Rath said:
The fossil record would be considered historical evidence, yes? In that notion, yes, I would naturally agree that the fossil record exists. What does not, however is any hypothesis I come up with that includes it. That is the unobservable part
Evolutionary theory does not predict that more advanced organisms are found in newer layers; rather, it is observed that they are (no contesting there from me). The theory does say that they are desendents of the lower life forms, and that is the untestability.
This is the same case of the first two; there are things we find in the fossil record, yes, but those things are not the evolutionary theory. Rather, the explanation of them is.
No, evolution does predict which fossils will be found in which layers and where. These predictions are made before the fossils are found and the fossils are used to confirm the hypothesis. That is testability. Evolution has passed this particular test many times.
I disagree; random mutation is a proposed mechanism of evolutionary theory. Disproving it would not disprove the explanation of the fossil record.
Wrong, the modern theory of evolution relies on genetic mutation. You are saying it would not disprove the fact of evolution, this is why it is a fact. Science only requires the explanation to be able to be falsified - not the observation itself.
By continuing to work out why they contradict, I suppose that would imply that it is believed one set of of observations must be false, which would contradict the basic principles of science (which is, it is assumed that, given enough observation, repetition etc, the theory is true). As for God not being falsifiable; while that may be true, it is irrelevant as science must conclude it anyways.
So you're saying that if something violates the laws of logic then we must assume god exists? That would require further study of logic then. Science can never come to the conclusion god exists by the very nature of science, science makes observations, tries to explain them and then tries to prove those explanations wrong. If you cannot complete that last and very important step it stops being science.
|
