Re: Evolution is 100% falsified

Ray Martinez wrote:
On May 17, 12:39 am, "Steven J." <steve...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 16, 7:54 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> On
May 16, 8:04 am, Frank J <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Not true, of course, but let?s assume for the moment that it is.

I agree.

Evolution was never, at anytime, true; therefore it has not been
falsified.

Ray, have you considered learning English, before attempting to post
in it? A proposition does not have to be true to be falsifiable; it
has to be testable. And unless something has gone horribly wrong with
the laws of logic, only false statements can in fact be falsified.


From the Creationist perspective evolution is not true, and was never
true. We need only explain why persons think it is true.

Not all perspectives are equally valid. Persons think evolution is true,
because it's the best match for the evidence.


Creationism has never been falsified.

Because it's a religious belief, and can't be falsified.




Evolution is a conceptual hypothesis. It is postulated to explain
evidence based on a priori rejection of Creator or Creationism-ID.
The explanation makes no sense because it denies the presence of
Intelligence in nature. This fact makes evolution the Atheism
explanation of life.

I would say, rather, that evolution has been proposed to explain the
evidence based on an a priori assumption that evidence means
something, because no supernatural power has woven lies into the very
fabric of the heavens and the Earth.


Darwin said: if evolution is not true then the evidence "is a mere
snare laid to entrap our judgment" (1871:32, Vol.1). But, like I said,
the context of the explanation is against separate [special] creation
explanation (1871:33, Vol.1).

The "separate creation" explanation fails due to the evidence of homology,
genetic similarity, and shared characteristics.


The evidence corresponds to the work of
one Mastermind: evolution or connectedness is an illusion. (Your King
is in check.)

Ray, you aren't even playing the right game. Since you don't know what
that work of a "mastermind" would look like, you can't say what corresponds
to such.

snip

*All* lines of evidence support said hypothesis, especially
paleontology.

What *is* this special creation hypothesis?

Each species, past and present, is introduced into nature by direct
Divine power.

No such thing has ever been observed.

Scholarship calls the same "interventionism." I also
refer to it as "verticalism."

Either way, it's a religious belief, not a scientific hypothesis.


What testable
implications does it have? What possible or imaginable evidence would
falsify the special creation hypothesis?

The Evolutionary Hypothesis.

A hypothesis can't falsify another hypothesis, but it's irrelevant as
creationism isn't a hypothesis, but a religious belief. . The theory of
evolution explains the evidence better than any religious belief.


What possible or imaginable
evidence, in your view, would support evolution?


The falsification of the Special Creation Hypothesis.

"Special Creation" is a religious belief, not a hypothesis. Whatever parts
of "special creation" that can be falsified already have been. The
genetic evidence blows any idea of separate creation out of the water.
The fossil evidence just hands it an anchor on the way down.


Evolutionists create their own internal (and meaningless)
falsification scenarios.

Any scientific theory must be falsifiable. That's why creationism is not
science.

Since evolution is an *explanation* of
scientific evidence, which is not eligible to be falsified (only how
evolution occurs is eligible to be modified, not falsified)

Wrong again, Ray. Evolution can be falsified, if contradictory evidence
were found. Because evolution is such a well founded, and strong theory,
it's highly unlikely that such evidence will be found.

the
internal scenarios are not genuine falsification attempts, but
extravagant question begging.

Which goes to show that Ray doesn't understand what the term 'question
begging' means.

Special creation is the same: ineligible
for falsification because it is an *explanation* of evidence.

"Special Creation" is not falisifable, because it's a religious belief, not
science.

Charles
Darwin took the Special Creation Hypothesis (SCH) seriously.


There is no such thing. "Special Creation" is a religious belief.

Modern
day evolutionism, for the most part and for various reasons, deny SCH
to be scientific.

Because it's not science.

They are correct. But neither is the Evolutionary
Hypothesis.

Wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory.

Both hypothesis are explanations of the same scientific
evidence (reference available upon request).

Wrong again, Ray. Let's see your "reference". Evolution is a scientific
explanation of the evidence. Creationism is a religious belief, held in
spite of the evidence. Creationism ignores and maginalizes any evidence
that contradicts the religiously held belief of creation.

So, we have two
explanations of the same evidence. The real question is: which
explanation is a better or superior explanation of the evidence?

Again, you are wrong. Creationism is not the explanation of the same
evidence. It ignores evidence that contradicts it, and twists evidence to
fit, rather than trying to change to fit the evidence.


Darwin argued confidently that his evolutionary hypothesis superior in
explaining the evidence compared against special creation. Of course
we disagree.

Once again, Ray, you are only speaking for yourself. Evolution is a
scientific theory, which explains the evidence. Creationism is not.


DJT

.

Relevant Pages