We have two eyes! Why?

1

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
It seems like your list of observations has changed. I don't remember them being this way.
Observation #1 refuted by Panda Bear in capitivity fertility rates plus human fertility rates in Spain.
Observation #2 refuted by Polar Bear population explosion.
Additionally I can't help but note that none of the above explains natural selection at all. Merely noting that not all animals will survive does not mean that inferior animals don't end up surviving due to nothing more than dumb luck.
You also don't seem to understand the word "tautology." Simply saying that some animals will survive and breed while others will not may seem like a simple, common sense observation to you that no one can doubt. Similarly the observation "Either the sun will come out tomorrow or it won't" is obviously true. Just how USEFUL this observation is remains to be seen.
Generally scientific observations are only classified as useful if they are FALSIFIABLE. The theory that God created the world exactly as we see it may indeed be true. Scientifically, however, it's not a USEFUL theory because it makes no predictions. "Exactly as we see it" doesn't help us to predict the world tomorrow. By way of comparison the law of gravity can be used to predict where the planet Mars will be not only tomorrow but thousands of years in the future. As such we can test this prediction against the real world to see if the prediction comes true.
Natural selection as it is normally formulated in forums of this kind is similarly an uninteresting theory. Survival of the fittest where the fittest is defined as those who survive may strike you as a wonderful idea to browbeat Christians with. Nevertheless it makes no testable predictions. Accordingly it is not falsifiable. While it is true that it can be used after the fact to explain why something happened, all this really proves is that the theory fits all data sets that can be applied to it.
Every good scientific theory is a prohibition. It forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids the better it is. 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.

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Observation #1 Bear
Observation #2 Bear
Observation #3 There are many bears, IDIOT!
Though environmental pressures may make survival tough on some species.
observation 3 = natural resources are limited, there isn’t enough for everyone
inference 1 = there exists a continuous struggle for existence among members of a population.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nt/content/20...
Wallabys are not bears.
Is it my imagination or did you just completely fail to respond to most of the arguments made in my last post? Shall I take that to mean that you have no good answers?

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope not imaginary , you're a dip wad who cant falsify natural selection , extinction is in the natural order. Sorry about your luck.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Name ONE thing which you believe IS scientific.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Name ONE thing which you believe IS scientific.

LowellGuy wrote:

Is "God did it with magic" a falsifiable non-tauological hypothesis?

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
Natural selection is a tautology. Tautologies are not falsifiable. That's why they're not scientific.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
God did it with magic is three things:
1. It's not something anyone has ever claimed.
2. It's not falsifiable and therefore not a subject for scientific inquiry.
3. It's not a useful theory because it makes no predictions.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
The three laws of thermodynamics are scientific. Any of those could be (theoretically at least) disproved at any time. Simply find a way to create energy from nothing and you disprove the first law. Find heat flowing spontaneously from cold areas to hot areas and you disprove law 2. Or simply find something colder than absolute zero and you disprove law 3.
You see? Falsifiable = Good. Unfalsifiable = Bad.

Peru_Serv wrote:

<quoted text>
God did it with magic is three things:
1. It's not something anyone has ever claimed.

Peru_Serv wrote:

2. It's not falsifiable and therefore not a subject for scientific inquiry.

Peru_Serv wrote:

3. It's not a useful theory because it makes no predictions.

_PrincessSusan_ wrote:

I would say most folks only see what they want to see.

Brian_G wrote:

We have two eyes but can we see?

_PrincessSusan_ wrote:

I would say most folks only see what they want to see.