Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?

[kprasad]

Re: Darwin believed in jin(super natural) or Dawkins does?

@psyah

Peace kprasad

The way they can disprove the “entity” is to show that the “entity” cannot come when certain conditions exist and when it comes it always comes when those “conditions” exist. This way the phenomenon is explained. But this request for *proving a dis-positive *is nonsense …

The way to prove anything is to have a falsification test … that if it fails then it can be proven false. So the test must come from the ones who are pushing the theory. The “entity” theory for those who believe in it need to provide the scientists a falsification test - that if it fails it would disprove the idea of the “entity”. Certain things may not be falsifiable … that is true … evolution theory is also one of them.

Brother Psyah,

I’m going to assume you’re being serious, because this is a laughable assertion. But, I would add, this is par for course for the faithful. Luckily the law, courts, and science don’t work this way. No one has top prove innocence, it is guilt that must be proven.

Your requirement for proof is a logical fallacy. That requirement only exists in the mind of people willfully ignorant of science.

Science has much more simple requirements. Show evidence, show data, then make predictions. If your predictions are wrong, go back and start over again. Evolution is a fact. It occurred. Scientists make predictions about what they will find in the fossil record and then, years later, they find it. Take a look at the tiktaalik. No religion can do that!

But here is an even better proposition, that religion fails at again, and why science is superior:
If you can show the evidence, scientists would relegate evolution! How many predictions do people make with their religious texts that never come to be?