Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Make no mistake. In this day and age, we are engaged in global warfare. Our adversaries are those who would have us dumb, hiding in our caves, afraid of knowledge and afraid of our own governments; of scientists, doctors; big corporations; technology and the "final frontier". This is an information war. Or; to be more precise; a misinformation war. Our primary weapon: Knowledge. The primary weapon of our adversaries: The Internet.

 

[Zosimus]

I shant be holding my breath waiting for you to prove the above made claim

You don't get logic at all, do you?

All right. Let's start really basic. Let's assume that we want to prove that the square root of 2 is an irrational number. How do we do so?

The starting point is that we assume that the square root of 2 is rational. Then we proceed logically from there to show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. Once the contradiction is detected, we realize that the starting assumption was incorrect and thus conclude that the square root of 2 has been proved irrational.

The entire proof can be found at http://www.math.utah.edu/~pa/math/q1.html

That's all I'm doing here. If someone claims:

Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I start by assuming that the above statement is true.
Logically, therefore, I can dismiss the above statement without evidence because it is something asserted without evidence.
So we see that by assuming that it's true we are forced to conclude that it is false.

So if you're still waiting for me to prove the above made claim, then you missed it. You must have blinked at the wrong time.

 

[Zosimus]

And then that claim would have to be proven, and then that claim, and the next one, and the next one...

You refer to the infinite regress problem, but I've already dealt with that when I mentioned the Münchhausen trilemma (also known as Agrippa's Trilemma).

There are three ways to justify belief in something, and most people feel that all three are unsatisfactory in some way.

1. Circular logic. A proves B. B proves C. C proves A.
2. Infinite regress (what you showed above)
3. A priori truths. Things that can be known true a priori.

The argument that people seem to be making here is that we can know a priori that evidence is required to know things. Well, if that's true, then a priori truths do not exist (because they don't require evidence). So the statement in question is self-refuting. So you see, I needn't get involved in any kind of an infinite regress to know that statements that contradict themselves are unwarranted. If you stop and think about it for a minute, you'll see that I'm right.

 

[NoorNoor]

The "evidence" of fine tuning does not support creationism.

Nice cartoon. I enjoyed it but It doesn't make any sense to claim the universe is fine tuned for black holes. To the contrary, if gravity was a little higher, black holes would replace stars and galaxies. Mainstream view is the hypothesis of Multiverse as a possible explanation of our fine tuned universe. It assumes the existence of our universe, is a matter of statistics of other infinite universes.
In addition, the cartoon did comment on the big bang and how/why would the universe arise out of total absence of spacetime and physical matter.

That's because creationists fill in the gaps of what we do not know with G

A proposed model would typically be the construct of facts, hypothesis together in a logical fashion in a trial to explain a phenomenon. The existence of Deity would be consistent with cosmic observations/data and historical accounts. On the other hand, the fact that you don't know, is not by any means an evidence that God doesn't or can't exist.

Never stated otherwise.

Agreed, many people would blindly accept the evolution (or any other ideology) without verification.

The entirety of creationists juxtapose God for that which is not yet clearly understood.

Creationists accept God as an explanation consistent with both observations and logic/philosophy in addition to historical accounts.

You may not shift the goalpost. The claim was made that these persons and these organizations call into question the theory of evolution and do not necessarily believe Genesis 1 to be literal truth. This claim is false as is clearly visible by just a bit of research and going to their web pages.

I didn't make any claims about Genesis. What they believe in, is never my concern. My only point is the fact they impose concerns about the evolution.

I'll do better than that. I'll show that these names were placed on this list through deception.

This is not better at all. Did you notice that the list has grown from 101 to 514 signatories (including 154 biologists as the largest single scientific discipline represented)? Did you notice that he compared 101 scientist to 3.6 million without any verification of actual beliefs of these 3.6 million? (In fact surveys have shown 50% of scientists to believe in God). Did you notice that you are trying to disprove a list of 514 real signatories by referring to totally unverified claim by totally unknown person?

 

[Sapiens]

This is not better at all. Did you notice that the list has grown from 101 to 514 signatories (including 154 biologists as the largest single scientific discipline represented)? Did you notice that he compared 101 scientist to 3.6 million without any verification of actual beliefs of these 3.6 million? (In fact surveys have shown 50% of scientists to believe in God). Did you notice that you are trying to disprove a list of 514 real signatories by referring to totally unverified claim by totally unknown person?

I rather thought that I had dealt with this issue in some detail. Just Project Steve shows it for the fraud it is. I might also point out that over 90% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are non-believers.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Nice cartoon. I enjoyed it but It doesn't make any sense to claim the universe is fine tuned for black holes.

You missed the entire point of the whole video. I'm not surprised in the least.

The existence of Deity would be consistent with cosmic observations/data and historical accounts.

This comment actually made me laugh out loud.

There are no observations that support neither God nor Creationism; except by making strong use of logical fallacies such as "Confirmation Bias" and "Teleological Thinking".

On the other hand, the fact that you don't know, is not by any means an evidence that God doesn't or can't exist.

I can't disprove God any more than you can prove God. For you, God and Creationism are irrevocably intertwined. That, in itself, is a fallacy.

Creationists accept God as an explanation consistent with both observations and logic/philosophy in addition to historical accounts.

There are no observations consistent with evidence of Creationism. Or God, for that matter.

(In fact surveys have shown 50% of scientists to believe in God).

You still hang on to that statistic in spite of contradicting evidence, which I posted, this one from Pew Research Center.

Did you notice that you are trying to disprove a list of 514 real signatories by referring to totally unverified claim by totally unknown person?

Did you notice that you are accepting 514 signatories without doing any verification of their legitimacy or stance?

 

[NoorNoor]

In a nationally representative survey of more than 3000 people, Hill divided respondents in the survey into "creationists," "atheistic evolutionists," "theistic evolutionists," and "unsure," but even creating four categories is tricky. Under his definition, all "creationists believe that God created humans as part of a single, miraculous act," but some think that happened within the last 10,000 years (often called "young-earth creationists,"). Others believe the earth has been around much longer ("old-earth creationists"). That group accounts for about 37 percent of the population; another 16 percent accept the scientific evidence for evolution while still believing God was involved in creation in some way (or "theistic evolutionists"); 9 percent embrace evolution and reject God (or "atheistic evolutionists").

This leaves 39 percent who are unsure, or whose views don't fit into the categories typically used to frame this issue.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national...te-people-into-believing-in-evolution/382983/
Surveys do not support your assertion that all theistic believers deny evolution.

I didnt assert that all theistic believers deny evolution at all. I said, that most people who accept the evolution, deny religions/God. Per the survey, total percentages would be:

-53% believe in God in one way or another (including 16% who accept evidence of evolution)
- 9% embrace evolution" atheistic evolutionists"
-38% unsure.

You identified different types of creationists (old earth, young earth & theistic evolutionists). Also not all people accept the evolution in a similar fashion. You listed religious groups and the percentage of their acceptance of evolution but what type of evolution do they believe in? Many creationists accept evolution as gradual changes that may occur within the same species over long or short period of time but they would deny speciation.

You didn't clearly show total percentage of theistic evolutionists compared to total number of evolutionists but it appear to be only about 38%.

I apologize that I was not clear the first time that I spoke. If you choose to believe that you have won an argument because of unclear speech which may have clouded my intended claim, so be it.

It's not your unclear speech but rather your misrepresentation of the facts. The comparison should be regarding the contribution of scientists who believe in God vs. those who don't. It has to be apples to apples. It doesn't make sense to compare scientific achievement of scientists vs. some religious groups.

Your statistics are quite slanted. It is not as simple as "50%

Universal spirit of higher power necessarily means God. That means, 51% of scientists believe in God (33%+18%)

Believing in God is not in question. Believing in Creationism is. In spite of your assertions, there remains a difference.

What do you mean "Believing in God is not in question"? Do you acknowledge believing in God? Creationism is the belief of Divine creation. Why do you think believing in God would be different from Creationism?

I've never heard that phrase. It probably came from a creationist.

Do you deny the phrase? Evolutionists believe in the relation to apes and they sure appear to be confident and proud of it. Anyway, it's only a joke. The context was about what is considered to be laughable to creationists.

If the number of people who believe a given thing is truly an account of what one should believe, then you are wrong

No, its not an account of what one should believe ( but it's an important fact that should be considered). This was not the context. The context of mentioning this large number was regarding what is considered to be laughable to the majority of people/creationists with respect to the apes issue.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I didnt assert that all theistic believers deny evolution at all. I said, that most people who accept the evolution, deny religions/God. Per the survey, total percentages would be:

-53% believe in God in one way or another (including 16% who accept evidence of evolution)

Here is the evidence that it is not necessary to believe in magical creation by divinity in order to believe in a deity. 16% of scientists do; and this, according to your own statistics.

You splice Creationism together with Religion together with Belief in Deity. They are not all one and the same.

The comparison should be regarding the contribution of scientists who believe in God vs. those who don't.

No. That is not the comparison I even hinted at. You have redirected the conversation to that debate. The comparison is "contribution of Creation Scientists vs. all other Real Scientists".

It doesn't make sense to compare scientific achievement of scientists vs. some religious groups.

"Creation Science" adds no new information to our pool of knowledge. I don't understand why that is hard for you to grasp.

Newton was a Physicist; not a "Creation Scientist".
Einstein was a "Physicist"; not a "Creation Scientist".
Lamaitre was a "Physicist" and an "Astronomer"; not a "Creation Scientist".
Blaise pascal was a "Mathematician"; not a "Creation Scientist".

No, its not an account of what one should believe ( but it's an important fact that should be considered).

No. Its not. History teaches us this.

Creationism is the belief of Divine creation. Why do you think believing in God would be different from Creationism?

Because it is not necessary to believe in magical creation by divinity to believe in a deity. The fact that you don't see this is because you are too entrenched in your own theology to look outside your box.

Did you notice that you are accepting 514 signatories without doing any verification of their legitimacy or stance?

I find it interesting that you chose to ignore this statement.

 

[Valjean]

"Creation science" is a pitiful attempt to put a lab coat on magic poofing.

 

[oneeye]

I have serious doubts that anyone has "complete knowledge" of anything, let alone science or theology.

I agree.

I have serious doubts that anyone has "complete knowledge" of anything, let alone science or theology.

I agree. I think that nobody knows our maker. God or evolution. To me, those who admit not knowing sounds wiser than those who think they are experts.

 

[NoorNoor]

"Creation science" is a pitiful attempt to put a lab coat on magic poofing.

Not true, scientific findings that support Intelligent creation/design exist. The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Unfortunately, I do not have a sound card so I can not hear and critique the video. I'm relatively certain that this is another quote mine. Do you have a script of the video to be presented for criticism?

 

[Sapiens]

Not true, scientific findings that support Intelligent creation/design exist. The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/

Yes, but I rather doubt that Kaku's definition of an "intelligence" has much in common with that used by "conventional" religions.

 

[NoorNoor]

Unfortunately, I do not have a sound card so I can not hear and critique the video. I'm relatively certain that this is another quote mine. Do you have a script of the video to be presented for criticism?

You quickly jump to conclusions. Do you agree that science evolves (I am sure you like this word) and provide new understandings of the world every day. If you agree, then we should be open to expect the unexpected (quantum mechanics) or unanticipated evidence form unanticipated directions.

 

[Sapiens]

You quickly jump to conclusions. Do you agree that science evolves (I am sure you like this word) and provide new understandings of the world every day. If you agree, then we should be open to expect the unexpected (quantum mechanics) or unanticipated evidence form unanticipated directions.

While it is a fine point I do not think science, per se, evolves ... our understanding of science evolves.

 

[Sapiens]

Not true, scientific findings that support Intelligent creation/design exist. The theoretical physicist Michio Kaku said "“I have concluded that we are in a world made by rules created by an intelligence”, Believe me, everything that we call chance today won’t make sense anymore.”

http://ageac.org/en/multimedia/scientist-says-he-found-definitive-proof-that-god-exists-2/

Kaku reminds me of the discussions during my sophomore year tutorial where we'd say things like:

1. Intelligence is an ordered system larger than a given size and complexity.
2. Humans exhibit intelligence
3. The universe is larger and more complex than all humans combined
4. Therefore the universe is an intelligence.

For convenience we can call intelligence "god."

 

[NoorNoor]

Yes, but I rather doubt that Kaku's definition of an "intelligence" has much in common with that used by "conventional" religions.

For some reason, definitions such as "Universal spirit of higher power", deity, singular self-subsistent substance (Spinozism), or any spirituality definition would be more appealing to people than God. Even the belief that Aliens are involved or responsible for our existence is more appealing to many people.

People keep circling the idea of a higher power supreme being of some sort but yet don't acknowledge/understand his existence. Or they may acknowledge existence and deny involvement in creation. This is not logical. If you believe in a supreme being (of any sort), then he would to be involved in creation. In other words, it's a belief in God/Creation. The understandings or explanations of God (the supreme being) are many (as mentioned above) but beyond multiple explanations and definitions, God is one.

 

[NoorNoor]

While it is a fine point I do not think science, per se, evolves ... our understanding of science evolves.

Exactly, our understanding evolves, what is considered as fact today (most probable), future scientific findings may change it.

 

[NoorNoor]

Kaku reminds me of the discussions during my sophomore year tutorial where we'd say things like:

1. Intelligence is an ordered system larger than a given size and complexity.
2. Humans exhibit intelligence
3. The universe is larger and more complex than all humans combined
4. Therefore the universe is an intelligence.

For convenience we can call intelligence "god."

"intelligence" is the opposite of "chance"

 

[Sapiens]

"intelligence" is the opposite of "chance"

No, that does not fly.