Are all creationist dishonest?

[RedOne77]

actually we have proved evolution

Science has roots in the philosophical branch of epistemology, and one of the traits carried over was the idea that nothing can be proven. Formally, proof only exists in mathematics and law, not science. Sometimes people use the word proof in a more loose way to mean something that has overwhelming evidential support, and in this informal definition I would agree that evolution is proven, however it is not the correct application of the word, strictly speaking.

 

[outhouse]

Science has roots in the philosophical branch of epistemology, and one of the traits carried over was the idea that nothing can be proven. Formally, proof only exists in mathematics and law, not science. Sometimes people use the word proof in a more loose way to mean something that has overwhelming evidential support, and in this informal definition I would agree that evolution is proven, however it is not the correct application of the word, strictly speaking.

Ill buy that in the science context.

My scientific misinterpretation

But for the rest of us, evolution has been proven time and time again.

 

[Valjean]

My point is that you cannot prove evolution.

Nor can you prove that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Do you doubt this as well?
Science doesn't prove things, as RedOne & al pointed out. Science observes, gathers and tests data, and proposes interpretations thereof.

As for the clergy that agree with evolution they appear to be confused because the bible leaves no room for evolution unless they are saying that the bible is not true;

The Bible "leaves no room" for a round or revolving Earth, either. It's not and was never intended to be a science text.

Youve seen new species evolve in a lab? :no: If thats true then it is a fact but we both know that you havent.

Yes. New species have been observed in the lab -- and in Nature. :yes:.
Your basing your skepticism on cherry-picked evidence, or maybe lack of evidence.

To be honest I am trying to avoiding getting into disucssion with evolutionists because they are void of logic and cannot see the flaws in their own faith system.

But they don't have a faith system (again as RedOne pointed out).
You're doing it again, thinking that science is faith-based like religion.

 

[Skwim]

Science has roots in the philosophical branch of epistemology, and one of the traits carried over was the idea that nothing can be proven. Formally, proof only exists in mathematics and law, not science.

Seems I encountered this very same statement just a week or so ago. In any case I will remind you as I reminded the other poster that logicians my have a bone to pick with your exclusionary statement here. However, I have yet to see proof in its strict sense (as you contend is the only correct one, as alluded to below) used in law.

Sometimes people use the word proof in a more loose way to mean something that has overwhelming evidential support, and in this informal definition I would agree that evolution is proven, however it is not the correct application of the word, strictly speaking.

But it is. Just be cause a word has multiple meanings doesn't mean that one is necessarily superior to any of the others. As long as the applicable meaning is attached or associated with a term it can stand as correct.

 

[Dan4reason]

evolutionists are just as stubborn. when shown evidence contradictory to evolution they find some excuse not to accept it.

Actually what happens is that evolutionists show that this is not "evidence" at all and since creationists are trying to manipulate the evidence to fit their myths, they will not listen to reason. They will try to explain this refutation away by not listening to it and proclaim that evolutionists are just "stubborn."

If you really think you have evidence, then show me.

 

[outhouse]

they will not listen to reason.

Nor will they use reason,,, they cannot due to there belief in a myth

 

[RedOne77]

Seems I encountered this very same statement just a week or so ago. In any case I will remind you as I reminded the other poster that logicians my have a bone to pick with your exclusionary statement here. However, I have yet to see proof in its strict sense (as you contend is the only correct one, as alluded to below) used in law.

Logic can have proof, I just forgot to mention it. My main point is that science cannot prove anything, areas where they can prove things is an aside. I'm not into law, so I can't really comment on it in relationship to proof other than that they can use proof in the strict sense. If you doubt it don't take my word on it, it wouldn't be the first time I've got something wrong.

But it is. Just be cause a word has multiple meanings doesn't mean that one is necessarily superior to any of the others. As long as the applicable meaning is attached or associated with a term it can stand as correct.

Words can have different meanings depending on the situation, and sometimes one definition is more correct than others. A good parallel I like to use is the word "myth". The every-day, informal, definition is a story that is not true or made up. And we all use that definition on a day to day basis, just like we all use the word proof informally. However, if you were to use myth in such a way during a religious or theological discussion you would be using myth incorrectly. Myth in religious studies, simplified, is a religious work that deals with origins or our place in the universe, and is generally viewed as metaphorical. Similarly, if you use proof in a scientific discussion you are using it incorrectly despite that it is correctly used outside of the topic.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Just about. Some people, just like them little dogs; bark! bark! bark! Punt 'em.

 

[Skwim]

Similarly, if you use proof in a scientific discussion you are using it incorrectly despite that it is correctly used outside of the topic.

Hey, I tried folks.

 

[outhouse]

Hey, I tried folks.

its all good bud lol

changing names on how we explain things doesnt change the facts at hand

Creationist need to be honest to us and themselves

 

[tumbleweed41]

evolutionists are just as stubborn. when shown evidence contradictory to evolution they find some excuse not to accept it.

maybe you did not see it because your eyes were closed. there is none so blind as he who will not see

Here ya go....http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/88277-prove-creationism-id-here.html

I am willing to consider that the entire universe may have once been the size of a grain of sand and suddenly exploded into all the stars and planets. are you willing to consider that that "big bang" may have been triggered by some greater force ( maybe God) ? of course you can not prove without a doubt that the universe started that way and I can't prove God was behind it but but you simply say God is not possible but I say the big bang is possible. Who is more stubborn and unwilling to look at evidence?

1. Evolutionary biology has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
2. Evolutionary biology is not concerned with the "Big Bang".
3. Science follows objective evidence. There is no objective evidence for any concept espoused by YEC an ID Creationists.

 

[tumbleweed41]

An observations of facts? Are we talking marco or micro evolution? Are we talkin about the missing true transitional fossils of which there should be billions of in comparison to the fossil records we have? What are we talking about?

Blackheart, please attempt to understand biological evolution before you try to discuss it. It will help to prevent foolish remarks.

 

[RedOne77]

Hey, I tried folks.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if you want a link supporting my position, here's one from talk origins: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term.

It took me a while to wrap my head around the idea that there's no proof in science, but once I finally did it gave me a better understanding of what science is and how it works.

 

[outhouse]

Ther may not be proof, BUT, there are observed facts!

 

[The Neo Nerd]

thread, after thread, after thread when presented with evidence they almost always end up being dishonest and more then not, there dishonest with themselves.

evidence is evidence and facts are facts, there is no debate about evolution.

I have seen some bring the same point up 20 times after seeing proof with evidence on every account.

will the dishonesty stop ????

I have two concepts for you

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive dissonance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias is the reason why they just accept any old creationist propganda.

Cognitive Dissonance explains why they will keep believing it even after the flaws have been pointed out.

-Q

 

[Revoltingest]

I have two concepts for you
Confirmation bias is the reason why they just accept any old creationist propganda.
Cognitive Dissonance explains why they will keep believing it even after the flaws have been pointed out.

If some people ignore your evidence regarding how creationists can believe as they do & still be honest,
then by their own reasoning, some people being dishonest in saying that all creationists are dishonest.

 

[Father Heathen]

If some people ignore your evidence regarding how creationists can believe as they do & still be honest,
then by their own reasoning, some people being dishonest in saying that all creationists are dishonest.

How is willful ignorance ever honest?

 

[Revoltingest]

How is willful ignorance ever honest?

When there is no intent to deceive, & they believe what they say, I'd call that honest.
Carrying the willful ignorance argument to its extreme, are all leftists dishonest?
Is every believer in every religion dishonest, since they all lack objective evidence?
To expand the definition of "dishonest" to include belief in anything which would be cured by knowing better is an unreasonable & rancorous stretch.
Civil discourse is best served by reserving the word "dishonest" for deliberate attempts to deceive.

 

[tumbleweed41]

When there is no intent to deceive, & they believe what they say, I'd call that honest.
Carrying the willful argument to its extreme, are all leftists dishonest?
Is every believer in every religion dishonest, since they all lack objective evidence?
Civil discourse is best served by reserving the word "dishonest" for deliberate attempts to deceive.

Willful ignorance, that is, intentionally remaining ignorant about something that you profess knowledge of, is indeed dishonest.

 

[Father Heathen]

When there is no intent to deceive, & they believe what they say, I'd call that honest.
Carrying the willful argument to its extreme, are all leftists dishonest?
Is every believer in every religion dishonest, since they all lack objective evidence?
Civil discourse is best served by reserving the word "dishonest" for deliberate attempts to deceive.

If they actually believe something that's entirely irrational and wholly unsubstantiated then they are being dishonest...with themselves.