Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Deathbydefault]

Grasping at straws? I don't think so. Rather than insult you back, let's try to break this down to see where exactly the disagreement lies.

Maturity is best, I suppose... but not as fun.

You claim: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Q1: Is this a claim?
(I assume you will say yes. If not, this is where the disagreement lies).

I treat Hitchens razor as an attitude towards claims, not as a claim itself.
Clicking it in my quote box will take you to the description, if you can show me that it is a claim I will try to address that to the best of my ability.

 

[Zosimus]

Maturity is best, I suppose... but not as fun.

I treat Hitchens razor as an attitude towards claims, not as a claim itself.
Clicking it in my quote box will take you to the description, if you can show me that it is a claim I will try to address that to the best of my ability.

Ooh, Wikipedia... that endless source of unbiased information... part of the series on Atheism... written by atheists. Uhm, no thanks.

Let's refocus on exactly what your quote says.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Do you assert that this is true or at the very least useful and/or a good guideline?

Can you provide evidence that supports this assertation?

No? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I dismiss your assertation without evidence.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Ooh, Wikipedia... that endless source of unbiased information... part of the series on Atheism... written by atheists. Uhm, no thanks.

Well it is named after someone who can be considered equivalent to a saint within atheism.

Let's refocus on exactly what your quote says.

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Do you assert that this is true or at the very least useful and/or a good guideline?

I don't know.
I use it as a description of my attitude so the actual intention behind the definition is something I have yet to put deep thought into.

Can you provide evidence that supports this assertation?

No? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I dismiss your assertation without evidence.

How paradoxical of you.

 

[Zosimus]

Well it is named after someone who can be considered equivalent to a saint within atheism.

I'm certainly aware of who Christopher Hitchens is – a radical atheist who drank and smoked himself to death.

I don't know.
I use it as a description of my attitude so the actual intention behind the definition is something I have yet to put deep thought into.

Well, that's the point of this thread. I'd like you to put some serious thought into the matter.

How paradoxical of you.

My actions are no more paradoxical than those of an atheist who disproves a Christian's claim by using the Bible.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Well, that's the point of this thread. I'd like you to put some serious thought into the matter.

I'm fairly certain that this thread concerns whether there is any verifiable evidence for creationism.

 

[Zosimus]

I'm fairly certain that this thread concerns whether there is any verifiable evidence for creationism.

Yes – that's what we call putting the cart before the horse.

Look, let's imagine that we work together, and I comment on a co-worker. I say, "John got up late today."

You observe John and you see that he looks a little frazzled. His hair is unkempt. He looks as though he didn't shower this morning. He's drinking a big Red Bull. You conclude that I'm right.

Yet perhaps we're both wrong. Maybe he went to bed late. Maybe the water was shut off in his neighborhood. Maybe he spent all night at the hospital with his daughter. Any of these explanations will explain the data we have. In short, the data support more than one theory.

Yet it's common here to claim that all the evidence supports Darwinism rather than creationism. How exactly does this work?

Well, we have a theory (Darwinism), which I will call D. We then think, assuming that Darwinism is correct, what will we observe? We will observe evidence, which I will call E. Then we go looking for that evidence, and we find it. So we conclude that the theory is correct. In short, our logical process is:

If D then E
E
Therefore, D.

The problem is that the above sequence is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Anyone could do the same. Here's a simple example:

If God created the Earth, then the Earth will exist.
The Earth exists.
Therefore, God created the Earth.

Well yes, that is evidence consistent with the idea that God created the Earth, but it's consistent with a lot of other theories. In short, no amount of evidence that we collect will ever be sufficient to confirm the theory. The data will never be sufficient.

 

[Shad]

Yes – that's what we call putting the cart before the horse.

Look, let's imagine that we work together, and I comment on a co-worker. I say, "John got up late today."

You observe John and you see that he looks a little frazzled. His hair is unkempt. He looks as though he didn't shower this morning. He's drinking a big Red Bull. You conclude that I'm right.

Yet perhaps we're both wrong. Maybe he went to bed late. Maybe the water was shut off in his neighborhood. Maybe he spent all night at the hospital with his daughter. Any of these explanations will explain the data we have. In short, the data support more than one theory.

Yet it's common here to claim that all the evidence supports Darwinism rather than creationism. How exactly does this work?

Well, we have a theory (Darwinism), which I will call D. We then think, assuming that Darwinism is correct, what will we observe? We will observe evidence, which I will call E. Then we go looking for that evidence, and we find it. So we conclude that the theory is correct. In short, our logical process is:

If D then E
E
Therefore, D.

The problem is that the above sequence is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Anyone could do the same. Here's a simple example:

If God created the Earth, then the Earth will exist.
The Earth exists.
Therefore, God created the Earth.

Well yes, that is evidence consistent with the idea that God created the Earth, but it's consistent with a lot of other theories. In short, no amount of evidence that we collect will ever be sufficient to confirm the theory. The data will never be sufficient.

Science uses inductive and aductive reasoning not deductive reasoning. Your point is moot. It's methods and models are about accuracy not absolute truth. Also when theories are compared to find which is more accurate the ID model is found wanting due to a lack of data in support.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes – that's what we call putting the cart before the horse.

Look, let's imagine that we work together, and I comment on a co-worker. I say, "John got up late today."

You observe John and you see that he looks a little frazzled. His hair is unkempt. He looks as though he didn't shower this morning. He's drinking a big Red Bull. You conclude that I'm right.

Yet perhaps we're both wrong. Maybe he went to bed late. Maybe the water was shut off in his neighborhood. Maybe he spent all night at the hospital with his daughter. Any of these explanations will explain the data we have. In short, the data support more than one theory.

Yet it's common here to claim that all the evidence supports Darwinism rather than creationism. How exactly does this work?

Well, we have a theory (Darwinism), which I will call D. We then think, assuming that Darwinism is correct, what will we observe? We will observe evidence, which I will call E. Then we go looking for that evidence, and we find it. So we conclude that the theory is correct. In short, our logical process is:

If D then E
E
Therefore, D.

The problem is that the above sequence is a formal logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Anyone could do the same. Here's a simple example:

If God created the Earth, then the Earth will exist.
The Earth exists.
Therefore, God created the Earth.

Well yes, that is evidence consistent with the idea that God created the Earth, but it's consistent with a lot of other theories. In short, no amount of evidence that we collect will ever be sufficient to confirm the theory. The data will never be sufficient.

Except that evolution didn't even manage that, the fundamental prediction was that the fossil record should show smooth incremental transitions between each species. Darwin himself acknowledged that failing to validate this would be fatal to the theory

 

[Zosimus]

Science uses inductive and aductive reasoning not deductive reasoning. Your point is moot. It's methods and models are about accuracy not absolute truth. Also when theories are compared to find which is more accurate the ID model is found wanting due to a lack of data in support.

Yes, I'm certainly aware that science purports to work according to induction. But have you considered the problem of induction?

Let us imagine that we measure the speed of light and find it to be a certain speed, which I will call c. We measure it again and again, and the number comes out the same (with minor variations).

How do we know that the speed of light will be the same the next time we measure it? In short, your chain of logic looks something like this:

The speed of light behaved in a certain way in the past.
Therefore, it will behave in the same way in the future.

The problem is, of course, that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises! This is easily rectifiable, of course, by inserting the additional premise:

The past is a good guide to the future.

But wait... how do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Many people who are asked this question respond something like: "Well, it's always been a good guide in the past...and will, therefore, be a good guide in the future."

However, you cannot show that the past is a good guide to the future by showing that it has worked in the past and assuming that it will work the same way in the future! This is circular logic. It's begging the question. It's invalid.

Perhaps, however, you have some sort of a solution to the problem of induction. I'd be very interested in hearing it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, I'm certainly aware that science purports to work according to induction. But have you considered the problem of induction?

Let us imagine that we measure the speed of light and find it to be a certain speed, which I will call c. We measure it again and again, and the number comes out the same (with minor variations).

How do we know that the speed of light will be the same the next time we measure it? In short, your chain of logic looks something like this:

The speed of light behaved in a certain way in the past.
Therefore, it will behave in the same way in the future.

The problem is, of course, that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises! This is easily rectifiable, of course, by inserting the additional premise:

The past is a good guide to the future.

But wait... how do we know that the past is a good guide to the future? Many people who are asked this question respond something like: "Well, it's always been a good guide in the past...and will, therefore, be a good guide in the future."

However, you cannot show that the past is a good guide to the future by showing that it has worked in the past and assuming that it will work the same way in the future! This is circular logic. It's begging the question. It's invalid.

Perhaps, however, you have some sort of a solution to the problem of induction. I'd be very interested in hearing it.

Prediction and repeated verifiability.

For example, I can predict that the sun will arise at a very specific time tomorrow, based on the information we have about the sun's behaviour in the past. Once the prediction comes true, we now have some idea of the accuracy of these measurements and their reliability to predict an event that has yet to occur. We can repeat this very same experiment over and over again until we have a reasonable expectation of the sun's behaviour. Whether your admit it or not, you use this very same logic every single day of your life, whenever you decide to leave your house by the front door rather than a window on a higher level. Your past experiences and knowledge lead to a reasonable expectation of the future. When these expectations are not met, it is reasonable to adjust the expectation.

Are you under the impression that all of science (and rationality) functions on mere presuppositions and circular logic? Then I would be fascinated to know your theory on how this process put a robot on Mars, how it is able to successfully produce vaccines for the flu every year, and how it can be used to produce the very computer you are typing on. You are demonstrating the reliability of inductive reasoning even while you attempt to diminish science with your simplistic philosophy.

 

[Zosimus]

Prediction and repeated verifiability.

Begging the question.

For example, I can predict that the sun will arise at a very specific time tomorrow, based on the information we have about the sun's behaviour in the past. Once the prediction comes true, we now have some idea of the accuracy of these measurements and their reliability to predict an event that has yet to occur.

Assumes facts that are not in evidence.

We can repeat this very same experiment over and over again until we have a reasonable expectation of the sun's behaviour.

You think it's reasonable to engage in logical fallacies. I do not.

Whether your admit it or not, you use this very same logic every single day of your life, whenever you decide to leave your house by the front door rather than a window on a higher level. Your past experiences and knowledge lead to a reasonable expectation of the future. When these expectations are not met, it is reasonable to adjust the expectation.

Sure, just like all those people who bought houses in the US because prices kept going up and up and up. We see how that worked out.

Are you under the impression that all of science (and rationality) functions on mere presuppositions and circular logic?

Well, Karl Popper suggested putting science on a sound logical footing by introducing falsificationism. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. You, however, don't seem to have gotten on board with that idea. Pray tell, why not?

Then I would be fascinated to know your theory on how this process put a robot on Mars, how it is able to successfully produce vaccines for the flu every year, and how it can be used to produce the very computer you are typing on. You are demonstrating the reliability of inductive reasoning even while you attempt to diminish science with your simplistic philosophy.

First of all, it's pretty laughable that you think that science successfully produces vaccines for the flu every year. But let's set that aside for the moment and analyze the pure idiocy of what you're saying.

Your logic pattern seems to be this: Since science can put a robot on Mars, science can also tell you how life came to be.

Seriously?! How does one lead logically from A to B?

Since that's your logic, let's try this one on for size:
Since Mormons have built numerous temples all over the world, they can also teach you how to obtain eternal life, which includes being a God and creating innumerable worlds multi-level marketing style.

Are you Mormon? Why not?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Begging the question.

Then you clearly don't know what that phrase means.

Assumes facts that are not in evidence.

No it doesn't. You don't have to make any assumptions in order to predict a given outcome, and the success of the prediction is not reliant on assumption either.

You think it's reasonable to engage in logical fallacies. I do not.

You think you understand and can correctly attribute logical fallacies. You clearly can not.

Sure, just like all those people who bought houses in the US because prices kept going up and up and up. We see how that worked out.

So, according to you, because some predictions (especially ones based on bad information) can be inaccurate, therefore ALL predictions are inaccurate? Let me know the next time you try testing this out by leaving your house via the roof rather than the front door.

Well, Karl Popper suggested putting science on a sound logical footing by introducing falsificationism. It's not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. You, however, don't seem to have gotten on board with that idea. Pray tell, why not?

What on earth gives you the impression that I don't accept falsification? Please deal with the statements being made rather than engaging in obvious strawmen.

First of all, it's pretty laughable that you think that science successfully produces vaccines for the flu every year.

Not one for facts very much, are you?

But let's set that aside for the moment and analyze the pure idiocy of what you're saying.

My estimate of your mental age is dropping.

Your logic pattern seems to be this: Since science can put a robot on Mars, science can also tell you how life came to be.

Nope. Never said that. I never mentioned life coming to be. My logic is "If science can be used to make repeatedly verifiable predictions, and perform acts that clearly require a great deal of information with countless variables in order to achieve, then obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies." I'm sorry if this point went over your head.

Since that's your logic, let's try this one on for size:
Since Mormons have built numerous temples all over the world, they can also teach you how to obtain eternal life, which includes being a God and creating innumerable worlds multi-level marketing style.

Are you Mormon? Why not?

Because I have no good reason to assume their beliefs are true. Whereas I have countless examples of things all around me which indicate the efficacy of the scientific method. The comparison is so laughable I now am wondering if you're just a troll.

 

[Zosimus]

Then you clearly don't know what that phrase means.

Begging the question is when you assume the validity of what you are setting out to prove. That is exactly what you are doing.

No it doesn't. You don't have to make any assumptions in order to predict a given outcome, and the success of the prediction is not reliant on assumption either.

Okay, so you were successful at predicting things in the past. What makes you think that you will be successful in the future? More begging the question.

So, according to you, because some predictions (especially ones based on bad information) can be inaccurate, therefore ALL predictions are inaccurate? Let me know the next time you try testing this out by leaving your house via the roof rather than the front door.

No, I'm saying that successful predictions in the past are no guarantee of successful predictions in the future. Furthermore, lots of people have made unsuccessful predictions in the past. There is no reason to believe that induction works.

What on earth gives you the impression that I don't accept falsification? Please deal with the statements being made rather than engaging in obvious strawmen.

The entire thread is about verifiable evidence for creationism. Since you supposedly understand and accept falsificationism, you surely are aware that it was Karl Popper's rebuttal to verificationism, right?

Not one for facts very much, are you?

It has little to do with facts and everything to do with math. For example, in 2016, which was a good year for flu vaccines, 91.3 percent of the people who got immunized received absolutely no benefit. In 2015, which was a bad year for flu vaccines, 97.8 percent of the people who got a flu shot received absolutely no benefit. Simple math – you should try it sometime.

Nope. Never said that. I never mentioned life coming to be. My logic is "If science can be used to make repeatedly verifiable predictions, and perform acts that clearly require a great deal of information with countless variables in order to achieve, then obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies." I'm sorry if this point went over your head.

Unless you know a person named "obviously" then your sentence makes no sense at all. Please revise it.

Because I have no good reason to assume their beliefs are true. Whereas I have countless examples of things all around me which indicate the efficacy of the scientific method. The comparison is so laughable I now am wondering if you're just a troll.

You remind me of the Christians who say that since portions of the Bible are verified true by archaeological studies, all of the Bible must be true.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Begging the question is when you assume the validity of what you are setting out to prove. That is exactly what you are doing.

Nope. Not even close. Begging the question is when you assume the truth of a given statement without evidence. I don't do that, nor have any of my statements been that. "Making a claim and then presenting the reasoning behind it" is not begging the question.

Okay, so you were successful at predicting things in the past. What makes you think that you will be successful in the future? More begging the question.

Let me know when you stop using your front door, then.

No, I'm saying that successful predictions in the past are no guarantee of successful predictions in the future. Furthermore, lots of people have made unsuccessful predictions in the past. There is no reason to believe that induction works.

They don't have to guarantee anything - they just have to make enough successful predictions for it to become reasonable to conclude the basis on which you make the predictions is a reliable model of reality. If induction doesn't work, then why are you typing at a computer? You have no basis on which to assume you typing on a computer will translate to a message on a forum. Heck, maybe the next button you press will set off an atomic bomb. You have no basis on which to believe that when you hit the letter E on your keyboard it will create an E on the screen.

It's incredibly easy to point out how utterly vapid and self-defeating this logic is. You need to give up on it already.

The entire thread is about verifiable evidence for creationism. Since you supposedly understand and accept falsificationism, you surely are aware that it was Karl Popper's rebuttal to verificationism, right?

None of which has any relevance whatsoever to anything I've written. Nice non-sequitur.

It has little to do with facts and everything to do with math. For example, in 2016, which was a good year for flu vaccines, 91.3 percent of the people who got immunized received absolutely no benefit. In 2015, which was a bad year for flu vaccines, 97.8 percent of the people who got a flu shot received absolutely no benefit. Simple math – you should try it sometime.

Please provide your sources.

Unless you know a person named "obviously" then your sentence makes no sense at all. Please revise it.

Apparently you don't know what a sentence is, either. Heard any stories about stones and glass houses?

You remind me of the Christians who say that since portions of the Bible are verified true by archaeological studies, all of the Bible must be true.

Because you're delusional and like constructing strawmen? You're the one who has literally claimed that because conclusions made by induction can be flawed, this necessarily means all conclusions made by induction are equally flawed. So you're also engaged in projecting.

 

[Acim]

Are you under the impression that all of science (and rationality) functions on mere presuppositions and circular logic?

At the core, yes. Science rests on circular logic (at best), or faith.

Then I would be fascinated to know your theory on how this process put a robot on Mars, how it is able to successfully produce vaccines for the flu every year, and how it can be used to produce the very computer you are typing on.

Art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design theory, oh and math.

 

[Zosimus]

Nope. Not even close. Begging the question is when you assume the truth of a given statement without evidence. I don't do that, nor have any of my statements been that. "Making a claim and then presenting the reasoning behind it" is not begging the question.

Wrong. I quote from https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging_the_Question

>Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

Here's a suggestion. Before you say something stupid, try googling it.

They don't have to guarantee anything - they just have to make enough successful predictions for it to become reasonable to conclude the basis on which you make the predictions is a reliable model of reality. If induction doesn't work, then why are you typing at a computer? You have no basis on which to assume you typing on a computer will translate to a message on a forum. Heck, maybe the next button you press will set off an atomic bomb. You have no basis on which to believe that when you hit the letter E on your keyboard it will create an E on the screen.

Your argument is specious. It's like when someone goes to a doctor, and the doctor tells him that he shouldn't smoke, he points out that the doctor has eaten at McDonald's before. So what?

You seem to be a fan of inductive reasoning. How about this: Imagine that I want to prove that black holes do not exist. Saying that black holes do not exist is the same as saying that everything that exists is not a black hole. I then begin to observe reality. I catalog thousands of grains of sand, all of which exist and are not black holes. Then I observe thousands of leaves in the forest, all of which exist, and are not black holes. Then I observe thousands of drops of water, all of which exist and none of which are black holes. I conclude, therefore, that there is overwhelming evidence that black holes don't exist. Is my conclusion valid? Why or why not?

Please provide your sources.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/859415
and http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/flu-statistics

Apparently you don't know what a sentence is, either. Heard any stories about stones and glass houses?

You said:

>My logic is "If science can be used to make repeatedly verifiable predictions, and perform acts that clearly require a great deal of information with countless variables in order to achieve,
>then obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies."

I requote: "...obviously is engaging in more than mere logical fallacies."

Who is obviously and why is he (or she) engaging in more than mere logical fallacies? Or did you mean something else?

 

[Sapiens]

At the core, yes. Science rests on circular logic (at best), or faith.



Art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design theory, oh and math.

All of which have one form of science or another at their root.

 

[Zosimus]

All of which have one form of science or another at their root.

Art is not a science. Imagination is not a science. Engineering is a science. Inspiration is not a science. Design theory... I have no idea.
Math is not a science.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At the core, yes. Science rests on circular logic (at best), or faith.

Sure it does.

Art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design theory, oh and math.

You do realize that engineering is a science, right?

 

[Sapiens]

Art is not a science. Imagination is not a science. Engineering is a science. Inspiration is not a science. Design theory... I have no idea.
Math is not a science.

Spoken like someone who has never done a lick of science in his life. I am a scientist, my science routinely requires art, imagination, engineering, inspiration, design and math.