Changes

::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant."  It makes no such claim.  And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]

::With apologies to Mr. Rayment, I must take issue with Angst's claim that "The Bible claims to be inerrant."  It makes no such claim.  And even if it did claim to be inerrant, finding an error would only disprove the individual proposition of inerrancy -- it would not prove that everything in the Bible is wrong.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]]

:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant.  Instead, others make this claim of the Bible.  Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::Correction accepted. The Bible makes no claim to be inerrant.  Instead, others make this claim of the Bible.  Similarly, finding an error in the theory of evolution would only disprove the individual proposition -- it would not disprove evolutionary theory in it's entirety. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable.  Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

::The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable.  Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on.  And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, that's your position, but clearly it's not something that even all evolutionists agree on.  And I did notice the error in claiming that the Bible claims to be inerrant, but whilst the Bible doesn't directly explicitly claim that, I believe that is a reasonable deduction from what it does claim, and furthermore it wasn't the key point that PerpetualAngst was making, so I decided to ignore that point (which is not to suggest that there was anything wrong with Ungtss responding to it).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:30, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable.  Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''

::::''The Theory of Evolution is still falsifiable.  Tens of thousands of papers and supporting theories would need to be refuted before one could claim the larger evolutionary theory has been refuted.''

:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories?  Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell?  Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection?  If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it.  But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean:  what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven?  How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Could you be more specific in defining what "Theory of evolution" could only be falsified by disproving all the papers and supporting theories?  Do you mean the idea that all life evolved from a single protocell?  Or do you mean the idea that all life changes gradually as the result of variation and natural selection?  If you mean the latter, I think you're right -- there are a lot of papers showing that life changes over time by variation and natural selection, and it would take a lot of work to disprove it.  But if you mean the former, then explain what you mean:  what papers are out there providing scientific evidence for ''universal common ancestry'' that would have to be disproven?  How would you falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 19:24, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails.  Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection.  They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Without an answer to my question above, your argument fails.  Creationists don't dispute the falsifiable, scientific, and obvious proposition that life changes over time by variation and natural selection.  They dispute the unfalsifiable and unscientific proposition of universal common ancestry.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 08:10, 22 June 2007 (EDT)