614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 23:24, June 21, 2007
, 23:24, June 21, 2007no edit summary
::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.''
:::::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)