Why creationists can never convince me that evolution is false.

Status
Not open for further replies.

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟281,096.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Somewhat incoherent. ? I suspect you're upset, sorry. When you gather yourself, please answer the question: What other modes than science to gain knowledge do you accept?

No thanks, the trick of claiming that
someone (esp a woman) is getting all emotional,
therfore incoherent / unreasonable is just tawdry.
Certainly not a sign that someone has the least interest
in a sensible exchange of views.
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,545
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,414.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
To reject scientism implies one is open to alternative method to gain knowledge about reality. As a person with some sense, what other methods are you open to?

Again, you are just saying things. Scientism is not a method.
Find out what scientism is before trying to talk about it.
 
Upvote 0

Frank Robert

Well-Known Member
Feb 18, 2021
2,276
1,119
KW
✟127,483.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Science inquiries are based on assumptions: that the entire universe is ordered and that order can be discerned by the human mind.
Science inquires are based on hypotheses which can be supported by observed evidence and predictions they make. The evidence and predictions are independent of any prior assumptions.

Validation of those assumptions cannot be given by a series descriptions about some part of nature.
See above.

The answer to the question, "Why one should accept science as a method of inquiry?, cannot come from within science, otherwise it would beg the question.
You are confusing science with the scientific method which, put simply, is a systematic way for acquiring knowledge

Ironically, this means that the epistemic imperatives professed by naturalists and positivists are, themselves, incapable of being justified through naturalistic means.
Nice word salad.

Relating this observation to the OP, creation is a supernatural event. By definition, naturalistic means are incapable of evidencing the supernatural. As for decreeing what does or can exist, there is nothing in scientific method that forbids anything to exist.
If you are saying that science is quiet on the supernatural, no one is disagreeing with you.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ophiolite
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,675
51,422
Guam
✟4,896,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Which is a belief not shared among all Christians.
So what? I don't share a lot of beliefs with Christians.

Foot washing, snake handling, speaking in tongues, smoking, divorce, shacking up, and other ... shall we say ... lifestyle choices.

To name a few.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Again, you are just saying things. Scientism is not a method.
Find out what scientism is before trying to talk about it.
Apparently you're still recovering. Breath deeply and then please answer the question. Or are you really an advocate of scientism but ashamed to admit it?
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

Well-Known Member
May 20, 2021
1,900
259
Private
✟66,497.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Science inquires are based on hypotheses which can be supported by observed evidence and predictions they make. The evidence and predictions are independent of any prior assumptions.
? The scientist's predictions are absolutely dependent on the truth of the unproven assumptions. I believe the assumptions are true. That is an act of faith for me and everyone else who makes the same act of faith in science.

You are confusing science with the scientific method which, put simply, is a systematic way for acquiring knowledge
No. If the scientist didn’t have faith that experiments can be reproduced, that the human mind is competent to learn, and that somehow his observations can be rationalized, he probably wound not even go into the lab.

If you are saying that science is quiet on the supernatural, no one is disagreeing with you.
What I'm saying is that science will never find God but the scientist can.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,525
9,496
✟236,500.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
? The scientist's predictions are absolutely dependent on the truth of the unproven assumptions. I believe the assumptions are true. That is an act of faith for me and everyone else who makes the same act of faith in science.
The assumptions are tested overtime. If they are invalid then the results of experiments will not be as predicted. No faith is required. Indeed faith would corrupt the experiment.

No. If the scientist didn’t have faith that experiments can be reproduced, that the human mind is competent to learn, and that somehow his observations can be rationalized, he probably wound not even go into the lab.
And having made those provisional assumptions the scientist finds that experiments can, routinely and consistently, be reproduced; that, demonstrably, almost all human minds can learn; and that her observations fit into rational patterns.

What I'm saying is that science will never find God but the scientist can.
Nothing controversial there.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,675
51,422
Guam
✟4,896,890.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay ... red flags all over the place.

This guy is an expert on the Hebrew bible.
LOL -- first words out of this mouth: "This is a can of worms."

Followed by: "I'd say it didn't happen the way that the story goes."

Need I watch any more?
 
Upvote 0

Believer000

Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Feb 23, 2018
204
97
Coventry
✟25,222.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.

I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.

In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.

In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.

If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.

By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.

Addendum

Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.


If you wish to believe your ancestors are monkeys...you have that right read God's word when/if you mature a bit though.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.