Was stumped by a Creationist.

[gfm7175]

So, yes.....evolution seems more like religion.
It is more FAITH-based, than scientific!

You're on the right track here... Evolution is NOT science... Evolution IS religion...

It is religion because religion is an initial circular argument with additional arguments stemming from it.

Evolution makes the initial circular argument that "present day life forms are a result of earlier more primitive life forms because, well, they just are..."

There is no way to test the null hypothesis of that theory because we don't have a functional time machine to make use of to go back in time to observe what actually happened... We have no idea if Evolution is true or not. We can only believe it on a faith basis (ie, whether or not we find supporting evidence for it to be convincing or not). This works like faith in any religion works. However, you will find that MANY proponents of Evolution assert that it is somehow science rather than religion. Those people don't understand what science nor religion actually are...

 

[ecofarm]

You have a worse understanding of science than both of them do...

Evolution makes the initial circular argument that "present day life forms are a result of earlier more primitive life forms because, well, they just are..."

There is no way to test the null hypothesis of that theory because we don't have a functional time machine to make use of to go back in time to observe what actually happened... We have no idea if Evolution is true or not.

:lol:

Why specify "functional"? Are you aware of a non functioning time machine.


ps. I think I've seen that nonsense qualification here before.

 

[pinqy]

Unlike atheists, the Christian can follow where the evidence leads.

And the evidence point towards evolution and common descent, yet many Christians categorically deny that.

Some scientists don't agree with you.

They don’t agree with me about what?

Which God do you think is implied as the Creator? Of course, it's the Christian God!

Since there are many Muslim creationists, I would say the Abrahamic God.

The term, Theistic Evolution, was coined by Francis Collins (who'd now founded BioLogos).

https://biologos.org/common-questions/christianity-and-science/biologos-id-creationism

https://biologos.org/about-us


The Creator being referred to in theistic evolution is none other than the Christian God![/wuote]
Again, Abrahamic God would be more accurate. But i’m Not sure how you think that contradicts anything I’ve said.

The only beef the NAS has is that creationism (Biblical) and Intelligent Design...... is that religion (creationism) shouldn't be taught alongside science in a science classroom.

Because they’re not science.
My point was that Creationism does not claim to be science, Theistic Evolution is a philosophical add-on and does not contradict science, while Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design falsely claim to be science when they are not.



Also, Old Earth creationism is being paralleled with Day-Age Interpretation.
Genesis 1 is explained from a scientific point of view.

Here's a sample:


Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation


Furthermore......

If God created the universe (theistic evolution) - then you bet, it's been designed.
Just the laws of science should attest to that.[/auote]
How? Do we have a non-created universe to compare?

And, why does the universe adheres to these laws?[/B][/COLOR][/SIZE]

They don’t “adhere” to these laws. A scientific law is an observation on what does occur. not a rule that can be obeyed or disobeyed.

If set up a table and offered an item for sale and on the left side of the table, the price is $5 and on the right side it is $1. There is no difference, real or perceived between the items.
It is an economic law that no one will pay $5 when they could buy it for $1. If all the $1 priced items are sold, then and only then will people pay $5 if they buy it at all.
What makes the people obey that economic law? Or is it simply how people work and we call that observation a law?

 

[pinqy]

continuation.....



The Bible is definitely compatible with modern science!

Not if interpreted literally with spontaneous creation of complex organisms and a world wide flood.

 

[Moderate71]

:lol:

Why specify "functional"? Are you aware of a non functioning time machine.


ps. I think I've seen that nonsense qualification here before.

Not that I'm agreeing with his base argument, except specifying a "functional" time machine is not at all an inappropriate qualification. A non-functional time machine would indeed be completely irrelevant to the conversation. In short, the qualification that the time machine has to be functional to be relevant to the conversation is appropriate in my opinion.

 

[ecofarm]

Not that I'm agreeing with his base argument, except specifying a "functional" time machine is not at all an inappropriate qualification. A non-functional time machine would indeed be completely irrelevant to the conversation. In short, the qualification that the time machine has to be functional to be relevant to the conversation is appropriate in my opinion.

That's so stupid, in person I would point and laugh. For something to be a time machine, it must have functioned in the first place. My table is not a "non functional time machine".

That's "holy ****" stupid.

I'm serious. Insane stupid. In person, I'd take a pic and post breeding warnings.

 

[gfm7175]

:lol:

Why specify "functional"? Are you aware of a non functioning time machine.


ps. I think I've seen that nonsense qualification here before.

Why no counterargument to my argument? I find that to be rather interesting...

And I specify functional because there are time machines in existence, but none of them actually transfer a person into a past or future time.

 

[gfm7175]

That's so stupid, in person I would point and laugh. For something to be a time machine, it must have functioned in the first place. My table is not a "non functional time machine".

That's "holy ****" stupid.

I'm serious. Insane stupid. In person, I'd take a pic and post breeding warnings.

You're making fun and myself and Moderate and we are being perfectly rational here... Time machines do exist... None of them function, however... None of them actually transfer a person through time.

 

[Moderate71]

That's so stupid, in person I would point and laugh. For something to be a time machine, it must have functioned in the first place. My table is not a "non functional time machine".

That's "holy ****" stupid.

I'm serious. Insane stupid. In person, I'd take a pic and post breeding warnings.

I'll spell it out for you. No one gives a **** about what you call a time machine unless it actually functions. Specifically, unless it actually travels back/forth through time, no one cares. If you want to call your table a time machine, go ahead. No one cares unless it actually works. Let me quess, now you're going to try and quibble over the difference between "functions" and "works".

 

[ecofarm]

I'll spell it out for you. No one gives a **** about what you call a time machine unless it actually functions. Specifically, unless it actually travels back/forth through time, no one cares. If you want to call your table a time machine, go ahead. No one cares unless it actually works. Let me quess, now you're going to try and quibble over the difference between "functions" and "works".

Until there is a time machine, "functional" is asinine.

 

[RAMOSS]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Why, evolution is falsifiable. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved/

And when it comes to anecdotal stories, correlation does not mean causation, and there is confirmation bias. When someone PRAYS for a good outcome all the time, they see the good outcomes, but ignore when it doesn't come out the way they would like. And, 'the doctors can't explain it' just means they don't have the data. "I don't know" does not mean 'God did it'

 

[ashurbanipal]

Contextomy Fallacy... try to follow along...

1) Science is assumed.
2) Science is confirmed.

Which one is it?

I'm just curious: why is this a problem? Why must it be one or the other? Why not (for example): Science is assumed (today) because sufficiently confirmed (in the past)?

 

[ashurbanipal]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Popper figures prominently in online discussions of philosophy of evolution, but his view of the demarcation between science and non-science doesn't enjoy anything like a consensus among contemporary philosophers of science. Verification is still "a thing" in science. That said, I think at least a few posters in this thread have been trying to articulate something to the effect that science and religion are different domains whose epistemic foundations are dissimilar...though if you ask me, not necessarily mutually exclusive. But the idea that confirmatory evidence doesn't matter because Karl Popper said so (in fact, he didn't say that) is unsound.

Anyway, be sure not to confuse falsifiable with falsified--a mistake that commonly animates discussions like this one. Evolution might have been falsified had, say, the evidence coming from genetics had pointed to radically different conclusions--if, for example, different organisms had radically different molecules in their nucleii. If human beings had had the standard DNA molecule with which we are familiar, but chimpanzees had had some entirely different kind of molecule, like something sulfur-based, encoding instructions for producing chimpanzee proteins, evolution might have had some serious explaining to do. But in fact, that's not what happened. DNA evidence provided confirmation of many of the main conclusions of evolution.

I often find myself wondering why there's some expectation, however, that religion should conform to scientific standards, or that science should conform to religious ones. The whole argument that starts off with "Evolution is scientific fact, creationism is mere fantasy (under the same epistemic procedures science uses)" is a bit silly. It nevertheless seems to be popular.

 

[uptower]

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Evolution relies on evidence and scientific theory is malleable and adaptable when new facts come out. Therefore it is easier to poke holes in it: you're off on dinosaur extinction by two million years and suddenly the whole thing is bunk and burning bushes really do talk to wandering prophets.

Religion on the other hand sets no such evidence standards and therefore cannot be debunked (other than the obvious fact it is nonsense; see burning bushes above). It simply requires belief (imagination) and your friend is right - you can't prove there is not some all-seeing being in the heavens to someone who truly wishes to believe (imagine) there is.

Therein perhaps lies your best argument (though of scant-use to a starry-eyed believer). Science requires evidence so it is therefore, while fallible, still real. Religion does not require any evidence at all so by default it must be pure imagination.

 

[tosca1]

Since there are many Muslim creationists, I would say the Abrahamic God.

yes, Abrahamic God.

Islam may have started off with the Abrahamic God - but, they've gone off-course somewhere along the way.
If I'm not mistaken - the split happened with the recognition of Isaac as the promised son of God to Abraham.
They believe it is Ishmael (his son from a slave).

Furthermore, comparing the angel in the Bible with that of Islam - the "angel" that appeared to Mohammed does not seem to be Gabriel at all. It could be Lucifer.


Here: Who's the angel of Mohammad!

https://www.debatepolitics.com/beliefs-and-skepticism/322246-angel-muhammad.html



That's up for another discussion.

 

[tosca1]

How? Do we have a non-created universe to compare?

What about the universe we have now? Why is it so finely-tuned?

They don’t “adhere” to these laws. A scientific law is an observation on what does occur. not a rule that can be obeyed or disobeyed.

Science calls it "law." Call it by any name you want - I can call it "order."
Science merely discovered this "order" - and, they're awed by it.

The point: the universe operates under this "order" even before science had discovered it!
The universe follows the "laws."

As an example: why do we have gravity? Why doesn't gravity shuts off randomly at any time? Why doesn't earth just go off its axis and go wherever? Why does the sun stays in place? Why do we have sunrise and sunset?
Or, low and high tide? Why does everything have to eventually deteriorate at some point? Etc....,

If set up a table and offered an item for sale and on the left side of the table, the price is $5 and on the right side it is $1. There is no difference, real or perceived between the items.
It is an economic law that no one will pay $5 when they could buy it for $1. If all the $1 priced items are sold, then and only then will people pay $5 if they buy it at all.
What makes the people obey that economic law? Or is it simply how people work and we call that observation a law?

No. It is not "observation," that's being called the law.
Observation was just the PROCESS or method, by which they came to understand about
what's going on!

It's how the system works (like your analogy of economics) which is the law - but you're talking about a
man-made system!
So, economy is really not an appropriate analogy to the laws of nature or laws of physics (like the samples I gave above).

 

[marke]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Creationism and evolutionism are theological and philosophical viewpoints. Scientific evidence can be interpreted to support whichever side is offering the selected evidence. Neither view can be proven irrefutably true and accurate by science.

 

[tosca1]

Not if interpreted literally with spontaneous creation of complex organisms and a world wide flood.

Well, of course you can't take everything from the Bible, literally!
Anyone who understands what the Bible is, knows that it's full of figures of speech (from that culture in that ancient time), and it's a mixture of poetry, parables, history etc.....


We only come to understand that something isn't just a figure of speech or poetic statement......

..........when science happens to support, or confirm it!


As an example: the springs in the oceans (which I was just discussing about in another section).
We now know that many springs exist deep underwater - they've been discovered only a few decades ago.

And now, the new discovery lately - recesses - of another ocean zone, deeper in the ocean -
with mountains and "gardens!" And yet, they were mentioned in the Bible.


Genesis 7
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—
on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12 And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.



Job 38
16
“Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea
or walked in the recesses of the deep?

100 species discovered as scientists find new ocean zone

7 May 2018

“The average depth of the ocean is 4,200m. If life in the shallower regions of the deep sea is so poorly documented it undermines confidence in our existing understanding of how the patterns of life change with depth,” he added.

“[This is] evidence of how little we know and how important it is to document this unknown frontier to ensure that its future is protected”.

The group also discovered a major algal forest on the summit of an underwater mountain 15 miles off the coast of Bermuda.

The undersea mountain’s slopes were found to harbour gardens of twisted wire corals and sea fans, communities of sea urchins, green moray eels, yellow hermit crabs, small pink and yellow fish and other mobile fauna.

There are more than 100,000 underwater mountains in seas across the globe yet less than 50 have been biologically sampled in detail.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...ew-ocean-zone/


Who would've thought those can be taken literally?

 

[Xelor]

...
If set up a table and offered an item for sale and on the left side of the table, the price is $5 and on the right side it is $1. There is no difference, real or perceived between the items.

It is an economic law that no one will pay $5 when they could buy it for $1. If all the $1 priced items are sold, then and only then will people pay $5 if they buy it at all.

What makes the people obey that economic law? Or is it simply how people work and we call that observation a law?

Red:
That's not a law of economics. What you've "written in red" is just a somewhat incomplete "aggregate" illustration of the three fundamental assumptions of neoclassical economics. Neoclassical econ's three basic assumptions, succinctly and completely, are:

1. people have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value,
2. individuals maximize utility and firms maximize profit, and
3. people act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

Your remark "captures" the emboldened elements of economics' key assumptions.

Those three fundamental assumptions were initially alluded to by Adam Smith in the following passage:

[E]very individual [who tries to maximize the value of his own capital and labour] necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
-- Adam Smith, The Wealth Of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II​

Were those assumptions a law, we would not observe behavior such as informed individuals going to the convenience store to buy XYZ when there is a grocer across the street selling the same item for less money.

 

[RAMOSS]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.

Well, the arguement that 'scientists no longer value verifiable evidence' is what is known as a 'straw man.' Evolution has verifiable evidence to support it. It has testable and repeatable experiments too., for the evolution of new traits.

First of all, do you know what the definitive scientists use for evolution? If you don't, then you don't know enough about it to know what scientists think about it, or the evidence they have.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism.

You have to understand that "Creationism" really covers a large area of beliefs. The more fundamentalist individuals tend to be "Young Creationists", and generally do things like having humans live side by side with dinosaurs.

Then you have the "Intelligent Design" group, which is generally Creationists that believe Evolution was used by a higher power. In fact, both of the last 2 popes have stated that evolution is not in conflict with creation.

For the most part, those who identify as "Creationists" tend more towards the "Young Creationist" fundamentalists. And trying to debate with one of them is not unlike debating a "9/11 truther", because they will dismiss anything they do not like which contradicts their beliefs.

And bringing up Karl Popper? He is like the poster child of irrational thought. Do not like what science says, then point to the Anti-Marxist Socialist who was also a non-believer in organized religion to try and prove your point.

Kind of like trying to use Margaret Sangar quotes to try and show why abortion is bad.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm just curious: why is this a problem? Why must it be one or the other?

Because 'assumed' and 'confirmed' are opposing positions... If you are assuming something, then you have not confirmed it, and if you have confirmed it, then you are no longer assuming it. It needs to be one or the other, otherwise one argues a paradox.

Why not (for example): Science is assumed (today) because sufficiently confirmed (in the past)?

Because Science is never confirmed. It is never proven... It is assumed... Any theory of science could be falsified at any time...

 

[ashurbanipal]

Because 'assumed' and 'confirmed' are opposing positions... If you are assuming something, then you have not confirmed it, and if you have confirmed it, then you are no longer assuming it. It needs to be one or the other, otherwise one argues a paradox.

Seems obviously false to me. Some assumptions are indeed assumed without any reason. Others are assumed because the evidence seems to support those assumptions, and we proceed to argue without any further attention to that evidence.

Because Science is never confirmed. It is never proven... It is assumed... Any theory of science could be falsified at any time...

Why is it the case that because something could be falsified, it is not confirmed? To say that something could be falsified is to say that it is possible it is false--that is, there is some possible world in which it is false. That doesn't mean it is false in the actual world, and may in fact be known to be true in the actual world. Example: It's possible I could be 5'9". But in fact, I am 6'1". I don't doubt that I am 6'1" because I am 5'9" in some possible world, and I proceed on the assumption that I'm 6'1" without re-measuring any time it becomes important.

 

[gfm7175]

Seems obviously false to me.

Not to me...

Some assumptions are indeed assumed without any reason.

Correct.

Others are assumed because the evidence seems to support those assumptions, and we proceed to argue without any further attention to that evidence.

The bolded is still ultimately an assumption though; it is not confirmed (proven). Evidence is not proof of anything... Evidence is subject to one's own unique perception of the universe (reality).

Why is it the case that because something could be falsified, it is not confirmed?

Because "could be falsified" is not the same as "proven". It is not 100% certain. We may have good reason to accept various theories which have continuously survived null hypothesis testing (theories of science), but that doesn't mean those theories are "confirmed" in any way; they simply haven't been falsified as of the present time.

To say that something could be falsified is to say that it is possible it is false--that is, there is some possible world in which it is false.

In a generic sense, I'm fine with that.

That doesn't mean it is false in the actual world,

Correct. Theories may be true or false.

and may in fact be known to be true in the actual world.

That's still not proven... that's still an assumption...

Example: It's possible I could be 5'9".

Correct. That is very possible. I could look at you and assume that you are 5'9"...

But in fact, I am 6'1".

Okay. Your height has now been confirmed (proven) through measurement (use of mathematics, which makes use of proofs). Your height is no longer an assumption.

I don't doubt that I am 6'1" because I am 5'9" in some possible world,

That "possible world" would then be operating under a different set of axioms for their mathematics than our world operates under... Their "playing by different rules" is irrelevant.

and I proceed on the assumption that I'm 6'1" without re-measuring any time it becomes important.

Yup... One started off by assuming one's height, but then one confirmed it through measurement... It is no longer an assumption for that given time (it has been confirmed (proven) through use of mathematics). Height CAN change over time, however, so what was confirmed at one point in time is merely assumed at a later point in time (based on the prior confirmation) unless it is once again confirmed.

 

[pinqy]

To say that something could be falsified is to say that it is possible it is false--that is, there is some possible world in which it is false.

Not quite. To say something has been falsified means it has been shown to be false.

Falsifiable means that if it were false, there is a singular test that could show it.

Example: “All swans are white.” Inductive reasoning showed this to be true: all swans encountered were white. But the statement was falsifiable in that the discovery of one non-white swan would prove it false. And eventually black swans were discovered in Australia. And the claim was falsified.

The point is that there was never any way to show that “all swans are white.” Until black swans were found, the idea that all swans are white was perfectly reasonable and rightly accepted as true.

On the other hand, “I have an invisible, silent, non-corporeal dragon in my basement” is not falsifiable. If it is false, there is no test possible to show it is false.