Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Round And Round And Round...

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on July 4, 2002 18:33:33 UTC

" I don't agree with your assertation that evolution is 100% true and essentially unrefutable. If we were to dig up evidence of human bones in precambrian rock, that would be a deathblow to evolution. If we were to discover an actual genetic barrier that the fundies keep alluding to, that would be quite damaging to evolutionary theory. "

Come on Mario, you're smarter than that. "Evidence of human bones in precambrian rock" won't kill any theory, it will simply prompt evolutionary scientists to revise it. Sleep, celibacy, homossexuality, suicidal behaviour, hereditary diseases, any of that could be a "deathblow" to evolution theory, yet evolutionists always manage to either explain away the facts or simply dismiss them.

" Essentially what you're saying is that the 'theory' that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth is meaningless because it can't be disproven. "

Your example is wrong. I can think of several possibilities to disprove a theory that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. For instance, I can imagine astronomers finding that all planets in the solar system orbit around the earth instead of the sun. That would falsify the theory. The fact that not a single one of those possibilities has been confirmed by observation is what makes the theory meaningful.

Evolution theory is not treated that way. Facts which go against what is suggested by the theory are not considered proof that the theory is wrong, they are simply dismissed as anomalies. That's a very comfortable way of doing science. If physics worked by the same standards, we would still be searching for explanations for "why the aether cannot be detected when we know for a fact it must be there".

" How can an 'absolutely true' theory be meaningless? "

Please refer to my absolutely true theory that a = c. You still didn't get it, huh?

" What you're making is the argument from ignorance. If a given theory doesn't yet explain a detail, it must be meaningless? "

That is not the issue. The issue is whether it's possible to come up with "details" which cannot possibly be explained by a theory.

" Maybe you deserve a stout smack in the mouth. :) "

Why?!!? Because of my stupidity, or because of my heresy?

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins