"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Darkstorn]

I have shared the Wikipedia which both quoted him and shared the sources twice with you now.

But none of those quotes support your claim. So at the moment it really looks like you're being dishonest on purpose. I read the article before you posted it.

Your unwillingness to accept the facts is no blemish on my record.

The fact is you talked straight out of your backside. You were caught. You are literally alone in the hole you dug for yourself.

Are you going to continue with the virtue signaling and ad hominem attacks or actually provide what you claim to have?

Support your claim. Only then you have the right to make this so called argument. Again: If you are aware of the concepts of "mental gymnastics" or "bearing false witness" you will retract your statement.

Because right now it makes you look like a sinner and a liar.

 

[Audie]

Oh dang it.

Sorry-ah, but it must be done.

Yea, tho' he may thrash about like a foul-hooked alligator
and even call forth "ad him" (as if)
still you must hold steady.

Ig city till he comes clean.

Lest you contribute to his sin, and all.

 

[Skwim]

We all know that science does not deal in proof, but you are all acting as though it does.

Ah hem. A lot of us know just the opposite. The science of mathematics often deals in proof. I think it's only you who "knows" it doesn't.

Stephen Hawking has claimed on multiple occasions that the Laws of Physics rule out the existence of God.

Fine, then just show us the evidence. Just one of these "multiple occasions," and we'll all go home. At least I will.

All you three have done is participated in bully tactics and group think.

You mean insisting that you back up your claims rather than take your word? If so then count me in as one of your bullies.
You mean "group think" as in "Boy, those evangelicals sure think alike, don't they"?

Polymath 257 is the only forum member here who actually wanted to have a conversation.

You are aware, are you not, that this is a religious debate forum? If you want to have tea with the choir I suggest you not post in a religious debate forum.

_______________________________________________________
_In any case_____________________________________________


Prestor John (the claim)
Post 423: "It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God."

Many people in many threads: (the challenge)
"Show us the evidence."

Prestor John (the evidence)
Post 457: The link I supplied you shared two quotes by Hawking which I will now copy and paste here:

"In 2011, when narrating the first episode of the American television series Curiosity on the Discovery Channel, Hawking declared:

We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.[311][312]

In September 2014 he joined Starmus Festival as keynote speaker and declared himself an atheist.[313] In an interview with El Mundo, he commented:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.[314]"

​

Many people in many threads: (the rebuttle)
This does not say that Stephen Hawking claims "science has proven that there is no God."


YOUR MOVE

.

 

[Audie]

Ah hem. A lot of us know just the opposite. The science of mathematics often deals in proof. I think it's only you who "knows" it doesn't.


.

Ahem indeed.

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing
Posted on April 19, 2016by Fallacy Man
It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Any one of these evidences could be explained from a Creationist perspective.

Perhaps, but the fossil and genetic data alone when considered collectively tell us that either man and the rest of the tree of life evolved over deep time from a single ancestral population, or something went to great pains to make it look that way.

We have mountains of data from a variety of independent areas of inquiry that all point to the same conclusion, no single piece of which would do that nearly as well.

An illustration might be to consider the flip of a particular coin. It comes up heads. What is the most likely explanation - a random event or a loaded coin that always comes up heads. Although both are possible, a random event is likelier.

A million flips later, no flip has resulted in anything but heads. That changes everything. No single flip when considered in isolation makes the case for a loaded coin, but considered collectively, the case is very strong, about as strong as the case for evolution.

So, the proper way to view the evidence for evolution is not as a series of "single flips" that individually don't make the case for evolution, but as a body of knowledge, which tells a compelling story of evolution.

But as I mentioned earlier, only to a mind that is willing to review the data and argument dispassionately, impartially, and with the willingness and ability to be convinced by a compelling argument. If a person doesn't bring that attitude and capability to the process, nothing can be demonstrated to him that he has a stake in not seeing. Religious faith gets in the way of that by fitting the believer with a confirmation bias.

Absent that, just about every individual examining the evidence concludes that biological evolution is a fact and the theory accounting for it very likely correct. The only people having trouble coming to that conclusion are those who simply don't want the theory to be correct.

 

[Skwim]

Ahem indeed.

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing

Science doesn’t prove anything, and that’s a good thing
Posted on April 19, 2016by Fallacy Man
It is often the case that the most fundamental concepts in science are the ones that are the most misunderstood, and that is certainly true with the concept of “proof.” Many people accept the misconception that science is capable of providing proof, and I often hear people make claims like, “science has proved X” or “a fact is something that science has proved.” In reality, however, science is inherently incapable of proving anything. Upon hearing that, many people then jump to the opposite extreme and claim that since science can’t prove anything, it is unreliable and should not be trusted. That position is also incorrect.

I agree that outside the science of mathematics science does not prove anything; however, as noted below in the excerpt from your link, in the science of mathematics proof does exist.

"Definition of “proof”
I think that it is important to define “proof” at the outset. When we say that science can’t prove anything, what we mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. For example, we are very, very certain that the earth is orbiting the sun (heliocentrism) but we can never actually be 100% sure that it is. In contrast, mathematics can provide proofs. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is."
​

And this is why I singled out the science of mathematics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have shared the Wikipedia page which both quoted him and shared the sources twice with you now.

Your unwillingness to accept the facts is no blemish on my record.

Are you going to continue with the virtue signaling and ad hominem attacks or actually provide what you claim to have?

The Wiki page did not support your claim. You are either lying or you did not understand the Wiki page in regards to your claim. Since you do not understand your error you should be asking politely and properly what you got wrong.

 

[Audie]

I agree that outside the science of mathematics science does not prove anything; however, as noted below in the excerpt from your link, in the science of mathematics proof does exist.

"Definition of “proof”
I think that it is important to define “proof” at the outset. When we say that science can’t prove anything, what we mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. For example, we are very, very certain that the earth is orbiting the sun (heliocentrism) but we can never actually be 100% sure that it is. In contrast, mathematics can provide proofs. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is."
​

And this is why I singled out the science of mathematics.

Thats fine. Whether math is "science" is semantics.

 

[Skwim]

Thats fine. Whether math is "science" is semantics.

It's more than that.

"Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly evaluated and may be discarded."

"Marcus du Sautoy has called mathematics "the Queen of Sciences ... the main driving force behind scientific discovery"

"Mathematics shares much in common with many fields in the physical sciences, notably the exploration of the logical consequences of assumptions. Intuition and experimentation also play a role in the formulation of conjectures in both mathematics and the other sciences."

"Applied mathematics concerns itself with mathematical methods that are typically used in science, engineering, business, and industry. Thus, "applied mathematics" is a mathematical science with specialized knowledge"

"Statistics and other decision sciences. . . ."

"Numerical analysis and, more broadly, scientific computing also study non-analytic topics of mathematical science, especially algorithmic matrix and graph theory. Other areas of computational mathematics include computer algebra and symbolic computation."
Source:Wikipedia


.

 

[Audie]

It's more than that.

"Like the other sciences, mathematics is viewed as an empirical endeavor whose results are constantly evaluated and may be discarded."

"Marcus du Sautoy has called mathematics "the Queen of Sciences ... the main driving force behind scientific discovery"

"Mathematics shares much in common with many fields in the physical sciences, notably the exploration of the logical consequences of assumptions. Intuition and experimentation also play a role in the formulation of conjectures in both mathematics and the other sciences."

"Applied mathematics concerns itself with mathematical methods that are typically used in science, engineering, business, and industry. Thus, "applied mathematics" is a mathematical science with specialized knowledge"

"Statistics and other decision sciences. . . ."

"Numerical analysis and, more broadly, scientific computing also study non-analytic topics of mathematical science, especially algorithmic matrix and graph theory. Other areas of computational mathematics include computer algebra and symbolic computation."
Source:Wikipedia


.

We find that some say it is, some say it is not.

Somewhat the way some refer to sharks as "fish",
which as Audie can tell you, esp after having had a rigorous
comparative vertebrate anatomy course, they are not.

You get "lumpers", and you get "splitters". It can be handy to
include sharks when talking about fish. Who cares.
Just expect a pedantic treatise on "not fish" from me
If you do.

Math as science?
We could play duelling websites, but, nah.

You are welcome to say it is science, and I see
your point

Personally, I find it meaningful to speak of math and
science, as per common usage, as "math AND science" separately.

The Reticent One, who finds it a problem to acknowledge
his rather fraudulent misquote, was speaking about
"proving" something in science, and I corrected him.

"Proof is for math, and, I belueve whiskey, not science."
I said.

To no great avail, mind you. In response, he daintily avers
he would not know about whiskey, and trots out his phony quote
trying to show me wrong about proof and science.

You clouded the issue a bit, but sure- to some, math is
science, and, does proof. Some may say whiskey is science.

His claim about proof in science was wrong, regardless,
though he appears to have seamlessly switched sides.

People in America, honestly!

Im home from work, too contagious to go back yet, and
cannot sleep either. Gives me time for an overly long
response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We find that some say it is, some say it is not.

Somewhat the way some refer to sharks as "fish",
which as Audie can tell you, esp after having had a rigorous
comparative vertebrate anatomy course, they are not.

You get "lumpers", and you get "splitters". It can be handy to
include sharks when talking about fish. Who cares.
Just expect a pedantic treatise on "not fish" from me
If you do.

Math as science?
We could play duelling websites, but, nah.

You are welcome to say it is science, and I see
your point

Personally, I find it meaningful to speak of math and
science, as per common usage, as "math AND science" separately.

The Reticent One, who finds it a problem to acknowledge
his rather fraudulent misquote, was speaking about
"proving" something in science, and I corrected him.

"Proof is for math, and, I belueve whiskey, not science."
I said.

To no great avail, mind you. In response, he daintily avers
he would not know about whiskey, and trots out his phony quote
trying to show me wrong about proof and science.

You clouded the issue a bit, but sure- to some, math is
science, and, does proof. Some may say whiskey is science.

His claim about proof in science was wrong, regardless,
though he appears to have seamlessly switched sides.

People in America, honestly!

Im home from work, too contagious to go back yet, and
cannot sleep either. Gives me time for an overly long
response.

I am far from being an expert on biology, but your post raises an interesting point. Are people more "fish" than sharks are?

 

[Skwim]

We find that some say it is, some say it is not.

Somewhat the way some refer to sharks as "fish",
which as Audie can tell you, esp after having had a rigorous
comparative vertebrate anatomy course, they are not.

WELL. . . . .


In one of my books, The Life of Vertebrates, J.Z.Young; Chap 6: Evolution and adaptive radiation of Chondrichthyes,
On p. 114 it says

"Living fishes with jaws mostly fall into two well-marked classes, the cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes) such as the sharks and rays, and the bony fishes (Osteichthyes)
​

And on p 152; speaking of sharks, it says

"The typical cartilage fishes with these characteristics [a preceding list of elasmobranchii features] may be placed in the subclass Elasmobranchii to distinguish them from an early aberrant offshoot the Bradyodontithe, represented today by the peculiar rat fishes, Chimaera, and the rabbit fishes, Hydrolagus."​

__________________

In my book Five Kingdoms, Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz; Section A-37 Craniata p329, it says

"The classes Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) and the Osteichthyes (bony fish) . . . . "​

p.330

"Marine cartilaginous fish include sharks, skates, and sting rays."
​

_________________

In my book The Book of Sharks, Richard Ellis; Chap 1 The biology of sharks, p 24 it says

"The class of fishes known as Elasmobranchii ("strap gills") is made up of sharks, rays, and chimaeras."
​

____________________

​

In my book Zoology, Stephen A. Miller and John P. Harley; Chap 27 The Fishes, on p 415 one will find:

"Classification of Living Fishes"
..Subphylum: Vertebrata
.....Superclass: Gnathostomata
........Class: Chondrichthyes
...........Subclass: Elasmobranchii ( Sharks, skates, rays)​

____________________

​

In my book, The Variety of Life, Colin Tudge; Chap 14: Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras Class Chondrichthyes p 355 it says

"Three groups of fish form the class Chondrichthyes---the chimaeras, sharks, and rays: and of the three, speaking both phylogenetically and ecologically, the sharks prevail.
​

____________________


In my book Fishes of North America, Earl S. Herald; Chap.Cartilaginous Fishes (Class Chondrichthyes) p20 it says

" In this zoological class, which includes the sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeroids, the cartilage skeleton is present but further developed than in the in the hags and lampreys. These Chondrichthian fishes have a well-developed lower jaw, and both jaws have bony teeth. "​

____________________

And in my copy of Van Nostrad's Scientific Encyclopedia Ed: Douglas M. Considine; p 2,555 it says

"A shark is a carnivorous fish with a cartilaginous skeleton."



​

So, in as much as you disagree with these experts, I'm curious, as to the standard by which you judge sharks not to be fishes.

.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree that outside the science of mathematics science does not prove anything; however, as noted below in the excerpt from your link, in the science of mathematics proof does exist.

"Definition of “proof”
I think that it is important to define “proof” at the outset. When we say that science can’t prove anything, what we mean is that it cannot show anything to be absolutely, certainly, and unequivocally true. For example, we are very, very certain that the earth is orbiting the sun (heliocentrism) but we can never actually be 100% sure that it is. In contrast, mathematics can provide proofs. Mathematics consists of laws, rules, and theorems which are absolutely true. The uncertainty only enters when you apply the laws of math to observations in the physical universe, which in many ways, is all that science is."
​

And this is why I singled out the science of mathematics.

Unfortunately, mathematics isn't a science: it doesns't use observation to test its ideas, it doesn't modify hypotheses in the light of new evidence, etc. Math simply doesn't use the scientific method to find its results.

In practice, math is just a different beast. While we have 'conjectures', we only accept them when there is a proof in the mathematical sense. Any number of observations is insufficient to prove a result.

 

[Audie]

WELL. . . . .


In one of my books, The Life of Vertebrates, J.Z.Young; Chap 6: Evolution and adaptive radiation of Chondrichthyes,
On p. 114 it says

"Living fishes with jaws mostly fall into two well-marked classes, the cartilaginous fishes (Chondrichthyes) such as the sharks and rays, and the bony fishes (Osteichthyes)
​

And on p 152; speaking of sharks, it says

"The typical cartilage fishes with these characteristics [a preceding list of elasmobranchii features] may be placed in the subclass Elasmobranchii to distinguish them from an early aberrant offshoot the Bradyodontithe, represented today by the peculiar rat fishes, Chimaera, and the rabbit fishes, Hydrolagus."​

__________________

In my book Five Kingdoms, Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz; Section A-37 Craniata p329, it says

"The classes Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fish) and the Osteichthyes (bony fish) . . . . "​

p.330

"Marine cartilaginous fish include sharks, skates, and sting rays."
​

_________________

In my book The Book of Sharks, Richard Ellis; Chap 1 The biology of sharks, p 24 it says

"The class of fishes known as Elasmobranchii ("strap gills") is made up of sharks, rays, and chimaeras."
​

____________________

​

In my book Zoology, Stephen A. Miller and John P. Harley; Chap 27 The Fishes, on p 415 one will find:

"Classification of Living Fishes"
..Subphylum: Vertebrata
.....Superclass: Gnathostomata
........Class: Chondrichthyes
...........Subclass: Elasmobranchii ( Sharks, skates, rays)​

____________________

​

In my book, The Variety of Life, Colin Tudge; Chap 14: Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras Class Chondrichthyes p 355 it says

"Three groups of fish form the class Chondrichthyes---the chimaeras, sharks, and rays: and of the three, speaking both phylogenetically and ecologically, the sharks prevail.
​

____________________


In my book Fishes of North America, Earl S. Herald; Chap.Cartilaginous Fishes (Class Chondrichthyes) p20 it says

" In this zoological class, which includes the sharks, skates, rays, and chimaeroids, the cartilage skeleton is present but further developed than in the in the hags and lampreys. These Chondrichthian fishes have a well-developed lower jaw, and both jaws have bony teeth. "​

____________________

And in my copy of Van Nostrad's Scientific Encyclopedia Ed: Douglas M. Considine; p 2,555 it says

"A shark is a carnivorous fish with a cartilaginous skeleton."



​

So, in as much as you disagree with these experts, I'm curious, as to the standard by which you judge sharks not to be fishes.

.

The use of the word "fish" is a matter of convenience
and convention. How about hagfish and lampreys?
HagFISH. And starFISH, for that matter.

There is a whale "fishery".

I dont care to play dueling website quote, but some
experts call them fish, others like to be more precise.

The professor of comp anat course I took was particularly offended by the use o the word, pointing
out the sharks split from "fish" some 400 million years
ago,which by some reckoning makes us more related
to a Stegosaurus than fish are to sharks.

But suture self; you say math is science, I say it is not.
I dont care to play lumper v splitter.

 

[Prestor John]

So you guys are only capable of providing evidence to back up tangents?

 

[Audie]

Unfortunately, mathematics isn't a science: it doesns't use observation to test its ideas, it doesn't modify hypotheses in the light of new evidence, etc. Math simply doesn't use the scientific method to find its results.

In practice, math is just a different beast. While we have 'conjectures', we only accept them when there is a proof in the mathematical sense. Any number of observations is insufficient to prove a result.[/QUOTE

That is now I see it, but, its all irrelevant to the original point which was that the creationists talking about
"proof" of scientific ideas is just ignorance.

 

[Prestor John]

That is now I see it, but, its all irrelevant to the original point which was that the creationists talking about "proof" of scientific ideas is just ignorance.

Yeah, I never made the claim that science "proved" anything.

All I asked was why people on this thread (and Stephen Hawking) were claiming that science has provided "proof" that God does not exist or that the Genesis accounts of the Creation and Flood did not happen.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

I also asked you and others to provide the evidences that you would use to support the theories of Man evolving from filthy monkey-men and to challenge the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood....

...but you guys would rather virtue signal, fling ad hominem attacks, go off on tangents and erect straw men to burn.

 

[Audie]

Yeah, I never made the claim that science "proved" anything.

All I asked was why people on this thread (and Stephen Hawking) were claiming that science has provided "proof" that God does not exist or that the Genesis accounts of the Creation and Flood did not happen.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

I also asked you and others to provide the evidences that you would use to support the theories of Man evolving from filthy monkey-men and to challenge the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood....

...but you guys would rather virtue signal, fling ad hominem attacks, go off on tangents and erect straw men to burn.

You showed no hypocrisy on the part of others, not with your utter falsehoods You showed yourself to be a person just makes things up and then tries to put the fault on others. That is contemptible.

Hawking DID NOT MAKE ANY SUCH CLAIM.


You have no example on anyone on the forum doing so either.

You are worthy of no further response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you guys are only capable of providing evidence to back up tangents?

What do you want evidence for?

If I remember correctly you already demonstrated that you did not understand the concept of evidence. Didn't you deny that there was evidence for human evolution?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, I never made the claim that science "proved" anything.

All I asked was why people on this thread (and Stephen Hawking) were claiming that science has provided "proof" that God does not exist or that the Genesis accounts of the Creation and Flood did not happen.

I was merely pointing out your hypocrisy.

I also asked you and others to provide the evidences that you would use to support the theories of Man evolving from filthy monkey-men and to challenge the Genesis accounts of the Creation and the Flood....

...but you guys would rather virtue signal, fling ad hominem attacks, go off on tangents and erect straw men to burn.

You made that claim about Hawking, an example of bearing false witness on your part since you were not able to support that claim. It is a shame when Christians do not understand their own Commandments.