Great thing about evolution, it involves no predictions (unlike other "sciences") but it still keeps getting confirmed and supported.
Homeschooling and anti-evolution are bosom buddies. No surprise there.
Why evolution is bogus.
Sort:
MSteen wrote:
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
The first part of your statement is absolutely correct. The best route for the opponents of evolution to take is to demonstrate that in at least one respect it is demonstrably false. For instance, the discovery of a human skeleton among dinosaur fossils would completely overturn the theory of evolution. Of course, such a thing has not happened, or the creationists would have been all over it.
The second part of the statement, though, is, I believe, in error. One cannot prove the truth of a statement by being unable to prove it false. For instance, I might make the statement that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. You simply cannot prove that to be a false statement unless you actually contact that life, something which is almost infinitely unlikely. However, your inability to contact it does not prove me correct; it merely proves that you cannot contact it. Simply put, the fact that a statement is non-falsifiable does not prove it true.
good point, what I meant to say was
the best way to prove somthing is false is not to harrase the guy with all the evidence, it is to give a good arguement against it that proves it false. what I mean by this is not "where did the big bang come from" because nobody knows YET!!! and that does not in any way mean evolution is false...
Oct 30, 2013
0
#24
MSteen wrote:
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
For instance, the discovery of a human skeleton among dinosaur fossils would completely overturn the theory of evolution.
We'll need Doctor Who to weigh in on this one. Maybe one of his young girls was left behind when he traveled back to the time of T-rex.
zborg wrote:
Homeschooling and anti-evolution are bosom buddies. No surprise there.
this might be the case here, but I would like you to know that this does not happen in the majority of cases anymore... the truth is that most homeschooled kids are perfectly normal, and are not weirdos... (lol calling upon my childhood for that word =D) in fact I know some athiest homeschooled kids now...
MSteen wrote:
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
The first part of your statement is absolutely correct.
I don't think that's right. Can any of us prove that the existence of god is false, no matter how confident we are of our position? We don't need to, because the burden of proof is on the one putting forward the idea. And unfortunately for the god-believers, they have no evidence to offer.
Peter-Pepper wrote:
MSteen wrote:
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
The first part of your statement is absolutely correct.
I don't think that's right. Can any of us prove that the existence of god is false, no matter how confident we are of our position? We don't need to, because the burden of proof is on the one putting forward the idea. And unfortunately for the god-believers, they have no evidence to offer.
isnt that exactly what I said?
Not quite. If we are asking Xieff to disprove evolution or it is true, we have a similar burden to disprove god or else it must be true.
Oct 30, 2013
0
#29
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
zborg wrote:
Homeschooling and anti-evolution are bosom buddies. No surprise there.
this might be the case here, but I would like you to know that this does not happen in the majority of cases anymore... the truth is that most homeschooled kids are perfectly normal, and are not weirdos... (lol calling upon my childhood for that word =D) in fact I know some athiest homeschooled kids now...
I think that religious motivation (anti-evolution) and conservative ideology (see http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/search/label/Schweikart%20and%20Allen) still account for a significant majority of homeschoolers.
Nevertheless, your general point is accurate IMO if you replace "majority" in your assertion with "a significant percentage".
I homeschooled my son for nearly two years. He read Beowulf and The Voyage of the Beagle in seventh grade as a consequence. My step-son attended an online private school after several years of homeschooling and public school. I teach chess in a home school resource center. I do live in a conservative community, however, and my observations over the past twelve years may be somewhat atypical as a consequence.
Though I agree that within the context of this thread, Xieff has to make his case first.
If Xieff can create enough doubt, and we cannot offer enough evidence to prove evolution beyond all reasonable doubt, then it will have to remain just a theory.
Oct 30, 2013
0
#31
Peter-Pepper wrote:
Though I agree that within the context of this thread, Xieff has to make his case first.
If Xieff can create enough doubt, and we cannot offer enough evidence to prove evolution beyond all reasonable doubt, then it will have to remain just a theory.
"just a theory" is the argument of creationists. It is not proper use of the term theory in science. See http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html
I am aware of the semantic difficulties; it is also something that Dawkins struggles with, as the word has different meanings within different contexts. "Just an idea" would have been better wording.
Oct 30, 2013
0
#33
Peter-Pepper wrote:
I am aware of the semantic difficulties; it is also something that Dawkins struggles with, as the word has different meanings within different contexts. "Just an idea" would have been better wording.
Yes.
Great thing about evolution, it involves no predictions (unlike other "sciences") but it still keeps getting confirmed and supported.
Here's a 700 page book by two cosmologists, one of who won the British Templeton Prize.
And NO, this isn't a book about "intelligent design," it's roughly 1/2 math, 1/2 English, and no simple read, if you want to be informed.
http://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1383145399&sr=8-1&keywords=barrow+and+tipler
MSteen wrote:
I-eat-guini-pigs wrote:
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
The first part of your statement is absolutely correct. The best route for the opponents of evolution to take is to demonstrate that in at least one respect it is demonstrably false. For instance, the discovery of a human skeleton among dinosaur fossils would completely overturn the theory of evolution. Of course, such a thing has not happened, or the creationists would have been all over it.
The second part of the statement, though, is, I believe, in error. One cannot prove the truth of a statement by being unable to prove it false. For instance, I might make the statement that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. You simply cannot prove that to be a false statement unless you actually contact that life, something which is almost infinitely unlikely. However, your inability to contact it does not prove me correct; it merely proves that you cannot contact it. Simply put, the fact that a statement is non-falsifiable does not prove it true.
Reminds me of the celestial teapot
So, what is this argument that destroys evolution exactly? I don't see any arguments against it in this thread.
Oct 30, 2013
0
#37
The OP insists that he keeps offering arguments, but no one has been able to find them.
Off-topic is the right one.
It allows us to photospam with no mercy. (I mean, why even bother answering the OP when the first page nailed it ?)
Oct 30, 2013
0
#39
@Irontiger Are you trying to force me to get a hip replacement after falling out of my rocking chair? It's not good to make a man my age laugh so hard.
It is not us who have to prove evolution right, it you who has to prove it false... that is just the way it has to be because the best way to prove somthing is true is to not be able to prove it false...
The first part of your statement is absolutely correct. The best route for the opponents of evolution to take is to demonstrate that in at least one respect it is demonstrably false. For instance, the discovery of a human skeleton among dinosaur fossils would completely overturn the theory of evolution. Of course, such a thing has not happened, or the creationists would have been all over it.
The second part of the statement, though, is, I believe, in error. One cannot prove the truth of a statement by being unable to prove it false. For instance, I might make the statement that there is no intelligent life anywhere else in the universe. You simply cannot prove that to be a false statement unless you actually contact that life, something which is almost infinitely unlikely. However, your inability to contact it does not prove me correct; it merely proves that you cannot contact it. Simply put, the fact that a statement is non-falsifiable does not prove it true.