First Prev
of 29
Next Last

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#570 Jun 20, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/20...
Wallabys are not bears.
Is it my imagination or did you just completely fail to respond to most of the arguments made in my last post? Shall I take that to mean that you have no good answers?

Nope not imaginary , you're a dip wad who cant falsify natural selection , extinction is in the natural order. Sorry about your luck.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#571 Jun 21, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope not imaginary , you're a dip wad who cant falsify natural selection , extinction is in the natural order. Sorry about your luck.
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#572 Jun 21, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.
Name ONE thing which you believe IS scientific.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#573 Jun 21, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Name ONE thing which you believe IS scientific.
Umm... Goddidit with majik?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#574 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.
??

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#575 Jun 22, 2012
Is "God did it with magic" a falsifiable non-tauological hypothesis?

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#576 Jun 22, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Name ONE thing which you believe IS scientific.
The three laws of thermodynamics are scientific. Any of those could be (theoretically at least) disproved at any time. Simply find a way to create energy from nothing and you disprove the first law. Find heat flowing spontaneously from cold areas to hot areas and you disprove law 2. Or simply find something colder than absolute zero and you disprove law 3.

You see? Falsifiable = Good. Unfalsifiable = Bad.

Level 2

Since: May 12

Lima, Peru

#577 Jun 22, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
Is "God did it with magic" a falsifiable non-tauological hypothesis?
God did it with magic is three things:

1. It's not something anyone has ever claimed.
2. It's not falsifiable and therefore not a subject for scientific inquiry.
3. It's not a useful theory because it makes no predictions.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#578 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.
Nope. Natural selection is a description of various factors that impact the survivability of an organism. It is, on it's own, meaningless. You cannot "learn" about natural selection, you learn about the various factors which include, but are not limited to:

1. Food supply and demand.
2. Atmospheric content.
3. Mineral availability and absorption.
4. Water availability and absorption.
5. Environmental stability and durability.

To falsify natural selection you have to falsify all of these factors, prove that they do not impact how well an organism can survive. I only listed 5 of them too, there are more.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#579 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
God did it with magic is three things:
1. It's not something anyone has ever claimed.
2. It's not falsifiable and therefore not a subject for scientific inquiry.
3. It's not a useful theory because it makes no predictions.
It is a tautology. It is presuming that there are no answers and nothing to learn, "god dun it" is a dead end, a non-answer. When they wanted to go to the Moon would they have built the rocket booster if they said "god dun it, and so why should we?"

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#580 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
The three laws of thermodynamics are scientific. Any of those could be (theoretically at least) disproved at any time. Simply find a way to create energy from nothing and you disprove the first law. Find heat flowing spontaneously from cold areas to hot areas and you disprove law 2. Or simply find something colder than absolute zero and you disprove law 3.
You see? Falsifiable = Good. Unfalsifiable = Bad.
The laws of thermodynamics are the same as the 5 observations of natural selection, we simply do name name observations laws anymore.
The theory of thermodynamics is statistical mechanics and is the explanation of the observations(laws).

NS has theory also which is like thermodynamics an explanation of the observations. This we call it evolution.
NS is falsifiable just as Kitten said , but you will have to disqualify and explain the 5 observations and fit it into a working hypothesis .

http://people.uncw.edu/chandlerg/documents/Ev...

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#581 Jun 22, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
God did it with magic is three things:
1. It's not something anyone has ever claimed.
Magic is when supernatural causation is attributed to a particular phenomenon or group of phenomena.

Are you saying nobody has ever claimed that God is a supernatural cause for the existence of the universe and everything in it? REALLY?
Peru_Serv wrote:
2. It's not falsifiable and therefore not a subject for scientific inquiry.
Right. Not only does it make it ineligible for scientific inquiry, but unfalsifiability disqualifies it from any rational person's consideration for ANYTHING having to do with reality.
Peru_Serv wrote:
3. It's not a useful theory because it makes no predictions.
I didn't ask if it was a THEORY. I asked if it was a HYPOTHESIS. Why did I use the word hypothesis? Got any ideas? Any at all?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#582 Jun 23, 2012
We have two eyes but can we see?

“I could be Susan's sock!”

Level 8

Since: Jun 12

Lady J's Lead Acolyte

#583 Jun 23, 2012
I would say most folks only see what they want to see.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#584 Jun 23, 2012
_PrincessSusan_ wrote:
I would say most folks only see what they want to see.
That explains why most folks are still religious.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#585 Jun 24, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
We have two eyes but can we see?
You have a brain but can you think?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#586 Jun 25, 2012
_PrincessSusan_ wrote:
I would say most folks only see what they want to see.
I would say the Princess really, really likes Double Fine

Hi, Princess

<3

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 29
Next Last

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) 53 min DanFromSmithville 173,704
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 56 min deutscher Nationa... 116,630
New review critical of "Origins" 1 hr TedHOhio 11
Need clarification on evolution 2 hr ugome 1
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 5 hr MikeF 514
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 13 hr Chimney1 137,094
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 19 hr Kong_ 62
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... 21 hr thewordofme 166
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••