While I'm contemplating my next full-length post (and please don't point out how long it's been, I'm quite aware of the recent lull), I thought I'd just throw my latest gripe out there for you guys to look over...
After giving the issue much thought, I've concluded that the theory of evolution must be one of two things:
1. Entirely unfalsifiable
2. Very close to being entirely unfalsifiable
So, since I'm sure you're wondering, here's the question that sparked this train of thought (this is a question for evolutionists, obviously):
"If, hypothetically, evolution were false, what evidence would you need to see in order to convince you of it?"
Or perhaps more specifically:
"What hypothetical evidence in opposition to evolution could exist that the theory would not be able to offer an explanation for?"
Try looking at it this way:
1. Take a piece of "evidence" in favor of evolution.
2. Reverse it (i.e. suppose the exact opposite had been discovered instead).
3. Ask yourself if, coming at it from a new angle, this new piece of evidence would have any negative impact on the theory whatsoever.
Let's take a look at this formula in action:
1. The fossil record is considered evidence for evolution, because creatures appear in the fossil record in the same order in which they are believed to have evolved.
2. Suppose the fossil record was jumbled (not in the correct order)
3. While it would no longer technically be 'evidence,' evolutionists would remain unphased (ironically, the fossil record is jumbled, by the way, that's how I know they would remain unphased).
So, if any evolutionists out there are up to a challenge, I challenge you to give a specific (hypothetical, of course) example of how evolution could potentially be falsified.
In Christ's Love,
Matthew
3 comments:
Fossilized vertebrates in pre-cambrian rock layers, Dinosaur bones mixed in with those of modern animals of the same general mass (taking so-called "flood geology" hydrological sorting into account here).
Instead one sees things like dinosaurs in the deeper layers with the more modern animals in less deep layers. You don't find flying dinosaurs in the same layers as one finds birds, etc.
If the fossil record was as "jumbled" as you say it is, that second example is the kind of thing you'd see, and evolution would not have lasted long as a theory.
To learn more, go to here and read around the site a bit.
I'm sure what you're saying is true, Reynold. The question I would like to know the answer to is, honestly, could it ever really be found to be jumbled enough to convince you to throw the theory out?
I appreciate your feedback.
In Christ,
Matthew
P.S. - I should have emphasized the word "enough" in that last comment, but I didn't. Sorry. Hope that clears up any confusion.
Post a Comment