Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
And apparently, scientists as well. Just about everyone desires proof...whatever it may be.
Wrong. Scientists desire empirical evidence. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers (and fundies).
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
And apparently, scientists as well. Just about everyone desires proof...whatever it may be.
Science can never be proved because that would disallow new evidence turning up that could alter a theory.
The theory of evolution is not proved, because a piece of evidence could turn up tomorrow that would mean it needed to be altered or dropped, something like DNA sequencing that showed humans were more closely related to cod than to chimps for instance would lead to a major rethink of some parts of the theory, if you aren't open to the possibility of counter evidence disproving your theory you are no longer a scientist.
Of course the theory of evolution is so well evidenced now that this is very unlikely, but it is not impossible so evolution is not proved, nor will it or any other scientific theory ever be.
Yes, unfortunately, the site is basically the ID argument from incredulity, i.e. we don't understand it so it must have been designed and thus GODDIDIT. It is an insult to TEs and anyone else who thinks for themselves.
Nah, we just want empirical evidence. There's no such thing as proof under the scientific method.
Nah, we just want empirical evidence. There's no such thing as proof under the scientific method.
Science can never be proved because that would disallow new evidence turning up that could alter a theory.
The theory of evolution is not proved, because a piece of evidence could turn up tomorrow that would mean it needed to be altered or dropped
Wrong. Scientists desire empirical evidence. Proof is for mathematicians and philosophers (and fundies).
I guess I stand corrected by you three. That is also why I do not prefer the scientific way of looking at life or the world. I personally find proof to be more compelling than evidence. For me if there is no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can't believe it. I also must stress that proof for me can only be determined by me.
I guess I stand corrected by you three. That is also why I do not prefer the scientific way of looking at life or the world. I personally find proof to be more compelling than evidence. For me if there is no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can't believe it. I also must stress that proof for me can only be determined by me.
What you are in fact saying here, is that you rather live in some pseudo-secure world instead of in reality. You do not want to cope with the reality that you/we might be wrong in the way we view our world. So instead of facing up to that and opening yourself up to new evidence, if that would arise, you decide to stick your head in the sand and pretend that this will never happen. In real life, proof does not exist. There is only evidence.
There is, of course, a gigantic downside to your way of dealing with that problem. If you are wrong, and the chances that you are wrong are quite big, no matter which viewpoint you hold to, you can never let yourself be corrected on that or gain that insight and correct your worldview yourself. Instead, even though you may be completely and utterly wrong, you try to live in your world of 'proof', non-existant though it is.
__________________
Tom
'What luck for rulers, that men do not think.'
-Ascribed to Adolf Hitler-
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glas by Lewis Caroll-
Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.
I guess I stand corrected by you three. That is also why I do not prefer the scientific way of looking at life or the world. I personally find proof to be more compelling than evidence. For me if there is no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can't believe it. I also must stress that proof for me can only be determined by me.
This is a very odd thing to hear from a Christian, after all we are to believe in God, unseen and without proof.
I am sad that someone seems to have poisoned your mind about science with such an un-Christian manner of thinking.
Here is a great site made by Christians who are scientists or work in scientific fields.
I personally find proof to be more compelling than evidence. For me if there is no proof beyond the shadow of a doubt, I can't believe it. I also must stress that proof for me can only be determined by me.
How can you establish truth without looking at evidence? Just curious....
Don't be sad because I am certainly not sad. I have nothing against science. It does not contain all of the answers I need. I guess you missed the point of my post. Could you give me a few biblical references where it is illustrated that I should rely on science for answers to questions about life and the world? I am also willing to concede if you bring in some biblical passages that we should believe in God without proof? I have an idea of which passages you will probably bring in, but I need to be sure.
Linear Mode
