Son of Odin

I like that

How's that ?

Roland98

Because positing "goddidit" in no way advances science.

Son of Odin

That's not an explanation, that's a refuge.
But...if there would be a theory (or something) that would actually explain everything (like evolution explains everything in its field), it would actually explain everything, not nothing.

Oolon Colluphid

Because if something explains everything, we have no way to check if it’s right. If it cannot possibly be shown to be wrong, then even if it is wrong, we’ll never know.

For example, I could say that my hamster created the universe. Nonsense, say all the sensible folks, we have evidence to the contrary. But, says I, he planted the evidence to make it look that way. Why? Ours not to question. Why this rather than that? It’s how he wants it. But it’s only a hamster... and furthermore it’s dead at the bottom of its cage. No, I say, it is pining for the fjords, and miming death just to fool us mere humans.

And so on. If nothing can refute a claim, then it is worthless. Maybe it’s right, maybe not, but we simply cannot tell. It could be true... or it could be a universe-creating hamster.

Note too that a useful explanation must be refutable in principle... but that it not having been refuted is different. In fact, a hypothesis’s ability to withstand potential refutation gives us good reason to think it’s correct.

(At which point Hugo comes along and completely messes with my logic .)

Oolon Colluphid

Sort of, but there's plenty that evolution would not be able to explain, if they existed. humans with angel wings would be awkward; precambrian mammal bones would be impossible. If a theory claims to predict all possibilities, then it is irrefutable... and uncheckable... and so valueless.

So yes, evolutions explains everything within its field that exists. It does not explain everything.

Sven

Oolon already explained this nicely, but perhaps a slight change of words helps:

I did not mean:
An explanation which explains everything [what we know], actually explains nothing.
but:
An explanation which explains anything, actually explains nothing.

Or to put it another way: If any fact can be taken as evidence for a theory, then the theory is worthless.

Can you agree with this?

camp freddie

In other words:

An explanation which explains all possibilities, actually explains nothing.

In order to explain something, you have to explain why it is 'this way' and why it is not 'that way'. Then if something is found which is 'that way' your theory must be rejected or altered.

How does design explain why our eyes are wired up inside-out? Why did the designer give us crappy eyes, when he obviously knew a better design, since he gave it to squid?

Mikie

This is a problem, even among evolutionists. You can't seem to keep a definition long enough to make it stick. At one time, evolution meant progressive change to higher species. Today, most evolutionists claim that it just means "change". They do this most likely in response to the good scientific claims that militate against evolutionary theory, as you do here.

"Change" alone does not constitute evolution in the sense that you need it to. You need to show how higher life forms came to be, not just "change". If you look at change alone, that can be explained by adaptation within a local gene pool - designed that way. In the case of the flies, they are still flies. They didn't change into toads or elephants. A fly will always be a fly. Macro change would be that the fly changes to something other than a fly, or develops a trait that is extreme. None of the examples ever given of fly mutation take that mutation beyond the explanation of adaptation - sorry.

freewalker

You should have answered your friends that Jesus came up with his son of a God theory to annoy is jewish parents/heritage! Would also be more provable based on biblical verses, i wonder if anyone would be patient enough to investigate it tough, i know i ain't.

Oolon Colluphid

*Ahem*

About that coccyx...?