In validating any scientific hypothesis, it is far more critical to look at the hostile evidence than the positive evidence. In mathematics, for example, a theorem can be disproven by finding one exception where it is invalid. It is not necessary for skeptics of evolutionary theory to answer every “positive” piece of evidence put forth by evolutionists. Rather, all that needs to be done is point out a fatal flaw in the theory.
15 comments
A single flaw in a scientific theory that fits with all the rest of the data isn't likely to get the theory thrown out entirely - it'll just be modified. A good example of this would be Newton's laws of motion: F=ma (and, resulting from it, KE=m*v^2/2) work just fine unless you're dealing with really small-scale interactions or high-energy interactions.
Springer is essentially correct although the analogy to mathematics is a little strained. Of course, I have not yet heard of a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution. You FSTDTers probably do not need to be told that many Christians, myself included, accept that evolution has indeed occurred.
Drew, I know that there are believers that don't have a problem with evolution or OEC. Personally, I don't even mind someone who's a YEC unless they're bent on changing my mind by spitting out H*vindism at me. My exposure to militant YEC is limited to here, and I evaluate believers individually, not as a demographic. :)
Yeah. Go ahead. We're waiting.
Have you found fossil rabbits in the Cambrian yet, then?
It's kind of pathetic. You've had a 150 years and you haven't found anything. So even by your standards, Springer, you fail.
Speaking of points of proof
I wish one you fucks would come up with one good one. So far it's been lies, frauds and assertions of a creator.
"In mathematics, for example, a theorem can be disproven by finding one exception where it is invalid."
Not theorems, but conjectures. Conjectures can be disproved. Theorems are conjectures that were proven, hence they can't be disproved. Fundie math fail.
Even if there were some huge fatal flaw in the modern concept of evolution, pointing out that flaw wouldn't prove creationism and it certainly wouldn't prove your god was behind it. It's not like there are just the two options, modern evolution in every detail or god did it.
For instance, if we were to discover that humans descended from a population of extraterrestrial telephone cleaners and advertising executives that arrived on this planet millions of years ago, then a) the universe is a far stranger and more baffling place than most of us thought and b) obviously some of the things we thought we knew about evolution would have to be adjusted. But equally obviously that doesn't prove that god was responsible and, indeed, rather lessens the odds of Springer and his ilk being right about god in the first place.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
