Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

bhsmte · Aug 17, 2015

Zosimus said:
You go! Prove that science is wonderful because science has been wrong in the past.

Embrace the paradox! Run with it!

Hows that smoke alarm coming along?

The Cadet · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
If facts are demonstrable, and if the above statement is a fact, then you should be able to demonstrate it.

The above statement was not a fact. It was a part of a definition. You keep making these category errors, all of them based around this idea that an epistemological system needs to be self-confirming. I don't think that applies.

Songsmith · Aug 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
The above statement was not a fact. It was a part of a definition. You keep making these category errors, all of them based around this idea that an epistemological system needs to be self-confirming. I don't think that applies.

I don't mean to be contrary here, but I'm pretty sure that even though something falls into one category doesn't mean that it falls outside of every other category. Definitions are, by their very nature, facts about the thing being defined.

Zosimus · Aug 18, 2015

bhsmte said:
Hows that smoke alarm coming along?

I don't invent smoke alarms, if that's what you mean. There are dozens throughout the building.

Weren't you the one that suggested that I build a bonfire in my apartment to determine whether they actually worked? That would be quite dangerous, don't you think?

Zosimus · Aug 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
The above statement was not a fact. It was a part of a definition. You keep making these category errors, all of them based around this idea that an epistemological system needs to be self-confirming. I don't think that applies.

Oh, I see. Well, the definition of truth is everything contained in the Koran. If you argue that this is not true, you are making a category error.

lesliedellow · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
Oh, I see. Well, the definition of truth is everything contained in the Koran. If you argue that this is not true, you are making a category error.

An equilateral has three sides which are all the same length.

Do I need to demonstrate that? No, because it is a definition, and therefore true by definition.

joshua 1 9 · Aug 18, 2015

bhsmte said:
As usual, you didn't answer my question.

That is ok, there are lots of fish in the ocean. I am sure you can find the answers your looking for. God has the solution for every problem and the answer for every question. Of course man has neither answers nor solutions. Your often doing good if they do not make your problems worse. We do not always get what we want but with God we get what we need.

The Cadet · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
Oh, I see. Well, the definition of truth is everything contained in the Koran. If you argue that this is not true, you are making a category error.

I reject that definition as having anything to do with what anyone typically means when they speak of "truth". You might as well define "morality" as "whatever the guy holding the gun to my head says" - congratulations, at best you've robbed the word of any meaning it has to anyone and at worst you've committed a massive equivocation fallacy.

Zosimus · Aug 18, 2015

lesliedellow said:
An equilateral has three sides which are all the same length.

Do I need to demonstrate that? No, because it is a definition, and therefore true by definition.

This is both false and irrelevant. An equilateral does not necessarily have three sides. Only equilateral triangles do.

Although no one disputes that we can create categories and place things into them, this does not mean that all definitions are true just by virtue of being definitions. We can all agree that insects have six legs by definition. That does not, however, mean that all definitions are true.

lesliedellow · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
This is both false and irrelevant. An equilateral does not necessarily have three sides. Only equilateral triangles do.

Although no one disputes that we can create categories and place things into them, this does not mean that all definitions are true just by virtue of being definitions. We can all agree that insects have six legs by definition. That does not, however, mean that all definitions are true.

All definitions are true.

If I defined an insect to be something with four legs, then all insects would have four legs. Even if my usage of the word "insect" was unusual, I would have told you what I meant by it.

Jeffrey William Cameron · Aug 18, 2015

jathtech said:
If I were an all powerful being who wanted to create something as big and beautiful as the ENTIRE UNIVERSE... I would NEVER do it all by hand. I'd be too smart for that. First, I'd create the Laws of Physics, chemistry, etc. Then I would design a mechanism by which life of all forms can flourish.... IE... Evolution.

To me, Evolution is proof of creationism. It is proof that there is an Omniscient, Omnipotent being out there.

Most people who don't believe in evolution say "it's just a theory, it hasn't been proven" Which is a blatant misunderstanding of the word "theory". In scientific terms, a theory is something that has been proven, but not quantified (As opposed to a Law which is always true in every instance and can be calculated). It happens folks. No amount of whining and moaning can un-prove or undo evolution. So instead of believing that it is some affront to God, why not realize that Evolution is actually God's work?

We've seen evolution in our lifetimes. On microbial scale, we see things like algae being coaxed into evolving into fuel producing species. As humans, we've had a hand in the evolution of Dogs. We chose the ones that are loyal and that look nice, and the rest were routinely killed off. Even an astute person can see how traits are passed down from human parent to human child. We see hundreds or thousands of versions of the same plants and animals in different regions of the world.

So lets look at this differently.

Evolution does not disprove creationism, it is the mechanism. Science is how were discover God's universe. It is not the unholy tool by which we unravel God. It is God's tool by which we discover HIM!

For me it is simple Exodus 20:11 says the God made the heavens and the earth in six days. That's pretty clear.

Zosimus · Aug 18, 2015

lesliedellow said:
All definitions are true.

If I defined an insect to be something with four legs, then all insects would have four legs. Even if my usage of the word "insect" was unusual, I would have told you what I meant by it.

You claim that all definitions are true.
You are Calvinist.
By definition, all Calvinists are wrong.
Since this is a definition, it is true.
Therefore, all definitions are false.
QED

lesliedellow · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
You claim that all definitions are true.
You are Calvinist.
By definition, all Calvinists are wrong.

Sorry. Before you can say that you will have to put forward your definition of Calvinist.

The Cadet · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
You claim that all definitions are true.
You are Calvinist.
By definition, all Calvinists are wrong.

Analytic/synthetic fallacy. The statement "Lesliedellow is a Calvinist" is analytic. It necessarily refers to an inference made about a property. The statement "By definition, all Calvinists are wrong" is a synthetic statement; it is entirely self-contained and pertains to a definition. If you define Calvinists in part as being wrong, and then attempt to apply that label to Lesliedellow, you will fail, as by that definition, Lesliedellow probably no longer identifies as a Calvinist. This is a basic issue in logic, and you are failing.

This is the same ridiculous error as someone saying:

"Spiders are defined as 4-legged furry creatures.
Charlotte from Charlotte's Web is a spider.
Therefore, Charlotte is a 4-legged furry creature."

...The problem, of course, being that by that definition of Spider, Charlotte no longer qualifies as a spider. Again: analytic and synthetic statements.

You are Calvinist.
By definition, all Calvinists are wrong.
Since this is a definition, it is true.
Therefore, all definitions are false.
QED

This bit is so confused I can't make heads or tails of it, honestly. It simply does not follow at all.

Zosimus · Aug 18, 2015

The Cadet said:
Analytic/synthetic fallacy. The statement "Lesliedellow is a Calvinist" is analytic. It necessarily refers to an inference made about a property. The statement "By definition, all Calvinists are wrong" is a synthetic statement; it is entirely self-contained and pertains to a definition. If you define Calvinists in part as being wrong, and then attempt to apply that label to Lesliedellow, you will fail, as by that definition, Lesliedellow probably no longer identifies as a Calvinist. This is a basic issue in logic, and you are failing.

This is the same ridiculous error as someone saying:

"Spiders are defined as 4-legged furry creatures.
Charlotte from Charlotte's Web is a spider.
Therefore, Charlotte is a 4-legged furry creature."

...The problem, of course, being that by that definition of Spider, Charlotte no longer qualifies as a spider. Again: analytic and synthetic statements.

First of all, as I've already pointed out, the difference between analytical and synthetic distinction is extremely controversial.

However, let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that I agree that there is a difference. With that in mind, let's rewind to the beginning of the dispute.

Loudmouth claimed that facts are demonstrable.
I said that if the claim "facts are demonstrable" is a fact, then it should be demonstrable. Otherwise, it is a self-refuting statement.
Then Lesliedellow claimed that all definitions are true.

That sets the stage for what comes next.
If definitions are defined as things that are true, then "facts are demonstrable" is no longer a definition because it is not true and thus no longer meets the definition of a definition.
-------------
Finally, your understanding of the difference between synthetic and analytic statements is sorely lacking. Analytic statements are those that are true a priori. A good example would be "The red barn is red." No one can dispute that. By very definition, red barns are red.

However the statement "Lesliedellow is Calvinist" is most emphatically not an analytic statement. It is not something that is true a priori. Lesliedellow might have lied when he put "Calvinist" as his religion. Alternatively, he might have been Calvinist when he put that, but he no longer is. Thus it is a synthetic statement, and your entire argument falls apart because you don't know what you're talking about.

lesliedellow · Aug 18, 2015

Zosimus said:
Then Lesliedellow claimed that all definitions are true.

That sets the stage for what comes next.
If definitions are defined as things that are true

A definition is a statement about the meaning of a word or phrase.

"Facts are demonstrable" defines a fact to be something which is demonstrable.

"A vector space is a field distributed over an abelian group," defines what a vector space is. Anything which can be logically deduced from that definition is true by definition. In particular, the definition itself is true by definition.

The Cadet · Aug 19, 2015

Zosimus said:
First of all, as I've already pointed out, the difference between analytical and synthetic distinction is extremely controversial.

There is a massive distinction between defining a term as having certain properties, and claiming that certain properties apply to things in the real world. The former cannot be wrong; the latter can. And yes, I got analytic and synthetic backwards; my mistake. The respective labels are a wee bit counterintuitive.

Loudmouth claimed that facts are demonstrable.
I said that if the claim "facts are demonstrable" is a fact, then it should be demonstrable. Otherwise, it is a self-refuting statement.
Then Lesliedellow claimed that all definitions are true.

That sets the stage for what comes next.
If definitions are defined as things that are true, then "facts are demonstrable" is no longer a definition because it is not true and thus no longer meets the definition of a definition.

Again, this simply does not follow. You cannot say that "Facts are demonstrable" is not true; it is a definition. We are adding "demonstrable" to the defined qualities of a fact. It can no more be false than any other definition can be false. The statement of definition is not a "fact", it is a definition. You keep making these same simple logical mistakes.

Finally, your understanding of the difference between synthetic and analytic statements is sorely lacking. Analytic statements are those that are true a priori. A good example would be "The red barn is red." No one can dispute that. By very definition, red barns are red.

Reverse the terms in my previous post; in my haste, I assumed that synthetic statements were ones that were entirely independent of reality and analytic statements were ones where you had to analyze reality. Etymology is not my strong suit at times.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2015

Zosimus said:
Oh, I see. Well, the definition of truth is everything contained in the Koran. If you argue that this is not true, you are making a category error.

If that is the epistemology you want to put forward, that is your choice. However, most people don't find the idea that "It's true because the Koran says so" to be worth applying in researching how the natural world works. Instead, they apply the epistemology described by the scientific method because it does work.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2015

Zosimus said:
Loudmouth claimed that facts are demonstrable.
I said that if the claim "facts are demonstrable" is a fact, then it should be demonstrable.

And you would be wrong. The definition is axiomatic. How we determine facts is not axiomatic. It isn't our problem that you can't differentiate between the two.

The scientific method doesn't have to prove itself just like every other epistemology.

Zosimus · Aug 19, 2015

lesliedellow said:
A definition is a statement about the meaning of a word or phrase.

"Facts are demonstrable" defines a fact to be something which is demonstrable.

"A vector space is a field distributed over an abelian group," defines what a vector space is. Anything which can be logically deduced from that definition is true by definition. In particular, the definition itself is true by definition.

Your "logic" (so-called) disturbs me. It seems that you want to empower anyone in this forum to simply open his or her mouth and make a statement true and unquestionable simply by classifying it as a "definition."

If that is so, then what is to stop me from simply defining a fact as "a particular type of three-toed sloth" and from insisting that since it is a definition, it is true by definition?

Real definitions are contained in dictionaries. The dictionary defines a fact as "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true."

That means that if a Christian sees God in a dream, I see a UFO, or Bubba over there sees a unicorn, then all of these are facts regardless whether they can be verified.

Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

Newbie

SO COOL

Junior Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Member

Well-Known Member

SO COOL

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Member

Member

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Member

SO COOL

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Member

SO COOL

Contributor

Contributor

Non-Christian non-evolution believer

Similar threads