Evolution or Creation? - What do you rather believe in?

[watsup]

Evolution is based on people's lack of understanding of what science is.

What science would say? If a theory is not falsifiable, what science can tell is that "not falsifiable" = if it is true science can't tell, if it is false science can't tell either. It literally means science doesn't know if such a theory is true or false. Both ToE and BBT fall into this category. Science already defines them as not knowable to begin with. So it is not about whether such a theory is a truth or not, it is all about what humans (our scientists) can do under the circumstance that a truth cannot be scientifically identified. To put it another way, it means we can't identify whether it is a truth, all we can do is to try out best to guess what it is with our best knowledge and technology. It is rather a guess assisted by our technology. They, both ToE and BBT, are not falsifiable simply because we can't make it repeatable for it to be falsifiable.

Now what scientists can do under the circumstance? By speculating other scientific results (by statistical view), it doesn't seem that it is ok for science to accept a God factor into its formula. Thus in the case of ToE and BBT, humans seek for an answer which shall exclude such a God factor. If in the case that in truth that "God created it", it is out of the scope of what scientists are looking for. It means even in the case that "God created it", scientists won't look into that possibility as it is out of the scope of all available scientific approaches. Scientists will only focus on the possibility that in the case that "it is not created by God".

That said. An even more fundamental way than science for a truth to convey is through testimonies. It's more or less like in a car incident. Those witnessed the incident can thus tell you what happened. No humans lived at the time when this universe was born. Only a God can possibly there to witness how it happened. So it's like how a reporter gets to his news, a human went through such a God to get to the info then let the rest of human kind know.


To summarize:
Science - it can't tell if such a theory is a truth or is a falsehood (hence it is not falsifiable).

Testimony - it is either true or false (nothing in between). You need faith no matter what. It is so because a testimony can contain a truth or a lie.

Actually, science does not consider “truth” or “falsehood” in regard to its pursuit of the mysteries of the universe. Neither does it consider “proof”, but rather EVIDENCE. When discussing a scientific theory or phenomenon, the first and really only question is “where is the evidence” for it. As far as evolution, the fossil and other evidence is simply overwhelming that it is the manner in which life has come to its present form on this particular planet.
As far as your discussion of testimony, I’m having a hard tome trying to determine what your point is.

 

[Hawkins]

Actually, science does not consider “truth” or “falsehood” in regard to its pursuit of the mysteries of the universe. Neither does it consider “proof”, but rather EVIDENCE. When discussing a scientific theory or phenomenon, the first and really only question is “where is the evidence” for it. As far as evolution, the fossil and other evidence is simply overwhelming that it is the manner in which life has come to its present form on this particular planet.
As far as your discussion of testimony, I’m having a hard tome trying to determine what your point is.

That's how you misunderstood science completely. You are clueless about what falsifiability is, as common to evolutionists.

Let me tell you how science can determine a truth accurately. That's actually how a rocket can send a human to the outerspace because it is predictable.

The trick is, humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if a theory tells accurately how a repeatable phenomenon repeats itself predictably without failure, our brain thus confirms that it is a truth. So water dissolves into quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is a confirmed truth as you can always predict before lab that it is so and your this prediction always comes to pass. If not, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BBT/universe won't work that way simply because we humans don't have the ability to make such a process repeat itself. We can't possibly make a model predictable and falsifiable.

That said. We don't have evidence we can land on the surface of moon. Science is never about evidence primarily speaking. We land on the moon because a theory is so predictable that it assures that we can land on moon unless it is a mistake made in other areas than the theory itself.

What is evidence then. Evidence is when we fail to make a phenomenon repeat. We thus don't actually have a scientific case. So instead of working on how a model works predictably, we examine a history in the hope a trail left behind may tell something. It is strictly speaking a history instead of a science!

 

[Rumpel]

Evolution is based on people's lack of understanding of what science is.

And YOU understand?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Do they exclude one another?

Yes. Unless you want to torture scripture to fit where it has no place.

 

[Manc Skipper]

That's how you misunderstood science completely. You are clueless about what falsifiability is, as common to evolutionists.

Let me tell you how science can determine a truth accurately. That's actually how a rocket can send a human to the outerspace because it is predictable.

The trick is, humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if a theory tells accurately how a repeatable phenomenon repeats itself predictably without failure, our brain thus confirms that it is a truth. So water dissolves into quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is a confirmed truth as you can always predict before lab that it is so and your this prediction always comes to pass. If not, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BBT/universe won't work that way simply because we humans don't have the ability to make such a process repeat itself. We can't possibly make a model predictable and falsifiable.

That said. We don't have evidence we can land on the surface of moon. Science is never about evidence primarily speaking. We land on the moon because a theory is so predictable that it assures that we can land on moon unless it is a mistake made in other areas than the theory itself.

What is evidence then. Evidence is when we fail to make a phenomenon repeat. We thus don't actually have a scientific case. So instead of working on how a model works predictably, we examine a history in the hope a trail left behind may tell something. It is strictly speaking a history instead of a science!

You conception of science is underwhelming. Were you homeskooled?

 

[watsup]

That's how you misunderstood science completely. You are clueless about what falsifiability is, as common to evolutionists.

Let me tell you how science can determine a truth accurately. That's actually how a rocket can send a human to the outerspace because it is predictable.

The trick is, humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if a theory tells accurately how a repeatable phenomenon repeats itself predictably without failure, our brain thus confirms that it is a truth. So water dissolves into quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is a confirmed truth as you can always predict before lab that it is so and your this prediction always comes to pass. If not, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BBT/universe won't work that way simply because we humans don't have the ability to make such a process repeat itself. We can't possibly make a model predictable and falsifiable.

That said. We don't have evidence we can land on the surface of moon. Science is never about evidence primarily speaking. We land on the moon because a theory is so predictable that it assures that we can land on moon unless it is a mistake made in other areas than the theory itself.

What is evidence then. Evidence is when we fail to make a phenomenon repeat. We thus don't actually have a scientific case. So instead of working on how a model works predictably, we examine a history in the hope a trail left behind may tell something. It is strictly speaking a history instead of a science!

Yes, it is quite evident that we simply cannot recreate billions of years of evolution, but that does not mean that it is not falsifiable. Indeed, it is the very "history" ,as you put it, of fossils as found in the geological layers that provides the falsifiability of evolution in that it shows a steady succession of life from simplest (amoebae) to most complex (homo sapiens). If at any point scientists are able to find an excess of quite complex life forms in advance of the simpler life forms, then that would be a huge hole in the theory of evolution. But they have not. It's like someone asked in another forum: did humans exist at the time of dinosaurs? If that could be shown, then it would throw the entire theory of evolution on its head and scientists would be quite baffled. But they aren't. They have looked for complex prior to simple in life forms and have come up basically empty. As such, the evidence for evolution is quite overwhelming,., but falsifiability remains a possibility, although an extremely slim one at this point.

For a more in-depth discussion: Is evolution falsifiable?

 

[Daisy]

Yes. Unless you want to torture scripture to fit where it has no place.

True...you can't have it both ways when one blatantly contradicts the other...

 

[gboisjo]

That's how you misunderstood science completely. You are clueless about what falsifiability is, as common to evolutionists.

Let me tell you how science can determine a truth accurately. That's actually how a rocket can send a human to the outerspace because it is predictable.

The trick is, humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if a theory tells accurately how a repeatable phenomenon repeats itself predictably without failure, our brain thus confirms that it is a truth. So water dissolves into quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is a confirmed truth as you can always predict before lab that it is so and your this prediction always comes to pass. If not, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BBT/universe won't work that way simply because we humans don't have the ability to make such a process repeat itself. We can't possibly make a model predictable and falsifiable.

That said. We don't have evidence we can land on the surface of moon. Science is never about evidence primarily speaking. We land on the moon because a theory is so predictable that it assures that we can land on moon unless it is a mistake made in other areas than the theory itself.

What is evidence then. Evidence is when we fail to make a phenomenon repeat. We thus don't actually have a scientific case. So instead of working on how a model works predictably, we examine a history in the hope a trail left behind may tell something. It is strictly speaking a history instead of a science!

Can a theory that provides an elegant and accurate account of the world around us ..even if its predictions can’t be tested by today’s experiments, or tomorrow, still “count” as science? In science today we are in various ways hitting the limits of what will ever be testable as theory pulls further and further ahead of our capabilities of experiment. Does that make today's scientific theories any less valid, the short answer is NO. Reason, information, interpretation, deduction and prediction can all serve to make a scientific theory valid and verifiable.

If all we ever did was look at history for verification of a scientific theory we would still be living in the dark ages.

 

[Rumpel]

Evolution or Creation? - What do you rather believe in?

Sometimes I read: Evolution or Croatia? - What do you rather believe in?

 

[Daisy]

Sometimes I read: Evolution or Croatia? - What do you rather believe in?

Why am I not surprised?:2razz:

 

[Rumpel]

22 out of 26 say: Evolution

 

[zyzygy]

22 out of 26 say: Evolution

That is because evolution is a fact. Created by a god is merely a belief.

 

[Dragonfly]

22 out of 26 say: Evolution

You know, if you pay attention while you're creating the poll, you'd be able to see exactly who voted for which option.

Stop making your polls anonymous and you'll have more fun.

 

[Rumpel]

Stop making your polls anonymous ...

No, I won't.

 

[Rumpel]

you'd be able to see exactly who voted for which option.

I know that function.
But I do NOT want to use ist.

 

[Valery]

I know that function.
But I do NOT want to use ist.

True, the closet theists wouldn't be able to vote.

 

[Rumpel]

True

Hello Val!

Will you take part in the Hanukkah celebrations?

It will do you good!

 

[Valery]

Hello Val!

Will you take part in the Hanukkah celebrations?

It will do you good!

No. I won't.

Didn't know you were Jewish.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

This thread shows the usual atheist appeals to authority and misunderstanding of how theories are evaluated. It is common in these kinds of discussions to see the atheist attempt to take the intellectual high ground, pointing out how much support there is for evolution, how only an idiot would seriously question the theory's efficacy and the "creationists" don't really understand science or the scientific method.

Of course this is just atheist smoke-n-mirrors, most here have no appreciation of the many serious issues facing evolution theory or of how it is deviation from expectations that damage a theory not the large number of apparent confirmations of it.

Theories in the sciences should be questioned, should be challenged, should never be treated as absolute truths, this is the irony, the atheists regard evolution as untouchable, unquestionable in the same way the Catholic church regarded the geocentric model of the solar system in Galileo's time.

This often surprises them, that they can be compared to the dogmatic ecclesiastical authorities from medieval days, but it should not, because evolution is as much a faith based belief system as was Catholicism back at that time.

 

[watsup]

That's how you misunderstood science completely. You are clueless about what falsifiability is, as common to evolutionists.

Let me tell you how science can determine a truth accurately. That's actually how a rocket can send a human to the outerspace because it is predictable.

The trick is, humans lack the ability to tell a future. So if a theory tells accurately how a repeatable phenomenon repeats itself predictably without failure, our brain thus confirms that it is a truth. So water dissolves into quantity of hydrogen and oxygen is a confirmed truth as you can always predict before lab that it is so and your this prediction always comes to pass. If not, you deserve a Nobel Prize. BBT/universe won't work that way simply because we humans don't have the ability to make such a process repeat itself. We can't possibly make a model predictable and falsifiable.

That said. We don't have evidence we can land on the surface of moon. Science is never about evidence primarily speaking. We land on the moon because a theory is so predictable that it assures that we can land on moon unless it is a mistake made in other areas than the theory itself.

What is evidence then. Evidence is when we fail to make a phenomenon repeat. We thus don't actually have a scientific case. So instead of working on how a model works predictably, we examine a history in the hope a trail left behind may tell something. It is strictly speaking a history instead of a science!

You clearly do not understand evidence in science. Repetition. Is NOT the only evidence that scientists use. In the case of evolution, the evidence is the fossil record which has shown a steady progression of life in both flora and fauna over literally billions of years. The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that there is simply no other valid theory for how life has come to its present form on this planet.

 

[watsup]

This thread shows the usual atheist appeals to authority and misunderstanding of how theories are evaluated. It is common in these kinds of discussions to see the atheist attempt to take the intellectual high ground, pointing out how much support there is for evolution, how only an idiot would seriously question the theory's efficacy and the "creationists" don't really understand science or the scientific method.

Of course this is just atheist smoke-n-mirrors, most here have no appreciation of the many serious issues facing evolution theory or of how it is deviation from expectations that damage a theory not the large number of apparent confirmations of it.

Theories in the sciences should be questioned, should be challenged, should never be treated as absolute truths, this is the irony, the atheists regard evolution as untouchable, unquestionable in the same way the Catholic church regarded the geocentric model of the solar system in Galileo's time.

This often surprises them, that they can be compared to the dogmatic ecclesiastical authorities from medieval days, but it should not, because evolution is as much a faith based belief system as was Catholicism back at that time.

An absolute amazing amount of misinformation in just those four short paragraphs,

 

[Bodi]

Do they exclude one another?

No. They can easily co-exist.

calamity does not know what he is talking about...

Regarding most creation myths, yes, they are mutually exclusive. In essence, however, there are gray areas worth exploring. Was DNA created, the universe, the stars, the clouds, the rains, etc?

I'd say we have enough evidence to suggest nothing on that list was "created" unless we stretch the creation myth into meaning all of existence is a series of Simulations. That's not to say it can't be.

My most recent reading suggests that existence is nothing more than information.



Read more:

Information Theory And The Origin of Life

 

[HK.227]

What do you rather believe in?

I'm fine with what we have, and if surprising new information should spring up, I would be fine with that too.