Was stumped by a Creationist.

[Geoist]

In my opinion, saying that Evolutionists start with a conclusion and look for evidence to back it up would be giving them way too much credit. They start with a hypothesis and simply treat it like a conclusion.

No self-respecting scientist would do this. Besides, that is not how the scientific method works.

 

[Moderate71]

No self-respecting scientist would do this. Besides, that is not how the scientific method works.

LOL I mispoke. I meant to say Creationists start with a hypothesis and treat it as a conclusion. Everything in my previous post was directed at Creationism, not Evolution.

 

[Mr Person]

Oh, do elaborate...

It's not clear what he means.

It's a good thing if a theory is falsifiable. Put simply, it means that the theory is subject to potential disproof via the scientific method. For example, the existence of a "God" is not scientifically falsifiable because of its attributes: all-powerful (which if accepted refutes all possible empirical disproof), all-present, all-knowing. It's a creature supposedly existing outside of space-time, in all points of space-time simultaneously, yadda yadda. But that first clause alone is why it isn't falsifiable: you can't disprove the existence of something said to exist outside of existence. There's no way of proving its existence, but there's also no way of disproving it, since the definition of this creature is such that it extends beyond empirical reality but is also said reality's master.

I don't have a clue why he thinks abiogenesis isn't falsifiable. We merely lack the knowledge at this point in our development. Not the same thing...

Maybe he's going with the "you can't prove a negative" routine, ie, you can't prove that you could never make life out of inanimate substances. But I'm not sure. Falsifiability does not have to do with the ease or difficulty of proving a thing. It has to do with whether the thing is subject to proof. He's wrong about it unless it could be shown that there is no possible way to model all arrangements of mass/energy, and all possible conditions at a given location with that mass/energy such that a tester could say they have tested all possible circumstances in which inanimate matter can form life.

 

[Xelor]

Evolution absolutely disproves young earth creationism though, without a shadow of a doubt.

One doesn't need a whole theory of anything to disprove that; simple observation of any number of things will do it, though my personal favorite it the observation of any light photon that's >10K light years distant.

That notwithstanding, I don't know how or why one in his/her right mind bothers trying to prove or disprove anything in a conversation with someone who, ascribing to a notion that can neither be proven nor disproved, asserts that something which long as been, at it's heart, a political tool is somehow science. Indeed, one can even argue that theology was politics itself, for at the dawn of human civilization, who ruled? The guys who were deemed gods on Earth or who could talk to the gods in the heavens. And that was how political power was, in the Western world, obtained, organized and overseen until the very end of the 18th century, despite the beginnings of distinguishing between the two having been vestigially nascent since the early 5th century A.D.

 

[VanceMack]

The difference is that physicists will happily abandon the Big Bang theory if a better explanation is shown

The similarity is that until the next new theory comes along, there are plenty that spout a 'belief' in the big bang as fact.

 

[pinqy]

The similarity is that until the next new theory comes along, there are plenty that spout a 'belief' in the big bang as fact.

I doubt you’ll find any physicists who claim the Big Bang is a fact.

 

[Exquisitor]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

One can believe in both creationism and evolution.

As an approximate ruler that won't measure microns or be useful in engineering advanced structures the Bible is full of cryptic wisdom and wit.

This Earth is a reflection of the Godhead's original planet, this is what it means to be an Earth Planet and this is because of the exulted personalities that have been appearing here namely Christ and Chaitanya because it is unclear how Krishna and Ram fit into the evolutionary timeline and since no explanation is given from these agencies (the "I AM" and Hare Krishna) their import is discarded.

The whole idea of linear time and dimensionality are fully unaddressed in the creationist discussion, when their own writ says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

A day to Lord Brahma is six billion years, a day of Lord Vishnu is many of these.

I don't know how relevant or accurate are these figures, but I'm just saying.

The whole concept of being ensnared by time (bitten by the black snake of time) down at this level.

When it says He formed man out of the dust of the ground He meant He used evolution.

 

[Pedestrian]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Creationism is a word created by those that simply insist on the 'great creator' and nothing else and is false because the creator is false.

That so many want that in the classroom is frightening. Evolution should be taught in church instead.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

One can believe in both creationism and evolution.

As an approximate ruler that won't measure microns or be useful in engineering advanced structures the Bible is full of cryptic wisdom and wit.

This Earth is a reflection of the Godhead's original planet, this is what it means to be an Earth Planet and this is because of the exulted personalities that have been appearing here namely Christ and Chaitanya because it is unclear how Krishna and Ram fit into the evolutionary timeline and since no explanation is given from these agencies (the "I AM" and Hare Krishna) their import is discarded.

The whole idea of linear time and dimensionality are fully unaddressed in the creationist discussion, when their own writ says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

A day to Lord Brahma is six billion years, a day of Lord Vishnu is many of these.

I don't know how relevant or accurate are these figures, but I'm just saying.

The whole concept of being ensnared by time (bitten by the black snake of time) down at this level.

When it says He formed man out of the dust of the ground He meant He used evolution.

^^^Good stuff.

God did it. By whatever means you say. In whatever way you say. Just recognize that there are other means and ways that others believe in, and they are just as proven as yours.

 

[Exquisitor]

One can believe in both creationism and evolution.

As an approximate ruler that won't measure microns or be useful in engineering advanced structures the Bible is full of cryptic wisdom and wit.

This Earth is a reflection of the Godhead's original planet, this is what it means to be an Earth Planet and this is because of the exulted personalities that have been appearing here namely Christ and Chaitanya because it is unclear how Krishna and Ram fit into the evolutionary timeline and since no explanation is given from these agencies (the "I AM" and Hare Krishna) their import is discarded.

The whole idea of linear time and dimensionality are fully unaddressed in the creationist discussion, when their own writ says a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day.

A day to Lord Brahma is six billion years, a day of Lord Vishnu is many of these.

I don't know how relevant or accurate are these figures, but I'm just saying.

The whole concept of being ensnared by time (bitten by the black snake of time) down at this level.

When it says He formed man out of the dust of the ground He meant He used evolution.

The "I AM" puts Krishna two hundred seventy thousand years ago and the Hare Krishna put Him five thousand years ago.

The "I AM" says mankind stepped out of the atmosphere and the Hare Krishna say people were descended from the Sun God who could logically exist. They also believe that individuals are awarded Prajapati status like Adam and Eve and they get to sire a race.

There is a stone bridge to Sri Lanka that NASA dates one point some million years, was that Homo Erectus? The Universe could be expanding to this point through both pasts.

Here's a project for you. Go to Vrindavan (India) and collect DNA samples. Get the Great Divine Director to step out of the atmosphere and get his, get Meru, Tabor, The Mighty Himalaya and the God of the Swiss Alps and see where they come from. Get the ones from Venus. Get the Elohim and Archangels.

 

[ataraxia]

You confuse me. I'm correcting the record. This is not a....god of the gaps, or even an argument in favor of creationism. In fact, If I would to argue for creationism, I would just combine Creationism and Evolution. Evolution has no bearing on our origins. Evolution is not abiogensis. There are many people who believe in evolution, but also believe in the conspiracies of aliens and area 51, leading some to think Aliens created us, whos origins are in the garden of eden story. Mind you, it's the most ridiculous of the three, but it's just as much of a hypothesis as any other.

We still don't know what happened before 10^-31 seconds after the big bang. That's no reason to ditch the whole theory or ascribe that 10^-31 second period to God yet. We don't know what electrons and quarks are made of (string theory is still not considered mainstream science, just a hypothesis), but that's no reason to ditch the whole atomic theory of matter. We still don't understand exactly how gravity works (the idea of graviton particles is still not considered mainstream science), but that's no reason to ditch all that we think we know about gravity currently from Newton to Einstein, or just be happy with saying God is what's holding astronomical bodies together.

Evolution is the same. Just because we don't have a robust and well-established theory of abiogenesis does not mean that evolutionary biology as a whole is not well-established and mainstream, or there might be something to creationism. It also IS a "God of the gaps" fallacy to ascribe a part of the theory we're not entirely clear on yet to "God musta done it."

That's just how science works.

 

[DarkWizard12]

We still don't know what happened before 10^-31 seconds after the big bang. That's no reason to ditch the whole theory or ascribe that 10^-31 second period to God yet. We don't know what electrons and quarks are made of (string theory is still not considered mainstream science, just a hypothesis), but that's no reason to ditch the whole atomic theory of matter. We still don't understand exactly how gravity works (the idea of graviton particles is still not considered mainstream science), but that's no reason to ditch all that we think we know about gravity currently from Newton to Einstein, or just be happy with saying God is what's holding astronomical bodies together.

Evolution is the same. Just because we don't have a robust and well-established theory of abiogenesis does not mean that evolutionary biology as a whole is not well-established and mainstream, or there might be something to creationism. It also IS a "God of the gaps" fallacy to ascribe a part of the theory we're not entirely clear on yet to "God musta done it."

That's just how science works.

Right, which is why there is no need to ditch evolution because it says nothing about the origins of man.

 

[Airyaman]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Not really a "scientist" anymore, but the bolded sounds like it is very wrong.

 

[Exquisitor]

We still don't know what happened before 10^-31 seconds after the big bang. That's no reason to ditch the whole theory or ascribe that 10^-31 second period to God yet. We don't know what electrons and quarks are made of (string theory is still not considered mainstream science, just a hypothesis), but that's no reason to ditch the whole atomic theory of matter. We still don't understand exactly how gravity works (the idea of graviton particles is still not considered mainstream science), but that's no reason to ditch all that we think we know about gravity currently from Newton to Einstein, or just be happy with saying God is what's holding astronomical bodies together.

Evolution is the same. Just because we don't have a robust and well-established theory of abiogenesis does not mean that evolutionary biology as a whole is not well-established and mainstream, or there might be something to creationism. It also IS a "God of the gaps" fallacy to ascribe a part of the theory we're not entirely clear on yet to "God musta done it."

That's just how science works.

We know what happened at 10^-31 seconds? Wow.

What I don't get is how did space-time expand faster than the speed of light?

It seems to me the big bang would have gone off much slower.

Neither is it clear what is meant by one second at that point. How is time reacting to the expansion of space time? What does this mean in terms of non-linear time and to be beyond space and time?

To travel faster than the speed of light you just need to align with this point.

 

[maxparrish]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

The cosmos ruled by a committee of pink elephants is not falsifiable either; it has no predictive value, explains nothing, and as a model is utterly worthless. Aspects of evolution, on the other hand, can be falsified. Genetics, geology, paleontology, etc. could, in theory, could turn up evidence of non-evolution. If, for example, a species that had no genetic, protein, amino acid, or other relationship to any other on earth, that would suggest something other than evolution.

I think it sweet that your friend believes in pink elephants, just as there are those who are sure there must be a black swan. But as long as elephants are grey, and swans are white, which theory is more reasonable?

 

[Daisy]

Regardless of some claims, the Bible and the theory of evolution cannot be reconciled...

The Bible says that “[God] created all things.” (Revelation 4:11) He did not “rest” until his creative work was complete. (Genesis 2:2) The implication is clear: God did not create a simple organism and then rest, or take a backseat, while that organism evolved over millions of years into various kinds of fish, apes, and humans.* That idea, called macroevolution, denies the role of a Creator, who the Bible says “made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them.”​—Exodus 20:11; Revelation 10:6.

The Bible says that God’s “invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made.” (Romans 1:20) Learning about God can give real meaning to life, for he has a loving purpose that includes all who sincerely seek him. (Ecclesiastes 12:13; Hebrews 11:6)

Contrary to the claims of creationists, the Bible does not support the idea that God created the earth in six 24-hour days

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102015366?q=evolution+and+creation&p=sen#h=14

How Long Were the Creative Days?
What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses​—the writer of Genesis—​later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?

No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

How long, then, were the creative days? The Bible does not say; however, the wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.

Six Creative Periods
Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or days, help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following “days.” For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures​—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—​started to appear on the fifth “day.”

The Bible’s narrative allows for the possibility that some major events during each day, or creative period, occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative days.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010234#h=1:0-17:0

 

[JacksinPA]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

The fact that evolution has occurred & continues to occur is writ large in the fossil record. Creationists, however, continue to try to falsify the various dating methods used for dating old rock strata that contain the fosils.

Strict Creationists hold that the Genesis story is literal fact, despite that there was no one there to observe it happening. I think interpreting a Genesis 'day' as containing exactly 24 hours is a bit of a stretch. And that humans coexisted with dinosaurs is complete, unverifiable fantasy.

 

[Exquisitor]

The fact that evolution has occurred & continues to occur is writ large in the fossil record. Creationists, however, continue to try to falsify the various dating methods used for dating old rock strata that contain the fosils.

Strict Creationists hold that the Genesis story is literal fact, despite that there was no one there to observe it happening. I think interpreting a Genesis 'day' as containing exactly 24 hours is a bit of a stretch. And that humans coexisted with dinosaurs is complete, unverifiable fantasy.

There could be something to shoes being found in coal seams, you wouldn't think a piece of real estate like the Earth would go uninhabited.

 

[spud_meister]

Personally I've never felt the need to discuss evolution vs creationism or visa versa. One does not discount/disprove the other.

O course it does. The fossil record and geological evidence and a whole host of other things disprove the Genesis creation myth.

 

[Napoleon]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

He sounds like a God of the Gaps enthusiast. The problem with that is twofold: 1) That you don’t know the answer to something does not imply the existence of the supernatural. 2) Scientific advancement has consistently filled those gaps with natural explanations. The litmus test is not necessarily what is or is not falsifiable, but what you can demonstrate a need for. The existence of a god does not fill any such need for an explanation. In fact it’s rather counterintuitive. For example, why would a god create a universe with natural laws that not only conceal the need for its own existence but which it later must suspend on a regular basis to perform “miracles?”

 

[ataraxia]

We know what happened at 10^-31 seconds? Wow.

What I don't get is how did space-time expand faster than the speed of light?

Has to do with expansion of space itself.

It seems to me the big bang would have gone off much slower.

That’s not how the math works out.

Neither is it clear what is meant by one second at that point. How is time reacting to the expansion of space time? What does this mean in terms of non-linear time and to be beyond space and time?

It has to do with relativistically covariant and contravariant frames of reference. These measurements would be relativistically from OUR current frame of reference observing backwards in time.

Look, you ask good questions. Many of these answers exist in a good astronomy book if you look. If it still doesn’t make sense, I would recommend posting the questions in the website “Physics Forums”. There are a lot of very smart people there who would be happy to answer your questions. But when your post, I would recommend labeling the question at “high school level” ( you have to choose). They have higher levels, like undergraduate, graduate, or advanced. But if you post these kinds of questions under any of those other levels, you are likely to get very short, snarky replies, because by that point you should know these things. They are more patient and understanding with the high school level questions.

But regardless, none of this has anything to do with God.

 

[Tim the plumber]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.

If they do not they are not scientists.

Evidence is the heart of science. They still rely utterly on it.

 

[CriticalThought]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

His assessment of science is false. Scientists are trying to disprove evolution. They are looking for evidence to prove the theory is wrong. The lack of evidence to disprove it provides credibility. Your friend is demanding the opposite with his own argument for creationism. He wants you to prove a negative. In essence you could use the same arguments he is using to support the idea that leprechauns and unicorns are real.

 

[wellwisher]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. Scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

One problem with modern Evolutionary theory, compared to the original theory of Darwin, is the modern version depends too much on random changes in the DNA, to create mutations, from which natural selection will occur. They use a God of Random, to create a new Adam, for each aspect of change.

The problem with this god of random assumption, is random changes to any system will create more problems than solutions. As an example, get the service manual to your car and randomly open the the book and then randomly point and change the part your finger lands on, too see what happens. The result is 999 out of 1000 times you will make the car worse off.

If you wish to run a more organic experiment, have your doctor induce a series of random genetic changes on you, to see that happens. We will see if you get more evolved that before, or get sick and die, due to the random changes. Maybe we should ask Evolutionists to volunteer since they believe this will work. Put you money where your mouth is.

If you allowed the doctor to make genetic changes on you, they would need to be planned out; intelligent design but not random, if the goal was to improve you and not make you sick and/or kill you. The random mythology renders the modern version of evolution very suspect since this defies common sense and can be shown to be a false with all forms of experiments.

The Darwinian aspect of evolution is logical and reasonable. His schema has been demonstrated in nature, even if we assume the original life appeared 6000 year ago. We can see his schema in acton through animal breeding, and the selection process than forms new dog breeds. Since the time of Darwin about 100 dog breeds have been added through artificial selection based on human subjectivity.

 

[Moderate71]

If they do not they are not scientists.

Evidence is the heart of science. They still rely utterly on it.

If they do not they are not scientists.

Evidence is the heart of science. They still rely utterly on it.

His point is that before Karl Popper, the dominant Philosophy of Science had been started by a group of Physicists, Mathematicians and Philosophers and was called Logical Positivism. It clung to the antiquated notion that the strength of a scientific theory was based primarily on the verifiable evidence that supports it weighed against the evidence that contradicts it. Karl Popper demonstrated that the only relevant factor is how little evidence contradicts your theory and verifiability is completely irrelevant. For example, most Physicists before Popper, being Logical Positivists were ardent supporters of Astrology. Rudolf Carnap actually wrote his Phd Thesis on Astrology. Even though Astrology is extremely non-vague and passed every strictly defined verification test scientists of the early to mid twentieth century could throw at it, it is not falsifiable and therefore not scientific. The debunking of Astrology in the 1950s was a major breakthrough in the scientific community.

Now, Philosophers are the people that determine how fields outside of Philosophy are practiced. For example, Philosophers of Science tell Physicists how to practice Physics, Chemists how to practice Chemistry, etc. There is currently an ongoing battle because some Physicists are going rogue and trying to practice their field the way they see fit. They aren't listening to the Philosophers and think they know better when it comes to Physics.

Another aspect of falsifiability is confirmation bias. If a scientist is trying to prove that a cure for cancer exists, he can never cure cancer. Only a scientist who was trying to disprove the theory that a cure for cancer exists can ever find a cure for cancer. The same goes for an archaeologist setting out to prove the existence of the ancient city of Gath. It has still not been proven to exist even though it has been found. The archaeologist in charge was starting with a hypothesis that it existed and worked backwards to find a solution. Only an archaeologist that was attempting to falsify the claim it existed can ever prove it existed.

Given all of this, my friend is correct in asserting that all of the verifiable evidence in support of Evolution is completely irrelevant. It only comes down to how much evidence refutes it and whether or not he can swear he was always attempting to disprove his theory and never to confirm it.