72
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: − + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:13, June 26, 2007
, 03:13, June 26, 2007→Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10<sup>-3</sup>G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
:::::::::::: As given, you answer is correct to within 5x10<sup>-3</sup>G. That is what science seeks to do: make the error bars as small as possible. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 17:36, 25 Jun 2007 (PDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Agreed. And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement. But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?
::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth. The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable? The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::''Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life." In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution. In sum, I submit that falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence." Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.''
:::::::Using your own criteria of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not a science?<br />
:::::::Since evolution is so ''mallable'' would it accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==