It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Noinden
Of course you have a camp, your camp is the scientific paradigm with little or no thought and analysis of non-contrived data of your own...
LOL, I already pointed out how it's not evolution. It is adaptation. Evolution CANNOT have empirical evidence to support it because it is NOT by it's VERY nature observable or testable empirically. It is always only supported by inferred evidence that shows something completely different. In this case, adaptation.
The reason that, ultimately, evolution will fail as a 'Universal theory' is the same reason that 'creation' fails. Both deal with 'beginnings' and temporal 'progression'...
Like a movie, motion, and the 'time' that defines 'motion' is an illusion!
Just like the 'moving' characters in the flick...
How can 'evolution' even exist, other than as a theory explaining an illusion.
If our current level of organization, having many self-aware entities, is a result of a random fluctuation, it is much less likely than a level of organization which only creates stand-alone self-aware entities. For every universe with the level of organization we see, there should be an enormous number of lone Boltzmann brains floating around in unorganized environments. In an infinite universe, the number of self-aware brains that spontaneously and randomly form out of the chaos, complete with memories of a life like ours, should vastly outnumber the brains evolved from an inconceivably rare local fluctuation the size of the observable Universe.
The Boltzmann brain paradox is that any observers (self-aware brains with memories like we have, which includes our brains) are therefore far more likely to be Boltzmann brains than evolved brains. So this refutes evolution in multiverses. It also refutes the anthropic principle and even multiverses altogether: Why should we accept the anthropic principle, or indeed any argument, if it just popped up randomly into our Boltzmann brain? No argument is reliable in a Boltzmann brain universe. -Wikipedia
His creative technique in time/space is progressive evolution. It is a technique designed to ensure life will evolve/adapt in varying environments across the universe.
originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Barcs
I'm not the one who doesn't get it. I understand the theory of evolution. small changes accumulate. yep,I understand it.
what you seem to be incapable of understanding is that a lack of ability to see all that time prevents the theory from being falsifiable am absolute requirement for legitimate science.
I don't care what you observe and test and experiment unless the their of evolution requiring immense time changes you are NOT doing science about evolutionary theory but are merely doing science that examines the mechanisms that are purported to lead to evolution based on evolutionary theory.
here allow me to put it into a simple logic algorithm.
premise a) science must be falsifiable or it is not science.
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
1.It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2.Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3.Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4.A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5.Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6.Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence.")
7.Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionalist stratagem.")
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability
premise b) evolutionary theory requires such immense Periods of time to take place that it cannot be directly observed
premise c) anything that cannot be directly observed either through sensory perception or through instrumentation cannot be falsified
conclusion) evolutionary theory is not falsifiable and therefore is not science.
the above logic is sound so until you can validly prove one or more of the above premises wrong, you fail.