What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[BilliardsBall]

False on all three counts.
1. they are not both faith-based; only creationism is

2. evolution is observable (try every agricultural program)

3. evolution happens in lab setting (like the E. coli one where one of the populations evolved the ability to grow on citrate and evolved a completely novel metabolic pathway to accomodate for it)


But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your crusade

I said abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution happens in our time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see that others have informed you of your errors regarding speciation and macroevolution. Dogs evolved from wolves and the breeds are not separate species. Speciation is an example of macro-evolution. No one who understands the theory thinks that cats will give birth to dogs or hippos giving birth to lions or anything like that. As it has been said, such a bizarre and unprecedented occurrence would falsify the theory.

How is it that you come to think these things? Where are you getting your information? It isn't from a science source.

Phylogenetic trees show ancestor species, not billions of species lines from one single source over all time.

Yet we agree--species were all created or evolved complete, and will not give birth to other than their kinds. Thanks for agreeing with the Bible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's a tough one. Those who claim evolution did the job of making plants and animals from a few molecules by "natural selection" will more than likely not agree with the idea that there is no real proof of that.

Certainly, but they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Certainly, but they--biblically speaking--lie and are deceived.

I lie so much and am so deceived, that I am not real and didn't write this. That is how unreal we are.

 

[F1fan]

Once again, whether or not a dinosaur tastes like chicken (joke) or is fossilized showing feathers, this is not to say that they evolved from dinosaur to flying birds. Again, you may have this as proof (the fossils with feather imprints) but because I do not 'see' that these organisms evolved to eventually perhaps(?) becoming birds, I am going to leave this matter as an unsolved mystery. And again -- because while fossils may show that there are feather imprints on fossilized remains of a dinosaur, I am going again to take the position that there is no actual proof of them evolving. Could be they had feathers. But this does not mean, does it? that they eventually evolved to birds.

This is what we have experts in science for, so we can ignore Christians who want to believe in their book of myths is a text book.

All you need to do is read what experts in science report. Your speculation and doubts is not guided by expertise and facts any more than a God. I still don't understand why you and other creationists can't figure out that you have adopted a false set of assumptions and beliefs from your religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then here we go.
You are caused by something else independent of your mind. But we know, that 1st person experiences are sometimes hallucination.
In effect objective reality can cause unreal experiences. So how do you know, that this is not the case now?

There are many versions of that in practice, but here it is general.

Real objective universe -> you experience you as real.
Not real objective universe -> you experience you as real.
That is the problem. I can't prove even with evidence that I live in a real objective universe. But that is not unique to me, hence this:
"
Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions[edit]
All scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that are untested by scientific processes.[43][44] Kuhn concurs that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.[45] For naturalists, nature is the only reality, the only paradigm. There is no such thing as 'supernatural'. The scientific method is to be used to investigate all reality,[46] and Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] ..."
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

Sometimes. Not always. That is why testing has to be repeatable. Sorry, the rest does not matter.

Instead of posting this here why not start your own thread on the topic? See if you can debate without falling into nihilism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sometimes. Not always. That is why testing has to be repeatable. Sorry, the rest does not matter.

Instead of posting this here why not start your own thread on the topic? See if you can debate without falling into nihilism.

So how do you know that you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So how do you know that you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe?

I don't, but it is a pointless argument. If that was the case we would never know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't, but it is a pointless argument. If that was the case we would never know.

So there might even not be a "we" and you are alone in your Boltzmann Brain universe, yet you have evidence for the objective fact that there are other humans. Yes, I do get how you do it.
You claim a knowledge, that you don't have, yet you demand burden of proof for everybody else. That is your trick and you are not alone in doing that. Some theists do the same.

BTW evidence for the fact, that it is a pointless argument. Remember burden of proof and that you claim knowledge in the end.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So there might even not be a "we" and you are alone in your Boltzmann Brain universe, yet you have evidence for the objective fact that there are other humans. Yes, I do get how you do it.
You claim a knowledge, that you don't have, yet you demand burden of proof for everybody else. That is your trick and you are not alone in doing that. Some theists do the same.

BTW evidence for the fact, that it is a pointless argument. Remember burden of proof and that you claim knowledge in the end.

We have to deal with the reality that we live in. You might even be a slightly annoying side character in a dream of mine. Will that alter your perception at all?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have to deal with the reality that we live in.;

You have on evidence for that. That is the point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have on evidence for that. That is the point.

Actually I do. If we act as if this was not reality we tend to suffer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually I do. If we act as if this was not reality we tend to suffer.

You have no evidence of the "we".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You have no evidence of the "we".

How do you know? At any rate take this to another thread.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you know? At any rate take this to another thread.

No, I will continue to do it here and hold you to the burden of proof. Just stop claiming burden of proof for everybody else and you.
Now if you want to stop for now, do it. If you want to put me on ignore, tell me that and I will put you on ignore.
Other we continue here as long as you answer.

I don't know, because I don't believe in knowledge like you. That is what is going on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I will continue to do it here and hold you to the burden of proof. Just stop claiming burden of proof for everybody else and you.
Now if you want to stop for now, do it. If you want to put me on ignore, tell me that and I will put you on ignore.
Other we continue here as long as you answer.

I don't know, because I don't believe in knowledge like you. That is what is going on.

Sorry, nope. I could put you on ignore as so many others have. I do not deal with arguments that are nihilism in a very thin disguise.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, nope. I could put you on ignore as so many others have. I do not deal with arguments that are nihilism in a very thin disguise.

Okay, if that works for you, then good for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again, whether or not a dinosaur tastes like chicken (joke) or is fossilized showing feathers, this is not to say that they evolved from dinosaur to flying birds. Again, you may have this as proof (the fossils with feather imprints) but because I do not 'see' that these organisms evolved to eventually perhaps(?) becoming birds, I am going to leave this matter as an unsolved mystery. And again -- because while fossils may show that there are feather imprints on fossilized remains of a dinosaur, I am going again to take the position that there is no actual proof of them evolving. Could be they had feathers. But this does not mean, does it? that they eventually evolved to birds.

Just know that it's an "unsolved mystery" to YOU only. Please don't pretend everyone else shares such ignorance on the matter.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I said abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution happens in our time.

You did not.

I didn't say "observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution". I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

You are clearly talking about "naturalistic evolution" here and not about abiogenesis.

Having said that, abiogenesis isn't a faith based claim either. It's a scientific hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Phylogenetic trees show ancestor species, not billions of species lines from one single source over all time.

False again

See how one source sits at the root from where all others branch off.
This one is a highly resolved tree which was auto generated from fully sequenced genomes.

Yet we agree--species were all created or evolved complete, and will not give birth to other than their kinds.

Learn how evolution works.
If species give birth to members "not of their kind", then evolution theory is falsified.

Thanks for agreeing with the Bible.

Not even remotely.