Stump the Christian?

[Anima]

We're talking about scientific theories, Anima.  Trying to compare evolution to the colloquial usage of the word is goddamn dishonest as shit.  And I think you know that.

You were talking scientific theories and assuming those to be what Steve was talking about. He is not necessarily talking scientific theories. "

Yeah, go give your former science teacher a good kicking, since he obviously didn't explain to you the difference between all of the above and the resurrection, to take only the most obvious example of supernatural fiat claims.

Uh. I believe are already stated that the resurrection is not considered a historical fact.

Oh, come on Anima. You really can't think of anything that would falsify evolutionary theory as it currently stands?  Sorry, I don't believe you.

So you are saying it is Evolutionary Law? I wonder why they still call it a theory if there is nothing which could falsify it. Wait... If it cannot be falsified than can it be considered a scientific theory or is it just some ridiculous assertion like a man coming back from the dead? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Orig..._selection)

[Crossless2.0]

Do not sell the theory of Evolution so short.  It is beyond that of mere genetic mutation and as such genetic mutation does not constitute Evolution as a whole.

Because you want to believe things "adapt" does not make it true.  It could all just be coincidence

(Though I am not keen to argue this as I believe Evolutionary theory is an excellent explanation for the change of species over time from one to another.  Even with the gaps in the evolution of numerous animals which appear to arise out of nowhere.)

Yes evolution is true. Do not start word bending i never sold it short. I put up this argument for it. If evolution did not exist we would need different variations of the flu vaccine.
That being the case if it didn't exist. But that is not true we have different variants of the flu vaccine. Along side with infections diseases and other sorts of this that need antibiotics over time become resistant to medication and antibiotics meaning they evolved. Simple enough is not? Again generation a set 1 antibiotics work generations 3 4 5 antibiotics work well but not enough generation 6 8 9 + antibiotics do not work and a new set of medication needs to be made. That is the best example of what i can give.  

Cue some idiot (I'm looking at you, Steve) offering the "but that's microevolution, not macroevolution; you don't see viruses turning into ducks" argument.

[Britney blue]

Sure, though the way you've configured it now is no proof for your god at all. Which I think is the point; indirect, weak arguments are all that can be proposed for christianity, if one concerns themselves with factual accuracy when they make them.

Although I am not conceding that the arguments for Christianity are all weak, wouldn't a serious of even weak arguments, that are not scientifically refuted, serve as the basis for a reasonable belief system.  

You haven't presented any evidence for the existence of a god. You said you had evidence but we haven't seen that evidence yet. If I'm wrong about the existence of a god I want to know, so tell me what evidence there is for the existence of a god.

[FatAndFaithless]

There is no 'higher' degree of scienctific thought than a theory. "Laws" are just observations of specific occurences that happen over and over. The "Law" of gravity is just the fact that when you drop a pen, it falls to the ground. The Theory of gravity describes how it works.

More and more misunderstood terminology. The 'it's just a theory not a law' bullshit is so tired and can be remedied with even a curosry understanding of scientific terms.

If it cannot be falsified than can it be considered a scientific theory

What the fuck are you talking about. Evolution can be falsified.

[Crossless2.0]

We're talking about scientific theories, Anima.  Trying to compare evolution to the colloquial usage of the word is goddamn dishonest as shit.  And I think you know that.

You were talking scientific theories and assuming those to be what Steve was talking about.  He is not necessarily talking scientific theories.  "

Yeah, go give your former science teacher a good kicking, since he obviously didn't explain to you the difference between all of the above and the resurrection, to take only the most obvious example of supernatural fiat claims.

Uh.  I believe are already stated that the resurrection is not considered a historical fact.

Oh, come on Anima. You really can't think of anything that would falsify evolutionary theory as it currently stands?  Sorry, I don't believe you.

So you are saying it is Evolutionary Law?  I wonder why they still call it a theory if there is nothing which could falsify it.  Wait...  If it cannot be falsified than can it be considered a scientific theory or is it just some ridiculous assertion like a man coming back from the dead?    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Orig..._selection)

How the hell did you get that from what I wrote?

[robvalue]

Of course evolution can be proved false. No scientific theory would ever be unfalsifiable.

I'd assume you know this also. I don't know what game you are playing Anima. Are you just screwing with us?

[Anima]

Of course evolution can be proved false. No scientific theory would ever be unfalsifiable.

I'd assume you know this also. I don't know what game you are playing Anima. Are you just screwing with us?

Yeah. I am just messing with you guys

I think both sides are throwing out terms without necessarily considering all the implications or meanings behind them.

"The beginning of wisdom is the definition of the terms." - Plato

While I happen to think the synthetic apriori causality argument is sufficient to support the inference of God (this aside from the ontological and teleological arguments) and that the example of the existence of life in contrast to the statistical probability of life provides synthetic aposteriori in support of the existence of things which may be considered improbable, but possible.

I also think there are various "theories" out there which are not falsifiable (in particular the Big Bang theory or M-Theory). But then I would classify these theories as mathematical philosophy more than anything.

Though I found the wikipedia page on falsifiability to be interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiabil...ategorical
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Particularly the portion regarding inductive categorical inference and the problem of induction.

[SteveII]

No.  They can't be investigated let alone refuted.  You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. You know they are not baseless--you are very familiar with the arguments. Again, you might not like the quality of the evidence or believe an alternate theory, but following the evidence we have is quite 'reasonable'. 

[Tonus]

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable.

Yeah, I think I see where the problem is.

[FatAndFaithless]

No.  They can't be investigated let alone refuted.  You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable.

Uh, yes, yes it does. If you have no way of investigating a claim, you cannot falsify it.

A statement is  if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false.

Falsifiability requires some observation or experiment. You cannot make observations or perform experiments on something that is untestable. How exactly could we falsify your claims?

You know they are not baseless

Sorry, miracle claims and metaphysical god-man-savior claims are entirely baseless.

Again, you might not like the quality of the evidence

Evidence needs to exist before it can be good or poor. You have nothing but your flat assertions.

following the evidence we have is quite 'reasonable'.

And no evidence points towards any of the things you listed. You don't have a theory, hell it's barely a guess. In any realm of investigation your claims are anything but reasonable.