Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[AndrewC]

So you claim.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

We are waiting for this alleged evidence that is suppressed, or evidence that has been faked. Reposting a photo of someone who has been uncovered as a fake in a totally unrelated field is not evidence of anything beyond the fact he was a fake. Nor does it change the fact that a theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and have evidence that goes against it.

[AndrewC]

I guess you better explain it to me then. Here is the article:

IBM researchers seek treasure in 'junk DNA'

Yes I know about that. Read this

[jwalsh07]

Nor does it change the fact that a theory cannot be both unfalsifiable and have evidence that goes against it.

Is there evidence that "goes against" the hypothesis that the flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity?

[AndrewC]

We are waiting for this alleged evidence that is suppressed, or evidence that has been faked.

You can wait all you want. And I repeat, evidence is manipulable(that is not an assertion).

[Liberal Classic]

I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable.

Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.

[AndrewC]

Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead.

British royal family, drugs, and now death. Are you on parole?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You can wait all you want. And I repeat, evidence is manipulable(that is not an assertion)."

So you have nothing to actually back up your claim that evidence for evolution is faked and evidence against it has been ignored; in fact, you simply refuse to back up your claim. Interesting.

And unfalsifiable theories cannot at the same time have evidence that goes against it. A=A.

[Right Wing Professor]

But if this is so, why do philosophical naturalists dismiss astrology (The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs). If no intelligent design exists than astrology is part of the philosophical naturalists beliefs.

That is mind-bogglingly stupid. Because it doesn't include God, anyone who doesn't believe in God must subscribe to it?

[Coyoteman]

IBM researchers seek treasure in 'junk DNA'

Yes I know about that. Read this

You sent me to a Dr. Shapiro reference. What does this guy have do to with evolution?

(I think you're funning me!)

[Liberal Classic]

I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable.

[andysandmikesmom]

This particular discussion that is going on between the two of you, really has me confused...

Andrew...are you saying, that evolution 'appears' not to be false, because there is fake evidence for it(and an assumption that this will always be the case), and that all the evidence against evolution is ignored(and again, an assumption that this will always be the case)...therefore one must concede that there is some deliberate plot to prevent evolution from ever being shown to be false, hence it cannot be falsifiable because no one will ever allow such evidence to come to light?

Therefore, is what you are saying the following...that evolution should be able to be falsifiable, but it cannot be falsifiable, because the evidence is always being manipulated or hidden in such a way, as to prevent the possibility of falsifiability?

Dont know if you understand what I am trying to say here, but I am doing my best...just trying to understand exactly what you mean here..

[AndrewC]

So you have nothing to actually back up your claim that evidence for evolution is faked and evidence against it has been ignored; in fact, you simply refuse to back up your claim. Interesting.

Gee, you've discovered what a contention(assertion) is.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Is there evidence that "goes against" the hypothesis that the flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity?"

Yes; in fact, the claim has been falsified.

Unfortunately for ID, IC is a side issue. IC can be false and ID will still be untestable. A designer that can do anything and everything conceivable is by definition outside the scope of science.

[ahayes]

Andrew, this isn't your most shining hour.

[Junior]

Careful what you invoke. You do not know the power you are dealing with in Darwin Central.

;^)>

[Liberal Classic]

I'm not sure he knows himself. He seems to be saying that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable (meaning that it can't be tested at all so no evidence against the theory can exist) yet simultaneously there exists evidence against it which is suppressed from public knowledge.

[Right Wing Professor]

Such a beautiful, well-meditated, heartfelt, and eminently rational post there, Heartlander. IMHO FWIW.

No, Betty, it was moronic. The idea that philosophical naturalists must subscribe to astrology and alchemy because the latter are not inherently theistic; not only do i dismiss the intelligence of anyone who could write it, but I wonder at the intelligence of anyone who could claim it was rational.

Seriously, if you can't handle elementary logic, don't name-drop Plato. And please don't ping me any more.

[AndrewC]

You sent me to a Dr. Shapiro reference. What does this guy have do to with evolution?

Yes. I don't know(to your Shapiro reference).

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Gee, you've discovered what a contention(assertion) is."

And you've still not discovered that for a contention to be taken seriously, you have to back it up with... something.

You have refused to do so. You've shown nothing to back up your claims except the fact that you made them.

A=A, whether you wish it or not.

And unfalsifiable claims cannot have evidence that goes against them.