199
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 131:
Line 131: + + + + + + +
Talk:Intelligent design controversy (view source)
Revision as of 06:28, April 12, 2008
, 06:28, April 12, 2008no edit summary
::::::: And does this post indicate that you are dropping your attempt to show that evolution is falsifiable? I guess you noted that even fellow-evolutionist Able806 said that your example didn't work.
::::::: And does this post indicate that you are dropping your attempt to show that evolution is falsifiable? I guess you noted that even fellow-evolutionist Able806 said that your example didn't work.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:20, 10 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::'' In the realm of science, "materialism" (i.e. "scientific materialism") is the ''belief'' that ''matter'' is all there is; i.e., there is no supernatural. It is ''science'' (founded on Christian principles) that has produce the polio vaccine, light bulbs, and neutron bombs, not scientific materialism.''
:::::::::OOooookay. First of all, where in the Bible do you see ANYTHING that sounds even remotely like the scientific method? I must've missed that bit. Secondly, science, by definition, HAS to be about the "natural", because there's '''no such thing''' as the "supernatural". Once something occurs, it is '''part of nature'''. If an angel were to visit earth, it would have mass, chemical composition, body heat, would show up on cameras (or be making ANOTHER Miracle by NOT showing up) and could (theoretically) be quizzed about Heaven.
:::::::::One of the basic, fundamental concepts of science is '''reproduceability'''. If an experiment can't be replicated, it's no good. This, in turn is based on the idea that the fundamental physical principles of of the universe are invariant, and that '''the universe is not deliberately trying to fool us.'''
:::::::::''I'm by no means convinced that most accept the evolution of man from a monkey.'' Good thing that's '''not how it's supposed to have happened''', then. (Both Homo Sapiens and Cercopithecoidea evolved from a common ancestor, long, looong ago.) Considering how long you've been arguing this stuff, you could at least get the details right.
:::::::::You said: ''And does this post indicate that you are dropping your attempt to show that evolution is falsifiable? I guess you noted that even fellow-evolutionist Able806 said that your example didn't work.''
:::::::::Uh, '''no''', since Able immediately provided an example of a way to falsify evolution that's '''better than mine'''. He said: '' However, if a human fossil were to be found in a Paleozoic stratum then evolution would be falsified due to mammals not being around at that point and certainly not humans. This is a pretty clear example.'' Did you actually read what he wrote, or just skim it for mineable quotes?
:::::::::Another good way to falsify evolution might be a sudden, massive mutation--like a human being spontaneously growing semifunctional feathered wings. That would throw a serious monkey-wrench in the whole 'no irreducible complexity' thing. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 02:28, 12 April 2008 (EDT)