Proof that evolution is wrong is not proof creationism is right

[azmurath]

Topic

 

[pbft87]

No, not necessarily. But I do believe that creationism is correct.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

No, not necessarily. But I do believe that creationism is correct.

That is fine as a belief, just don't pretend it carries any scientific weight.

The real question, however, was, do you understand that evidence against one proposition does not in its negation of the first proposition, provide evidence for another propsition?

 

[TheDag]

I agree providing proof that something is wrong is not proof that something else is right. As a christian though I fin it amusing when people get caught up in debates on different versions of creation. The bible says God created the world and in faith i believe that. How he did it and how he designed it is not important in my opinion which is why on another message board I was a good choice to mod the young earth vs old earth creation forum. People couldn't say I was biased because I held to neither view! I actually believe God creating everything and evolution can actually go together but i don't have an opinion on if that is the case or not.

 

[pbft87]

That is fine as a belief, just don't pretend it carries any scientific weight.

The real question, however, was, do you understand that evidence against one proposition does not in its negation of the first proposition, provide evidence for another propsition?

To me, it isn't about who is right or wrong. I believe in what the Bible says. I'm not out to prove the other one wrong by what I believe to be true. They have a right to their own opinion, as do I. As far as the Bible goes, which is what I believe in, having scientific weight. Honestly I don't care. I believe in what I believe. It has all the answers for me. I'm totally smitten with that.

 

[ThePenguinMafia]

There is no proof that evolution is wrong.

That's because it isn't.

 

[jwu]

I believe in what the Bible says.

That's fine - but there are plenty of different interpretations.

 

[Beastt]

I agree providing proof that something is wrong is not proof that something else is right. As a christian though I fin it amusing when people get caught up in debates on different versions of creation. The bible says God created the world and in faith i believe that. How he did it and how he designed it is not important in my opinion which is why on another message board I was a good choice to mod the young earth vs old earth creation forum. People couldn't say I was biased because I held to neither view! I actually believe God creating everything and evolution can actually go together but i don't have an opinion on if that is the case or not.

But the Bible does offer some detail about the order of creation and in that order we find exposed the fallacy of the claim. Therefore, it is important. It is just as important as the details in a suspect's alibi. If the alibi if filled with impossibilities and inconsistencies, then it is likely a fabrication. The same goes with any account of a series of events, which is counter to the necessary order. And the account of creation given in the Bible violates the necessary order on several counts. It simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible claims. The details are very important. To discard them is to overlook what the book actually tells you.

 

[Beastt]

No, not necessarily. But I do believe that creationism is correct.

Why?

 

[tocis]

Indeed, (supposed) proof against the one isn't proof supporting the other by far. And if (many) creationists would finally get that, they might actually gain at least some credibility... or at least respect.

 

[Pats]

The real question, however, was, do you understand that evidence against one proposition does not in its negation of the first proposition, provide evidence for another propsition?

This is basic logic. For Star Trek fans, this would be taught in Kindergarten to Vulcans.

But the Bible does offer some detail about the order of creation and in that order we find exposed the fallacy of the claim. Therefore, it is important. It is just as important as the details in a suspect's alibi. If the alibi if filled with impossibilities and inconsistencies, then it is likely a fabrication. The same goes with any account of a series of events, which is counter to the necessary order. And the account of creation given in the Bible violates the necessary order on several counts. It simply couldn't have happened the way the Bible claims. The details are very important. To discard them is to overlook what the book actually tells you.

That depends how you are interpreting it. If some one's position is that the passage(s) you're refering to are literal, then you may have a point.

However, it would seem that the teachings of the original interpretation for this passage contradict your logic here. The "order" is symbolic, and it was a refutation against some of the pagan creation myths of the time in wich it was written. It was written as a testimony that the God spoken of in the Torah was the ultimate enginere of creation.

I am fuzzy on the details though, and outta time. I'll bbl.

 

[DrunkenWrestler]

The real question, however, was, do you understand that evidence against one proposition does not in its negation of the first proposition, provide evidence for another propsition?

It depends on what the proposition is. In cases where the two options are actually the only two options, negating one does confirm the other.

Either my cat is dead or my cat is alive.
It is not the case that my cat is alive.
Therefore my cat is dead.

Since creationism has been falsified, my theory that aliens created the universe is naturally selected by process of elimination.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

It depends on what the proposition is. In cases where the two options are actually the only two options, negating one does confirm the other.

Either my cat is dead or my cat is alive.
It is not the case that my cat is alive.
Therefore my cat is dead.

Since creationism has been falsified, my theory that aliens created the universe is naturally selected by process of elimination.

Your example is only one proposition, which is why I said another proposition. Even if I can't type. And OK , I should have said second.

And then there is Schroedingers cat which is the exception to even your example, but you knew that.

I'll buy you a beer anyhow, it has been a while since I have contributed to the delinquency of a 2 year old.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

This is basic logic. For Star Trek fans, this would be taught in Kindergarten to Vulcans.

In my experience it is even taught to American humans in the early High School years but the lesson is often not learned.

 

[SinfulMessiah]

If theory 'A' leads you to doubt then theory 'B' is not then correct by default.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

If theory 'A' leads you to doubt then theory 'B' is not then correct by default.

Not according to any self consitant logic that I am familiar with, do you have an example?

 

[Beastt]

That depends how you are interpreting it. If some one's position is that the passage(s) you're refering to are literal, then you may have a point.

A very common claim and not surprisingly so. When one reads the Bible literally, (as in; reading what it actually says), it becomes almost impossible for anyone to believe. So instead, they interpret the Bible, (as in; read other than what it says), and then suggest that anyone who reads what it actually says is "interpreting it literally". This is simply wrong. If you read what it says, you're not interpreting. If you read what it doesn't say, then you are interpreting.

However, it would seem that the teachings of the original interpretation for this passage contradict your logic here. The "order" is symbolic, and it was a refutation against some of the pagan creation myths of the time in wich it was written. It was written as a testimony that the God spoken of in the Torah was the ultimate enginere of creation.

Again, a popular Christian belief but somewhat lacking in factuality when assessed against the evidence left behind by ancient illustrations by those using the original Hebrew, who spoke Hebrew as their native language. When one looks at their perception of the universe, based on Genesis, it becomes fairly obvious that Christians color what they read in Genesis quite heavily with what science has already demonstrated to be true. Without the knowledge of science, the depiction portrayed in Genesis becomes very distinctly flawed.

As for the plea that the chronology isn't important, this attempts to completely ignore the fact that the entire story is based fully upon its chronology. The whole account of creation is set against a period of "days", with each segement of creation set along a choreographed timeline. Unless one is simply so desirous to believe that any excuse is rapidly accepted, there is little reason to believe the claim of unimportance to the chronology.

I am fuzzy on the details though, and outta time. I'll bbl.

Here are a few of the details. Genesis 1:2 talks about the Earth being formed with water. It's a subtle reference and could be referring to something other that water, but the word used is "water". If one wishes to twist the word "water" into something else, they should first take note of the fact that Earth is set apart from the very few other planets we've analyzed by the presence of significant quanities of liquid water and that no form of life encountered so far can exist without it. It would seem to be rather important. Yet there is not other reference to the creation or addtion to water on Earth and by Genesis 1:6, God is said to be creating a "firmament" to separate the waters from the waters. Then in Genesis 1:9, the dry land emerges indicating that prior to this point, there wasn't any dry land. Hence, the claim that the Earth was covered in water. But one of the key elements any planet must have before it is able to effectively capture and retain water is an atmosphere. And the Genesis account doesn't provide Earth with an atmosphere until Genesis 1:6-7.

Fast forward to Genesis 1:11 where we see the Earth bringing forth grasses, herbs and trees bearing fruit. This might seem fine unless one is to note that there isn't yet a sun or a moon. And without a sun, the Earth is without a source of heat, meaning that these plants are growing in relative darkness and in a temperature roughly equivalent to that of space, (approx. 2.73°K), which is about -454°F -- very near absolute zero. My plants tend to freeze and die at around 32°F.

Not until Genesis 1:14-15 do we see the sun created and then it isn't created in space. It's created, along with the moon within Earth's atmosphere. This is in compliance with ancient beliefs which held that there was a barrier along the arc of the sky which held a large reservoir of water from falling to Earth, save the small drops which fell through holes or windows in the barrier. Above the upper reservoir was the physical location of Heaven, again, according to the account provided in Genesis as read by those unfamiliar with more contemporary scientific knowledge.

Christians look at this planet covered in liquid water despite the cryogenic temperatures and despite the lack of an atmosphere and shrug that off as an "unimportant detail". Then they look at green plants growing in sub-freezing temperatures without an significant source of light and hand-wave this as another "unimportant detail". Then they look at a star with a mass 332,950 times that of the Earth as the creation account places it within the vapor thin covering of Earth's atmosphere, (were the Earth a marble, the atmosphere would be roughly the thickness of a mild layer of condensation), and declare another meaningless "unimportant detail".

Why would anyone look at a text claiming to be inspired by the creator of Earth, plants, stars, moons, water and even thermal energy itself and see these "details" as unimportant? I think the answer is rather obvious. Only by doing so can they maintain a belief in an eternal life in paradise. To them it seems a small price to pay. But believing a book of demonstrable fallacies won't buy anything outside of reality, and reality exposes the Bible as little more than the superstitions and cultural tales of an ancient and relatively ignorant people.

God would have no reason to lie. If the details of creation are unimportant, then there is no reason to make up false details. But if one were to write a book and want others to believe they were inspired by a supreme creator, they might be compelled to include details from their imagination in an attempt to appear to know what no man could have known at that time.

How far does one have to look to find this collection of demonstrably false claims? In my KJV, this doesn't even take us to page 2.

Certainly the points here go well outside of the theory of evolution; delving into planetary creation, the water cycle and many other fields of science but obviously, (to objective thought), even if Evolution were to be utterly disproved, there is no salvaging the Bible's creation account. It really doesn't even make a decent fairytale.

 

[h2whoa]

So instead, they interpret the Bible, (as in; read other than what it says), and then suggest that anyone who reads what it actually says is "interpreting it literally". This is simply wrong. If you read what it says, you're not interpreting. If you read what it doesn't say, then you are interpreting.

It's an interesting point actually, and I can't decide where I lie on this.

Personally I still think that it is still an interpretation if you decide to take it literally. The reason I argue this is that what you're essentially doing is still deciding on the content and meaning of what is not written. However, in a literalist's view, there is no content or meaning "between the lines". But that is still, in my opinion, an interpretation.

Good point though, I'm genuinely going to be churning that one over for a bit.

 

[tocis]

Not according to any self consitant logic that I am familiar with, do you have an example?

You're kidding, aren't you? Or maybe you overlooked a "not" there?

In case you didn't, here's an example...

A is a number somewhere between 1 and 100. I know that A is not 13. Does this mean that A is therefore 37 (my neighbor claims that it is)?

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

You're kidding, aren't you? Or maybe you overlooked a "not" there?

In case you didn't, here's an example...

A is a number somewhere between 1 and 100. I know that A is not 13. Does this mean that A is therefore 37 (my neighbor claims that it is)?

I think we actually agree, and what was missing was not a negation but an interogative.

I was responsding to Sinful Messiahs post which said:

If theory 'A' leads you to doubt then theory 'B' is not then correct by default.

I was also confused by it and read it as you read my post. I answered in the tentative negative. i.e. as I did in my original post which was:

The real question, however, was, do you understand that evidence against one proposition does not in its negation of the first proposition, provide evidence for another propsition?

If Sinful Messiahs post had ended with a question mark instead of a period (punkt) I would not have responded as I did.

In hindsight, Sinfuls post was sarcastic, and we were in agreement. This is the danger of language and why it is important to be sure you are communicating.

At any rate, to use an American euphemism, given two disjoint , propositions, one being false does not affect the others truth value.

And while we are on this lexicographical sidenote, would an internet translation site be a seit or an ort? My ancient German would have translated it as the latter but I suspect it is just a case of the hegemony of English.

Final note, your English is' in fact' better than the average American's, something I have grown accustomed to in my dealings with native German speakers including the many I have worked with.