Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That’s news to me lol.So a lot of creationists have an incredibly active fantasy life around Mr Darwin.
Some think he is even still alive.
"It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support their ideas... but they are never able present it."
Wait...don't you say that anti-Creationists such as yourself have "evidence to support" your anti-Creationism?
Creationists affirm the proposition that God created man, whereas anti-Creationists affirm the proposition that God did not create man, no? Now, this pair of propositions—
P: God created man
~P: God did not create man
—is a pair of contradictories, which means that one of them must be true and one of them must be false. Do not anti-Creationists (such as Darwinists) say they have "evidence to support" the proposition they like, namely ~P? And do not anti-Creationists affirm that ~P is true, and that P is false?
So, the question is: Since you, being an anti-Creationist, claim that ~P is true, and claim that you have what you call "evidence to support" ~P, why, then, would you go around complaining that Creationists "are never able to present" anything you would be willing to call "evidence to support" P?
Here's what you're saying: "It would be fascinating if Creationists had scientific evidence to support [a proposition I, being an anti-Creationist, consider to be false]... but they are never able present it."
Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?
You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.
Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.
Evolution is a science, not an "ism". It is not a philosophy or a religion. Evolution follows the scientific methods. It is not based on the founding ideas of one person or one book. People who study evolution professionally are evolutionary biologists (and sometimes call themselves "evolutionists", but they don't practice "evolutionism"). People who accept evolution as the best available theory of the origin of species don't have a group name. (And it is definitely not "Darwinists".)
I'm sorry; were you addressing another post that you mistook for mine?
"Evolution is a science, not an "ism"."
That's just the sort of thing Darwinists/evolutionists/evolutionism hucksters like to say.
People who want to not be considered Darwinists should stop advertising that their thinking is Darwinist thinking.
You can call just about anything "peanut butter" -- but that doesn't make it so.
Unless, of course, words like "science" have meanings that you might or might not know or care about -- and ignoring this fact in favor of pointless word games are characteristic of the Creationist side of the discussion.
Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario."
"God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition, but "humans appeared in their modern form and did not evolved from common ancestors with other animals" is a statement that has considerable evidence available.
I'm an atheist because I think the evidence for deities in particular and supernatural in general is insufficient, but I can't prove their negation, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
However, I accept evolution and could be labelled an anti-Creationist because there is abundant evidence from multiple fields of science to demonstrate evolution.
You wrote: "Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario.""
Except the proposition I wrote ('God created man') is the proposition I meant, rather than something I did not write/mean, which you for some reason wish I had written/meant.
You wrote: ""God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition"
Except you mean that the proposition, 'God created man,' is false. There you see how easy it is for me to play your own game against you.
I had asked you: "Can evidence support propositions that are false? Yes or No?"
You: <NO ANSWER>
Except your proposition is not "P: God created man" your proposition is "P: God created man in a specific scenario."
"God created man" is an unfalsifiable proposition, but "humans appeared in their modern form and did not evolved from common ancestors with other animals" is a statement that has considerable evidence available.
I'm an atheist because I think the evidence for deities in particular and supernatural in general is insufficient, but I can't prove their negation, so I'm an agnostic atheist.
However, I accept evolution and could be labelled an anti-Creationist because there is abundant evidence from multiple fields of science to demonstrate evolution.
Ah, then you were being blatantly dishonest.
You entered a discussion about evolution vs Creationism, then created a proposition that was not directly relevant to that discussion. IE Theism vs Atheism.
Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth.
The alternative method of discovering the truth appears to be personal emotional reaction and religious conviction. Methods that can clearly be demonstrated to be unreliable.
When I said "God created man" is unfalsifiable, I meant that it was unfalsifiable.
As I said, I happen to think it is false, but can't demonstrate it.
I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true. You appear to consider that mutually exclusive with your statement, and so either your position is false, or you misphrased your position.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you had misphrased your statement.
Ah, then you were being blatantly dishonest.
Evolution is a process that happens on the scale of entire populations over the course of generations.You wrote: "evolved from common ancestors with other animals"
Could you please tell us exactly what, according to you, it would be for something to "evolve from" something/for something to "evolve into" something? I've asked Darwinists what it would be for an individual fish to "evolve into" an individual man, and all I ever get from them is a reaction along the lines of "You just don't understand how evolution works! Individual animals don't evolve!" Of course, every animal is an individual—an individual animal—so, to say "Individual animals don't evolve" is to say "Animals don't evolve." And of course, that's fundamentally, insurmountably problematic for Darwinists, since they go around saying things like "Dinosaurs [animals] evolved into birds [animals]!" Out of the one side of their mouth, Darwinists say animals "evolve," whereas, out of the other side, they say animals "don't evolve". Not a brilliant ploy, Darwinists.
I hear that all the time, but no one gives me his name.With humans and chimps both coming from a common ape ancestor ...
You wrote: "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false. However, the preponderance of evidence is a particularly reliable method of discovering the truth."
LOL
IOW, your doctrine of the nature of evidence is, at best, entirely worthless.
What (if any) difference would you say there is between what you would call "evidence" and what you would call "the preponderance of evidence"?
Give us an example of something you would call "a proposition that is false," and then give us an example of something you would call "evidence to support" it. Describe for us exactly what it would be for your "proposition that is false" to be "supported" by "evidence". Give us an example of something you would call "evidence that supports" the false propostion, 'The Grand Canyon is in Rhode Island'. Have fun trying to instantiate your asinine, false claim that "Evidence CAN be found to support propositions that are false."
You wrote: "I however, DO think evolution IS demonstrable and true."
Oh? Then, by all means, right here, right now, just do for us whatever it is you would call "demonstrating evolution". Or, can you only "demonstrate evolution" to evolutionists?
Well Linnaeus classified them as primates, but I don't believe he ever implied he believed in common ancestry.I hear that all the time, but no one gives me his name.
Level with me.
Was it Charles Darwin? Carlos Linnaeus? who?
many do not. In this forum, "Creationist" especially when capitalized, refers specifically to biblical or young Earth creationists. So an 'anti-Creationist woulld be a person who rejects biblical or young Earth creationism. Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.And do not anti-Creationists affirm that ~P is true, and that P is false?
Especially in this context when it was framed as an opposition to evolution.many do not. In this forum, "Creationist" especially when capitalized, refers specifically to biblical or young Earth creationists. So an 'anti-Creationist woulld be a person who rejects biblical or young Earth creationism. Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.
Well, for the record, any child in our Sunday school classes can give you his name.Well Linnaeus classified them as primates, but I don't believe he ever implied he believed in common ancestry.
Charles Darwin clearly did accept that humans and chimps had a common ancestor and wrote about it in his later books, but I'm not aware he was the first to publish on this fact.
Such as Episcopalians?Consequently, anti-Creationism includes many Christians and other theists in addition to atheists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?