Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

For evolution, we have already opened the box. We have the genomes of living species, and they contain a direct record of their ancestry.

You have the best scientific explanation. Big deal. That ain't necessarily the truth ... in fact, it could be miles from the truth. Grow up.

So your retort is "It could be MAGIC!!"?Pigeon chess.

Examples are countless. You being too lazy to do your own due diligence is your problem. I'm not spoon feeding you. Grow up!

How do you consider an illogical explanation to be the best?

Easy.Despite your errant logic the processes are very logical and well understood. Most important, the data we have (all the data that ANYONE in the world can show) matches our observations and predictions meaning our model, our theory, is correct. In popular vernacular our theories of evolution, genetics, life, are proven true.You have nothing to compete.

Interesting, you seem to think your opponent should come up with your supporting evidence?Dude, you made the claim that there are "all sorts of other things that show tree patterns, but these things have not evolved", but you have been shown to be completely incapable of demonstrating a single example to support YOUR CLAIM. If examples are countless you should have been able to prove it. Message 430

quote:

---

Tanypteryx writes:

​

sensi writes:

​

There are things that show tree patterns, but these things have not evolved

​

Is there any chance you could give us a specific example?

sensei writes:

​

Just look for nested tree hierarchical clustering on google images.

​

Ah, so you're just BSing us and you are just making it up as you go along. You can't even actually show us a single actual example.

---

We say, "life naturally forms nested hierarchies that demonstrate relatedness,"and you say, "there are gobs of examples of nonliving things forming nested trees patterns,"and we say, "interesting, can you tell us more, maybe give us some examples of of those nonlife nested tree patterns?"and you say, "Nope. Go look it up yourself."and we just ???????

Such nonsense and bs.

Why should I bother talking to you? You made up your mind already, insisting in lies and foolish tactics.

Such an intellectual response.The evidence we have, evidence you cannot begin to rebuff let alone match, is beyond reasonable doubt. The body of evidence is conclusive. And it is all there for you to see and learn. Nothing hidden, nothing invisible, nothing concealed from your tiny mind.You cannot counter any of it. You have nothing in response except blind blanket denial.

Yep, good choice in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Silly creationist. As always, you have turned everything completely around in order to maintain your own self-deception upon which you have foolishly made your faith totally dependent. At exposure to the first gleam of Truth, your faith disintegrates. 1 Thessalonians 5:21: From commentary on 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (my emphasis added):

quote:

---

That are said by the prophets, all the doctrines which they deliver; hear them, though they have not the gift of tongues, and all desirable advantages; do not reject them on that account, and refuse to hear them, for so, many useful men may be laid aside, and the Spirit of God in them be quenched; try their gifts, and attend to their doctrines, yet do not implicitly believe everything they say, but examine them according to the word of God the test and standard of truth; search the Scriptures, whether the things they say are true or not. Not openly erroneous persons, and known heretics, are to be heard and attended on, but the ministers of the word, or such who are said to have a gift of prophesying; these should make use of it, and the church should try and judge their gift, and accordingly encourage or discourage; and also their doctrines, and if false reject them, and if true receive them.

---

In addition, arch-creationist Dr. Duane Gish when guest on a radio talk show, The Ray Briem Show, on 30 May 1985, cited philosopher of science, Larry Laudan, claiming that he said that Judge Overton's judgement (McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 1982, Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act (Act 590)) was wrong and it would have serious repercussions on science for years to come. Upon request, Gish sent me a copy of that article (Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19). Upon reading it, I saw how Gish had misrepresented the article, which is actually a strong indictment of "creation science". What Laudan was criticizing was Overton's definition of science and of what was scientific, including the claim that creationism is untestable and unfalsifiable -- in short, since creationism makes claims about the real world it is both testable and falsifiable with regard to those claims.From that article with my emphasis added:

quote:

---

At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters of fact.

​

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

​

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.

​

. . .

​

What counts is the epistemic status of Creationism, not the cognitive idiosyncrasies of the creationists. Because many of the theses of Creationism are testable, the mind set of creationists has no bearing in law or in fact on the merits of Creationism.

​

. . .

​

Rather than taking on the creationists obliquely in wholesale fashion by suggesting that what they are doing is "unscientific" tout court (which is doubly silly because few authors can even agree on what makes an activity scientific), we should confront their claims directly and in piecemeal fashion by asking what evidence and arguments can be marshaled for and against each of them. The core issue is not whether Creationism satisfies some undemanding and highly controversial definitions of what is scientific; the real question is whether the existing evidence provides stronger arguments for evolutionary theory than for Creationism. Once that question is settled, we will know what belongs in the classroom and what does not. Debating the scientific status of Creationism (especially when "science" is construed in such an unfortunate manner) is a red herring that diverts attention away from the issues that should concern us.

---

And from a later article (More on Creationism by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 8, no. 42 (1983):36-38 (my emphasis added)):

quote:

---

...the soundness of creation-science can and must be separated from all questions about the dogmatism of creationists. Once we make that rudimentary separation, we discover both (a) that creation-science is testable and falsifiable, and (b) that creation-science has been tested and falsified -- insofar as any theory can be said to be falsified. But, as I pointed out in the earlier essay, that damning indictment cannot be drawn so long as we confuse Creationism and creationists to such an extent that we take the creationists' mental intransigence to entail the immunity of creationist theory from empirical confrontation.

---

Rather, we have listened to creationist claims, have examined them, have tested them, have found them to utterly fail those tests, and hence reject them as being false, in agreement with 1 Thessalonians 5:21.In doing so, we insist on the truth and on honest evaluation and methods.In sharp contrast, you creationists never test your claims (and indeed will continue to use them long after having found them to be false and with full knowledge that they are false, simply because they sound "so convincing").In doing so, it is you who insist on (and persist in) lies and foolish tactics (such as your mindless trolling in service of your silly troll god).What is wrong with you?

Your evidence is worthless, ignoring complexity and intelligence. You are blind and lacking brain capacity.

Overwhelming evidence? Only to the plebs and fools.

You have zero facts, just wishful thinking and poor logic.