What proof would you need? (2)

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

CabVet said:
No, proving that humans are closer to orangutans instead of chimps does not falsify evolution. Proving that Turkana Boy was not a human ancestor does not falsify evolution. Proving that Lucy was not part of the human lineage does not falsify evolution.

And finally, falsifying evolution does not offer one ounce of support for creationism.

This is the point that needs to be driven home. The pattern of the dialogue needs to revolve around this point.

In fact, as a thought experiment, we should just give it to them....

For the sake of argument, evolution is a myth.. Okay.

Now what?

Do you feel more secure? Or now that we've removed the distraction, is there anything that can comfort your vulnerability now that you have to examine your own position?

This whole "disproving evolution" is a vice that creationists use so they can detach themselves from the inadequacies in their own explanation for how life came to be on the planet.

We need to be talking more about creationism and less about evolution, here.

Zaius137 · Feb 3, 2012

Now what?

Do you feel more secure? Or now that we've removed the distraction, is there anything that can comfort your vulnerability now that you have to examine your own position?

This whole "disproving evolution" is a vice that creationists use so they can detach themselves from the inadequacies in their own explanation for how life came to be on the planet.

We need to be talking more about creationism and less about evolution, here.

Great except for the fact that evo’s claim the high ground in science. I believe this is not the case; new scientific discoveries are very friendly to the creation account and very unfriendly to evolution itself. You would put creationists on the perpetual defense and leave evolution untouchable. Since evolution is diametrically opposed to creation our case also rests with the discrediting of evolution by the science. By definition a hypothesis or theory can only be disproved and not proved. You would place the creationist in a position that he can never win…

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Great except for the fact that evos claim the high ground in science. I believe this is not the case; new scientific discoveries are very friendly to the creation account and very unfriendly to evolution itself.

How so?

You would put creationists on the perpetual defense and leave evolution untouchable.

I'd have to agree with you here.

Since evolution is diametrically opposed to creation our case also rests with the discrediting of evolution by the science.

No, evolution is not "diametrically opposed" to creation. And disproving one does not prove the other. I went through this with Astrid.

Say you've got some body of evidence in science, let's call it 'Γ' and you decide that regardless of what is actually in Γ that B implies that A isn't in there, because you know that B is in there and you don't know or care about whether A is or isn't in there. So because of your decision that B implies that A isn't in there, you assume that A isn't actually in Γ. If you find out later that A actually is in Γ this means that your assumption that B means there is no A is a false assumption, it tells us no new information about B it doesn't even mean we need to remove B from our body of evidence, just that our assumption was wrong.

By definition a hypothesis or theory can only be disproved and not proved. You would place the creationist in a position that he can never win

Doesn't that tell you something about your position though?

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
You would place the creationist in a position that he can never win

Why not?

If you have all this "evidence" for creationism, why the need to focus on creating doubt of evolution?

Why can't you win the case for creationism, simply by examining it instead?

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

progmonk said:
Doesn't that tell you something about your position though?

I guess his response means that, No, it doesn't make him feel more secure in his own belief if evolution were debunked.

Zaius137 · Feb 3, 2012

progmonk said:
How so?

I'd have to agree with you here.

No, evolution is not "diametrically opposed" to creation. And disproving one does not prove the other. I went through this with Astrid.

Say you've got some body of evidence in science, let's call it 'Γ' and you decide that regardless of what is actually in Γ that B implies that A isn't in there, because you know that B is in there and you don't know or care about whether A is or isn't in there. So because of your decision that B implies that A isn't in there, you assume that A isn't actually in Γ. If you find out later that A actually is in Γ this means that your assumption that B means there is no A is a false assumption, it tells us no new information about B it doesn't even mean we need to remove B from our body of evidence, just that our assumption was wrong.

Doesn't that tell you something about your position though?

What!!!
You have got to dreamingGenesis 1vs 2
God made man from the dust. How much more diametrically opposed can you get. Did you even read the Bible?

Sorry no comment on the last part of the post just seemed like a hand waive.

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

Cumulatively, evolution describes the transformation of Man from the smallest living organisms that were born out of the elements.

It reconciles beautifully with the Genesis account, when we don't take the Genesis account strictly literal.

This is the hang up for many creationists. They cannot adequately explain the method by which they came to conclude that the bible is a strictly literal book. The consequence is that they miss many beautiful and simple instances where the bible makes sense in light of our modern scientific understanding.

Zaius137 · Feb 3, 2012

Doesn't that tell you something about your position though?

No it only tells me you are ignorant of not being able to prove a theory… look it up if you want to answer intelligently.

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

So are you admitting that you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence for evolution?

What a great position for you. You don't have to move the goalposts because they are never attainable.

And this is why there is no reason to waste another second on defending evolution, since on a technicality, no amount of evidence is enough to satisfy the burden of proof.

Let's not bother anymore.

Instead, let's focus on what justification creationists have for keeping a strict literal interpretation, even when the bible says that plants were created before the sun.

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
Doesn't that tell you something about your position though?

No it only tells me you are ignorant of not being able to prove a theory look it up if you want to answer intelligently.

Again science doesn't deal in proofs that is squarely something that Mathematics deals with.

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Huram Abi said:
So are you admitting that you will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence for evolution?

What a great position for you. You don't have to move the goalposts because they are never attainable.

And this is why there is no reason to waste another second on defending evolution, since on a technicality, no amount of evidence is enough to satisfy the burden of proof.

Let's not bother anymore.

Instead, let's focus on what justification creationists have for keeping a strict literal interpretation, even when the bible says that plants were created before the sun.

Or even why they keep a strict literal interpretation when the one time Jesus makes a reference to Genesis 1 he makes it in such a way that it can't be taken literally...

Or even many of the references in the Bible to a flat earth...

Or that the sun goes round the earth...

Or that Paul teaches that women can and can't do certain things...

Huram Abi · Feb 3, 2012

Any one of those will do.

In light of any one, literal creationism isn't just unprovable, it is completely debunked.

Zaius137 · Feb 3, 2012

Huram Abi said:
Cumulatively, evolution describes the transformation of Man from the smallest living organisms that were born out of the elements.

It reconciles beautifully with the Genesis account, when we don't take the Genesis account strictly literal.

This is the hang up for many creationists. They cannot adequately explain the method by which they came to conclude that the bible is a strictly literal book. The consequence is that they miss many beautiful and simple instances where the bible makes sense in light of our modern scientific understanding.

OK then what other books in the bible can be ignored as not being Strictly Literal?

The account in genesis was passed on to Abraham from eye witness accounts of the flood from the survivors of the ark (probably Noah who was still alive at time of Abraham) (flood 1600 years since creation from Adam to Seth, Enos to Noah). Why would you not take it literally?

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2012

Huram Abi said:
Instead, let's focus on what justification creationists have for keeping a strict literal interpretation,

Good idea.

The allegorical method prevents the Bible from being Its own interpreter and allows the mind of the reader to be the primary authority.

In addition, the allegorical method allows heresies to creep in that would be otherwise filtered out by the literal method.

And speaking of the literal method, Jesus interpreted the Scriptures literally.

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
What!!!
You have got to dreamingGenesis 1vs 2
God made man from the dust. How much more diametrically opposed can you get. Did you even read the Bible?

It's different sure but not diametrically opposed. Aren't we all made up of the same building blocks as the rest of creation? As dad suggested when I asked him this same question "You're made of stars?"

Sorry no comment on the last part of the post just seemed like a hand waive.

You must mean the logical proof of how science works. If you understand natural deduction and logic this might be a little more helpful:

(1) Γ (Given)
(2) B -> !A (Assumption)
(1) B (B is in &#915
(1,2) !A (-> Elimination on 2 given B)
(1) A (A is in &#915
(1,2) A & !A (& Introduction on !A and A)
() Contradiction

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
OK then what other books in the bible can be ignored as not being Strictly Literal?

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs? I mean seriously did that woman have two baby deer as breasts?

AV1611VET · Feb 3, 2012

progmonk said:
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs? I mean seriously did that woman have two baby deer as breasts?

Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are known books of Hebrew poetry.

Zaius137 · Feb 3, 2012

Huram Abi said:
Any one of those will do.

In light of any one, literal creationism isn't just unprovable, it is completely debunked.

An unscientific opinion on your part.

Literal evolution is not provable and it defies the empirical evidence.

Mine is scientific

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

Zaius137 said:
An unscientific opinion on your part.

Literal evolution is not provable and it defies the empirical evidence.

Mine is scientific

I think you need to do some research before you make claims such as that

Here I'll help you get started

Keachian · Feb 3, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon are known books of Hebrew poetry.

Ah, so poetry is nonliteral

Biblical Hebrew Poetry

What proof would you need? (2)

Huram Abi

Guest

Real science and faith are compatible.

On Sabbatical

Huram Abi

Guest

Huram Abi

Guest

Real science and faith are compatible.

Huram Abi

Guest

Real science and faith are compatible.

Huram Abi

Guest

On Sabbatical

On Sabbatical

Huram Abi

Guest

Real science and faith are compatible.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

On Sabbatical

On Sabbatical

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Real science and faith are compatible.

On Sabbatical

On Sabbatical

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency