Well, sure, a real angel corpse might be an indicator that something’s amiss. So would the hand of God reaching down and patting Pat Robertson on the head. I reckon they’re both about likely.
“If it’s not falsifiable, it’s not correct?” Falsify gravity for me, pally. Go on, I dare ya. And “weightlessness” don’t count–gravity still affects things in deep space.
-andros-
The only reason Evolution would have anything that would make it incontrovertibly false would be if it was FALSE. The fact there is no such evidence is STRONG evidence that it is true. It is not PROOF, but it is a strong indicator.
~bored2001
Why am I getting into another evolution debate? =)
OK, I’ll bite and argue against evolution. I think the Complex Systems argument is a good one. And, if you examine things closely, almost everything is a complex system. Darwin himself said that the existence of a complex system causes his argument to break down. So, here is what I propose: I will suggest a complex system and someone explain to me, step-by-step, how this could evolve by Natural Selection.
My first example? A bird’s system of flight. Without the feathers, the wings, even the body type of the bird, the bird is unable to fly. If a genetic mutation caused one part of the system of flight to appear on a creature, like a stub of a wing, it would be more of a hindrance than a help and would not make the creature more likely to survive and procreate. So, all you evolutionists, how did flight evolve?
Not being an expert, and having no background in The Evolution of Flight all I can do is point you to TalkOrigins and the great gaping hole in the Complex Systems argument…
Dill:
I don’t need to explain it, I can give you an example.
Ever see a Flying squirrel?
They really don’t fly, they just don’t fall as fast.
THe farther a squirrel flattens and stretches itself out, the more air it can catch the farther it can leap. THis has obvious survival benefits.
a squirrel with more skin between its torso and limbs can stretch it more and catch more air and leap even farther.
Eventually through natural selection you have squirrels with membranes between their limbs that can soar a huge distance.
Now imagine that a squirrel with the just the right tale shape might be able to steer itself a little better as it leaps from branch to branch. Again, it will be favored.
Now imagine a squirrel that can pump its limbs a couple of times and gain a few extra feet by doing this while leaping.
Pretty soon we have bats.
What’s nice about this example is that it happened relatively recently. Examples of several intermediate stages are still with us.
Anyway, the ability to jump just a little bit further has clear survival utility. Eventually, it leads towards flight.
Pretty impressive, Scylla. Bravo!
One minor quibble, however… I’m not sure the ability to leap just a little farther is truly a benefit in surviving long enough to procreate. If the squirrel can already get from one tree to another, avoiding a predator, how does it help another squirrel to be able to jump a tad farther. Unless the trees are getting farther and farther apart where these squirrels live, the benefit in longer leaping abilities is nil.
OK, I’ll give you that one, though, that was a damn good explanation. So here’s another one, just for kicks: How does a sightless creature evolve into a seeing creature? Certainly the eye is a complex system.
Hey, if nothing else, I am making evolution look more valid even if all my complex systems are debunked.
Bored2001 said:
Dunno. Maybe you’re just, you know, bored. 
Dill – I don’t know if you’re just playing devil’s advocate or what, but have you read anything by Richard Dawkins? He frequently tackles the types of arguments you’re making. But what it comes down to is this: 1% of a good thing is better than 0% of a good thing. Thus, a small ability to detect shadows from light is better than none at all. And from there, it goes. Remember, evolution works on scales of huge numbers of creatures over large numbers of generations. A gene that provides a 1% benefit is going to win out in the end. If you doubt it, ask those who run casinos whether they would prefer running a game that gives them a 12% take or a 13% take.
rorschach:
I can easily imagine evidence against evolution:
I could go on all night, but I hope you get the point.
OK, OK, I’m just being picky.
A lot of these examples run contrary to the way we understand the world in general but I accept 7 and 8 as having been good potential disproofs of evolution in particular.
Well, of course they run counter to the way we understand the world, because evolution is part of how we understand the world.
And I hate to break it to you, but heredity is a part of evolution. You can’t have evolution without it.
If adam and eve only had two sons, and one killed the other? How did the one son have children??? :eek:
Actually, A&E had numerous other sons and daughters after Cain slew Abel, and many folks believe in all seriousness that Cain married and had children with his own sister.
><DARWIN>
_L__L
He’s back!