Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

scotth said:
Uh, no.....

If the light had failed to bend, that would have been falsification. It did bend, many might consider that a confirmation, but it was really a failed falsification.

Theories make prediction that can be checked against reality. Every prediction made is one more potential falsification. Theories are supported by all the predictions that when checked fail to falsify it. It is the accumulations of huge masses of predictions that each failed to falsify, together with the absences of ANY failures, that 'confirm' a theory.

It takes exactly ONE verifable experiment that disagrees with any one of a theory's predictions and it is falsified. At which point, a new or modified theory needs to be found.

Evolution has been used to make countless (millions, literally) predictions in the last century. After mistakes in prediction and experiment have been accounted for, there are a grand total of ZERO failed predictions for evolution in all that time.

It is just a giant list of, if evolution is true we would expect to see x. Do we see x? Yes we do. Next.

And returning to ID, what predictions does ID make? As far as I can tell, ID's only prediction is that evolution will be falsified when checked against reality. So far, wrong a million times and counting. Even if the day comes when we find evidence contrary to what one would expect with evolution, that would still do not one thing to demonstrate that ID is correct.
Click to expand...

I admited later it was a matter of semantics, falsifiable and positive are two sides of the same coin.
 
articulett said:
Nothing counts as disproof of their "intelligent designer"--they just scramble for the next flagellum or beetle or whatever. That's why, if you are going to engage them--get an agreement on the table as to what would change their mind. If nothing will change their mind--why bother? There are plenty of walls to talk to, and they are far less annoying that self-important creationists.

I mean, knock yourself out if you want to. But you might want to define your goals first--or find out if anyone anywhere has had any success in this area...and, if so, with what kind of people--via what kind of discussion?
Click to expand...

I'm a little late coming into the discussion but I wanted to comment on this.

Part of the problem with debating creationists is that they play fast and loose with their definitions -- in that respect they're a lot like the Holocaust-denial crowd. Ask them what constitutes "evidence" (not proof, but evidence) and they will typically do one of two things:

a) choose a standard of evidence which is impossible to fulfill in the first place, or

b) choose a standard of evidence which is not too exorbitant, but reject everything you offer as evidence on grounds which are made up on the spot, pulled out of left field, justified in a retroactive manner, etc., etc.

In their minds, they don't need to "win" the debate in the sense that the other side needs to "win". They don't need to be right. They just need to get their ideas out into the open, no matter what the venue, and they'll assume the true believers will follow them (right off a cliff). Their strategy is simply to gather as many followers as they can and overturn conventional science by force of numbers. They're not going to practice real science no matter how many people demand they do.

The best way to confront them, in my mind, is to show that they lie -- not just here and there, but broadly and egregiously -- and to show whenever possible that what they're doing has nothing to do with the truth of the debate, but is simply a power-grab. It doesn't hurt to debate them when the playing field is even, but they do everything they can to make sure it isn't.
 
Darat said:
I think that's a generalisation just a tad too far - science certainly can test for the existence of some definitions of a designer and of a God. My usual example (although the actual veracity has been questioned it works as a mind game example) is Zeus. If my god is Zeus and one of his properties is that he lives on Mount Olympus in a palace we can in fact disprove that Zeus exists by showing there is no such Palace on Mount Olympus. (Of course I can then just re-define my Zeus to say "it's an invisible palace" and so on and we do see this happening regularly with claims by the religious about their various gods.)
Click to expand...
You didn't understand my post. If you tell me your god does X, I can test for that. I've been preaching that concept on these forums for years (see March language finalist nominations).

But how do you test for a god as the cause of X if you have no claim to begin with? That would involve either testing something for which there is no test, or testing every possibility from an infinite number of possibilities.

With evolution, we have the answer. Say a Bible believer wanted to add that unneeded layer, "God designed evolution". How do you test that?
 
Darat said:
Devil's Advocate: "Not necessarily, there could be new theory that also makes the same predictions as the theory of evolution for those particular experiments but then also either explains other findings that evolution does not or makes predictions different to evolution that are then found to be correct."

Obvious ID doesn't do either of those so even if it wasn't just the religious doctrine of creationism dressed up in new words it still isn't the viable alternative to evolution theory its proponents like to claim it is.
Click to expand...
Science always leaves the door open but with genetic science, I'm not going to have that open door very high on the list of things to look for.
 
cyborg said:
A dog giving birth to a cat, despite the usual creationist claims, would actually be a wonderful falsification of evolution since it's something that evolution would explicitly not predict.
Click to expand...
All you need is enough praying. ;)
 
cyborg said:
A dog giving birth to a cat, despite the usual creationist claims, would actually be a wonderful falsification of evolution since it's something that evolution would explicitly not predict.
Click to expand...

But cloning would be the first explanation--we've already cloned both species--just take the cells from cat zygote and stick it in the denucleated dog ova...zap...and replant--you might not even need to clone...just implant ferilized cat ova...they have similar gestations...and dogs have been known to nurse kittens...

Before exclaiming that ID was true, I'd run a chromosome test because a dog that had actual kittens that it spawned would have to have some of it's DNA in the mix--and the number of chromosomes is different too...
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
But cloning would be the first explanation--we've already cloned both species--just take the cells from cat zygote and stick it in the denucleated dog ova...zap...and replant--you might not even need to clone...just implant ferilized cat ova...they have similar gestations...and dogs have been known to nurse kittens...

Before exclaiming that ID was true, I'd run a chromosome test because a dog that had actual kittens that it spawned would have to have some of it's DNA in the mix--and the number of chromosomes is different too...
Click to expand...

Once you accept the existance of DNA, it's kinda difficult to say, "Goddidit", and be taken seriously...
 
articulett said:
But cloning would be the first explanation--we've already cloned both species--just take the cells from cat zygote and stick it in the denucleated dog ova...zap...and replant--you might not even need to clone...just implant ferilized cat ova...they have similar gestations...and dogs have been known to nurse kittens...

Before exclaiming that ID was true, I'd run a chromosome test because a dog that had actual kittens that it spawned would have to have some of it's DNA in the mix--and the number of chromosomes is different too...
Click to expand...
I don't think this proposition was referring to involvement of human manipulation.
 
skeptigirl said:
With evolution, we have the answer. Say a Bible believer wanted to add that unneeded layer, "God designed evolution". How do you test that?
Click to expand...

First we look at every aspect of evolution and see if it's possible that it could all happen without god. We know god wants to rely on faith and if he left any evidence of his existence then faith would not be necessary. Therefore, if we find no evidence that would prove that god exists.

On the other hand, if we find evidence that god exists that could prove that he doesn't. Or it could just prove that he's incompetent.
 
Bob Klase said:
First we look at every aspect of evolution and see if it's possible that it could all happen without god. We know god wants to rely on faith and if he left any evidence of his existence then faith would not be necessary. Therefore, if we find no evidence that would prove that god exists.

On the other hand, if we find evidence that god exists that could prove that he doesn't. Or it could just prove that he's incompetent.
Click to expand...
This is getting really twisted here. I take it you are being sarcastic, but in case you aren't....

You look at every aspect? Are you speaking in terms of infinite time here? Because there should be an infinite number of things to look at in your scenario.
 
skeptigirl said:
This is getting really twisted here. I take it you are being sarcastic, but in case you aren't...
Click to expand...


Of course I am. Even for those who weren't sure I thought the the last remark about incompetent would confirm that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom