Automoderated users, edit
156
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 372:
Line 372: + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:22, June 3, 2010
, 03:22, June 3, 2010→This sentence seems off: new section
I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
::I have just seen this discussion and read it with a great deal of interest... is it possible for Philip Rayment to respond to Xyrophile? Both participants have demonstrated themselves to be respectful and coherent debaters and I think it's important that the discussion continue, since this matter is so important. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
== This sentence seems off ==
I don't think the sentence is necessarily wrong, but it seems to have some sort of a issue, like a word or two isn't quite right. I'm looking at the bold sentence.
<small>In 1949[1], J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. '''Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.'''</small>
It seems to say something along the lines of "Creationists attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets found in organisms could have evolved." I think the sentence is supposed to say that Haldane's test is invalid because we have found animals with complicated mechanisms, but evolution accounts for them, meaning Haldane's test didn't falsify evolution.
I'm a bit confused. If I knew how to fix the sentence I would change it myself, but I want more opinions on this. Maybe it's fine as it is, and I'm misunderstanding it. (In that case maybe there should be a rewrite for clarity's sake.) [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:22, 2 June 2010 (EDT)