Unsure of flat or not but here's something interesting

Quote

Most illustrations in science books are lies by that definition.



That's a lie. No skeletons look exactly like drawings, or stand up in a 2-D row like that. It illustrates an idea: that's all.

I don't view this example as the same things that were mentioned. There's a difference between blatant inaccuracies without clarifications and what you show above. There is no need to put fine print like, "no skeletons look exactly like drawings or stand up in a 2-D row like this." Sometimes I think you really know better than what you let on, though.

Quote

As for the Piltdown Man, you're still ignoring the fact it was scientists who exposed it as a lie: something you now claim they're unable to do.

I'm not claiming that scientists are unable to expose lies. But let's look closer. Is it really a victory for evolutionists that they were able to figure out that something was a hoax after studying it for 40 years? The timing was interesting, too, as there were other candidates lined up to take Piltdown Man's place right away.

Quote

Would you like me to link you to a site filled with arguments against God and the Bible? I'm sure there are plenty. Sure, given time you might be able to respond to them all. What would stop me saying, after that, "There is always an excuse for why things don't match up."
If there's an answer to your question, then maybe it's not as major as you evidently think.

The difference is that arguments against God and the Bible on secular sites are pretty uneducated from my experience. I've never seen an argument that had the theology right, although sometimes it's a matter of not understanding what the author was trying to convey in a passage. Anyway, if evolution can explain everything away and fit everything to fit "just so," then it's not falsifiable, and it's not science. And it's not.

Quote

If by 'presupposition' you mean 'deductions or observations confirmed or shown to be reasonable by repeated testing.'

Nope, not what I meant at all. Observations can only be made in the here and now. Historical science only requires interpretation of the observations, guesses about what might have been, and a worldview that shapes it all. One cannot repeat history to test it. So what you described is not evolution.

Quote

And again, I say the exact same thing, as you seem to have ignored:
My presupposition is to invoke as few unnecessary entities as possible. I'd assume we share that: it's applicable to more than just evolution. So, on this topic, while I technically do have an involved presupposition, it's a general one that we share. You're the one that relies on a separate presupposition.
The point is not that you have a presupposition, it's that you have an unnecessary one.

God is not unnecessary. Evolution is. See, arguments like that don't really work for debating other philosophies without more meat to it. Why is evolution the necessary presupposition? Why is God the unnecessary one?

I don't view this example as the same things that were mentioned. There's a difference between blatant inaccuracies without clarifications and what you show above.

I'm not claiming that scientists are unable to expose lies.

The difference is that arguments against God and the Bible on secular sites are pretty uneducated from my experience. I've never seen an argument that had the theology right, although sometimes it's a matter of not understanding what the author was trying to convey in a passage.

Anyway, if evolution can explain everything away and fit everything to fit "just so," then it's not falsifiable, and it's not science. And it's not.

Nope, not what I meant at all. Observations can only be made in the here and now. Historical science only requires interpretation of the observations, guesses about what might have been, and a worldview that shapes it all. One cannot repeat history to test it. So what you described is not evolution.

God is not unnecessary. Evolution is. See, arguments like that don't really work for debating other philosophies without more meat to it. Why is evolution the necessary presupposition? Why is God the unnecessary one?

Large animals do not look like small animals: an elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled up in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the bones of an elephant are necessarily proportionately much larger than the bones of a mouse, because they must carry proportionately higher weight.

I think farces are pretty interesting. That's what led me to this site. =)

Quote

And when those inaccuracies are meant as any more than illustrations of a theory, maybe you'd have a point.

Well I'd like to know what Haeckel's embryos in certain text books are supposed to illustrate if nothing other than the falsehood that we go through our evolutionary stages in the womb and have gills lol. Why not use actual photos of the embryo stages? We've gotten farther in our knowledge and technology. Why not put those to good use? But alas, this topic is rather "boring."

Quote

That's exactly what what you're saying relies upon.

No, then you misunderstand me. What I'm saying is that yes, they are willing to stretch the truth to let the information fit into their worldview. No, I don't think scientists and evolutionists are generally liars. I think they believe (probably) what they see fits into their worldview and are afraid of the alternative. A lot of what we hear from them stems from a bias.

Quote

Well said. Try applying the same reasoning.

I do, which is why I try and educate myself as much as possible on evolution. It's important that I know what I'm arguing against and why. So far I haven't seen any good refutations of my arguments. I've been this into evolution/creation since I was a kid. That doesn't make me an expert on the subject, but I do take the time to learn.

Quote

Just because something is not falsified, doesn't mean it's not falsifiable. There are countless ways for evolution to be falsified; you get plenty of them listed every time there's a debate on evolution. The fact is none of them happen.

Can you give me an example of how historical science could be falsifiable and how it has been tried?

Quote

Which is why I specified deduction as well. You can't just ignore literally half of what I said. You can't do any science without deduction: even observations won't tell you anything unless you use logic to deduce why it happened, and when it would.

Any deduction that one makes has to stem from a ... guess what? It's that word again, presupposition. Anything from the past must be analyzed with an already present worldview. Creationists can take the same data and fit it into their worldview. It only depends on which worldview makes the most sense to you.

Quote

Because evolution is not the presupposition. Do I need to repeat myself again?

It doesn't seem to help that I also keep repeating myself: evolution is a presupposition. This always kicks atheists in the pants, because they think attacking theists with the "p" word really works for some reason. I've already explained multiple times, very reasonably, why evolution is a presupposition. Darwin speculated, "What if we all came from pond scum?" (not verbatim, but I can get the quote if you want it) and that's where it all began, my friend. A speculation. Speculations = presuppositions. All the "evidence" has to fit into this bias, and if it doesn't, it is excused. For example, mammals are usually found with dinosaurs, and there are 430 species of mammals found in dinosaur age strata, only seven to 10 of which have modern counterparts thus far. Furthermore, when paleontologists find dinosaur bones or dinosaur trace fossils in the Cenozoic they are almost always ‘redated’ or claimed ‘reworked’ and put into the Mesozoic. There are lots of examples of this kind of work. It's short of blatant lying, but I always give people the benefit of a doubt: I think that they look at this type of stuff as "mistakes" that need to be looked at again in order for it to all fit into an evolutionary worldview because otherwise it "doesn't make sense."

Well I'd like to know what Haeckel's embryos in certain text books are supposed to illustrate if nothing other than the falsehood that we go through our evolutionary stages in the womb and have gills lol. Why not use actual photos of the embryo stages? We've gotten farther in our knowledge and technology. Why not put those to good use? But alas, this topic is rather "boring."

What I'm saying is that yes, they are willing to stretch the truth to let the information fit into their worldview. No, I don't think scientists and evolutionists are generally liars. I think they believe (probably) what they see fits into their worldview and are afraid of the alternative. A lot of what we hear from them stems from a bias.

Can you give me an example of how historical science could be falsifiable and how it has been tried?

Anything from the past must be analyzed with an already present worldview. Creationists can take the same data and fit it into their worldview. It only depends on which worldview makes the most sense to you.

Quote

Why not use actual photos all the time instead of illustrations? Illustrations make things clearer.

If you knew what Haeckel's forged embryo illustration looked like, you probably wouldn't be arguing this point. They look nothing like real embryos, first of all, and secondly, photos of actual embryos are much more clear. The thing that isn't "clear," however, is that we come from fish. But this way of teaching that philosophy should've been thrown out long ago with the medicinal leeches.

Quote

And yet they've successfully peered through the bias to refute claims multiple times.

Like?

Quote

Find a reliable source which goes against what another source says.
There are numerous slanderous rumours about historical figures: how do we know they're just rumours? Source work. It's not a direct analogue because of course it woudln't, you're comparing two completely different topics, but it's more than possible to falsify a historical view.

I was asking if you had any examples of how evolution has been attempted to be falsified.

Quote

And we'll focus on the latter point, because it addresses your final paragraph as well. Which worldview makes more sense?
Take evolution's "What if we all came from wherever?" That is not a beginning: that is a consequence of a separate presupposition. Why? Because it is not a presupposition to claim we came from somewhere. That's necessary. The creationist appends that with a separate presupposition: an entity unnecessary. One who accepts evolution, instead, relies only on that which we have observed to be the case, combined with deduction. Both those steps exist and are used by creationists, so no extra presupposition is involved.

It is necessary to say that we came from somewhere, but it is not necessary to say that we came from pond scum. We have not observed this to "be the case," and saying deduction does not make it anymore scientific. A presupposition still remains. The one that 1) there is no God and 2) our origins and life, and everything else we see, is what it is because of an accident in pond scum. And that is what makes more sense to you.

They look nothing like real embryos, first of all,

Like?

I was asking if you had any examples of how evolution has been attempted to be falsified.

It is necessary to say that we came from somewhere, but it is not necessary to say that we came from pond scum. We have not observed this to "be the case," and saying deduction does not make it anymore scientific.

A presupposition still remains. The one that 1) there is no God and 2) our origins and life, and everything else we see, is what it is because of an accident in pond scum. And that is what makes more sense to you.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 27, 2015, 05:58:01 AM

Quote

Neither do illustrations.

I was talking about the illustrations. The illustrations (Haeckel's) look nothing like real embryos. This is in response to you saying that illustrations make things more clear.

Quote

Look at the link you yourself provided. Piltdown, for one.

You point out the bias that I used as an example of really bad science (the teeth were filed!) that was finally admitted to being a hoax after 40 years and after there were other alternatives. Not sure this is a good example for you.

Quote

Then don't ask after history.

Evolution is a historical assumption.

Quote

Evolution is attempted to be falsified every time a fossil is unearthed or a genome examined. One flaw, it all comes crashing down. It has not, and it's that simple. The fact is, all the ways that could falsify evolution (a lack of genetic similarities, a lack of the ability to mutate, a lack of consistency and order in the fossil record...) fail to, and then you have sites such as creation.com that treat all this as a given, and complain that there aren't more tests, because the ones that have been done don't fall in line with the agenda they've set out.

It's really not that simple, unfortunately. Time for a review, I suppose? 1) genetic similarities do not have anything to do with relation. http://creation.com/human-ape-dna 2) We do not have the ability to mutate new information to create new kinds. This has never been observed, but evolution hopes it is true based on the fact that we have rapid speciation, which is a completely different thing. 3) There is a ridiculous amount of inconsistencies with the fossil record. I have brought this up too many times to count. Finally, if you're referring to the offers for creation.com to fund carbon dating in things like dinosaurs, with the offers being turned down curiously, that is all I can think of that you would be referring to in the last part of your argument.

Quote

But we know for a fact that this source exists: and that the means for development do exist.

No, we don't know that we have any blueprints for the developments that were necessary to get what we have today. Again, we have speculated that we have what is necessary, but this has actually never been observed. We rely on things like the fossil record to support this, which is terribly lacking in evidence. Again, this is history that we analyze. That is all we have. Also, as you would be hasty to repeat, I'm sure, we observe things like speciation within yeasts, bacteria, and species. I will repeat yet again, this is not evidence for evolution. It's a different kind of information, and mutations do more harm than good. There's also the entropy problem that I stated earlier.

Quote

Again, 1 is not a presupposition. 1 does not enter into it. The only remotely close thing that occurs is that "God is not necessary," and this is a result of "Don't assume more than what is required," and your second 'presupposition' too is a result. You've been corrected on this multiple times, stop ignoring it, just because it happens to be inconvenient for you.

This is where I'm thinking our argument is done. I keep repeating myself, and you're too closed-minded to see your philosophical flaw. The only reason why God wouldn't be necessary is if we could have arrived by chance, which is an assumption. God is completely necessary because we couldn't have arrived by chance, and we have far too much evidence for design. There is also too much going against evolutionary "evidence" and too many inconsistencies for it to be science or true. Evolution becomes the "necessary entity" if you refuse to believe that God is necessary. Here's the thing, JRowe: There has to be a necessary entity. It's either God, or evolution by chance. To state otherwise is to be clearly so blinded by your bias that you don't make any philosophical sense.

If you have anymore questions about God for personal reasons, do not hesitate to PM me. Otherwise, I don't see how we can proceed from here. Thanks for your time, and have a happy rest of the holiday season. =)

PS Do you mind revealing your age? I'm so curious. I won't use it against you.

I was talking about the illustrations. The illustrations (Haeckel's) look nothing like real embryos. This is in response to you saying that illustrations make things more clear.

Not sure this is a good example for you.

It's really not that simple, unfortunately.

There's also the entropy problem that I stated earlier.

The only reason why God wouldn't be necessary is if we could have arrived by chance, which is an assumption.

Here's the thing, JRowe: There has to be a necessary entity. It's either God, or evolution by chance.