Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Zosimus]

Get your popcorn out and have a look at this.

This is no kind of an answer. Regardless whether the video says yes, no, maybe, sometimes, or something entirely different, it will not impact whether all knowledge comes from sense experience.

In fact, the video is ridiculously contradictory. First it implies that the real world doesn't exist except as ideas in our minds, and then goes into the current scientific theories about how eyes process visual information. Yet these theories have been developed by scientists using their eyes.

I guess the point is to say that if you believe in science then you shouldn't believe in science? Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with whether all knowledge comes from sense experience.

 

[psychoslice]

This is no kind of an answer. Regardless whether the video says yes, no, maybe, sometimes, or something entirely different, it will not impact whether all knowledge comes from sense experience.

In fact, the video is ridiculously contradictory. First it implies that the real world doesn't exist except as ideas in our minds, and then goes into the current scientific theories about how eyes process visual information. Yet these theories have been developed by scientists using their eyes.

I guess the point is to say that if you believe in science then you shouldn't believe in science? Nevertheless, this has nothing to do with whether all knowledge comes from sense experience.

I think you have made your mind up, so there is no point in continuing this discussion, a discussion we could only have through our senses.

 

[Zosimus]

I think you have made your mind up, so there is no point in continuing this discussion, a discussion we could only have through our senses.

No, it's not about me having my mind made up or not. You have made a controversial statement. I require you to either justify it or retract it. Which will it be?

 

[psychoslice]

No, it's not about me having my mind made up or not. You have made a controversial statement. I require you to either justify it or retract it. Which will it be?

Ok, now its my turn, you now justify your belief of what you mean by knowledge beyond the senses, even an enlightened being can only experience that oneness through his senses, of course that oneness is beyond his senses.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, now its my turn, you now justify your belief of what you mean by knowledge beyond the senses, even an enlightened being can only experience that oneness through his senses, of course that oneness is beyond his senses.

All right. Let's suppose that I am wondering whether absolute truth exists. By "absolute truth" I mean something that is true under all circumstances. Let us suppose that I think that absolute truth does not exist. So I formulate the statement "Absolute truth does not exist," but then I realize that this is a statement that I hold to be absolutely true. It cannot be absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. Therefore, absolute truth must exist.

Once I realize that absolute truth must exist, I start to wonder. Where did this knowledge come from? Did I look out the window and see this absolute truth or did I come to realize that this truth is true a priori? Clearly this is knowledge that I gained without sense experience. Accordingly, I can demonstrate that it is false that all knowledge is gained through sense experience because I have knowledge that I have gained through other means.

You, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate through sense experience that all knowledge is gained through sense experience. Your claim is, therefore, self refuting.

Q.E.D.

 

[psychoslice]

All right. Let's suppose that I am wondering whether absolute truth exists. By "absolute truth" I mean something that is true under all circumstances. Let us suppose that I think that absolute truth does not exist. So I formulate the statement "Absolute truth does not exist," but then I realize that this is a statement that I hold to be absolutely true. It cannot be absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist. Therefore, absolute truth must exist.

Once I realize that absolute truth must exist, I start to wonder. Where did this knowledge come from? Did I look out the window and see this absolute truth or did I come to realize that this truth is true a priori? Clearly this is knowledge that I gained without sense experience. Accordingly, I can demonstrate that it is false that all knowledge is gained through sense experience because I have knowledge that I have gained through other means.

You, on the other hand, have failed to demonstrate through sense experience that all knowledge is gained through sense experience. Your claim is, therefore, self refuting.

Q.E.D.

Where did you get this idea of absolute truth, did you just feel inside that it was true, just like many people feel inside that their truth is also true. You say you realized that absolute truth must exist, but again how do you know that, did you feel it within, or did you read it or did someone tell you ?. The knowledge you gained, how did you gain this, and how did it become your truth, what was the prosess that lead you to this so called knowledge, is this knowledge from a god ?.

 

[McBell]

Didn't I already show it?
Consider an example of 10 observations (of equal significance) and two models "A" and "B". If we assume 7 observations are consistent with model "A" then the probability of model "A" would be 70%. in other words, the probability of "A" would outweigh the probability of "B".

that is not showing the math.
That you do not understand that fact is most revealing.

 

[Zosimus]

Where did you get this idea of absolute truth, did you just feel inside that it was true, just like many people feel inside that their truth is also true. You say you realized that absolute truth must exist, but again how do you know that, did you feel it within, or did you read it or did someone tell you ?. The knowledge you gained, how did you gain this, and how did it become your truth, what was the prosess that lead you to this so called knowledge, is this knowledge from a god ?.

I just explained to you how I knew that absolute truth must exist. No, it wasn't a feeling nor did someone explain it to me. I came to the realization on my own using the logic of my brain. I am not the first to have done so. Centuries ago the principle of the excluded middle was first written down and disseminated to the world. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that either John has a job or it is not the case that John has a job. There are simply no other options. I don't need to do scientific experiments or observe the world to know that. All that is required is that one be rational.

You should try it sometime.

 

[psychoslice]

I just explained to you how I knew that absolute truth must exist. No, it wasn't a feeling nor did someone explain it to me. I came to the realization on my own using the logic of my brain. I am not the first to have done so. Centuries ago the principle of the excluded middle was first written down and disseminated to the world. Nevertheless, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that either John has a job or it is not the case that John has a job. There are simply no other options. I don't need to do scientific experiments or observe the world to know that. All that is required is that one be rational.

You should try it sometime.

This logic from your brain, is no different than anyone else's logic, or what they perceive to be logical, its just your own interpretation of what you want to believe, you then think that anyone else who doesn't agree is wrong. This is actually a philosophical argument that we could go on and on for ever and never get a true answer, unless of course you made up your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong lol.

 

[Zosimus]

This logic from your brain, is no different than anyone else's logic, or what they perceive to be logical, its just your own interpretation of what you want to believe, you then think that anyone else who doesn't agree is wrong. This is actually a philosophical argument that we could go on and on for ever and never get a true answer, unless of course you made up your mind that you are right and everyone else is wrong lol.

If my logic is defective, then you should be able to demonstrate that it is so. That you cannot and do not even try indicates to me that you know I'm right. Rather than try, you hide behind meaningless excuses such as "it's a philosophical argument" and it's "what you want to believe." Well, where I come from we have a saying: Piensa el ladrón que todos son de su condición. It means something like "Thieves think everyone's a thief." I think that's your situation too. You simply believe whatever you want to believe and you justify it by saying that everyone else does too.

Perhaps this example will make it clearer. Imagine that a Christian came onto this forum and said, "All truth is contained in the Bible." Here's my rebuttal:

If all truth is contained in the Bible and the statement "All truth is contained in the Bible" is true, then we should be able to find that statement in the Bible.
Since the statement "All truth is contained in the Bible" cannot be found in the Bible, the Bible does not contain all truth because it does not contain this truth. Therefore, the claim that all truth is contained in the Bible is false. Q.E.D.

Everyone would clap and cheer and slap me on the back. You might even do so. But when I turn my sights on you and prove that what you have claimed is demonstrably false, then you sulk and whine, and hide behind cheap excuses.

Grow a pair.

 

[psychoslice]

If my logic is defective, then you should be able to demonstrate that it is so. That you cannot and do not even try indicates to me that you know I'm right. Rather than try, you hide behind meaningless excuses such as "it's a philosophical argument" and it's "what you want to believe." Well, where I come from we have a saying: Piensa el ladrón que todos son de su condición. It means something like "Thieves think everyone's a thief." I think that's your situation too. You simply believe whatever you want to believe and you justify it by saying that everyone else does too.

Perhaps this example will make it clearer. Imagine that a Christian came onto this forum and said, "All truth is contained in the Bible." Here's my rebuttal:

If all truth is contained in the Bible and the statement "All truth is contained in the Bible" is true, then we should be able to find that statement in the Bible.
Since the statement "All truth is contained in the Bible" cannot be found in the Bible, the Bible does not contain all truth because it does not contain this truth. Therefore, the claim that all truth is contained in the Bible is false. Q.E.D.

Everyone would clap and cheer and slap me on the back. You might even do so. But when I turn my sights on you and prove that what you have claimed is demonstrably false, then you sulk and whine, and hide behind cheap excuses.

Grow a pair.

Ok, you seem to want to be right at everything, it seems to eat at you, maybe your insercure I don't know. All you do is insult everyone, its a wast of time talking to you, I do truly feel sorry for you.

 

[Zosimus]

Ok, you seem to want to be right at everything, it seems to eat at you, maybe your insercure I don't know. All you do is insult everyone, its a wast of time talking to you, I do truly feel sorry for you.

I don't want to be right at everything. I want you to either justify your claim or retract it. Which will it be?

 

[psychoslice]

I don't want to be right at everything. I want you to either justify your claim or retract it. Which will it be?

I see you as being wrong here, you have no idea what I have said, you cannot see what is in front of you because of your own inflated ego.

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.”

 

[Zosimus]

I see you as being wrong here, you have no idea what I have said, you cannot see what is in front of you because of your own inflated ego.

“He who establishes his argument by noise and command, shows that his reason is weak.”

All right. Let's start again at the beginning.

You said:

we are all wrong, we can only know what we know through our mere senses, we feel the world out there only through our senses, and what we come up with is only that level, we cannot go beyond that level, so yes we are always wrong.

Aside from noting that your grammar is terrible and that you're not a native speaker of English, I note that you said "We can only know what we know through our mere(sic) senses..."

I disagree. If it's true that the only thing we can know is what we know through our senses, then you should be able to demonstrate using your senses that this is the case.

Can you do so? No? Okay, then you admit that your claim is completely unjustifiable.

Additionally, I have already provided you with an example of a truth gleaned a priori.

If you cannot rebut this, then just admit it.

 

[NoorNoor]

Evolution is not a "belief system". It is not attributed to or with any religion, creed or philosophy. As many accept evolution across a very wide range of cultures and religions ... including Christianity ... it offers to worldview, no tenets, no dogma, no scriptures, no morals, no virtues, no vices, no no nadda. Evolution is not a "belief system" neither is it a part of a larger "belief system"; Creationism, on the other hand, IS.

The point was not about the comparison between evolution vs creationism. It was about the similar approach that people follow when they adapt one ideology or another (religious or not), in an act of blind faith

Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in creationists are next to zero.

How did you make this claim? Surveys have shown that 50% of scientists believe in God.
Even Einstein had his own beliefs in God (Spinozism).

Almost all of them are affiliated with AIG or similar fringe movements. These "creation scientists" generally lack degrees in the field in which they are claiming expertise (a Dentist is not an Evolutionary Biologist); and most of the spokespersons for Creationism aren't even scientists at all (sorry, Mr. Hovind, but teaching High School science does not qualify you as a scientist). Scientists who truly practice science

Argument about persons instead of the specific position they maintain would be a meaningless ad hominem. It wouldn't justify an argument.

unanimously (with minute outliers) agree that Evolution is the best explanation we have going for the origin of the species

it's not accurate to claim that evolution explain the origin of species but regardless, evolution don't necessarily rule out God. Many scientist believe in God and agree with the evolution (ken Miller).

Creationists, on the other hand, bring us no new information, no new discoveries. While evolution is based on science, Creationism is based on religious texts scribed by people who didn't even have a clue about the earth's diversity of life; totally oblivious to microbiological organisms, populations of most species in the oceans, or many subterranean species. All the creationist can do is try to poke holes in; and mock; the hard work of dedicated scientists who are trying to truly find answers instead of pretending that they already have the answers.

This is false common claim. First of all it's not true that scientists are necessarily atheists. Great scientists such as Einstein and Newton believed in God.

In addition, the basis of modern science itself (cosmology, physics, mathematics, chemistry,etc) was established at its very early phase (before the scientific renaissance) through the efforts of theist scientists such as al khwarizmi, Ibn al Haytham, Avicenna, ibn hayyan and many others. I assume you wouldn't be familiar with these names but if you search it, you could confirm for your self. This early scientific movement during the "middle ages" was a direct influence of the religious beliefs of those scientists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_theoretical_physicists

Even during the renaissance (Copernicus, Galileo) , early modern ( Newton) and modern periods ( Einstein), scientists saw not a divorce between God/religion and science. You are simply ignoring a long history and all the contributions of theist scientists to support your own misconception or claim that creationism is contradictory to science.

 

[psychoslice]

All right. Let's start again at the beginning.

You said:


Aside from noting that your grammar is terrible and that you're not a native speaker of English, I note that you said "We can only know what we know through our mere(sic) senses..."

I disagree. If it's true that the only thing we can know is what we know through our senses, then you should be able to demonstrate using your senses that this is the case.

Can you do so? No? Okay, then you admit that your claim is completely unjustifiable.

Additionally, I have already provided you with an example of a truth gleaned a priori.

If you cannot rebut this, then just admit it.

There you go again insulting me about my grammar, you just cannot help yourself but to insult everyone you talk to, please just grow up, your too arrogant to have a descent conversion with, I will not speak to you again until you grow up.

 

[Zosimus]

Good! One down... who knows how many to go.

P.S. It's "You're too arrogant" not "your too arrogant"

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The point was not about the comparison between evolution vs creationism. It was about the similar approach that people follow when they adapt one ideology or another (religious or not), in an act of blind faith

And there, you are wrong again. Evolution is based on evidence: http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ -- Creationism is based on "blind faith". (Genesis 1:1-31)

How did you make this claim? Surveys have shown that 50% of scientists believe in God. Even Einstein had his own beliefs in God (Spinozism).

That's right. I don't deny this. But my statement was not "Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in God are next to zero." My statement was not "Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in Christianity are next to zero." My statement was Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in creationists [intended word: creationism} are next to zero."

Christianity and Creationism are not synomous with each other. There are plentiful Christians who do not hold Genesis 1 to be literal truth; and plentiful Christians who accept Evolution. In fact, the number of Christians who accept evolution outnumber the number of Christians who do not.

Argument about persons instead of the specific position they maintain would be a meaningless ad hominem. It wouldn't justify an argument.

Creationism is a specific position that they hold. Their allegiance with Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis is a representation of a specific position that they hold. Their lack of credentials to make certain conclusions is not a judgement of character; it is a judgement of their credibility in making a given claim. You wouldn't take your sick pet to an auto mechanic, would you? Why not? It's rather ad hominen of you to assume that just because they don't show the qualifications to mend your pet, there's no real reason to believe they're not qualified? Give me a break!

it's not accurate to claim that evolution explain the origin of species but regardless, evolution don't necessarily rule out God.

I never said it did. The basis of this discussion ... which YOU started by the way ... was about if Evolution and creationism are the same or different; not evolution vs. religion.

So let's stick to your topic; shall we?

First of all it's not true that scientists are necessarily atheists.

I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, you will find, upon further research, that your claim of 50% believing in God is overly simplified. But I consider that beside the point as we're not debating "how many scientists believe in god"; we're not even debating "how many scientists believe in creationism". We're debating "Evolution and Creationism: Are they really different?"

Again, I remind you, this is a topic you started.

So again I ask you: how 'bout sticking to your own topic?

 

[NoorNoor]

And there, you are wrong again. Evolution is based on evidence: http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/ -- Creationism is based on "blind faith". (Genesis 1:1-31)

Again, you didn't get it, both Evolution or Creationism can be claimed to be based on evidence. Whether the evidence are acceptable or not, again this is not the point.

The point is the fact that many people would blindly follow scientists or religious leaders without verifying or having an understanding of the facts for themselves.

That's right. I don't deny this. But my statement was not "Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in God are next to zero." My statement was not "Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in Christianity are next to zero." My statement was Don't let the christian creationist apologists fool you. The percentage of scientists who believe in creationists [intended word: creationism} are next to zero."

Christianity and Creationism are not synomous with each other. There are plentiful Christians who do not hold Genesis 1 to be literal truth; and plentiful Christians who accept Evolution. In fact, the number of Christians who accept evolution outnumber the number of Christians who do not.

Creationism in a claim for divine creation by God. If you believe in God, then you necessarily believe in Creationism. If you believe in Creationism then you necessarily believe in God.

Creationism is a specific position that they hold. Their allegiance with Discovery Institute and Answers In Genesis is a representation of a specific position that they hold. Their lack of credentials to make certain conclusions is not a judgement of character; it is a judgement of their credibility in making a given claim. You wouldn't take your sick pet to an auto mechanic, would you? Why not? It's rather ad hominen of you to assume that just because they don't show the qualifications to mend your pet,

Their position is not Creationism. Their position is regarding the specific concerns/doubts about the theory of Evolution. Your claim about their lack of credential is a claim that needs verification. in absence of an answer to an argument, ad hominen would be a typical escape route to divert the discussion towards the persons vs. actual point of discussion.

I never said it did. The basis of this discussion ... which YOU started by the way ... was about if Evolution and creationism are the same or different; not evolution vs. religion. So let's stick to your topic; shall we?

Again, if you believe in Creationism, then you necessarily believe in God. You can't make the separation between Creationism and the believe in God.

I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, you will find, upon further research, that your claim of 50% believing in God is overly simplified. But I consider that beside the point as we're not debating "how many scientists believe in god"; we're not even debating "how many scientists believe in creationism". We're debating "Evolution and Creationism: Are they really different?" Again, I remind you, this is a topic you started. So how 'bout sticking to your own topic?

No, this was not about the topic I originally started. This was a response to your false claim that "Creationists, on the other hand, bring us no new information, no new discoveries" again, the greatest scientists, with the greatest impact on modern science (such as Newton and Einstein) believed in God. In other words Creationists.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Again, you didn't get it, both Evolution or Creationism can be claimed to be based on evidence.

Anything can be claimed to be based on anything. Claims are empty without verification. There is no supporting evidence for creationism. Thus, creationism is not based on evidence.

Whether the evidence are acceptable or not, again this is not the point.

It is every bit the point. If the evidence is not acceptable, then it is not evidence. If the evidence is not acceptable but one believes anyway, then one is not believing based on evidence. Creationists do this. Evolution scientists do not. Evolution scientists demand good evidence.

The point is the fact that many people would blindly follow scientists or religious leaders without verifying or having an understanding of the facts for themselves.

To a point, I will agree that some will say, "Oh, yeah, I believe in evolution"; but upon further discussion, realize they know nothing about it. These persons, whom I hope are the minority, do mirror the behavior of all creationists. Making a correlation from the minority of evolution "believers" to the entirety of the Creationists is silly.

Their position is not Creationism. Their position is regarding the specific concerns/doubts about the theory of Evolution.

You don't know much about these organizations, did you? Go to the "Answers in Genesis" website. Right on the front it stipulates that they believe Genesis 1 to be literal fact.

Your claim about their lack of credential is a claim that needs verification.

Gladly!

Kent Hovind is a champion of Creationism.
Mr. Hovind once taught High School Science.
His doctorate is in Christian Education from an unaccredited "Patriot University" and was received through correspondence.
Mr. Hovind does not have the educational background for criticizing Theory of Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Ken Ham is a champion of Creationism.
He is founder of "Answers in Genesis".
He has an undergraduate degree in Applied Science. In USA terminology, that is equalivalent to a degree in Engineering.
Engineering is not a field of study that qualifies one to rebuff the science of Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ham

Henry Morris is a champion of Creationism.
He is founder of "Institute for Creation Research".
His degree is in Civil Engineering.
Civil Engineering is not a field of study that qualifies one to rebutt the science of Evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_M._Morris#Early_life.2C_education_and_personal_life

Ray Comfort is a champion of Creationism.
He is CEO of "Living Waters".
He pursued no higher education.
Having no degree whatsoever in any science, especially that of biology, certainly does nto qualify one to rebuff the science of evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Comfort

Those are the few big names. Please, provide me with more names, and I'll show you that they, as well, are not qualified to rebuke Evolution.

If you believe in God, then you necessarily believe in Creationism.

Again, if you believe in Creationism, then you necessarily believe in God. You can't make the separation between Creationism and the believe in God.

So, you are one who believes that evolution is an attack on religion. Its not. It serves to confront certain myths in certain religions.

No, this was not about the topic I originally started. This was a response to your false claim that "Creationists, on the other hand, bring us no new information, no new discoveries" again, the greatest scientists, with the greatest impact on modern science (such as Newton and Einstein) believed in God. In other words Creationists.

Your logic is so very twisted, I don't know how to respond; "If you believe in God, you believe in Creationism, thus you are a Creationist if you believe in God". I'm sure many believers in deities should be rightfully offended that you brand them among these backwards science deniers based solely on their belief in a deity. By what right have you to speak for them?

Newton did not believe in a personal god and would be offended that you had branded him as such.

Newton lived in the 1600's. Making that comparison to modern scientists is ridiculous.

Creationists: Those who are proponents of Creationism (as the ones listed above): bring us no new information, no new discoveries. Newton and Einstein were physicists. They were not performing their research to prove that God created the heavens and the earth.

To believe that Evolution and Creationism are, in any way, the "same" is laughable.