Is There Visible Proof of God?

Theology

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #287

It certainly is in service of good science. Credit where credit is due.


(John Harshman) #288

And lack of credit where lack of credit is due, which is to say in biology.


#289

lets go a step by step. the first step is to prove that we have real evidence that the bacteria is indeed the first living thing that appear in the fossils record. can you do that?


#290

like common descent.


#291

Here are 29 potential falsifications of common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


(John Harshman) #292

Yes, and so can you. Try Google. Is it your intent to claim that the earliest fossils are not eubacteria?


#293

you mean something like this?;

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19355#f6


(John Harshman) #294

Yes, and younger examples, up to the point of the oldest claimed (not to mention uncontested) eukaryote fossils.


#295

from your link:

“Even one incontrovertible find of any pre-Devonian mammal, bird, or flower would shatter the theory of common descent”

realy? in this case we can predate mammal evolution, or claim for convergent evolution (mammals evolved twice). no problem for evolution.


#296

but here is the counter evidence for that case:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0610-4

see now why i asked for a real evidence?


(John Harshman) #297

I agree that’s a fallacy. It’s what is called naive falsificationism, which is odd because Theobald is an unabashed Bayesian. Fortunately, this dilemma doesn’t arise, because we haven’t found any pre-Devonian mammals, birds, or flowers. But it would certainly be a serious problem for our view of evolution, or perhaps of the feasibility of time travel.


(John Harshman) #298

Try googling again. There’s plenty of better evidence that’s just a bit younger.


#299

Has anyone done such a thing? Nope. You don’t get to make stuff up.


#300

great. so we both agree that this test (finding out of place fossil) is nonsense.


#301

this is why they call it “potential falsification”.


#302

You asked for potential falsifications for evolution and common descent, and then ignore them when given. I can only present what you ask for, but I can’t change your mind for you.


(John Harshman) #303

Yes, but for different reasons. You think those evil evilutionists just ignore evidence. I think that one data point doesn’t adequately test a hypothesis, and we need to look at the broad pattern of all the data. If fossils were randomly mixed throughout strata, that would be a good argument against common descent. One Cambrian rabbit doesn’t do it. So why are most fossils not “out of place”? Do you have an explanation?


#304

why? we can argue that the majority of creatures just evolved early. no problem for evolution.


#305

but your source claiming that a single out of place fossil will falsify evolution. this isnt true.


#307

Numerous and obvious fossils that are out of place would falsify evolution.