given in articles with dates.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to know the dates I can probably explain to you who how they arrived at those dates. The usual method is radiometric dating combined with relative dating. Radio metric dating can be used to give us brackets. Before this date and after this date. Relative dating can often give us the information in between.

But if you do not give specific examples I cannot explain.

I have a general idea of dating processes. But I am going to say also that sand and earth can shift. Such as floods, earthquakes, erosion. What I am saying is that detailed descriptions of how dates are arrived at are usually not given beyond offering date possibilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

About backup, the methods in detail are usually not given in articles with dates.

They would be in the original peer reviewed work. Popular publications often leave out lots of details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have a general idea of dating processes. But I am going to say also that sand and earth can shift. Such as floods, earthquakes, erosion. What I am saying is that detailed descriptions of how dates are arrived at are usually not given beyond offering date possibilities.

And how would that affect radiometric dates?

 

[YoursTrue]

If you want to know the dates I can probably explain to you who how they arrived at those dates. The usual method is radiometric dating combined with relative dating. Radio metric dating can be used to give us brackets. Before this date and after this date. Relative dating can often give us the information in between.

But if you do not give specific examples I cannot explain.

Thank you. Next time I read something with dates, I'll let you know.