Both evolution and creationism never provable

Research1 · Mar 13, 2011

Creation cannot be proved

1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

Evolution cannot be proved

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable (on the macro scale), and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

2. Macroevolution is not observable.

gluadys · Mar 13, 2011

Research1 said:
Creation cannot be proved

1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

Do we really know that? I would say that it is not yet known if a scientific experiment can describe or replicate the creation process.

In regard to new species, if evolution IS the creation process, it is already described, observed and replicated.

2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

Again, I would say this is unknown, especially in light of the first statement that the creation process has not been described. We could only know that creation is not taking place now if we had a description of the process and could verify it is not happening now. Meanwhile creatio continua is certainly a possibility.

Creatio Continua: Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

Evolution cannot be proved

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable (on the macro scale), and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

The validity of this statement is conditional upon the meaning assigned to "macro-evolution" and to "empirical". Even when historical evolution is inferred, it is still inferred on the basis of empirical evidence.

2. Macroevolution is not observable.

Macro-evolution can be and has been observed.

In the final analysis, it is true that neither creation nor evolution is provable. However creationISM has been falsified; evolution has not been falsified and there is much evidence for it, and creation we believe by faith whether or not we accept evolution.

Mallon · Mar 13, 2011

Hmmm... lots of misconceptions about science in the OP.

Firstly, nothing in science is "provable". There's no such thing as proof in science because science is only capable of disproving hypotheses. Thus, only disproof exists in science; proof does not. We accept an hypothesis only on the basis that it has not yet been disproved by the evidence (that is, it is supported by the evidence).

Research1 said:
Creation cannot be proved

1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "creation". If you mean magically poofing something into existence from nothing, then yes, I agree that creation is not possible to test because science does not have the ability to falsify magical scenarios. I guess I would question whether this is truly a biblical definition of creation, though.

2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

How do we know that creation is not taking place now? Are people not being born every day? Are we not each individually a creation of God? Are new species not evolving in nature?

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable (on the macro scale), and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

What do you mean by "macro scale"? Scientists define macroevolution as the process of speciation, which is indeed observable and has been observed in real time. If you mean evolution at even higher levels (Linnaean ranks), then you're right, we cannot observe that in real time (higher ranks are only recognizable in retrospect). That doesn't make the concept of macroevolution non-scientific, though. For something to be scientific, it must make falsifiable predictions, which macroevolutionary scenarios certainly do. For example, they make falsifiable predictions about the pattern and order of the fossil record, which can be observed.

mark kennedy · Mar 14, 2011

Research1 said:
Creation cannot be proved

1. It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe or replicate the creation process.

Origins is not suitable for empirical testing because its beyond the reach of scientific methodology. Not because God is involved but because it's an historical event and you don't empirically test past events. Evolution is in the same boat since there is not way of turning a prokaryote into an animalia or plantea cell empirically.

2. Creation is not taking place now; therefore it was accomplished sometime in the past, if at all, and thus cannot be observed or tested.

Everytime someone hears the Gospel, believes and is indwelled by the Holy Spirit a new man is created. No you don't empirically test it, it would be silly to try and blasphemous to suggest that means it didnt happen.

Evolution cannot be proved

Evolution is not 'proved', like the God it replaces it's an a priori self evident fact inferred from creation.

1. If evolution is taking place today, it operates too slowly to be measurable (on the macro scale), and therefore, is outside the realm of empirical science.

2. Macroevolution is not observable.

I find no basis for that word being used in evolutionary biology although it has become a popular clutch phrase. First the molecular mechanism required for an adaptive trait being expressed and then the scale it can operate on can be determined.

Evolutionists never do this, they just spout some random mutation plus natural selection rhetoric and that's all they need.

solarwave · Mar 14, 2011

Because you can't see something doesn't mean it is provable to some extent. Do you believe anything you read in history books?

shernren · Mar 14, 2011

My grandfathers died before I was born; therefore it is now impossible for me to verify that I ever had any grandfathers.

(Which isn't any big loss, apparently - after all, they weren't made in the image of God, were they, Research1? And neither am I for that matter. Must be a little disappointing that two-fifths of all humans today don't have souls.)

Mallon · Mar 14, 2011

shernren said:
My grandfathers died before I was born; therefore it is now impossible for me to verify that I ever had any grandfathers.

(Which isn't any big loss, apparently - after all, they weren't made in the image of God, were they, Research1? And neither am I for that matter. Must be a little disappointing that two-fifths of all humans today don't have souls.)

Careful. They're not human, either.

Mallon · Mar 14, 2011

Given the common YEC distaste for forensic evidence, I often wonder why they aren't banding together in front of their nation's prisons demanding the release of all those murderers and rapists who were convicted on the basis of forensic evidence. It's almost as though forensic evidence is permitted only insofar as it supports their preconvictions.

miamited · Mar 14, 2011

Hi R1,

I agree with your statements and I'm pretty sure that explains why God said, "My righteous ones shall live by faith."

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Happy Hearts Club · Mar 15, 2011

mark kennedy said:
Origins is not suitable for empirical testing because its beyond the reach of scientific methodology. Not because God is involved but because it's an historical event and you don't empirically test past events. Evolution is in the same boat since there is not way of turning a prokaryote into an animalia or plantea cell empirically.

Everytime someone hears the Gospel, believes and is indwelled by the Holy Spirit a new man is created. No you don't empirically test it, it would be silly to try and blasphemous to suggest that means it didnt happen.

Evolution is not 'proved', like the God it replaces it's an a priori self evident fact inferred from creation.

I find no basis for that word being used in evolutionary biology although it has become a popular clutch phrase. First the molecular mechanism required for an adaptive trait being expressed and then the scale it can operate on can be determined.

Evolutionists never do this, they just spout some random mutation plus natural selection rhetoric and that's all they need.

Solid.

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

So if the evidence used to infer the history of evolution is observable and the experiments are repeatable, how is that not science?

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

gluadys said:
Macro-evolution can be and has been observed.

Then you might want to inform the world's leading evolutionary biologists..

Jerry Coyne:

''Given the gradual pace of evolution, its unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one type of plant or animal into anotherso-called macroevolutionwithin a human lifetime''

Stephen Jay Gould:

evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observationon the scale of human history''

Richard Dawkins:

''Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening''

Evolutionists (Atheist evolutionists) might i add all admit macroevolution is not observable. Yet you claim it is...

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
Then you might want to inform the world's leading evolutionary biologists..

Jerry Coyne:

''Given the gradual pace of evolution, it’s unreasonable to expect to see selection transforming one “type” of plant or animal into another—so-called macroevolution—within a human lifetime''

Stephen Jay Gould:

‘‘… evolutionary change requires too much time for direct observationon the scale of human history''

Richard Dawkins:

''Evolution... hasn't been observed while it's happening''

Those are all quote mines that have been taken out of context and do not accurately reflect the thoughts of those who made them.

Evolutionists (Atheist evolutionists) might i add all admit macroevolution is not observable. Yet you claim it is...

You're conflating two things: macroevolution and the evidence for macroevolution. No, we cannot watch a dinosaur evolve into a bird in real time because it is an event that happened in the past. However, we can observe the evidence that attests to the relation of these two groups and we can perform experiments (e.g., cladistic analyses) to test the hypothesis and birds and dinos are related. So we have observability (of the evidence) and repeatability (of the experiments). That's science.

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

Mallon said:
No, we cannot watch a dinosaur evolve into a bird in real time because it is an event that happened in the past.

Hence macroevolution can never be proven. Its not empirical.

However, we can observe the evidence that attests to the relation of these two groups and we can perform experiments (e.g., cladistic analyses) to test the hypothesis and birds and dinos are related. So we have observability (of the evidence) and repeatability (of the experiments). That's science.

Nope, thats called interpretation. Others look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Only the evolutionists are ignorant though and equate their personal interpretation as fact, while all others wrong.

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
Hence macroevolution can never be proven. Its not empirical.

You evidently ignored my first reply to you where I carefully explained that there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Please go back and read it.

And yes, evolution is empirical: As I just explained, we infer its history via observation and experimentation of the evidence. That's what "empirical" means.

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

Mallon said:
You evidently ignored my first reply to you where I carefully explained that there is no such thing as "proof" in science. Please go back and read it.

And yes, evolution is empirical: As I just explained, we infer its history via observation and experimentation of the evidence. That's what "empirical" means.

No ''we'' don't. Evolutionists do, but not all scientists are evolutionists.

Evolution is just one interpretation/assumption/faith based worldview.

Most evolutionists are fundies who never explore or consider any other theory, nor do they even question ToE in the slightest.

YEC + ToE = both religious fundamentalism.

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
No ''we'' don't. Evolutionists do, but not all scientists are evolutionists.

Evolution is just one interpretation/assumption/faith based worldview.

Most evolutionists are fundies who never explore or consider any other theory, nor do they even question ToE in the slightest.

YEC + ToE = both religious fundamentalism.

So if I perform an experiment -- say, a cladistic analysis -- to infer a set of relationships between groups of organisms, how is that nothing more than a faith-based assumption?

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

Mallon said:
So if I perform an experiment -- say, a cladistic analysis -- to infer a set of relationships between groups of organisms, how is that nothing more than a faith-based assumption?

Because a creationist could do the same experiment and draw different results or conclusions.

Evolution is just an interpretation. Do you not understand?

Both creationism and evolution are identical, in the sense they are just two interpetations. Creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists can look at the same data both come to completely different conclusions.

Research1 · Mar 15, 2011

evolution would not be a mere interpretation if it was observable. But since it isn't, its not scientific/factual/empirical. it just remains an interpretation/assumption/faith etc.

Mallon · Mar 15, 2011

Research1 said:
Because a creationist could do the same experiment and draw different results or conclusions.

Evolution is just an interpretation. Do you not understand?

Right. Evolution is an interpretation of the evidence. So what? Show me a scientific experiment that doesn't involve interpretation of the evidence. I don't know why you think science doesn't involve interpretation.

Both creationism and evolution are identical, in the sense they are just two interpetations. Creationist scientists and evolutionary scientists can look at the same data both come to completely different conclusions.

The difference is that creationism involves a miraculous mechanism that cannot be tested empirically, whereas the mechanism of evolution (e.g., natural selection) can be tested empirically. That's why evolution is scientific and creationism is not. In science, you don't get to invoke miracles to support your position.

Both evolution and creationism never provable

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Legend

Senior Veteran

Natura non facit saltum

solarwave

Guest

you are not reading this.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Ted

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Senior Veteran

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Senior Veteran

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Senior Veteran

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Polygenist Old Earth Creationist

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency