nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 98:
Line 98: − + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:38, July 1, 2007
, 03:38, July 1, 2007→Evolution Is False: It's NOT about how evolution can be proved wrong
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:Your hypo is too theoretical to be useful. Nobody's arguing that it ''is'' "totally false." Evolution contains a lot of theories that are obviously true. Variation and natural selection is demonstrable and obvious. If ''every theory contained by evolution were false,'' we'd have to reexamine everything we know about life. But nobody's arguing that "everything contained by evolution is false." Creationists are arguing that some of the things are true, some things are false, and some things are unfalsifiable. "Evolution" is too broad a label. We need to be more precise in our analysis. The key question to me is, "What if ''common ancestry'' is false?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:55, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument.
The entire article is about how evolution could be proved wrong (which it can't), however the argument is never turned around. Creationism is not falsifiable. If you are to debate a subject, you must give BOTH sides of the argument. {{unsigned|DrCody}}
:No, this article is ''not'' about how evolution can be proved wrong; it's about how it ''can't'' be proved wrong (as you agree), i.e. how it is ''unfalsifiable''.
:And you are incorrect to claim that the argument is never turned around. On the contrary, the argument is ''usually'' how creation is unfalsifiable, but rarely is ''that'' argument turned around to see if evolution itself is also unfalsifiable.
:I agree that the creation model itself is also unfalsifiable ''in principle'' (although specific claims about it ''are'' falsifiable). So creation and evolution are therefore both in the same boat. Agreed?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)