Why does everyone think Evolution contradicts Creationism?

[DogmaHunter]

So you do admit then that you do not really follow the evidence, just your falsifiable ideas about the evidence.

No. The falsifiable ideas are not invented beforehand.
They are formulated based on data.

You have a set of observations and then formulate a hypothesis for explaining that data.
You then test that hypothesis by gathering more data.
If this data doesn't fit the hypothesis.... you discard the hypothesis or you adjust it to also incorporate the new data.

That is following the evidence.
That is not what you do.

What you do, is starting from what you WANT the conclusion to be: your religion.
You never discard or adjust this conclusion.

Instead, you do your outmost best to force-fit the data.

Kind of like this:

 

[bhsmte]

Not just diet, you have to add exercise and behavior modification. It is the behavior mod that is the real zinger. This is not just the Bible, this is Science saying this based on research and articles in peer reviewed journals. We all know if it is published in a peer reviewed journal then it must be true. For example it has been found that: "Lifestyle factors related to obesity, eating behavior, and physical activity play a major role in the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes." http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/1/117.short Just putting the body into weight loss mode is very healthy. You can almost instantly turn around a lot of disease. That is why prayer and fasting is so effective for so many issues. So either way Science and the Bible seem to be confirming each other again. Even though the Bible is spiritual and Science is physical so when you try to compare them it is difficult to find common ground. Ie uncertainty principle and the observer effect.

Any objective evidence that prayer is effective?

 

[bhsmte]

Science is doing a lot of research on what the cause of cancer is. So we are making a lot of progress in how to overcome this and a lot of other diseases through diet, exercise and lifestyle changes a lot of disease can be eliminated.

Guidelines from DEC Disease Control and Prevention recommend that adults do at least 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly (or an hour and fifteen minutes of vigorous activity), and also do muscle-strengthening activities, such as push-ups or weight lifting, at least two days a week.

The percentage of adults who met both those recommendations nationally was 20.6 percent, according to the report. But more people met the aerobic activity guidelines (51.6 percent) than the muscle-strengthening guidelines (29.3 percent).

Physically fit people who consume healthy diets, still get cancer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any objective evidence that prayer is effective?

Well, I just asked Thor to make the rain stop since it's been pouring all day and I just would like to go out for a smoke without needing an umbrella... And it just stopped raining.

Does that count? ;-)

 

[Larniavc]

Science is doing a lot of research on what the cause of cancer is. So we are making a lot of progress in how to overcome this and a lot of other diseases through diet, exercise and lifestyle changes a lot of disease can be eliminated.

Guidelines from DEC Disease Control and Prevention recommend that adults do at least 2.5 hours of moderate-intensity aerobic activity weekly (or an hour and fifteen minutes of vigorous activity), and also do muscle-strengthening activities, such as push-ups or weight lifting, at least two days a week.

The percentage of adults who met both those recommendations nationally was 20.6 percent, according to the report. But more people met the aerobic activity guidelines (51.6 percent) than the muscle-strengthening guidelines (29.3 percent).

I meant why does your God not magic it away? I would, if I could.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I just asked Thor to make the rain stop since it's been pouring all day and I just would like to go out for a smoke without needing an umbrella... And it just stopped raining.

Does that count? ;-)

That Thor, is a bad dude.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That Thor, is a bad dude.

He has a cool hammer though...

 

[bhsmte]

He has a cool hammer though...

I meant bad in a good way.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Physically fit people who consume healthy diets, still get cancer.

There are a lot of additives in processed food that are said to cause cancer.
Saccharin for example is known to cause cancer.
They still have a lot of study to do on this.

 

[joshua 1 9]

That Thor, is a bad dude.

He just had a really good public relation department.

 

[AV1611VET]

Education is actually something of a preventive against mental illness. There are a lot of Christian nutters with a lower than average IQ.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit!

 

[Zosimus]

I'm wondering if I detect a note of the passive/aggressive. I can't be certain though.

I'm talking about paradigms, understandings by which to do cognition, like the anthropological understanding, psychology, genetics, Darwinism. Video games I think are a waste of time when you could be studying old time music and nailing theory like Randy Newman has. Redeem the time.

Daniel C. Dennett wrote Intuition Pumps and other tools for thinking. He also wrote Darwin's Dangerous Idea, a classic. Also Consciousness Explained and Freedom Evolves.

The thing about Creationism versus science, the study of nature in the very quest to explain the account of biology, is falsifiability which Carl Popper identified in his seminal development in the philosophy of science.

Any hypothesis is vulnerable to falsification. The evidence needs to be compelling and conclusive. It needs to be empirical, objective, substantive. It is tested in rigorous experiment. Others can and will ruthlessly test one's conclusions to see if they are unsound. Only the good theories survive, to be taken tentatively as explanatory and operational, until and if, a better and tested theory later supplants it.

Creationism is bent only on claiming itself verified. The science is all bogus, spurious. They force their conclusions. They are certainly not honourably seeking to falsify their assumptions and suppositions.

Creationism is not science. It is antithetical to science and its criterion of falsifiability. Creationism is antithetical to science. It parades as science and fools and impresses the credulous, the uneducated or miseducated.

Creationism is apologetics. The implications for Genesis being mythology are historic, seismic. That renders Calvary meaningless, because there was no Adam and Eve, no Fall, no inherited sin nature to be redeemed from before an absolutist God. Hence the Christian life is puerile. Christianity is really the Jesus cult. Thank you, Saul of Tarsus.

The science of evolution is just that, bona fide science, subordinated to the criterion of falsifiability. Despite what you are told in your world, what is promulgated in that dogmatized scene, evolution by natural selection on (non)random mutation, horizontal and vertical gene transfer and sexual selection has only ever been verified, never falsified.

One can confidently aver that wherever life has been able to emerge on any other planet in this particular stupefyingly vast universe, out of ionic, dynamic chemical interaction becoming ever more complex and varied, until self replicators eventually arise, life will evolve and speciation will obtain by the same process of evolution by natural selection. Life is fecund, because chemistry is interactive.

I have heard that this is all so impersonal. I am warm blooded, capable of empathy, since I am a Homo sapiens individual, evolved to have that social orientation for survival.

God is redundant, superfluous.

I don't have a faith.

I think you are quite honest in your approach, but the details show a great confusion in your mind.

Personally, I am a big fan of Popper, because he tried (unsuccessfully) to place science on a sound logical footing. It seems that you admire him too, but I wonder whether you understand him.

Darwinism is just a theory. You said that evolution has never been falsified -- only verified. Unfortunately, Popper himself noted that verification is worthless. He talked about how Marxists could open a newspaper and find a constant stream of verification and confirmations of Marxism in everything the paper said (or didn't say). What does this prove? It only proves that the theory is flexible enough to admit any data presented to it and nothing more.

Why should I give any greater status to Darwinism than to Marxism?

Nor is it necessarily true that theories can be falsified. Let's take Newton's Law of Gravitation. It was discovered that Newton's Laws did not predict the precession of Mercury. So what happened? Rather than discard the theory, scientists postulated that there was another, yet-to-be-discovered planet closer to the sun than Mercury. The planet, called Vulcan, has yet to be found. Still, that wouldn't stop someone if he were determined to continue. Couldn't the planet be composed of dark matter? Of course it could. This same tactic has been used to explain the failure of Keppler's Laws to explain the rotation of galaxies.

Do you seriously think that other Darwinists on the forum consider evolution to be merely a working hypothesis that cannot be claimed true?

 

[Zosimus]

Any objective evidence that prayer is effective?

Last I heard it was impossible to test prayer. It's impossible to get a control group.

 

[Phenotype]

Creationism uses Science to help us understand God's message for us today. He talks to us through the Bible. Also God talks to us through the natural record that He created for us in the natural world. Through things like geology we can study the geological ages in the past. Through fossils and now DNA God gives us a record of his Creation so we can better understand how He created the world we live in.

You are doing precisely what I described. You are looking at the natural world with the express intent of verifying God did it.

Abandon that since it it entirely unnecessary, ignotium per ignotius - 'explanation obscurer than the thing it is meant to explain' (Oxford English Dictionary) It is the great impediment to understanding the true account we have painstakingly acquired, through science.

I see no evidence you have any real knowledge of the sciences. I couldn't stand to be content to remain ignorant like that. I would feel convicted about it, as selling short my birthright. By that I mean the intellect I inherited from my ancestors through the exigencies of natural selection, going back 3.5 billion years.

There is the ignorance which is due to the unavailability of knowledge and understanding, like for those in biblical times.

There is the ignorance which is due to a refusal to get oneself informed and enlightened or to revise one's prejudices, to awaken from one's dogmatic slumber, or to get insight into oneself.

The second kind of ignorance, willful ignorance is blameworthy. It makes one an ignoramus.

 

[Phenotype]

Deleted as I double posted it.

 

[Phenotype]

Here's the thing about falsifiability, the criterion which claims, theories and hypotheses in science are subject to, to survive if they are in fact found to be sound.

Claims to the spiritual, the supernatural, angels, miracles, the existence of the soul, the afterlife, God and all, are conveniently exempted from empirical testing, hence falsifiability.

Hence they are vapid, vacuous, to be dismissed as saying nothing and are obscurum per obscurius - 'the obscure by the still more obscure,' referring to theology. They are misleading. Science is about acquiring public knowledge. Claims to the spiritual and all is private 'knowledge.'

If it ain't substantive and empirically testable, most likely it is irrelevant.

Christians don't understand the falsifiability criterion claims to truth, epistemology and ontology, are subject to. Or they defy it, which is dishonest. This applies to claims to the supernatural, theology and also to Creationism of course.

 

[Phenotype]

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit!

You can stop being this supercilious curmudgeon and ignoramus now.

 

[AV1611VET]

If it ain't substantive and empirically testable, most likely it is irrelevant.

Irrelevant is one thing; "nonexistent" and/or "didn't happen" is another.

When science tells me Jonah being swallowed by a whale and lived is irrelevant ... okay ... I won't argue.

But when science tells me Jonah wasn't swallowed by a whale (for whatever reason) ... science can take a hike.

Jonah called it a "fish."

Jonah 1:17a Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.

Jesus called it a "whale."

Matthew 12:40a For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly;

Linnaeus says: whales ≠ fish.

AV1611VET says: Linnaeus can take a hike.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can stop being this supercilious curmudgeon and ignoramus now.

And do what?

Become a fool?

 

[joshua 1 9]

You are doing precisely what I described. You are looking at the natural world with the express intent of verifying God did it.

I am looking at what God gave me to look at and I am trying to understand the message that He has in it for me to understand. "The LORD by wisdom founded the earth, By understanding He established the heavens."

If it ain't substantive and empirically testable, most likely it is irrelevant.

There is a physical world and there is a spiritual world. There is a lot in the Bible that is testable, they have been using archaeology for a long time to show the Bible is accurate and true. Even if you reject the spiritual, the physical is still testable.