RE: The dates given by AOS for past events may actually disprove evolution entirely
October 8, 2013 at 2:54 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2013 at 2:54 pm by Tiberius.)
(October 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: How can you claim a relationship of ancestor and descendant anyway without the faulty assumption of evolution turning one kind into another kind?I was only explaining how the error ranges work. However, you make a few logical errors in your conclusions.
And if the ages of the layers do not prove the assumed relationship of ancestor and descendant, then there is no proof of the claim and potential outright falsification of the theory.
For example, imagine that we discover a perfect method of dating, and we then find that the claimed ancestor actually appeared after the claimed descendant. This does not automatically mean (as you claim) that all of evolution is wrong, because that is not the only possibility.
It would be clear in this scenario that the ancestor is not really the ancestor, but that doesn't suddenly mean that all claimed ancestors aren't the ancestors they are claimed to be. It only applies in this one case! One case of science being wrong (and correcting its mistake) does not make all of science wrong. The entire process of science is based on people correcting previous mistakes in thinking; that is how we've got from thinking that evil spirits caused disease to modern day germ theory.
So the problem is, you set up a false dichotomy where there isn't a dichotomy at all.
Falsification of evolution would not involve a single evolutionary claim being wrong; it would involve all the mechanisms described by evolution to be proved wrong, and any observed instances of things like speciation, etc. described better with another theory.
