The following is a list of questions that EvolutionFalse has failed to answer in our chat rooms:
2. How is the Euthyphro dilemma a “false dichotomy”?
3. What is the (magical) barrier that demarcates “micro-evolution” from “macro-evolution”?
4. How can skeptical theism be an adequate response to the evidential argument from evil since skeptical theism logically entails a commitment to global skepticism?
5. What is an example of an observation that could falsify the hypotheses of an Intelligent Designer, a Special Creator, a Fine-Tuner of the cosmological constants, or of God?
6. If these hypotheses cannot be falsified, how can there be evidence for them?
7. What is the formal argument constituting the “design inference” to the existence of God?
8. What hypothesis is a better explanation for the apparently structured diversity of terrestrial life than the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor?
9. Is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor an unfalsifiable hypothesis?
10. Is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor a falsified hypothesis? what observation has falsified it?
11. Is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor an ad hoc hypothesis?
12. Is the hypothesis of a universal common ancestor a logically incoherent hypothesis?
13. What way is there to discredit an explanatory hypothesis other than to show that it is unfalsifiable, that it has been falsified, that it is ad hoc, that it is logically incoherent or that there is an alternative hypothesis that has greater explanatory virtues?
14. If “atemporal change” is an “oxymoron” because it is equivalent to the concept of “no-change change”, how can change not “presuppose” or “require” time?
15. What mathematicians or philosophers have shown that “actual infinities” are impossible and by what argument(s) have they shown this?
16. How is the regularity of nature an explanatory hypothesis “that explains the way things are”? If predictions are derivable from the mere assumption of the regularity of nature, how is it the thesis is not falsified if what is predicted fails to come true? If the thesis can be falsified then it’s falsifiable, so how can the regularity of nature be falsifiable and unfalsifiable, simultaneously?