Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Speedwell]

If I claimed biblical creation doesn't deal in proof but you should still believe it's a fact nonetheless, you would be all over me, so...please.

But you do. All creationists do.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Discontinue, or I shall be reporting you for provocative flaming/trolling.

I missed that, now my asking for proof is flaming? I'm sorry it makes you angry you have no proof and some of us expect it, and that it is naturally going to come up when someone makes a claim, just as I have been asked to prove creation. If you don't want me to ask you to prove something, don't claim it.

Some of these reactions like science doesn't deal in proof, and this flaming thing, honestly, are just an attempt to shut me up from the truth, and I guess even some on your side of this think you have gone over the line with that threat....wow.

And please don't threaten me, you know where the ignore button is, that is unless you want to hear things that evidently bother you so you can report me.

Oh, and you think you aren't "trolling" by coming to a Christian website and claiming we got here by way of evolution and not God as the Bible states? But don't worry, I don't report...ever, I'll make my points in debate, I have no problem hearing everything the opposition has to say, and would never even consider trying to make their opinion just go away.

 

[Kenny'sID]

But you do. All creationists do.

Sorry but you'll have to prove I said that, as I don't recall ever stating such.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry but you'll have to prove I said that, as I don't recall ever stating such.

Sorry but you'll have to prove I said that, as I don't recall ever stating such.

Do you not think that people should believe in creationism? There is certainly no 'proof' for creationism, so you want us to believe something without proof, do you not?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you not think that people should believe in creationism? There is certainly no 'proof' for creationism, so you want us to believe something without proof, do you not?

You can and will believe as you like, and no I never think anyone should just believe as me, just for the sake of having them believe as I do..

 

[DogmaHunter]

This doesn’t need to be a scientific or religious dissertation, simply what you feel about the subject.

For me, I love the Bible and science, but this wondrous universe coming about spontaneously from singularity (the meaning of which I barely understand) in a big bang, without the mighty hand of God; a “single cell something” rising up from a mud hole (primordial soup of some kind) “on its own” in baron, inhospitable conditions and becoming “the common ancestor” in a linear progression to the varieties of everything on a beautifully complex earth, including man... well, just step back from all the jargon and defense for a moment and look at that picture. I know there are a lot of Christians who enjoy investigating God’s creation, I do myself (my handle is inquiring mind), but how people are completely sold on that “one in a gazillion” possibility, and at the same time regard the biblical creation by an Almighty God (however and by whatever means He desired to accomplish it) to be a fairy tale, really puzzles me.

Why can't the evolutionary process simply be the way your god "creates" species?
I wouldn't agree off course, but at least that wouldn't force you to simply ignore mainstream biology.

 

[Jimmy D]

I missed that, now my asking for proof is flaming?

Because it has been explained extensively to you every time you start spamming threads with it.

I'm sorry it makes you angry you have no proof and some of us expect it

Spare us your feigned innocence.

just as I have been asked to prove creation. If you don't want me to ask you to prove something, don't claim it.

Who asked you that?

Some of these reactions like science doesn't deal in proof, and this flaming thing, honestly, are just an attempt to shut me up from the truth, and I guess even some on your side of this think you have gone over the line with that threat....wow.

Feigned indignation now? You know exactly what will happen when you post this"proof" schtick of yours, you've done it so many times.

And please don't threaten me, you know where the ignore button is, that is unless you want to hear things that evidently bother you so you can report me.

Meh, I feel a bit sorry for you, given your inability to understand such a simple concept, or alternatively that you need to feign ignorance of that concept to derail threads.


For the record, here are few few responses you've received to your "proof" thing in the past.

.....................................

"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

"One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

NSTA News

(The National Science Teachers Association)

.................................


Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-

(National Centre for Science Education)

......................................

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

......................................

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

......................................

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

......................................

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

.......................................

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

.........................................

ME:

As for "appealing to credentials", they are just a few examples. On the one hand we've got everyone involved with science and every scientific institute/centre in the world saying that they don't deal with proof, that theories are never proven, and one the other hand we've got a laymen on the internet insisting the opposite. Get real.

 

[Speedwell]

You can and will believe as you like, and no I never think anyone should just believe as me, just for the sake of having them believe as I do..

So let me get this straight: You don't care if we believe in creationism or not, and you cannot provide any proof for it anyway. So why should we provide any proof for evolution to you? We don't care if you accept evolution or not.

I can understand wanting to discuss evolution with you, explain evolution to you, but I see no need to prove it to you if you don't want to accept it. That's part of the reason we have been needling you about "proof" versus "confirming evidence." You seem to want us to compel you to believe, to "evangelize" you, which is nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I agree completely... as you said, just the clif notes premise sounds absurd but when you start digging into the complexity of even a single cell and the wondrous workings contained in it with the DNA code and the complex chemical reactions, you realize that this cannot be the simple beginning of something more complex but is in it very nature, more complex than science can explain or even fathom.

How complexity of living things comes about, is exactly what evolution theory explains.

Never mind the abundance of Creation science

There is no such thing.

I've always found that a professed Christian who believes the evolution theory over the Word of God to be highly confused in their faith. Is God not powerful enough to be able to speak into existence all that we see around us in the time frame of six literal days?

If you are going to start with assuming your conclusion, then obviously you will end up concluding that conclusion.

Try not to pretend to have the answers, before you actually ask and investigate the questions.
What this quote shows, is that "creationism" is religiously motivated. Not scientifically. Not by evidence. Not by experiment. But by religion.

It is a religious belief (that flies in the face of empirical reality)

I believe He could have done it in a second but stretched it out for us to establish the weekly cycle which has no basis in anything natural.

That is not true.
Ancient babylon also used a 7-day week and it was based on the lunar cycle.
4 weeks = 1 cycle.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not true, there is plenty of science behind Creationism.

No there isn't. Unless you want to count biblical texts as "science".

Actual science that doesn't rely on theories

Ow boy......
Theory is the graduation stage of any scientific idea. It doesn't get any better then that. It is, the MOST important thing in science, because theory provides explanation for a well-defined scope of a set of facts.

Facts support theories and theories explain facts.
There is nothing higher then theory. Really good theories, remains theories. They don't turn into "facts" or "laws".

Case in point:
- germ theory of desease
- plate tectonic theory
- Atomic theory
- ...

but is based on scientific principles of observable hypothesis'

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation that requires testing and validating.
When testing and validating shows that the hypothesis is accurate, then the hypothesis gets promoted to theory.

A theory, is a hypothesis that managed to remain standing when held up against harsh testing and scientific scrutiny.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

proof
pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.
evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.
"you will be asked to give proof of your identity"
synonyms: evidence, verification, corroboration, authentication, confirmation, certification, documentation, validation, attestation, substantiation
"proof of ownership"

In the sciences, the evidence is the observations and the facts are the observed phenomena. So this meaning of the word 'proof' is where science begins - with observed phenomena. If you are looking for proof, look at the empirical evidence - do the observations establish the existence of the phenomena? e.g. is there proof of fossils of dinosaurs? is there proof of DNA similarities between species? etc. In general, most such facts are accepted as proven.

The explanations (i.e. hypotheses or theories) for why the observed phenomena occur are not empirical facts or truths; they're not provable. There may be any number of hypotheses or theories that are consistent with the facts - there are criteria for judging which is the 'best' - and a hypothesis or theory may be falsified (proven false) if it is not consistent with some fact (e.g. it predicts something that is not observed). So you can't prove them true, but you can prove them false.

This is why the colloquial meaning of word 'proof' is not much used or useful in the sciences, where the main interest is in the explanation of phenomena (except in PR or media popularizations for public consumption), but instead proof is taken to mean formal proof, which is applicable to the formal logic or mathematics used in hypotheses and theories.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

its not just thousands of mutations. some creatures are still the same creatures after about 400-500 my. means that even if the creature will get billions of mutations it will still stay the same creature.

They may look similar to the originals, but they will be different.

 

[xianghua]

They may look similar to the originals, but they will be different.

but they still belong to the same family.

 

[xianghua]

But even when people call the theory a "fact" they realize that it is, in principle, falsifiable.

so how we can falsify evolution?

 

[sfs]

I believe in common descent... from our Creator!

Great! Based on that, what should the differences in DNA between species look like?

 

[Speedwell]

so how we can falsify evolution?

How about this:

Why don't you post the questions you keep asking over and over,

"How can evolution be falsified?"

"How do you conclude design?"

and so on,

We can answer them once and make the post into a "sticky" and whenever you want to ask one of those questions again you can just look at the sticky and you won't have to bother us for the answer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

but they still belong to the same family.

Sure; the ToE requires that. Species and their subspecies always remain with their ancestral family. That's how a nested tree structure works.

You'll probably get it sooner or later...

 

[tim416]

You will never definitively prove creation as it would be contradictory to the Creator's words itself.

God says, Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

Therefore one would have to conclude that if Man was to find indisputable facts to support the creation story there would be no need for faith, therefore unable to please God.

Inversely, if you have faith in God and believe in the the Creation story you should never worry about science coming up with the same definitive proof to support its side.

Just thinking out loud here.

 

[xianghua]

Species and their subspecies always remain with their ancestral family. That's how a nested tree structure works.

so human is still a reptile (ancestral state) according to this criteria. good to know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because it has been explained extensively to you every time you start spamming threads with it.



Spare us your feigned innocence.



Who asked you that?



Feigned indignation now? You know exactly what will happen when you post this"proof" schtick of yours, you've done it so many times.



Meh, I feel a bit sorry for you, given your inability to understand such a simple concept, or alternatively that you need to feign ignorance of that concept to derail threads.


For the record, here are few few responses you've received to your "proof" thing in the past.

.....................................

"The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately."

"One source of confusion about the status of the science or theory of evolution stems from the difference between the "everyday" meaning of the word "theory" and the scientific meaning the word.

Below we list some common misconceptions about the term "theory" and describe a classroom activity that can help students rethink their understanding of this term.

NSTA News

(The National Science Teachers Association)

.................................


Misconception 1 "Evolution is 'just a theory'".

Misconception 2 "Theories become facts when they are well supported and/or proven."

There are three important misconceptions propagated in the above statements. The first statement implies that a theory should be interpreted as just a guess or a hunch, whereas in science, the term theory is used very differently. The second statement implies that theories become facts, in some sort of linear progression. In science, theories never become facts. Rather, theories explain facts. The third misconception is that scientific research provides proof in the sense of attaining the absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision should new evidence come to light."

https://ncse.com/library-resource/theory-

(National Centre for Science Education)

......................................

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

......................................

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

......................................

Karl Popper -

"In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory".

......................................

Jack Fraser, Master's Physics, University of Oxford -

“Proof” implies that there is no room for error — that you can be 100% sure that what you have written down on the piece of paper is 100% representative of what you are talking about."

And quite simply, that doesn’t exist in the real world.

.......................................

National Science Foundation

Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them.

.........................................

ME:

As for "appealing to credentials", they are just a few examples. On the one hand we've got everyone involved with science and every scientific institute/centre in the world saying that they don't deal with proof, that theories are never proven, and one the other hand we've got a laymen on the internet insisting the opposite. Get real.

OK, I'm convinced, looks like I should believe evolution without proof.