One Eyed Jack
New member
How do you know these measurements are accurate?
In Case You Missed It...
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
How do you know these measurements are accurate?
It'll be posted when you post an example of evolution being empirically proven.
One Eyed Jack
New member
How do you know what the ratio of parent to daughter material was when the rock first solidified? Without knowing that, you can't use the decay rate to extrapolate the rock's age.
Neanderthal "man." DNA testing has shown it non-human. Evolution fails.
aharvey
New member
Hmm. Do you have any idea what you mean here?
For example, how did DNA testing show Neanderthals to be "non-human"?
What are the DNA criteria for being considered "human"?
What do you mean by "human" (you would have to know this in order to proclaim something to be "non-human," right?)? Being in the species Homo sapiens? Being in the genus Homo?
If DNA showed NM to be "non-human," did it indicate what NM was instead?
And how does any of this add up to "evolution fails"? Why would "evolution" require that NM be "human," whatever that means?
aharvey
New member
Lighthouse, you mistyped "No I don't, but it doesn't matter because the Truth has been revealed to me."
Come on, admit it. For one thing, what do you even mean by "empirically proven"? Or "proven," for that matter? Surely you know that "proof" is the domain of mathematics, not science. And since you are no doubt following the creationist's misuse of the term "evolution" to mean something like "protocell to human," you know that it would be theoretically impossible to "empirically prove" something like that anyway.
And that's fine, you are more than welcome to your beliefs, but please don't try to bring them into a science class unless you're going to have the science to back them up!
Stratnerd
New member
this post makes no sense or you just don't understand evolution, human evolution, or science or all the above.
Falsification involves prediction. Prediction is an explicit statement of a hypothesis regarding an outcome based on theoretical components.
So if evolution were true then Neanderthals = modern humans? That doesn't make any sense. If evolution is descent with modification then why would we expect Neanderthals = modern humans?
The DNA studies you were referring to (I'm assuming) are those that show that modern humans were not direct descendents of Neanderthal man. I fail to see how this falsifies evolution. Please enlighten.
Stratnerd
New member
lighthouse,
Evolution can be emperically proven in the sense we can show in a lab that descent with modification occurs.
If you are talking about the historical aspects of evolution then emperical evidence is impossible (as is any other historical study) but you can generate testable hypotheses.
Evolution can be emperically proven in the sense we can show in a lab that descent with modification occurs.
If you are talking about the historical aspects of evolution then emperical evidence is impossible (as is any other historical study) but you can generate testable hypotheses.
jjg, I do not agree. The existence of the physical universe is not a metaphysical question. It is quite obvious that materials/the universe exist, unless you employ some dubious and/or contradictory logical proofs to the contrary.
With that being said. Yes, the questions of whether "God exists/is responsible for the material world" do seem to be a metaphysical question. This would also imply that the opposite side or atheism is also determined through metaphysics. An agnostic is basically saying; "I do not trust any knowledge based entirely and stringently on metaphysics."
Last edited:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
This site gives extensive understanding of radiometric dating.
This site gives extensive understanding of radiometric dating.
Empirically proven means proven physically, does it not? A proof that you would accept...
It was proven to me, by means other than physical. I accept that, because it was proven. End of story.
Do what? I beleive in modification of species, to their surroundings: i.e., adaptation.
Can evolution, the idea that all that exists shares a common ancestor, be proven, at all? That is what evolution believes isn't it? I know that it does not teach that we evolved from apes, but it teaches that we have a common ancestor with them, doesn't it?
If it can't be proven, then why should it be taught is if it is true, in a science class? If they are going to teach evolution, why not creationism? They are both considered to be possible by various scientists. And then there are those who believe them both to be nothing more than theories. So why not teach them both? Why not teach the various creationism beliefs. Judaism and Christianity are not the only systems of beleif to believe in creationism.
And this I believe. But it can not be proven that humans share an ancestor with apes. Or that all that exists shares a common ancestor.
Exactly.