Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#242 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Discord answered you in #229.
Hurray! I'm helping!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#243 Jan 31, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, to be fair, if everyone had an idea what they were talking about, no one would be disputing Evolution at all, and there would be no need for this forum.
Point taken.
humble brother

Finland

#244 Feb 1, 2014
Discord wrote:
You are not using the term falsifiable right. The fact that new evidence can disprove evolution is exactly why it IS falsifiable.
If you are going to use a scientific argument, you have to use the terminology the way scientists do. Sorry.
Sorry for your loss, which is this:

1. it is logically possible that no evidence contradictory to the evolution model exists
2. given #1, it is still possible that the modelled evolution did not occur
3. result: the model of evolution is not falsifiable

These are simple facts.
humble brother

Finland

#245 Feb 1, 2014
And here is your beloved post #229:
Discord wrote:
Yes, every element of evolution is testable. We can verify that living things reproduce. We can verify that living things pass on genetic material to their offspring. We can verify that some of that genetic material undergoes mutation. We can verify that living things compete for resources. And so on and so forth. Evolution is not a single phenomena, it is an explanation for the diversity of all life on earth.
This is explicitly shown to be false by my post above.

The model of evolution lacks falsifiability. This is a fact.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#246 Feb 1, 2014
humble brother wrote:
And here is your beloved post #229:
<quoted text>
This is explicitly shown to be false by my post above.
The model of evolution lacks falsifiability. This is a fact.
Bumble doesn't understand falsifiability. This is a fact.
humble brother

Finland

#247 Feb 1, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
Bumble doesn't understand falsifiability. This is a fact.
Can you do anything else than produce nonsensical assertions?

It is common for the losers in debates to begin babbling about the participants rather than that which is the topic of the debate. You have proven this to be the case on your own part.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#248 Feb 1, 2014
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Bumble doesn't understand falsifiability. This is a fact.
Or he DOES understand the explanations of falsifiability given him repeatedly over the past couple of years, but still deliberately mistates it in order to pull your chain, waste you time responding to him, and thus give him the attention he so badly craves.
humble brother

Finland

#249 Feb 1, 2014
Gillette wrote:
Or he DOES understand the explanations of falsifiability given him repeatedly over the past couple of years, but still deliberately mistates it in order to pull your chain, waste you time responding to him, and thus give him the attention he so badly craves.
Lets stay on the actual topic:

1. it is logically possible that no evidence contradictory to the evolution model exists
2. given #1, it is still possible that the modelled evolution did not occur

Is this case can you think of any way for a possibly falsification of the evolution model?

You need just one, it can be anything. Got anything?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#250 Feb 1, 2014
humble brother wrote:
1. it is logically possible that no evidence contradictory to the evolution model exists
It is JUST as logically possible that evidence contradictory to the evolution model DOES exist.

So your 'proof' is a handjob.
humble brother

Finland

#251 Feb 1, 2014
MikeF wrote:
It is JUST as logically possible that evidence contradictory to the evolution model DOES exist.
Of course. There are two logical possibilities:
1. evidence contradictory to the model does not exist
2. evidence contradictory to the model does exist

If #1 is true, the model IS NOT logically falsifiable, and if #2 is true the model IS logically falsifiable.

You must agree with this, yes?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#252 Feb 1, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry for your loss, which is this:
1. it is logically possible that no evidence contradictory to the evolution model exists
2. given #1, it is still possible that the modelled evolution did not occur
3. result: the model of evolution is not falsifiable
These are simple facts.
In order to show something is falsifiable, you just need to determine that a particular piece of evidence would contradict the theory. It is possible that scientists can discover a piece of evidence that falsifies Evolution, therefore Evolution is falsifiable.

No scientist in the world uses falsifiable the way you are. So who is wrong, every scientist in the world...or you?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#253 Feb 1, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>In order to show something is falsifiable, you just need to determine that a particular piece of evidence would contradict the theory. It is possible that scientists can discover a piece of evidence that falsifies Evolution, therefore Evolution is falsifiable.

No scientist in the world uses falsifiable the way you are. So who is wrong, every scientist in the world...or you?
Following that reasoning everything is falsifiable.

Since you apparently know every scientist on the planet, tell us how the do use it?

Clown

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#254 Feb 1, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Following that reasoning everything is falsifiable.
Since you apparently know every scientist on the planet, tell us how the do use it?
Clown
You almost went 20 minutes without insulting someone. Impressive.

No, not everything is falsifiable, but Evolution is.

One thing I am curious about is why the falsifiability argument is even being presented. Most of those against Evolution say that Evolution is wrong, obviously wrong, blatantly wrong, that the evidence does not support it. All of that suggests that Evolution is not only falsifiable, but has already been falsified (in their estimation). So to turn around and claim Evolution isn't falsifiable seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#255 Feb 1, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>You almost went 20 minutes without insulting someone. Impressive.

No, not everything is falsifiable, but Evolution is.

One thing I am curious about is why the falsifiability argument is even being presented. Most of those against Evolution say that Evolution is wrong, obviously wrong, blatantly wrong, that the evidence does not support it. All of that suggests that Evolution is not only falsifiable, but has already been falsified (in their estimation). So to turn around and claim Evolution isn't falsifiable seems to be a step in the wrong direction.
Thanks, I have not seen anyone else come close to 20min.

Since that is your claim, please provide an example of that something that is not falsifiable?

Dogen was playing the falsifiable card on someone and got challenged.

Not sure why you are confused, I never made an argument against the evidence.

So, what is this example you want then to use?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#256 Feb 1, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, I have not seen anyone else come close to 20min.
Since that is your claim, please provide an example of that something that is not falsifiable?
Dogen was playing the falsifiable card on someone and got challenged.
Not sure why you are confused, I never made an argument against the evidence.
So, what is this example you want then to use?
I have, going on 3 years or so without insulting anyone on this board.

Something that isn't falsifiable is something that cannot be disproved conclusively. For example, during the Iraq War there was a lot of debate regarding WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq. They could never be found, but that is not conclusive proof that WMDs didn't exist. No matter how thoroughly searched, there was always the possibility that they were out there, somewhere. The best you could get was very likely or very probably, but not definite.

For the record, this is not an invitation to debate the Iraq War or WMDs, just a recent example that would explain. The same could be said about the Loch Ness Monster.

I read another example about swans. A falsifiable statement would be "All swans are white". It is falsifiable because it could be disproved with the discovery of a black swan. But the statement "Black swans exist somewhere" is not falsifiable because no matter how exhaustively you search, the argument can still be made that you just missed them.

Something being falsifiable is different from it being true. If you do find a black swan, that makes the statement "Black swans exist" true, but not any more falsifiable.

All falsifiability does is make sure that there is a condition that would disprove any assertion. It makes sure that any scientific principle, no matter how ingrained, can always be overturned with new evidence.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#257 Feb 1, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you do anything else than produce nonsensical assertions?
It is common for the losers in debates to begin babbling about the participants rather than that which is the topic of the debate. You have proven this to be the case on your own part.
But you don't participate in the debate, all you do is repeat your idiotic assertions, totally without supporting evidence and your (probably) deliberate misunderstandings of scientific terms. So I don't bother trying to debate with you, I just mock you. Poking fun at you is all that I consider doing worth doing with people like you here, because you don't understand what you're talking about and you say the funniest things. You make my job of poking fun at you so easy.

Am I repentant about this? Not at all. Until and unless you begin to start using scientific terms that have very specific meanings, in the way that they are intended to be used and in a way that demonstrates a willingness on your behalf to understand the principles behind those terms, I shall continue to mock you if and when the spirit moves me. If you don't like it then all you have to do is stop being such an moronic dickhead.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#258 Feb 1, 2014
^^^ one too many "doing"s - meh
humble brother

Finland

#259 Feb 2, 2014
Discord wrote:
In order to show something is falsifiable, you just need to determine that a particular piece of evidence would contradict the theory. It is possible that scientists can discover a piece of evidence that falsifies Evolution, therefore Evolution is falsifiable.
No scientist in the world uses falsifiable the way you are. So who is wrong, every scientist in the world...or you?
Sad for you that you have to run away and keep trying to hide from a simple question.
Do you think your argument from majority fallacy here will save you?:)

Are you willing to accept the logical possibility of evidence contradictory to the evolution model not existing?
Bluenose wrote:
But you don't participate in the debate, all you do is repeat your idiotic assertions, totally without supporting evidence and your (probably) deliberate misunderstandings of scientific terms. So I don't bother trying to debate with you, I just mock you. Poking fun at you is all that I consider doing worth doing with people like you here, because you don't understand what you're talking about and you say the funniest things. You make my job of poking fun at you so easy.
Am I repentant about this? Not at all. Until and unless you begin to start using scientific terms that have very specific meanings, in the way that they are intended to be used and in a way that demonstrates a willingness on your behalf to understand the principles behind those terms, I shall continue to mock you if and when the spirit moves me. If you don't like it then all you have to do is stop being such an moronic dickhead.
I will ignore your nonsense and again politely just present you with the question from which you keep running away in fear:

Do you accept that it is logically possible that evidence contradictory to the evolution model does not exist?

Is there any one of you who is not afraid of this question and actually could produce an answer? It takes only one word to answer it.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#260 Feb 2, 2014
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Sad for you that you have to run away and keep trying to hide from a simple question.
Do you think your argument from majority fallacy here will save you?:)
Are you willing to accept the logical possibility of evidence contradictory to the evolution model not existing?
Fine, I will play along. It is possible that evidence contradicting the Theory of Evolution does not exist.

Now, go ahead, spring your carefully prepared trap.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#261 Feb 2, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>I have, going on 3 years or so without insulting anyone on this board.

Something that isn't falsifiable is something that cannot be disproved conclusively. For example, during the Iraq War there was a lot of debate regarding WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq. They could never be found, but that is not conclusive proof that WMDs didn't exist. No matter how thoroughly searched, there was always the possibility that they were out there, somewhere. The best you could get was very likely or very probably, but not definite.

For the record, this is not an invitation to debate the Iraq War or WMDs, just a recent example that would explain. The same could be said about the Loch Ness Monster.

I read another example about swans. A falsifiable statement would be "All swans are white". It is falsifiable because it could be disproved with the discovery of a black swan. But the statement "Black swans exist somewhere" is not falsifiable because no matter how exhaustively you search, the argument can still be made that you just missed them.

Something being falsifiable is different from it being true. If you do find a black swan, that makes the statement "Black swans exist" true, but not any more falsifiable.

All falsifiability does is make sure that there is a condition that would disprove any assertion. It makes sure that any scientific principle, no matter how ingrained, can always be overturned with new evidence.
Thanks for the Karl Popper refresher...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 min Chimney1 173,416
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 136,978
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 1 hr Chimney1 1,343
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 2 hr Chimney1 463
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr Chimney1 116,438
Opinion on theistic company slogans 9 hr The Dude 2
Science News (Sep '13) 13 hr Sublime1 2,887
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••