The science of creationism: where is it?

[juvenissun]

No, THAT is nonsense! Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life on this planet - NOT it's origins.

Fine. Evolution does not want the hot potato, it is OK.

But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Fine. Evolution does not want the hot potato, it is OK.

But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.

Nonsense.
Lamarckian heredity, theres an alternative right there. And when you say "creation", do you include Hindu, Norse, Budhist, Native American or Australian Aboriginal origin myths, or just the Judeo Christian version?

 

[Alunyel]

Fine. Evolution does not want the hot potato, it is OK.

But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.

Read the Origin of Species, the first published paper on the subject, and tell me where abouts it says how life was started.

You won't find it. It's not in there. Evolution deals with how life became varied after it began.

Note, the "Origin of SPECIES.", not the "Origin of LIFE.

How can you possibly refute something you don't even understand?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Read the Origin of Species, the first published paper on the subject, and tell me where abouts it says how life was started.

You won't find it. It's not in there. Evolution deals with how life became varied after it began.

Note, the "Origin of SPECIES.", not the "Origin of LIFE.

How can you possibly refute something you don't even understand?

More importantly... why would you want to?

 

[AV1611VET]

Read the Origin of Species, the first published paper on the subject, and tell me where abouts it says how life was started.

The way [universal] life started, and the order it was started in, is totally incompatible with evolution.

It's interesting that the very subject Darwin's The Preservation of Favoured Races can't cover --- pwns it.

 

[Hespera]

I think it is a reasonable statement that juv made, that if he disproved evolution he'd have proved creation.

Of course there is that "IF" in there.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I think it is a reasonable statement that juv made, that if he disproved evolution he'd have proved creation.

Of course there is that "IF" in there.

I respectfully disagree.

I realise the following comic is refering to Pascal's overall wager, but it addresses the same false dichotomy nonetheless...
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2008/teapot.jpg language warning

 

[Hespera]

I respectfully disagree.

I realise the following comic is refering to Pascal's overall wager, but it addresses the same false dichotomy nonetheless...
http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2008/teapot.jpg language warning

Well, you may be right.. still, if someone DID prove evolutuion was wrong,
that the earth was only 6000 yrs old... I think I would be heading for church.

Course, IF wishes was fishes we'd all eat pie.

 

[anagnostic]

Historians are limited by what they can know, and the limits of science. The only reason it can not be proven by science of present man, is because our knowledge, and abilities, and range, and science, can only go so far. Why pretend otherwise?

I agree entirely.

Science is not able, or equipped to speak of Adam. That does not mean He never was, or that he was. It simply means science can't go there. If you think it can, let's see you do it!

Of course I can't - who can?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, you may be right.. still, if someone DID prove evolutuion was wrong,
that the earth was only 6000 yrs old... I think I would be heading for church.

Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

 

[Richard Rahl]

Historians are limited by what they can know, and the limits of science. The only reason it can not be proven by science of present man, is because our knowledge, and abilities, and range, and science, can only go so far. Why pretend otherwise? Science is not able, or equipped to speak of Adam. That does not mean He never was, or that he was. It simply means science can't go there. If you think it can, let's see you do it!

You are so so right dad, I have been asking them to find the Jolly Green Giant for years and years and guess what?
they can't find him, I say what's the good of science if it can't even find a green giant? how hard can that be?
and I know for a fact that he exists because my mother told me so.

 

[Isambard]

Fine. Evolution does not want the hot potato, it is OK.

But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.

You've been given alternatives, several times. You're dishonesty is showing.

 

[ragarth]

Well, you may be right.. still, if someone DID prove evolutuion was wrong,
that the earth was only 6000 yrs old... I think I would be heading for church.

Course, IF wishes was fishes we'd all eat pie.

But that wouldn't be proving creationism via negative argumentation, since one of the underpinnings of creationism is a young earth and proving the earth is 6000 years is different from proving the earth is not billions.

"Evolution relies on the assumption x while creationism relies upon the assumption y. The two assumptions are diametrically opposed to each other, therefore proving one right disproves the other. Therefore proving y right (positive argumentation) proves x wrong."

Let's break this down into it's basic logic:

If X then not Y.
If Y then not X.

In this case, If we prove X is true then Y is not true, and if we prove Y is true then X is not true. However, and this is the crux of it: If X is proven NOT true, this does not mean Y is true, and if Y is proven NOT true, then X is not necessarily true. So, if we prove the earth is not over 4 billion years old, this does not mean it's 6000 years old (it could be 600,000 or 6 million or 6 years old), and if we prove that the earth is not 6000 years old, this does not mean it's over 4 billion (same is true, it could be 6, 60, 6000, 6 million, 6 quintillion years old).

Does that explain it?


The problem with this whole "If X is wrong then Y is true" philosophy is that it completely discounts the potential of the unknown. We cannot know everything, therefore we cannot know if there are more than two possibilities. If there are potential unknown possibilities then negative argumentation cannot make effective claims since they can only negate possibilities rather than support possibilities whereas positive argumentation will make effective claims by advancing the likelihood of possibilities over others. Given this, negative argumentation will never build a theory to be more likely than the unkown, only make them less likely than the unkonwn while positive argumentation will never make a theory less likely than the unknown but will make them more likely than the unknown. In this way we can say that yes, evolution may be wrong, creationism may be right, but <place holder for infinite number of unthought of hypothesis> may be right as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are so so right dad, I have been asking them to find the Jolly Green Giant for years and years and guess what?
they can't find him, I say what's the good of science if it can't even find a green giant? how hard can that be?
and I know for a fact that he exists because my mother told me so.

Just out of curiosity, why do you compare things in the Bible to the 'Jolly Green Giant'?

You must have a college degree.

 

[Hespera]

Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

What ever gave you that idea?

 

[Hespera]

But that wouldn't be proving creationism via negative argumentation, since one of the underpinnings of creationism is a young earth and proving the earth is 6000 years is different from proving the earth is not billions.

"Evolution relies on the assumption x while creationism relies upon the assumption y. The two assumptions are diametrically opposed to each other, therefore proving one right disproves the other. Therefore proving y right (positive argumentation) proves x wrong."

Let's break this down into it's basic logic:

If X then not Y.
If Y then not X.

In this case, If we prove X is true then Y is not true, and if we prove Y is true then X is not true. However, and this is the crux of it: If X is proven NOT true, this does not mean Y is true, and if Y is proven NOT true, then X is not necessarily true. So, if we prove the earth is not over 4 billion years old, this does not mean it's 6000 years old (it could be 600,000 or 6 million or 6 years old), and if we prove that the earth is not 6000 years old, this does not mean it's over 4 billion (same is true, it could be 6, 60, 6000, 6 million, 6 quintillion years old).

Does that explain it?


The problem with this whole "If X is wrong then Y is true" philosophy is that it completely discounts the potential of the unknown. We cannot know everything, therefore we cannot know if there are more than two possibilities. If there are potential unknown possibilities then negative argumentation cannot make effective claims since they can only negate possibilities rather than support possibilities whereas positive argumentation will make effective claims by advancing the likelihood of possibilities over others. Given this, negative argumentation will never build a theory to be more likely than the unkown, only make them less likely than the unkonwn while positive argumentation will never make a theory less likely than the unknown but will make them more likely than the unknown. In this way we can say that yes, evolution may be wrong, creationism may be right, but <place holder for infinite number of unthought of hypothesis> may be right as well.

Thanks for taking your time to write all of that. I hadnt really thought of it that way. Just went with kind of a gut reaction. But its hypothetical anyway, despite all the claims of an easy "pwn', evolution aint about to be disproven.

 

[AV1611VET]

What ever gave you that idea?

Assuming you're being serious here --- evolution is the philosophy that deals with life after it gets started.

 

[Hespera]

Assuming you're being serious here --- evolution is the philosophy that deals with life after it gets started.

And so?

 

[ragarth]

removed. The statement that was here should be pretty clear to anyone without it being said.

 

[Split Rock]

One can argue that evolution represents creation of species by natural mechanisms. This is in fact an argument that AVET has made a number of times here. In other words, we all believe in creation.

So you are insiting on a false dichotomy of
A. Creation of species by evolution
B. Creation of species by any way other than evolution.

Then you insist that if A. is disproven then alternative B is proven. But alternative B does not represent a method of creation, but many alternative methods of creation.

Nonsense. Evolution theory has to include the origin of life. That is part of the evolution.

1. Show me which part of the theory of evolution deals with the origin of the first life on earth.

2. You ignored my point that you are offering a choice between creation by evolution vs. creation by any other means (regardless if you are referring to life or species).

But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.

1. How disengenuous. Your "second option" is everything other than evolution. By definition, there can be no "third option."

2. Go ahead and disprove evolution.