Changes

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph.  After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible.  This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''

''The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph.  After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible.  This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.''

: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable.  I believe I have refuted them.  Let me reiterate: Even if the speed of light were different than we believe it to be, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers.  You failed to address my point.  Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true.  Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged.  Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other.  The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable.  I believe I have refuted them.  Let me reiterate: Even if light didn't redshit, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers.  Why?  Because our measurement of distant stars has nothing to do with redshift.  You failed to address my point.  Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true.  Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged.  Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other.  The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification.  ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...''  Falsification results invalidate the original theory.  Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification.  That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''

''When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification.  ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...''  Falsification results invalidate the original theory.  Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification.  That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.''