The Falsifier

The Truth

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@BillyZigouras You’re a fool

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@PRaflik83681 @zoverions @darwintojesus A hypothesis gains evidential support when it makes what we observe more expected than relevant alternatives. If radically different observations would have been declared equally supportive, the observation has little discriminatory power so it isn't a good explanation.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@PRaflik83681 @zoverions @darwintojesus So both:

enormous gratuitous suffering --> explained by God

and

essentially no gratuitous suffering --> explained by God

can be accommodated.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@TheHistoryGuy07 Blocked for being dishonest, grossly inaccurate, and not caring about truth.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@Watchman769 @SSPsGoku @zoverions @DivinelyDesined It did begin somehow, that is not what language change theory describes; it desxribes how it changes once it began.

Likewise, however DNA originated, evolution describes the mechanism of how it changes over time, now life first started.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@Watchman769 @SSPsGoku @zoverions @DivinelyDesined So you think that not knowing exactly how the first language began undermines evidence that languages change and diverge over time?

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@NotEvolution1 Here is the rest:

"...but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?" - Carl Sagan

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@RevIsaacWirtz Why would small changes be possible, but accumulated small changes be impossible?

There is no mechanism that stops divergence at some boundary, no definition of that boundary, and no evidence that such a limit exists.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@TheHistoryGuy07 Genesis is a bad theory not because it sounds strange, but because it provides few precise, risky predictions, can be reinterpreted to accommodate almost any observation, and does not specify a testable mechanism. In truth, has failed error correction and is refuted.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@NotEvolution1 So the absolute best you can do with synthetic claims are to have theories. Synthetic knowledge does not mean certainty.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@NotEvolution1 To find out whether or not I have a red car you need to actually observe the world and collect evidence. But no amount of evidence can prove a theory true because there will always be other logically possible competing theories that haven’t been ruled out.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@darwintojesus @MentallyNathan Nobody needs epistemology lessons from you. The evidence supports that your epistemology standards are pretty bad. You reject evolution in 2026...

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@Watchman769 @SSPsGoku @zoverions @DivinelyDesined Abiogenesis concerns how the first self-replicating, evolving systems arose from nonliving chemistry.

Evolution concerns how already existing populations change over generations through mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, recombination, and related mechanisms.

[The Falsifier @eigeNate]

@Watchman769 @SSPsGoku @zoverions @DivinelyDesined A simple analogy:

Not knowing exactly how the first language began would not undermine evidence that languages change and diverge over time.