Question 5: Testability

[Simon]

What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

[otseng]

What a flurry of posts last night!

Let me jump in and say that I think Simon has posted some valid questions regarding evolution. These are not questions that deserve frivolous debate, but questions that I think require answers with substance. It would be easy to dismiss all these questions and attack everything but the questions themselves.

So, I would ask everyone to give some more thought before posting and please give supporting logic and evidence for your answers. Thanks.

[Lotan]

Please be aware that the argument put forth on this thread belongs to William Dembski.

[Jose]

A Devonian rabbit.

Fossils of modern mammals mixed with dinosaurs.

A mechanism that would prevent speciation at a genetic level.

Evidence that would limit the age of the Earth to less than one million years. (Current age is estimated at 4.6 billion years or so.)

Evidence of all species appearing without any traceable history either in the fossil record or genetically.

It looks like there are lots of things that could disprove it.

If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?

Do I infer correctly that you are saying that a theory is testable only if negative evidence exists or could exist? Obviously, if evidence exists, the theory no longer does, because it has been disproven. In other words, a theory is an explanation that has not yet been disproven. Now, could such evidence exist? Not if the theory is actually a description of reality. However, the quotes above indicate the kinds of evidence that might exist if the theory is wrong--so, the theory is obviously testable. The fact that no one has found negative evidence in the past 150 years, despite a great deal of effort, makes it look like such evidence is even rarer than, shall we say, transitional fossils.

And yes, this is Dembski's argument (and the argument of those who preceded him), but we can still explain why it's invalid. It's funny...we've been explaining why the argument is invalid for decades. I guess that it's like learning anything; each of us has to come to our own understanding at our own pace. So, the same reasoning must be brought up many times.

Unfortunately, these 5 questions that we "don't want to hear" suffer from the same problem. The anti-evolution argument is easy to present, and easy to present in a way that makes evolution look silly. The answer to the argument, however, requires understanding of a variety of scientific principles, and a willingness to look at the data. Many people don't have the patience for this, and take the simple answer. As my wife tells me often, if you just say God did it, you only have to remember 3 words. If you say evolution did it, you have to understand a whole lot of complicated stuff.

[YEC]

"2 and 92" Fossils of modern mammals mixed with dinosaurs.

the modern animals for the most part are post flood..why would they live with the dinos?

A mechanism that would prevent speciation at a genetic level.

The creationist have no problem with speciation.

Show me a series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the evolution of one
species into another species in which the new species is a member of a
different taxonomic rank of Family.

Or (if you don't like taxonomic ranks and your a cladistics fan)

Show me a historical series of fossils that clearly demonstrate the
evolution of one species into another species that shows a detailed common ancestral phylogenetic link in which the new species has a group of derived traits which is proceeded by primitive traits.

Evidence that would limit the age of the Earth to less than one million years. (Current age is estimated at 4.6 billion years or so.)

That's easy...
As you well know, the evidence of the actual fiat of creation was destroyed in the flood. The evidence the YEC present is flood evidence.
Although, Polonium Halo's can be considered as evidence of a rapid fromation of the Basalts.
Not to mention that C-14 hasn't met equilibrium as of yet...which it should have if the earth is as old as some claim. Many say the continents should have eroded by now, that is if the continents are as old as some claim.
Judging from the erosion rate of Niagra falls as it retreats from lake Ontario, the falls are much much younger than the old earthers claim.
The observation of the earth population and population growth also support a recent creation.
We also must not forget the decay of the magnetic field of the earth which STRONGLY indicate a young earth and recent creation along with the recession rate of the moon that would have put it too close to earth a few billion years ago.The low amount of helium in the earth atmosphere and the low level of salt in the ocean also say young earth. Not to mention that the sediments in the ocean would be higher is another example of a young earth. Polystrata trees are also a good example and proof that strata forms quickly and not over millions upon millions of years. The soft sediment deformation of rock strata is a very good indicator of a rapid folding of the pre-hardened rocks and not millions upon millions of years as the continents drifted slowly. The rapid formation of the Grand Canyon when the Hopi and Grand lakes broke through their damns show how it could have been formed in a very short period of time and not millions of years. The Mt St. Helen Volcano and after results PROVED the possibility of quick canyon formation.


1. The amount of dust on the moon's surface -
2. Lack of meteorites in the geologic column
3. The Poynting-Robertson Effect on Cosmic Dust Sphericals
4. The Abundance of Short-period comets v.s. its average life-span
5. Io being geologically active
6. The Moon, i.e. Lunar Material with high levels of radioactivity
7. Types of Radiation that shouldn't be in existence on the Moon
8. Turbulance & instability of Saturn's Rings
9. Existence of 3 Giant Dust Rings that circle the solar system
10. Rock-Flow of Lunar Material v.s. craters of the Moon
11. Lack of emitted Neutrinos from the sun
12. The chemical composition of stars being roughly the same
13. Star clusters gravitationally bound yet containing stars with vastly different thurmonuclear-burn
sequences
14. Paradox between the expected nuclear-fusion temperature history of the sun and the temperature
history of the Earth
15. Controversy over our Shrinking Sun
16. The White Dwarf Star Sirius B Mystery
17. The Missing Mass Problem
18. Velocity of Light Deccaying with Time idea
19. Lack of Helium in Earth's Atmosphere
20. Problems with Radioactive Clocks
21. Age of Diatoms v.s. fossil skeleton of a Baleen Whale on End
22. Lack of erosional lines separating depositional formations
23. Polystrate Fossils in Sedimentary Rocks
24. Tilt of the Earth Axis based on Astronomical Evidence via. Eudoxus, Stonehenge & Solar Temple of
Amen-Ra
25. Geocentric Pleochroic Polonium Halos in Precambrian Granite & Coalified Wood
26. The Second Law of Thermodynamics
27. Oil & Natural Gas - their existence
28. Carbon-14 Disintegration v.s. production
29. Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Moment
30. Dinosaur Tracks & Man Tracks at Paluxy - Generally no longer used by most creationists
31. Large Stars - Mass problems
32. Delta Filling - Rate of growth of delta
33. Ocean Chemical Concentrations - Much less than what they should be
34. Erosion of the Continents - Problems with supposed time involved
35. History - Record of man's existence
36. Dendrochonology - Age of trees much less than what they could be
37. Sea Ooze - Lack of sea ooze on ocean floors
38. Rotation of the Earth - Rotation much to fast by evolutionary standards
39. Ocean Sediment - Rate of sediment added to the oceans precludes an old ocean
40. Volcanic Water & Rocks - Time problem based on present rate of rock accretion
41. Mutation load - Lack of it indicates biological world couln't have vast antiquity
42. Population Statistics
43. Earth Heat - Earth young based on considerations of existing temperature gradient in the earth and its
rate of cooling
44. The existence of Lunar Inert Gases
45. Stalagmites & Stalactites
46. The existence & depth of topsoil
47. Certain Geological features a) unconsolidated rock b) various fossils & minerals & their current rate of
formation c) the lack of uniformitarian horizontal layers of sedimentary rocks blending & d) meandering
serpentine course of many rivers and canyons
48. Niagra Falls and the rate of its edge wearing away
49. The existence of Hydrogen still in the universe
50. The existence of Atmospheric Oxygen
51. Grand Canyon Dating
52. Dating of the Cardenas Basalts
53. Basalts on the Rim of the Grand Canyon
54. Age of Meteorites/Earth & Allende
55. Recent Dating of Civilization
56. Plate Tectonics and the age of the Earth
57. Salt in the Ocean
58. Rocks on the Earth's Surface
59. Various Surface Features of the Earth (such as ripple marks, raindrop impressions, animal tracks)
60. Bioturbation - Deficiency of evidence of living communities within a layer of rock
61. Lack of soil layers anywhere in the geologic column
62. Undisturbed Bedding Planes
63. Soft-Sediment Deformation
64. Clastic Dikes
65. Limited extent of unconformities
66. Lack of evidence of in situ petrified tree stumps
67. Escape of methane from Titan
68. The Recession of the Moon
69. The presence of star clusters
70. The sudden appearance of Advanced Life forms
71. The permanence of prototypes
72. Absence of Transitional Forms
73. The Nature of Fossilization & the Fossils themselves
74. Preservation of Soft Parts
75. Sirius B White Dwarf & observation


Evidence of all species appearing without any traceable history either in the fossil record or genetically.

The theory belonging to evolutionism tells us that all life evolved from a common ancestor. This hypothesis is taught as fact in our schools and even presented from time to time on this forum as the truth. But is it true or just another lie from the camps of evolutionism which have been kept secret?

In answering the question we must ask the question:

Why do the major phyla and classes of animals suddenly appear fully developed in the cambrian fossils with no ancestral linage leading up to the phyla and classes that are found fossilized there?

In other word, you don’t see the speciation of animals producing different genera, then the continuation of morphological evolution producing animals that can be divided into different families and then orders.

Instead, as mentioned above, the geological record has fossilized animals that are very diverse in the hierarchy of the taxonomical rank and show no sign of a slow divergence from a common ancestor. The animals found in the cambrian strata appear suddenly already divided into different phyla and classes.

The bedrock, or the basement strata of rocks don’t present descent with modification as the theory of evolutionism calls for. In fact, one could claim that it appears to be somewhat up-side-down.


And on and on. There are a million ways to falsify the current theory of evolution. If you are so avid about it being false why don’t you take a few college courses and become a scientist and disprove it? You would become famous and earn a Nobel Prize or two.

Do you need more?

[Jose]

YEC, you've already posted most of this on beliefnet, and a considerable fraction of it here. It's really not helpful just to cut and paste, in part because statements written for a different context don't mesh with the discussions in the new context. It's also inappropriate because the questions you've posted here have already been dealt with. Re-posting them verbatim suggests that you really don't care about the answers (although, admittedly, it sometimes does stimulate more discussion).

[YEC]

YEC, you've already posted most of this on beliefnet, and a considerable fraction of it here. It's really not helpful just to cut and paste, in part because statements written for a different context don't mesh with the discussions in the new context. It's also inappropriate because the questions you've posted here have already been dealt with. Re-posting them verbatim suggests that you really don't care about the answers (although, admittedly, it sometimes does stimulate more discussion).

Jose, If you read the replies presented on beliefnet you would have seen that they lost the arguments.

The questions/answers have been posted here because they are a stumbling block for the evos and all should be able to see them...unless you are in favor of censoring anything that disagrees with your particular point of view.

[Jose]

Jose, If you read the replies presented on beliefnet you would have seen that they lost the arguments.

The questions/answers have been posted here because they are a stumbling block for the evos and all should be able to see them...unless you are in favor of censoring anything that disagrees with your particular point of view.

I was kinda thinking you might go back here and review some of the information. You see, the trouble with your statement that "they lost the arguments" is that "they" refers to your bunch of questions. They aren't questions that have any validity, and everyone seems to know that. For you lurkers, here's a smattering of responses to YEC's posting of this stuff at beliefnet:

Teehee, there's that soft sediment deformation claim again.

We have refered YEC to the various refutations found at the talkorgins site but he is bound by his religion and so cannot accept the information there no matter how convincing it is. He is, in this respect, no different than modern flat earthers.

As to the list of 75 or so questions, you can see my meagre progress, but so far none of the questions have actually been on topic. If they have, they have not been in any way explained. A list copied from elsewhere, mayhap?

I'd say you didn't come out on top there, either.

[gf]

57. Salt in the Ocean

You know, Hovind usually forget to mention that the salt in the oceans not only Increases, but also Decrease... Whom knew ?

[Jose]

57. Salt in the Ocean

You know, Hovind usually forget to mention that the salt in the oceans not only Increases, but also Decrease... Whom knew ?

Yeah, it's a funny thing about salt in the ocean and sediment in rivers, and C-14. It turns out that there are several processes at work in maintaining the quasi-equilibrium we see.

I wonder if we can come up with some similar Questions for Creationists...like, "if all mutations are bad, then why aren't we extinct?" or maybe we could be really cryptic about the way we say it, like "57. Noah's alleles."

[gf]

Jose:

if all mutations are bad, then why aren't we extinct?

Because the human race has never changed, and the animals have got extinct, or on its way (Dragons, erh, i mean, dinosaurs, soon to be Panda, and so forth).

57. Noah's alleles.

Noahs genes where pure, ours are not anymore because of contamination.