Two errors there. First, it is easy to prove some negatives: “There are no even prime numbers greater than 2,” for example.
No. The argument is circular. Rather than prove a negative, it merely says one cannot break the rules.
A prime number is a positive integer that is not divisible without remainder by any integer except itself and 1. An even number is any integer that can be divided exactly by 2.
Similarly, one can claim, “There are no pieces other than the knight that can jump another piece."
Neither proves a negative.
Second, science does not do “proof”; science works on evidence and the best explanation of that evidence we currently have.
That’s better. You make my point.
In science, man does not make rules but attempts to discover them by observing effects and applying valid reasoning to explain causation. The reasoning is inductive. The conclusion is inferential. Inferences can never be proven universal. You cannot prove macroevolution and I cannot disprove it.
… we have observed macroevolution so it cannot be impossible.
And all your assertions of macroevolution observations have been refuted.
Have you looked at the title of this thread? It is “Evolution and Creatinism” so evolution is on topic for this thread.
Have you looked at the forum we are in? Science imposes upon itself a limitation, a myopic outlook that allows only propositions of natural causes to explain observed effects. As causes cannot be directly observed, only
reasonably inferred causes can be proposed. (This is not meant to be a criticism of the scientific method. Science works because only natural causes can be employed to control nature. We cannot reliably invoke the supernatural for the benefit of mankind, only the natural.)
The science of reasoning is the domain of Philosophy. Scientific claims that are evidentially weak and highly dependent on valid reasoning ought be carefully examined under the rules of valid reasoning. Otherwise, irrational speculations and imaginations enter the field.
All historiographical sciences, unlike the experimental sciences, are evidentially weak. Macroevolution is especially so. The claim that all life has one common ancestor is a gigantic leap of logic from merely the evidence of microevolution. How good is that reasoning? Not very.
Applying the first principles of philosophy to evaluate whether “Evolution and Creation” better explains the diversity of life strongly concludes that Creation is the better explanation.
For a detailed argument see:
http://kolbecenter.org/metaphysical-impossibility-human-evolution-chad-ripperger-catholic-creation/
