Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox · Rules -  


> Affiliates [ View All | Link-us ]
Mask of Destiny 
 

Pages: (9) « First ... 7 8 9  ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Evolution vs. Creationism
fishers64
 Posted: Jun 21 2015, 10:58 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Cow Jazz @ Jun 21 2015, 04:11 PM)
Science is an attempt to understand the world on a factual level. If someone disagrees with me on something scientific, I can usually trace the disagreement to something in the facts. There is far less frustration, because in the end, there's only one solid truth, and the fact will lead to it.

I agree 100%. I too enjoy the ease of pointing to facts or research and let that do the arguing for me.

QUOTE
(I'm also usually good at hiding frustration; plenty of things you've said have been infuriating. I've just responded plainly.)

I'm sorry.

At the same time, I know how the truth infuriates people - I'm not sorry for that. What I am sorry for is that you had to see my scientific ignorance - that must be painful to watch.

QUOTE
The issue is not "the universe is 'beautiful' therefore God made it." The existence of a god has nothing to do with this debate.

And yet we keep coming back to it. That's because Ghidora is trying the same argument I did several posts back: "God exists, therefore he could have created the world in six days and arrange it exactly how he he said it was."

Your response was "He didn't." I walked through the evidence that you presented to it, which I think establishes a POSSIBILITY that it COULD have happened using science that you presented. I found no evidence to preclude the biblical account.

And why does it keep coming up? Because if God exists he has certain attributes. My argument of him, since he is infinite and outside time and thus entirely self-consistant, he cannot and does not lie.

And by asserting that the biblical account of creation is false, you're calling God a liar.

That's why God keeps coming up.

* * *

Further, if God can do anything, getting a bunch of humans to write down what he wanted to be known about himself and making sure they got it right and preserving said words throughout time would not be a major strain. Now you're claiming that he didn't care enough about the content of his message to get his facts straight - and since he said in his message that he DOES care about what people think about him, you're still playing the liar card.

Either God is a liar, or he's not.

QUOTE
The issue is "organisms change over time which resulted in the diversification of species" vs. "all animals were made in their present forms 6000 years ago". Anything else is an attempt to distract from the issue, especially when it comes to arguments of pathos, because pathos means jack diddly squat when it comes to how the world works.

I agree with you that Ghidora's arguement is a red herring. And on some level, I'm inclined to agree with your statement about pathos - in most places, it is a distraction from trying to ascertain the facts.

But pathos doesn't mean nothing, even through following it is stupid IMO. People buy stuff because of pathos, vote for people because of pathos, marry people because of pathos, divorce because of pathos, murder because of pathos.

People literally live and die because of pathos. This world runs on pathetic.

Check your own emotions here. You're mad because people are arguing against you on things that are fact. But why are you mad? The truth stands for itself.

There are a lot of people who disagree with me. I see no need to be angry with them. People, in my mind, can always chose to accept or deny the truth as they wish - that doesn't change what it is.

But you don't find that to be the case. That's because your trust is really based in science, in smart people who agree with you and whom you base your opinions on. Yes?

But what happens when other people disagree? They could be smart people too? Could they be right? No, they are just ignorant deniers and deluded people. And you get mad, and you keep using the label to protect yourself from the fact that they are people, people just like the scientists who you trust.

You say that the scientists are infallible, and the disagreers are wrong. But how do you know?

We're all people. And people make mistakes and have their own personal interests. Always.

QUOTE
Approaching science emotionally results in dino feather deniers, climate change deniers, and pretty much ANYONE who denies reality because it flies in the face of their definition of beauty.

Exactly. But we're not talking about approaching science emotionally. Or at least, I'm not.

Honestly, I have very little emotional attachment to these subjects. I hope that you don't see me as a denier of the facts. Because that is not my goal.

QUOTE
This is a scientific issue. It has always been a scientific issue. A scientific issue deserves a scientific approach; anything that requires ignorance on a scientific level is downright disrespectful to any meaningful discourse on the issue.

This subject does not require ignorance. Now I may be ignorant, but that doesn't mean that my belief requires ignorance. In fact, my belief system insists that ignorance is foolish.

Instead, it forcefully pulls out the facts and presents them in front of people, and asks them, "What will you accept?".

You cannot put evolution on the same level as dinosaur feathers. I have no problem with those. I have little problem with climate change - the climate has been changing around for thousands of years. I have no problem with inflation. That's because God didn't tell me that there were no dinosaur feathers, he never insinuated that the climate has remained static for all of time, and he even told us in Isaiah that inflation happened. On those matters, science is the best authority.

Better than Jurassic World, by a long shot!

But when you start arguing against God, then I disagree. Because God exists, and arguing against the Almighty doesn't do anyone any good. It just causes more pain and suffering for that person. I don't feel a need to defend God - he can do that himself. I'm just pointing out what's going on so that you can see it.
PM
^
Cow Jazz
 Posted: Jun 21 2015, 11:34 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 119
Member No.: 20
Joined: 24-May 15









QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
And by asserting that the biblical account of creation is false, you're calling God a liar.

And therein lies the problem; you are so strictly bound by the words of a book older than any modern civilization that any evidence that contradicts it must be handwaved away rather than taken at face value.

You cannot prove that the Bible is the unerring word of God. You cannot prove that no liberties were taken, no truths fudged. You can only assert what you believe to be true, with the only evidence circling back to that book itself, and the entirety of the universe contradicting it.

Many Christians approach this cognitive dissonance from the rational angle of questioning if the book really is unquestionable. It saddens me that there are still those that don't.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
But pathos doesn't mean nothing, even through following it is stupid IMO.  People buy stuff because of pathos, vote for people because of pathos, marry people because of pathos, divorce because of pathos, murder because of pathos.

People literally live and die because of pathos. This world runs on pathetic.

You're inflating my meaning here. In this precise argument, pathos means nothing. Whether or not evolution fits your standards of beauty has entirely no basis on whether or not it's true. Whether or not the universe fits your standards of beauty does nothing to prove it must have been created, especially since there are others who can look at the stars and just shrug them off as "just stars". Beauty is not quantifiable, beauty is not arguable or provable, beauty is irrelevant to the truth.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
But you don't find that to be the case. That's because your trust is really based in science, in smart people who agree with you and whom you base your opinions on. Yes?

Above anything else, my trust is in the facts. The facts say the speed of light is constant, so if we can see stars billions of light years away, the universe cannot be a mere 6000 years old. The facts say that radiometric dating methods date rocks at far older than 6000 years. The facts say there is a fossil record of layers of animals that appear to gradually change over time. Yet you would negate these facts with a "God made them that way" because you are so certain that what you believe is right, you would turn away any amount of evidence that contradicted your preconceived notions.

I work towards the truth. If the evidence ever points to a more likely scenario than life diversifying through evolution, and it holds up under scrutiny, I will accept it.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
No, they are just ignorant deniers and deluded people.

You've got that right. There is only one truth, and that truth cannot simply sway to what people want it to be. Whatever the facts point towards, no matter the emotion it evokes, no matter what preconceived notions it may smash, is the truth. To ignore that is, as you say, delusional.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
You say that the scientists are infallible

No, I don't. I think you're trying to peg me in a hole your preacher told you "evolutionists" fall into. Scientists make mistakes all the time. Do you think movies like Jurassic World would come out if scientists didn't make mistakes? As I said, it's not every scientist I believe in. It's the facts.

And, let's face it, while individual scientists may make mistakes, in this day and age, it takes quite a lot to convince 97% of scientists of something. It would take, say, all of the evidence pointing to it.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
You cannot put evolution on the same level as dinosaur feathers.

Why not? The two go hand in hand, and the former is extremely powerful evidence for theropod dinosaurs being ancestral to birds.
QUOTE (fishers64 @ Jun 21 2015, 09:58 PM)
That's because God didn't tell me that there were no dinosaur feathers, he never insinuated that the climate has remained static for all of time, and he even told us in Isaiah that inflation happened

"I'm totally open-minded! I'll accept anything that doesn't interfere with my preconceived notions of how the world works!"

--------------------
user posted image
PM
^
Ghidora131
 Posted: Jun 22 2015, 08:34 PM
Quote Post


The Danish Fish
***

Group: Members
Posts: 65
Member No.: 42
Joined: 13-June 15



Simon Champion!






And, as before, you're being hypocritical by targeting us and then claiming we're nailing you down.

QUOTE
You've got that right. There is only one truth, and that truth cannot simply sway to what people want it to be. Whatever the facts point towards, no matter the emotion it evokes, no matter what preconceived notions it may smash, is the truth. To ignore that is, as you say, delusional.


In other words, we know what we're talking about. And you know what you're talking about. So you're proving both sides wrong by contradicting ideas of facts. What?

QUOTE
you're trying to peg me in a hole your preacher told you "evolutionists" fall into.


Okay, stop it. Once again, we have the right to degrade you if you degrade us first. You're fitting Preachers and Christians into a stereotypical category which, stereotypically, is what evolutionists do.

QUOTE
The facts say the speed of light is constant, so if we can see stars billions of light years away, the universe cannot be a mere 6000 years old. The facts say that radiometric dating methods date rocks at far older than 6000 years. The facts say there is a fossil record of layers of animals that appear to gradually change over time. Yet you would negate these facts with a "God made them that way" because you are so certain that what you believe is right, you would turn away any amount of evidence that contradicted your preconceived notions.


Only an absolute fool believes things blindly. I have personally checked and rechecked the bible to find zero loopholes, self-contradictions, or faulty predictions. Nothing.

And based on the evidence I have acquired, it is a fact that evolution is wrong, and as a human being using common sense I will continue to defend that. If you want answers, do the research yourself. Don't listen to what other "big shot scientists" have to say about it. I denied every creationist I heard to figure it out on my own.

QUOTE
And therein lies the problem; you are so strictly bound by the words of a book older than any modern civilization that any evidence that contradicts it must be handwaved away rather than taken at face value. You cannot prove that the Bible is the unerring word of God. You cannot prove that no liberties were taken, no truths fudged. You can only assert what you believe to be true, with the only evidence circling back to that book itself, and the entirety of the universe contradicting it.


Isn't that exactly what you do with the statements and judgements of scientists?

QUOTE
I work towards the truth. If the evidence ever points to a more likely scenario than life diversifying through evolution, and it holds up under scrutiny, I will accept it.


Uh-huh, no. Christianity has held up under scrutiny for hundreds of years by several institutions. And the people who have seen all of this and disagreed with it now head some of the "Big Liar Megachurches" from behind the scenes.

Nothing is new under the sun. There has always been unrealistic scrutiny against Christianity and there always will be.

QUOTE
"I'm totally open-minded! I'll accept anything that doesn't interfere with my preconceived notions of how the world works!"


Well, you better not bark at me when I tell you you're a knucklehead for believing evolution.

Be careful. That leads to flaming.
PM
^
Serein
 Posted: Jun 22 2015, 09:45 PM
Quote Post


dirty catgirl
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 371
Member No.: 3
Joined: 18-October 14









okay, enough with the condescension and most definitely ENOUGH with the blatant insults. you are not contributing to the discussion. you haven't legitimately countered or answered any point or argument presented to you and every response you've made in this topic has been dripping with thinly-veiled condescension and patronization, and now you're resorting to insults. unbelievable.

the first and most important rule of this site is to play nice and respect people. there's a certain amount of leeway afforded in the debate subforum because we recognize that it's easy to let emotions get the better of you when debating something you're passionate about, but insults and attacks absolutely will not stand. the other posters in this topic have edged close to the line with some of their snark, but you've flat-out crossed it.

I won't just bark at you, I will bite you in the ass. this is your only warning. either tone it down and attempt to contribute something of substance to the debate or stop.

also, resize your damn sig. it's stretching my screen.

edit: also, for future reference (to everyone), the Report button exists for a reason. if you feel you've been personally attacked or insulted, don't engage. report it and let the admins handle it.

--------------------
[ signature is a work-in-progress ]
PMUsers Website
^
limeparadox
 Posted: Jun 22 2015, 09:49 PM
Quote Post


dongworld turnip
***

Group: Members
Posts: 78
Member No.: 38
Joined: 28-May 15









ghidora has been disqualified from this debate for having a six shade chimorumod banner, and somehow managing to butcher already awful sprites

what god would allow me to see that, outside of the bzp comics forum in the year 2015, explain THAT

--------------------
user posted image
PM
^
Cow Jazz
 Posted: Jun 22 2015, 10:08 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 119
Member No.: 20
Joined: 24-May 15









QUOTE (Ghidora131 @ Jun 22 2015, 07:34 PM)
QUOTE
And therein lies the problem; you are so strictly bound by the words of a book older than any modern civilization that any evidence that contradicts it must be handwaved away rather than taken at face value. You cannot prove that the Bible is the unerring word of God. You cannot prove that no liberties were taken, no truths fudged. You can only assert what you believe to be true, with the only evidence circling back to that book itself, and the entirety of the universe contradicting it.


Isn't that exactly what you do with the statements and judgements of scientists?

You must do yoga or something because that reach is incredible. This is a complete false equivalence. Scientists' statements do not simply circle back to the other scientists' statements. In fact, the point of science is that it all goes back to observable data, such as radiometric data, the fossil record, etc. That is completely the opposite of treating the Bible as, well, gospel, with no corroborating evidence.

Scythey is right; I have been cutting it kind of close out of frustration, and for that I apologize.

(Scythey is also right about that sig. Please, at least just shrink it.)

--------------------
user posted image
PM
^
Onua
 Posted: Jun 26 2015, 02:11 PM
Quote Post


The Admin-Work Rainbow
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 139
Member No.: 7
Joined: 9-April 15



Snake Champion!






Ooh. Fun, fun. Debate. I haven't been involved in one of those since Titan's Hangout.

Okay, so, for the purposes of simplicity, I will deal specifically with Cow Jazz's initial ideas(sweet name, BTW).

Also, just so you know, I hold to the opposite side of the debate as you do, being a Christian. I would say, however, that you should not underestimate my debate skills, just because you may consider me 'religious'.

To begin, I would like to start with the point you said about being a scientist. You said that, for that reason, you cannot consider creationism as a legit theory(I am getting this right, correct? If not, correct me.). But, one must first ask, what is a scientist? I consider myself a scientist, and it is for the following reasons:

I wish to know how the world works

I wish to know why the world works the way it works

I want to know how it came to work the way that it does work

These are my criterium for being a scientist. What do you consider yours?

--------------------
QUOTE (Takal @ 12-8/16, 3:58 P.M.)
That's the thing about opinions, Onua.  Everyone else keeps having stupid ones.

QUOTE (Onua)
Excuse me while I vomit in a bucket.

QUOTE (Takal @ 12-13/16)
[X]enophobia's not just a hobby, it's a way of life.
PM
^
Cow Jazz
 Posted: Jun 27 2015, 05:00 AM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 119
Member No.: 20
Joined: 24-May 15









Well, my criteria are much the same as yours. However, there is also the idea of approaching the world scientifically, and taking the facts at face value. For example, thinking scientifically, it makes more sense to interpret radiometric dating that points to the Earth being 4.54 billion years old as the Earth being 4.54 billion years old than to assume it must be wrong because it violates a preconceived notion with no evidence like a 6000 year old Earth. To me, this facts-oriented thinking is essential to thinking scientifically, and since creationism requires a dismissal of the facts to be viable, it cannot be considered scientific.

--------------------
user posted image
PM
^
Onua
 Posted: Jan 15 2016, 02:58 PM
Quote Post


The Admin-Work Rainbow
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 139
Member No.: 7
Joined: 9-April 15



Snake Champion!






Doesn't EVERYTHING that we can't prove require a dismissal of fact. Here is one fact I don't think anyone can argue with: No one can 100% prove that Creation happened, nor can we 100% prove evolution happened. For that matter, it's impossible to fully prove anything with positive evidence(or, evidence that supports the theory.) The fact is that, all you can do is disprove the other theory with negative evidence. Also, there is FAR more evidence, not only for creation, but against evolution to consider Evolution a viable theory(well, macroevolution. Microeveolution is a perfectly acceptable scientific theory with loads of proof).

I have a few points I'd like to ask you about, and they are points which work as evidence against Macroevolution:

The fossil record

Molecular Biology

Structural Homology

The geological column

Don't know what these are? Look 'em up. I think that these are all major pieces of evidence against macroevolution.

--------------------
QUOTE (Takal @ 12-8/16, 3:58 P.M.)
That's the thing about opinions, Onua.  Everyone else keeps having stupid ones.

QUOTE (Onua)
Excuse me while I vomit in a bucket.

QUOTE (Takal @ 12-13/16)
[X]enophobia's not just a hobby, it's a way of life.
PM
^
ZippyWharrgarbl
 Posted: May 27 2016, 12:17 AM
Quote Post


Platinum Memer
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 41
Joined: 13-June 15









Hey! Sorry no one's replied to you for five months. I meandered off a while ago to do other things and came back to see no one's given you an answer!

I don't think we've met before, but I'm actually studying biology (I'm hopefully getting my degree within a year or two, depending on whether I do Honours or not) and while my region tends to be closer to genetics and microbiology, I've got a bit of experience with evolution and evolutionary ecology, too, and naturally with the way biology is as a region of study, you tend to pick up things from other areas when you sit down to learn one area. It's actually pretty cool, but I'm getting off topic. I just wanted to let you know what kind of background I have in the subject.

Okay. So uh, I'll admit, your question and evidence threw me for a loop- sorry to say it wasn't due to it being, uh, good; you actually surprised me because the things you listed are, in fact, usually used as evidence for macroevolution! I'm not sure what the argument you were trying to make was. You said you wanted to "ask [Cow Jazz] about them", and I'll admit you'd probably get a more detailed answer from her about things like the fossil record and the geological column since she's pretty much an expert at that stuff, but if you'd like, I could give it a go? I'm not sure what you're asking about in terms of the subject, but I can explain them for you? I think you might have misunderstood some of the key elements of them, which is fine since, you know, sometimes people don't understand things right off the bat and that's okay.

Also, disclaimer: I wrote a more detailed reply earlier but the computer lost it from the reply box D: So sorry if I seem brief at times! Please don't hesitate to ask for points to be expanded on, for definitions to be explained (I forget that some people don't understand biology jargon, or that certain words are biology jargon, so there's absolutely no judgement or shame in asking me to explain things), or if you have some follow-up questions I can have a go at those too! That said, while I am pretty well-versed in the subject, it's naturally impossible to know everything about a subject, especially at my level (I'm sure there are professors or PhD holders who know more than I do, ha ha). So please bear with me if I have to go hunting for answers, or can't fully answer a question! http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Okay. To start with, I'd like to address something that isn't on the list: we actually do have evidence of evolution occurring! Now, before I go into this, there was some confusion last time I brought it up, so I want to make it clear now: adaptation and evolution are essentially the same thing, except evolution is on a much, much larger time scale. People get caught up in perceived differences between them, and I understand why. When scientists point to examples such as superbugs (bacteria who develop immunity to antibiotics) or to the Galapagos finches (an example of one species diverging into many, each one adapting to fill a different environmental niche), it's easy to say, "no, these things are the same animal, just with different beaks/colours/proteins!" because they still look like roughly the same animal. I understand that. But, you've got to understand that these are used as examples because they're changes that have occurred in a very short time frame, not enough time for anything like organisms becoming multicellular or for fish to grow legs. It's a lot easier to comprehend changes over a short time frame, and they're examples that people can witness in their lifetime- not so much with the finches, but definitely with the bacteria, since they reproduce a lot faster and have a higher rate of mutation.

Evolution is all about mutations leading to adaptation in a way that benefits the organism. It's a very broad, expansive topic, but that's the long and short of it. And those changes aren't always due to the environment- mate choice also fuels evolution, examples of this being peacocks and birds of paradise. I highly recommend you look at birds of paradise because they're great and perfect.

On to your list!

The Fossil Record: This is a record of animals that existed long ago, in the form of animals that have died in just the right conditions to have their carcasses be turned into fossils. The difficulty that comes with this is, naturally, we're not going to get every single animal falling perfectly into an ideal spot for fossil-making. Luckily, there were so many gosh dang animals and plants and stuff that though we haven't filled all the blanks yet, we've been able to find quite a few! There's even frozen mammoth carcasses in some parts of the world, which have been a keen area of study. Cloning isn't as easy as they make it look in Jurassic Park, but there are people looking into it because hey, you never know. One day we might have the technology.

From the fossil record, we have plenty of evidence that life thrived millions of years ago, and sometimes we even find transitional species- organisms that lie somewhere between an ancestor and a more recent species. This kind of thing, Cow Jazz could tell you more about, but the general consensus is that it is a very good resource for observing long-scale evolution.

Molecular Biology: Ah, I'm more well-versed in this one. Evolution is spurred by mutations in the DNA. While a lot of species, including us, have pretty good regulatory systems for copying our DNA when our cells divide, there's still a chance for error. Cancer is an example of what can happen, namely when one of these errors- otherwise known as mutations- occur in the parts of the cell that regulate cell death or cell replication, but is by no means the only outcome. There's so many non-coding regions in the DNA that there's a good chance that a mutation will do bugger all. Codons, which are a collection of three nucleotides (A, C, T or G) that "code" for a single amino acid (building block of a protein, which are super important), can sometimes have a nucleotide change with no ill effects- there are some codons that all code for the same amino acid. There's also a chance that, if the amino acid does change, it won't do anything to the protein because it's close enough. Of course, this is all mostly about what's called "point mutations", where only one nucleotide changes. There are more dangerous changes like deletions, insertions, et cetera.

Back to the point! Even the most minor of changes to the DNA can have big effects on the organism. A lot of times, these changes do nothing to affect the organism's wellbeing and thus has no effect on its ability to pass the mutation on to the next generation, or they're bad, which will affect its ability to thrive and/or pass on the mutation negatively. But, every once in a while something will change- like maybe the neutral-affecting mutations build up into something good, or even just a random mutation will do something to the organism that helps it survive- and then it's more likely than other species to pass on its genes and thus its mutation to the next generation. It typically takes a long time, depending on the organism's reproduction time and how long it takes to get from one generation to the next. But, these changes are well-documented and are well-known on the molecular biology side of things, so it can't really be used as evidence against evolution.

Structural Homology: This was actually one of the things Charles Darwin used to give evidence for evolution in the first place! One particularly famous example is how a bunch of mammals have very similar bone structures in the arms/arm equivalents, suggesting that somewhere down the track they all descended from a common ancestor. A less well-known example is in insect faces. If you compare a beetle's teeny face to a grasshopper's, or a moth's, or a fly's, then you can see parts where the structure in one has become elongated or shortened or changed slightly to become better suited for its environmental niche. Same as the mammal bones- you can see similar bone structures, but in, say, bats, the fingerbones are elongated and thin, whales have stumpier armbones and less movement in the arm in general, et cetera. It doesn't mean they all developed from human hands, of course; in fact, our arms are adapted for our own purposes.

The Geological Column: Again, Cow Jazz could tell you more, but I'm pretty sure this is a thing for telling you roughly when certain eras came about using fossil depth(?) and geological stuff like that. I'm not sure about the accuracy of it nowadays, though. It's pretty old, and the structure of the column tends to suggest that the eras were clear-cut with a stop and finish to where old species disappeared and where new species began. If that's where you're getting confused, fair enough- basically, new species arising is an ongoing, long process that is not evidenced well in this diagram.

If you have any more questions, or want to know more about any of these subjects, please don't be afraid to ask! http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif
PM
^
fishers64
 Posted: Jul 22 2016, 10:34 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Member
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 377
Member No.: 13
Joined: 23-May 15









QUOTE (Onua @ Jan 15 2016, 11:58 AM)
Doesn't EVERYTHING that we can't prove require a dismissal of fact.  Here is one fact I don't think anyone can argue with: No one can 100% prove that Creation happened, nor can we 100% prove evolution happened.  For that matter, it's impossible to fully prove anything with positive evidence(or, evidence that supports the theory.) The fact is that, all you can do is disprove the other theory with negative evidence.  Also, there is FAR  more evidence, not only for creation, but against evolution to consider Evolution a viable theory(well, macroevolution. 


FTR, there's actually a form of logic called reductio ad absurdum which proves things from negative evidence. For example:

To prove: Creationism is true.
Assume: Creationism is false.
Deduce: Since creationism is false, the universe spontaneously generated from nothing.
Conclude: Since it is impossible for the universe to spontaneously generate from nothing, creationism is true.

Obviously, that is an EXTREME oversimplification of reductio ad absurdum as regards this subject, but an effort to stay on topic. The point of this post is merely to state that form of argument exists, and that it is a valid logical proof. I have a book on logic on my lap right now - Logic by Wesley E. Salmon - and I'm on page 34. Or, if you prefer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Therefore, creationism can be logically proven if there are no alternatives that fit the world around us. However, the problem is, this logic proof has infinite methods of attack by those who do not wish to believe the truth.

------------------------------------------------

Most people do not wish to believe the truth. This truth is logically sound. If everyone wanted to believe the truth, you would want to believe it, and so would everyone else. Therefore, you would implicitly trust everyone who came along with an idea that challenged your own had your best interests at heart, and that it was at least worth looking into.

But when someone does come along with an idea that challenges your own, do you believe it? Do you trust that person has your best interests at heart? No, you assume that they are lying to you. And you expect that if you bring a new idea to the table, even if it is true, that you will have to fight to convince people of that truth. Anyone who expects differently is delusional and insane - unless you are talking to someone who you know you can trust. Which is a rare thing in this world.

And even still, you cannot trust that the people around you are right. Even if they want to know the truth. Still, we wouldn't blame each other when things went wrong if we didn't think that they were trying to deceive us.

No, we do not care about the truth. The only thing we care about is our own personal advantage. Our relationships. Our lives. Number of products sold, in the case of advertising. Our own personal Sprite and donut supply. http://files.b1.jcink.com/html/emoticons/tongue.gif And we will lie to ourselves and to others to get there, and we trust that everyone else will be just like us, and they are.

This is why this subject will continue on forever as a debate. Not because conclusive proof cannot be offered on the subject, but because any sort of proof one side offers will be rejected by the other in order to maintain their own beliefs and personal interest, which in this case is avoiding loss of dignity and a damaged sense of self. Or perhaps wanting to wallow in a damaged sense of self and rejecting the idea that anyone could have something better in order to justify their damaged sense of self.

Then, of course, the other side will accuse the other of lying forever, unless the personal interests of self-damage and self-protection are brought to the fore. Therefore, this subject is not so much a matter of science as it is trust in science; it is not a matter of God and the Bible as it is trust in God and the Bible. It comes down to a simple matter of things: who do you trust?

It makes more sense to me to trust the God of the universe over a bunch of people who don't want to believe the truth (scientists) whose personal interests have nothing to do with my own.

And that, my friends, is another example of reductio ad absurdum.
PM
^
ZippyWharrgarbl
 Posted: Jul 24 2016, 10:02 PM
Quote Post


Platinum Memer
****

Group: Platinum Members
Posts: 114
Member No.: 41
Joined: 13-June 15









EDIT: It bothered me how harsh the old post read so here’s a fixed version

Okay so I agree with you on that example you gave being ridiculously oversimplified because it really is. If someone presented that to me as proof of evolution being wrong, I’d ask them for a better graph because not only is it a massive oversimplification that doesn’t work as any kind of evidence of anything, it’s also not about evolution at all. It’s like someone saying “well what about THIS for proof of Bee Movie being the best movie of all time” and showing me a diagram regarding A Bug’s Life. And with the diagram being made by someone who had never seen A Bug’s Life.

Second, I feel like you tried to say “a lot of this boils down to any evidence against one side will make them upset and reject it”, but then you tried to go on with “however my side’s right no matter what you say” which just about U-turned from the middle ground I thought you were going for. The thing is, and a lot of people seem to not get this, science is an ever-growing, ever-changing field. As we get more knowledge and understanding of the world around us, our previous knowledge changes and we accept that. Years ago, people thought the Earth was flat. We discovered that the Earth was a globe, and we embraced that and agreed that, yes, it’s a globe, and we shouldn’t keep treating it like it’s flat. Apparently some people still believe the Flat Earth theory, and all power to them, but that’s beside the point.

The point is, if someone were to stand up and say, “Evolution is wrong, here’s my proof”, a scientist would look at the proof, see how it measures up, study it, and then either they go “Well they’re right” or “This is totes bogus” depending on how well the proof stood up to scrutiny (if it was right or not, basically). But, we have massive amounts of proof that evolution did happen, and continues to happen. This data has been scrutinised, has been subject to intense study, and has been found to be true. I can even replicate it in the lab with bacteria. At this point, disproving evolution would be like disproving gravity.

You keep going on about your truth being the only truth, but you don’t give me anything to work with except for a monotonous “I’m right, you’re wrong” with nothing to add except “it’s the truth”. Your whole argument up there’s got no merit to it, and is pretty poor in terms of an argument, sorry to say. You’ve said nothing to anyone’s points. You’ve added nothing to the conversation except a clarification on something, which didn’t have much to do with the argument anyway. I’m very, very happy to explain some of the concepts and points to you to the best of my ability if you need further clarification, and I’m very happy to discuss your thoughts on evolution itself, but as it is, you’re not so much making an argument as you are trying to shut one down. While the “I’m right, you’re wrong” argument will eventually cause people to stop arguing with you, it’s not because they agree or have nothing to combat your points, it’s because investing time and effort into explaining a point of view feels wasted on someone who’s not willing to listen to your side of the argument. It’s losing an argument in the worst kind of way- even losing an argument in conventional terms is better, because then both sides get information on another outlook, and both sides come away with new information. In the “I’m right, you’re wrong” argument, no one gets this, because you have one person parroting the same thing over and over and the other getting no new information out of said parroting. Any effort to try and explain or help is wasted.

Your post is written with a more emotional side of the argument in mind, I think. It doesn’t address the topic at hand and doesn’t help anyone understand your point of view. It also seems confused as to the nature of science and study of the world, which is okay and perfectly fine, but does mean your argument ends up confused. You seem to treat science like another theism, for example, in referencing constantly that scientists are stubborn in their “beliefs”, refusing to change, but it’s actually quite the opposite in real life! As I said before, we’re always changing. We discover things, we test them, we try and understand them. So, no, we don’t reject things based on beliefs. We reject things based on evidence, and if we find something that conflicts with what we knew before, we don’t immediately drop it; we find out why it’s conflicting.

I think your second-to-last line is a good one, despite the wording. To you, none of that study and research means anything. That sounds kinda like I’m trying to insult you for it, but really, not getting the study and research side of things is okay. Honestly, I’m happy just explaining concepts that people don’t seem to be quite grasping or haven’t heard of before. The main thing is, your post was trying to disprove something with a flawed argument with no real substance behind it. I just wanted to explain what the issue was.

Anyway, I hope that helped a little! If you need me to explain anything you don’t get about biology in general, or some specifics, please don’t hesitate to ask and I’ll answer to the best of my ability.
PM
^
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic OptionsPages: (9) « First ... 7 8 9  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll


 


 

 
 

 duoTEK skinned by Nephos of the ZBSZ. Converted to Jcink by Meraceire