[Hetgvwic]

It's Kentucky. All they have are horse races, banjos and bourbon.

State senators from rural areas are somewhere just above dog catcher in terms of politics, by the way.

[KitRittyTug]

So is it really as backwoods as its reputation? I always assumed that was just over-exaggeration for comedy effect, but stories like this do make me wonder..

[Kalobbis]

"The theory of evolution is a theory, and essentially the theory of evolution is not science -- Darwin made it up," state Sen. Ben Waide (R) said. "My objection is they should ensure whatever scientific material is being put forth as a standard should at least stand up to scientific method. Under the most rudimentary, basic scientific examination, the theory of evolution has never stood up to scientific scrutiny." Yes, creationism has stood up to much closer scientific scrutiny.
Who should we credit with making up creationism?

[Cyncceply]

Yes.

[Vezazvqw]

Ok, onadera - give me an example where the theory of evolution was wrong.

[BrifsGefel]

Ok, onadera - give me an example where the theory of evolution was wrong.

"Falsifiable" means "can be falsified," not "has been falsified."

If you demonstrated that the Earth were considerably younger than five billion years old then you would falsify evolution.
If you demonstrated that all mutations were harmful then you would falsify evolution.

[Eujacwta]

Intelligent Design doesn't make any predictions about geologic strata (or about anything else), so there's no deal/bet you can make along the lines of "if X is true then I'll believe in Intelligent Design."

Young earth creationism makes several predictions on which you can base your deal/bet, but all of these predictions are wrong.

[JonatonM]

If you demonstrated that the Earth were considerably younger than five billion years old then you would falsify evolution. Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory? There is no empirical measure of evolutionary velocity within the theory at present.

If you demonstrated that all mutations were harmful then you would falsify evolution. Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations?

You'd need a mathematical theory of mutations, which we don't have to prove the general case. Evolution at present doesn't make that argument.

Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure.

[Zmniubqr]

Young earth creationism makes several predictions on which you can base your deal/bet, but all of these predictions are wrong. Good thing I'm not a young earth creationist.

[maxfieldj1]

Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory?

This is a dumb question. You might as well ask why we have airplanes despite Kelvin's claim that heavier than air flight is impossible. Just because a respected scientist says something doesn't mean that all other scientists are going to accept it as dogma.

Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations? I don't know. I'm giving examples of ways to falsify the theory, I never said it would be an easy task.

Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure. Yes it is. If a mutation prevents an organism from reproducing then the mutation is harmful. There are other definitions you can apply that would also allow for an empirical measure of whether a mutation is harmful.

[GinaIsWild]

I always read "kentonio" as a hybrid of Kentucky and San Antonio, and that name was chosen to imply staunch conservatism.

[Ayyfjicg]

I always read "kentonio" as a hybrid of Kentucky and San Antonio, and that name was chosen to imply staunch conservatism. Don't forget 'rugged'.

[AnriXuinriZ]

I don't think that there's any point in continuing this discussion with somebody who doesn't know what "falsifiable" means

Your argument amounts to "the theory is robust, therefore it isn't falsifiable." Most theories are robust (otherwise they wouldn't be theories - they'd be hypotheses or conjectures), and even many disproved theories (like Newtonian mechanics) are still "mostly correct," so this is a rubbish argument. Poking holes in (let alone falsifying) an established theory is difficult, and typically the task falls to eminent scientists, not to scientifically illiterate history teachers.

[Aozenee]

Only one person in this thread has actually supplied a falsifiable prediction

Your saying this is just as meaningless as if you were to say "only one person in this thread has actually supplied a Turing-complete language," because in both cases you're using terms that you don't understand.

[newspetty]

FIRE CAN'T MELT STEEL!

...there, it's out of my system.

[spaxiaroorbes]

Indeed. It's all so obvious that JFK was a replicant plant by the Vesuvians in a plot to steal all of our Gruyere cheese back to their greenhouse hellscape of a planet.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Earth's greatest hero.

[tevyrefficy]

Indeed. It's all so obvious that JFK was a replicant plant by the Vesuvians in a plot to steal all of our Gruyere cheese back to their greenhouse hellscape of a planet.

Lee Harvey Oswald: Earth's greatest hero.

But Guynemer, where does Donald Trump's toupee fit into this conspiracy? I know it has to play a role somewhere.

[Hodstcopter]

That just goes to show how the complex answer is not always the correct answer.

I'm glad you have finally come clean and implied my simple answer is the truth. I already knew it wasn't the complex answer of course. (eg. K stands Kelvin, kent for Kent, ent is for ents, onio is short for onion because ents from Kent take such a long time to say onion that they only got to onio before you got tired of waiting and just entered what you had so far. What Kelvin has to do with this is a mystery, which is of course why it was chosen in the first place just to throw us off the scent. Masking teh scent being very important because onions smell very distinctly, as does Kent.)

[Pataacculako]

Falsifiable predictions of Evolution - comprehensively proved that there are loads of falsifiable predictions, long ago.

There are huge numbers of falsifiable predictions that have already been proved to be correct.

eg. this well known proper paper on the subject from 1973.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21100988520863

It's just another one of many, many creationist myths that sounds like it is a clever argument but clearly isn't if you have the vaguest notion of what you are talking about.

[artenotreah]

Their stance is almost more ridiculous.