Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[Loudmouth]

Your "logic" (so-called) disturbs me. It seems that you want to empower anyone in this forum to simply open his or her mouth and make a statement true and unquestionable simply by classifying it as a "definition."

It is simply defining the epistemology. It is up to you whether you use it. For most sane people, they accept the epistemology of the scientific method as reliable.

Again, this is a science forum where creationists try to argue that their claims are scientific. It is already assumed in these threads that science works.

Real

definitions are contained in dictionaries. The dictionary defines a fact as "a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true."

That means that if a Christian sees God in a dream, I see a UFO, or Bubba over there sees a unicorn, then all of these are facts regardless whether they can be verified.

"Actual experience or observation" means that it is verifiable.

"A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

 

[AV1611VET]

Again, this is a science forum where creationists try to argue that their claims are scientific.

Can one argue that their claims are not scientific in a science thread?

After all, isn't knowing what isn't scientific just as important as knowing what is?

 

[Zosimus]

There is a massive distinction between defining a term as having certain properties, and claiming that certain properties apply to things in the real world. The former cannot be wrong; the latter can. And yes, I got analytic and synthetic backwards; my mistake. The respective labels are a wee bit counterintuitive.

Again, this simply does not follow. You cannot say that "Facts are demonstrable" is not true; it is a definition. We are adding "demonstrable" to the defined qualities of a fact. It can no more be false than any other definition can be false. The statement of definition is not a "fact", it is a definition. You keep making these same simple logical mistakes.

Reverse the terms in my previous post; in my haste, I assumed that synthetic statements were ones that were entirely independent of reality and analytic statements were ones where you had to analyze reality. Etymology is not my strong suit at times.

I think that you have an overinflated idea of the power of a definition. Imagine, for example, that we define insects as a group of living or formerly living creatures that have certain characteristics including six legs.

Does that mean that if I pull a leg off of an ant that it ceases to be an insect?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can one argue that their claims are not scientific in a science thread?

We do it all of the time.

After all, isn't knowing what isn't scientific just as important as knowing what is?

It is if we are trying to do science. Usually, people don't find much use for empty assertions about supernatural magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

We do it all of the time.

Good.

I say creationism is not science.

What say you?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think that you have an overinflated idea of the power of a definition.

You are projecting again.

We are just defining our epistemology. You are free to reject the scientific method if you feel it isn't useful.

If someone wants to use an epistemology where anything becomes true by simply uttering it, then they are free to do so.

Imagine, for example, that we define insects as a group of living or formerly living creatures that have certain characteristics including six legs.

Does that mean that if I pull a leg off of an ant that it ceases to be an insect?

It would seem that your definition includes modifications done to individual organisms by humans after birth which aren't heritable. You can use that definition if you want, but I think you will find that most biologists view it as being worthless in studying living and fossil species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Good.

I say creationism is not science.

What say you?

I agree.

Your job is to convince other creationists of this. Good luck.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your job is to convince other creationists of this. Good luck.

Thanks, but I really feel my job here is to show others how faith operates vis-à-vis science.

Especially in the area of Creationism.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks, but I really feel my job here is to show others how faith operates vis-à-vis science.

Don't you mean to say that faith is not scientific?

You might as well talk about how idol worship operates vis-à-vis Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you mean to say that faith is not scientific?

I do indeed.

You might as well talk about how idol worship operates vis-à-vis Christianity.

Even idolatrists don't bow to evolution and other scientific proclamations.

 

[Loudmouth]

I do indeed.Even idolatrists don't bow to evolution and other scientific proclamations.

Don't you bow to the scientific findings that thalidomide causes birth defects?

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't you bow to the scientific findings that thalidomide causes birth defects?

Yes, sir.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, sir.

So what we have is a double standard, it would appear.

 

[The Cadet]

I think that you have an overinflated idea of the power of a definition. Imagine, for example, that we define insects as a group of living or formerly living creatures that have certain characteristics including six legs.

Does that mean that if I pull a leg off of an ant that it ceases to be an insect?

By your definition of insect: yes. That is absolutely correct. By your definition of insect, removing a leg from an ant makes it no longer qualify as an insect. Why is this a problem? The problem is not in the analytic part! The problem cannot possibly be the analytic part, as it is completely independent of any actual existence. The problem is in the synthetic application! We have to ask the question if the synthetic application of that definition is adequate, or whether we should reassess our definitions and come up with a better definition (or, if that definition is in some way ingrained into the public psyche in a way that makes redefining it problematic, a different term with a slightly different definition, see also taxon vs. clade).

 

[rjs330]

I have just one request or those that believe in macro evolution. Prove that one species turned into another. It can't be done. Science has never been able to prove that any species has been able to evolve into a different species.

The OPs post was not whether or not God created the universe but whether or not he did it using evolution. It appears that the OP believes that God created everything but wanted to know if God could have used evolution to do so. The short answer is yes God could have. The debate here is did he?

Since there is NO proof or scientific research that proves that one species can turn into another altogether then we are left with the words in the Bible and speculations and theories of science. To believe either is a matter of faith. Either I believe the unprovable by any scientific method story in the Bible or I believe in the unprovable by any scientific method macro evolutionary theory. Both choices are a matter of faith.

I choose to believe in the biblical account since I believe it to be the word of God and thus to be the true account. I can give you evidence as to why I believe the bible teaches instantaneous creation. But it is based upon the wording in the scriptures and not on anyone's personal observations.

The bible does NOT teach evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

I have just one request or those that believe in macro evolution. Prove that one species turned into another. It can't be done. Science has never been able to prove that any species has been able to evolve into a different species.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-speciation.html

We've seen this happen all the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have just one request or those that believe in macro evolution. Prove that one species turned into another.

I do just that in this thread.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/creationist-arguments-against-ervs.7898737/

The short answer is yes God could have. The debate here is did he?

If God didn't use evolution, then why can we put eukaryotes into matching, twin nested hierarchies just as we would expect to see from the process of evolution?

Since there is NO proof or scientific research that proves that one species can turn into another . . .

Proof given in referenced thread.

Both choices are a matter of faith.

Why would macro-evolution need faith when it is evidenced?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have just one request or those that believe in macro evolution. Prove that one species turned into another. It can't be done. Science has never been able to prove that any species has been able to evolve into a different species.

The OPs post was not whether or not God created the universe but whether or not he did it using evolution. It appears that the OP believes that God created everything but wanted to know if God could have used evolution to do so. The short answer is yes God could have. The debate here is did he?

Since there is NO proof or scientific research that proves that one species can turn into another altogether then we are left with the words in the Bible and speculations and theories of science. To believe either is a matter of faith. Either I believe the unprovable by any scientific method story in the Bible or I believe in the unprovable by any scientific method macro evolutionary theory. Both choices are a matter of faith.

I choose to believe in the biblical account since I believe it to be the word of God and thus to be the true account. I can give you evidence as to why I believe the bible teaches instantaneous creation. But it is based upon the wording in the scriptures and not on anyone's personal observations.

The bible does NOT teach evolution.

I think you have confused species with species with Phylum? Speciation is not Macro-evolution.

 

[Zosimus]

By your definition of insect: yes. That is absolutely correct. By your definition of insect, removing a leg from an ant makes it no longer qualify as an insect. Why is this a problem? The problem is not in the analytic part! The problem cannot possibly be the analytic part, as it is completely independent of any actual existence. The problem is in the synthetic application! We have to ask the question if the synthetic application of that definition is adequate, or whether we should reassess our definitions and come up with a better definition (or, if that definition is in some way ingrained into the public psyche in a way that makes redefining it problematic, a different term with a slightly different definition, see also taxon vs. clade).

I think you are missing the point entirely with your preoccupation with analytic parts. The question is whether most (or even any) scientists would agree that an ant with an amputated leg is no longer an insect. If not, then the definition is bad. Now don't run around after this screaming that the definition is true because it's a definition. I never said the definition was false. I said the definition was bad.

Get it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I think you are missing the point entirely with your preoccupation with analytic parts. The question is whether most (or even any) scientists would agree that an ant with an amputated leg is no longer an insect.

False. It has to do with which characteristics matter to scientists when they are creating species groups. The characteristics that scientists care about are heritable characteristics. If you pull the one leg off of an ant, it will still have 6 legged offspring.