Let's Fling Some [Bigfoot] Poop

Ah OK I finally get it. Thanks for clarifying it. It only took 4 pages of post to realize that all this time "we" have been talking about Evolution while Wood has been talking about the Theory of Evolution. ((But I am pretty sure that when we have used the word "evolution" we were referring to the "theory of evolution.))

Call me ignorant I guess...I for one thought that Evolution was a theory...but I guess not. Only the Theory of Evolution is a theory while Evolution is a fact. It is starting to make sense now! Thank you for your patience and understanding while the rest of have been trying to figure this out.

That being said...maybe I will come back to this thread when everyone is talking about the same thing.

Aww damn that sucks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A&feature=player_embedded

Evolutionary Theory Can Be Falsified???

Falsification of evolution as common descent would be complicated because of the vast amount of supporting evidence. Evolution rests upon a general and widespread pattern of evidence from many different fields, so a similar pattern of contradictory evidence is needed to falsify it. Isolated anomalies might force modifications, but no more. If we found a general pattern of fossils in rocks dated to different ages than expected, that would be a problem for evolution. If our understanding of physics and chemistry changed significantly, causing us to find that the earth is quite young, that would falsify evolution.

ID Falsified:

It is very easy to falsify ID. If someone produces flagellum in labs through an undirected process they would've effectively falsified ID. Since they would've shown that flagellum is best explained by an undirected process rather than an intelligent cause.

The most decisive way to falsify our argument as a whole would be to find a distant and very different environment, which, while quite hostile to life, nevertheless offers a superior platform for making as many diverse scientific discoveries as does our local environment. The opposite of this would have the same effect--finding an extremely habitable and inhabited place that was a lousy platform for observation.
Less devastating but still relevant would be discoveries that contradict individual parts of our argument. Most such discoveries would also show that the conditions for habitability of complex life are much wider and more diverse than we claim. For instance, discovering intelligent life inside a gas giant with an opaque atmosphere, near an X-ray emitting star in the Galactic center, or on a planet without a dark night would do it serious damage. Or take a less extreme example. We suggested in Chapter 1 that conditions that produce perfect solar eclipses also contribute to the habitability of a planetary environment. Thus, if intelligent extraterrestrial beings exist, they probably enjoy good to perfect solar eclipses. However, if we find complex, intelligent, indigenous life on a planet without a largish natural satellite, this plank in our argument would collapse.

Our argument presupposes that all complex life, at least in this universe, will almost certainly be based on carbon. Find a non-carbon based life form, and one of our presuppositions collapses. It's clear that a number of discoveries would either directly or indirectly contradict our argument.

Similarly, there are future discoveries that would count in favor of it. Virtually any discovery in astrobiology is likely to bear on our argument one way or the other. If we find still more strict conditions that are important for habitability, this will strengthen our case.

So how is the ID falsification different from the Evolution one?
Also please Explain:

What about a Precambrian rabbit?

J.B.S. Haldane famously stated that "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" would disprove evolution - and this has been a talking point in philosophy of science for some time. This phrase is reported to be a rebuttal to the accusations that evolution is not falsifiable. However, the reality of disproving evolution in this manner is quite complicated. As science is based on an interplay between theory and evidence a single point of data is not enough to completely destroy a theory - just as much as an excellent theory can't win out against overwhelming data. Such a thing as finding fossilised rabbits wouldn't cause scientists to throw the theory of evolution out completely and immediately, so a little more explanation is needed.

First of all it must be remembered that the fossil record is supporting evidence for evolution. This is contrary to the ideas put forward by creationists that state the gaps in the fossil record prove evolution to be false. If the fossil record simply did not exist it would make no difference to the validity of the theory of evolution - indeed, natural selection was initially formulated without the aid of fossil record, and subsequent DNA evidence can stand completely without it. The simple truth is that a single strange fossil would probably not make much difference. In practice, the evidence in the fossil record which supports evolution is so overwhelming that a single fossil would be regarded as curious certainly, but compared to the mountain of evidence in favor of evolution it would probably be regarded as an anomaly while more data was awaited. Imagining the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian as disproving all of natural selection would confuse the specifics of an individual evolutionary pathway with the falsification of the whole theory itself, as mentioned above.

However, the existence of entire groups of anomalous fossils would be a different thing - Haldane did say rabbits after all. Again, in practice an effort would initially be made to fit the new data into the existing framework - this is not cheating but simply the way that science works. But still, in principle some quite major revisions to the theory may be needed to explain them. Such a situation would not immediately and conclusively prove a special creation over a naturalistic evolution, however, a key point that creation proponents tend to overlook. Eventually, a new theory would develop to include these oddities, but this isn't necessarily a special young Earth creation as this assertion would also require supporting evidence. Perhaps this anomalous group was due to a now extinct second genesis, which would be a remarkable find, but unlikely to disprove evolution outright. Regardless of what it was, this new theory would explain both the evidence we have now and the hypothetical rabbit fossils and would indeed be science fully supported by evidence

This statement basically says if we find any strange group in the fossils well we will just make a new branch to fit it!
LOL
So no one will ever Falsifie Evolution

Woodwose wrote:

At the time I was playing Devils Advocate as I do also feel evolution does have some evidence, but much weaker than that of a Modern unknown Hominid that may or may not be a relict one.

The problem here is that you are rejecting science but then using scientific terminology and evidence in an attempt to prove your point.

That's why I made my admittedly glib swipes at the Amish world view.

If you cannot create a single celled Organism from inorganic material, then you have proven nothing.-

As I mentioned previously, this has nothing to do with the TOE and is a concern of abiogenesis. You seem smart enough to take this on board (to clarify, I am not being patronising).

If this is ever done, then the single-celled organism, will need to become a multi celled one and so on, before you have a true "Theory" by your very own definition. True or False?

It's 'sort of' false. You are still alluding to the mutation of one genera to another (the TOE does not make this claim). A single cell evolving into something more complex is however something we see in the embrionic transition of every known animal. And whilst science doesn't really deal with beauty, the stages of embrionic transformation are a thing of beauty.

You really don't need religion when nature is so amazing.

Yet some Religions explain how we got to where we are today. How come we have progressed so far, and nothing else has moved up like we have? Perhaps we are different in some way, such as our higher intelligence, our use of written languages, our care of older members of our race, and of rearing our young and educating them so they can prosper sometimes way beyond what their parents accomplished?

Humans have organized and built a civilization, no other species has done that. They live in herds, packs, or alone. We humans are unique, and I sincerely believe that is because we have a God given soul, and love for one another, even for people that we have never met, yet we try to help them when hard times or disasters occur.

On 9/11 we saw complete strangers saving the lives of others, sometimes at the loss of their own lives. Show me any other species that would do that for a stranger. Then explain to me why we humans are called to a higher standard. I think we were made to care care for others, to love, to rear our children, establish societies with laws to protect us along with a military and police forces to help keep us safe. We humans are unique, and why is that? Because we have a deeper commitment to life and to those who live among us than any other species because we were made differently from anything else on this earth.

CMcMillan,

I have already answered your questions regarding falsification. I suggest you re-read my posts and take another look at the definition of falsification and how it fits into the scientific method.

When you have done that you will be in a position to understand why ID is unfalsifiable and why there has never been a peer reviewed paper supporting it. Worse still ID theorists actually understand the shortcomings of their hypothesis and as a consequence there is not a single account of an ID proponent submitting a paper for peer review and there has never been an experiment designed to test ID. That's a very sorry state if affairs.

With no way o test ID within the scientific method it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that ID is on a par with the TOE.

This statement basically says if we find any strange group in the fossils well we will just make a new branch to fit it!

What it actually says is that if there is sufficient evidence to undermine the TOE then we will have to devise a new theory.

Sweetsusiq wrote:How come we have progressed so far, and nothing else has moved up like we have?

Evolution is arbitrary and without direction.

It's a common misconception to think otherwise - another instance where a term means something different in common usage when compared to its application in science.

Intelligence is a very costly trate in terms of resources, so it only seems to occur under a particular set of conditions. And intelligence isn't necessarily the best trait when it comes to successfully maintaining a population. The most successfull organisms on the planet are insects and bacteria, so clearly human intelligence cannot be considered the pinnacle of evolution (albeit that the idea of an evolutionary pinnacle is complete misnomer).

You, sir, are intelligently sending yourself to a sad future. There is an Intelligence existing today way beyond yours and mine. I know because He revealed Himself to me, and brought my Faith to life, a faith which gives me hope and peace, and a life ever lasting with Him. I sincerely hope that should you seek Him, you too will find Him.

DPinkerton wrote:It only took 4 pages of post to realize that all this time "we" have been talking about Evolution while Wood has been talking about the Theory of Evolution. ((But I am pretty sure that when we have used the word "evolution" we were referring to the "theory of evolution.)).

Call me ignorant I guess...I for one thought that Evolution was a theory...but I guess not. Only the Theory of Evolution is a theory while Evolution is a fact. It is starting to make sense now! Thank you for your patience and understanding while the rest of have been trying to figure this out.

That being said...maybe I will come back to this thread when everyone is talking about the same thing.

I'm really not trying to be awkward or trying to force definitions on everyone. The distinction between Evolution and the TOE is pretty basic and from what I understand it is taught as part of the curriculum in US high schools.

The same goes for the distinction between the term 'theory' as it is used in every day language and the way it is used by science. So whilst the TOE is a 'theory' it as close to fact as science gets and is held up to the same standards that allow for the practical application of science in our everyday lives.

If the TOE was as flawed as everyone seems to be claiming then the standards of the scientific method would be so low that it would be 50-50 whether or not each combustion engine that comes off the production line will work.

It is sadly impossible to discuss theology and the Christian Faith with a closed mind. So I have made my point, and I will not respond to your rhetoric again. Please know that I hope one day that you too will find the peace and joy that comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for *you* and me.. And Who Created you and me..

Sweetsusiq wrote:You, sir, are intelligently sending yourself to a sad future.

Or.......because I appreciate that my time on this planet is finite, I will try and make the most of every minute I am alive and will go out of my way to avoid jeopardising the welfare of others.

Sweetsusiq wrote:It is sadly impossible to discuss theology and the Christian Faith with a closed mind.

I agree, but I suspect we are talking at cross purposes (no pun intended).

You make a fair statement sir, and I will let this rest. I will still hope for a happy and peaceful life eternal for you and yours. I truly mean that.

[quote="Woodwose"]CMcMillan,

I have already answered your questions regarding falsification. I suggest you re-read my posts and take another look at the definition of falsification and how it fits into the scientific method.

When you have done that you will be in a position to understand why ID is unfalsifiable and why there has never been a peer reviewed paper supporting it. Worse still ID theorists actually understand the shortcomings of their hypothesis and as a consequence there is not a single account of an ID proponent submitting a paper for peer review and there has never been an experiment designed to test ID. That's a very sorry state if affairs.

With no way o test ID within the scientific method it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to claim that ID is on a par with the TOE.

This statement basically says if we find any strange group in the fossils well we will just make a new branch to fit it!

What it actually says is that if there is sufficient evidence to undermine the TOE then we will have to devise a new theory.[/quote

Show me where science says Evolution and TOE is different?
Show me your Peer Review of this?
I know what Falsification is and TOE is just as Falsification as ID is so you are the one being Dishonest. I have shown you Scientists who have said this. That the say TOE is fallsified only if in some future we can find something.
You have not explained anything.
Show me the scientific explanation of what Falsification means. Since apparantly you Accept the TOE falsification which is the same as ID.

Woodwose wrote:

Sweetsusiq wrote:You, sir, are intelligently sending yourself to a sad future.

Or.......because I appreciate that my time on this planet is finite, I will try and make the most of every minute I am alive and will go out of my way to avoid jeopardising the welfare of others.

Then surely you have better things to do than debate the definitions of words. Maybe you can start by debating the substance?

To reiterate...we have more evidence of the existence of an unknown creature in the woods of North America than we do to support the Theory of Evolution.

Never Mind I found what your going on about.

Evolution: Is a Fact because we can see changes of animals based on Mutations ~rolls my eyes~

TOE- Theory of Evolution:
We all came from a common single cell Organism and it was all random
The "theory of evolution" is actually a network of theories or a meta-theory that has developed through the practice and understanding of the science involved in research programs within evolutionary biology.[35] Charles Darwin, for example, proposed five separate theories in his original formulation, which included mechanistic explanations for: (1) populations changing over generations, (2) gradual change, (3) speciation, (4) natural selection, and (5) common descent.[17] Since Darwin, evolution has become a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains numerous empirical observations in the natural world. Evolutionary theories continue to generate testable predictions and explanations about living and fossilized organisms.[3][15] Evolutionary theories include theories about inheritance, for example. Under the blending inheritance theory, evolution by natural selection is exceedingly difficult, since genetic variation is rapidly lost. A theoretical advance known as the Hardy–Weinberg principle shows that, under the alternative inheritance theory of Mendelian genetics, variation is not easily lost. The Hardy-Weinberg genotype frequencies also facilitate the population genetics study of natural selection using diploid replicator equations.[36]

LOL 5 different Theories on Evolution !!!!

Hello you know about this animal right?

As baffling as the platypus was in 1992, it is even more so today, despite the availability of genomic sequencing. Francis S. Collins, past Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, concedes: “At first glance, the platypus appears as if it was the result of an evolutionary accident. But as weird as this animal looks, its genome sequence is priceless for understanding how mammalian biological processes evolved.”

In a 2008 BBC interview with Helen Briggs, geneticist Mark Batzer, from Louisiana State University notes: “One big surprise was the patchwork nature of the genome with avian, reptilian, and mammalian features.”

What is missing from Collin’s “priceless for understanding” is how the platypus fits into the Tree of Life sequence as Darwin envisioned. No wonder Darwin struggled with the platypus knowing that it contradicting his theory of natural selection—the Platypus should have become extinct. In a 1860 letter to Charles Lyell, Darwin explains that the

Or this one:
In traditional taxonomy, hummingbirds are placed in the order Apodiformes, which also contains the swifts. However, some taxonomists have separated them into their own order, Trochiliformes. Hummingbirds' wing bones are hollow and fragile, making fossilization difficult and leaving their evolutionary history poorly documented. Though scientists theorize that hummingbirds originated in South America, where there is the greatest species diversity, possible ancestors of extant hummingbirds may have lived in parts of Europe to what is southern Russia today.[27]

There are between 325 and 340 species of hummingbird, depending on taxonomic viewpoint, divided into two subfamilies, the hermits (subfamily Phaethornithinae, 34 species in six genera), and the typical hummingbirds (subfamily Trochilinae, all the others). However, recent phylogenetic analyses suggest that this division is slightly inaccurate, and that there are nine major clades of hummingbirds: the topazes and jacobins, the hermits, the mangoes, the coquettes, the brilliants, the Giant Hummingbird (Patagona gigas), the mountain-gems, the bees, and the emeralds.[28] The topazes and jacobins combined have the oldest split with the rest of the hummingbirds. The hummingbird family has the second greatest number of species of any bird family on Earth (after the tyrant flycatchers).

So I think all can Agree on "Evolution" The fact that within species their are changes based off mutations over time.


I think we all can also agree that "The Theory of Evolution" is in question that "The Theory of Evolution" is on the same Level as "The Theory of Intelectual Design"
I am not putting the word GOD in ID Theory because people think of the ID a bit differently just as scientists debate the "TOE"

So if we agree on this we can actually discuss the substance and not the word play.

I think the mental blocks involved here totally denying evolution is amazing.

Should i find it a coincidence that those who believe the wackier things also happen to deny the obvious things?

I think not.



this place has gone to hell in a hand basket

CM, Well said, my friend, well said indeed!

Sweetsusiq wrote:It is sadly impossible to discuss theology and the Christian Faith with a closed mind. So I have made my point, and I will not respond to your rhetoric again. Please know that I hope one day that you too will find the peace and joy that comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for *you* and me.. And Who Created you and me..

Sweetsusiq says:

I came across sounding harsh with my posting that I copied here above this one. My hubby said something to me about the futility of trying to convince someone of something being real and true when that person has different opinions and beliefs. I never should have said that anyone has a closed mind regarding their personal beliefs because time and circumstances can and have changed many people's beliefs, thoughts,opinions, and ideas. I sincerely apologize for saying that you have a closed mind.

CMcMillan wrote:So if we agree on this......

I cannot agree with it as nothing you said was factually correct.

Sweetsusiq wrote:

Sweetsusiq wrote:It is sadly impossible to discuss theology and the Christian Faith with a closed mind. So I have made my point, and I will not respond to your rhetoric again. Please know that I hope one day that you too will find the peace and joy that comes through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for *you* and me.. And Who Created you and me..

Sweetsusiq says:

I came across sounding harsh with my posting that I copied here above this one. My hubby said something to me about the futility of trying to convince someone of something being real and true when that person has different opinions and beliefs. I never should have said that anyone has a closed mind regarding their personal beliefs because time and circumstances can and have changed many people's beliefs, thoughts,opinions, and ideas. I sincerely apologize for saying that you have a closed mind.

this isn't directed at you susi, but the phrase I bolded is one of my pet peeves when used against people in discussions. I'll elaborate:

To truly have a closed mind means you haven't considered opposing viewpoints, you came to your conclusion and that's it.

IF,however, you looked at the oppositions information/point of view/ position, and have considered it, looked at their data/argument and decided they are wrong, you haven't been closed minded at all.

It just irks me when people go to the old cliche of "you're closed minded" when somebody disagrees with them or points out a problem with their argument.

You can be open minded and wrong, and you can be closed minded and correct. None of these things are mutually exclusive, however, if you consider the oppositions data and determine they are wrong, you ARE open minded.

once again, not directed at Susi but she mentioned "closed minded" and I wanted to comment.

A good point well made MrBigfoot.

Woodwose wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:So if we agree on this......

I cannot agree with it as nothing you said was factually correct.

Nothing I said was Factually correct
ITS From Scientific Websites SO then YOU show ME what is correct.
Stop playing the stupid word game and post freaking links!

Hey Mr Big Oh I mean Stank.

You still can't stay away can you?
If we are so wacked out why do you keep coming back.