Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Subduction Zone]

I am guessing that you get easily distracted by shiny objects.

Now that is hardly fai . . . Hey look! A squirrel!!

 

[David T]

I am guessing that you get easily distracted by shiny objects.

Is ( I think) autological or hetrological to the topic evolution? A rather simple question and observation.

 

[David T]

True facts are rarer than most believe, I would agree, but that doesn't make everything else 'narrative'.

And this has nothing to do with 'consciousness'.

The problem discussing consciousness one has to ask is that which asks the question hetrological or autological to the topic.

Facts are actually rarer simply because it's related to direct experience. But our narratives take on qualities over time that seem realistic facts but they are narrative. Scientific Objectivity requires to be autological but autological from the topic is impossible. Therefore no scientific objective statement can be made. If it's hetrological then the that asking the question is determining the answering that gets whacky as well.

Like I said rock falls we see, thus experience and can Do it again and again. No modern science needed a seagull knows that much.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Oh? How do your figure it is technically a theory?

(while I quickly backpedal and consider if my actual
point was that it is nonsense to class ToE and
creationism as both being theories and therefore some way equivalent)

their both theories because they both fit the definition of theory. This doesn't make them equivalent, though, beyond that particular word.

 

[Subduction Zone]

their both theories because they both fit the definition of theory. This doesn't make them equivalent, though, beyond that particular word.

How is creationism testable? What reasonable test could show it to be wrong?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How is creationism testable? What reasonable test could show it to be wrong?

Pasteur's experiments were a test of Creationist theory. All the evidence of some other mechanism of species development being the explanation for observable diversity is a negative result in a test of creationism. Creationist theory predicts a certain pattern of fossilisation, so looking at the fossil record is test of creationism.

 

[Audie]

their both theories because they both fit the definition of theory. This doesn't make them equivalent, though, beyond that particular word.

I wonder how you find creationism to be a theory. May as well say Batboy is a theory.

 

[Audie]

Pasteur's experiments were a test of Creationist theory. All the evidence of some other mechanism of species development being the explanation for observable diversity is a negative result in a test of creationism. Creationist theory predicts a certain pattern of fossilisation, so looking at the fossil record is test of creationism.

That is one of the more remarkable misreadings of Pasteur that
I have seen!

The fossil record, ok.. tho I'd be interested in how you would
explain the point.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I read in the book Bozosapiens an interesting observation. Philosophy rests upon axioms and not on experience. You can do a lot with it, but it is limited. It uses language to make logical constructs. Science is something different and uses experiences and test for failure of ideas. Philosophy does not. Therefore Philosophy relies upon axioms, but Science only borrows them while making guesses. It then either verifies those or tosses them. Practicality, consistency and hard work substitute in Science where Philosophy throws itself upon the mercy of axioms.

Science still rests on axioms. It's strength is in constantly trying to find ways to test them, but they're still there... although we are getting into the area where the line between science and philosophy is blurred, I agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pasteur's experiments were a test of Creationist theory. All the evidence of some other mechanism of species development being the explanation for observable diversity is a negative result in a test of creationism. Creationist theory predicts a certain pattern of fossilisation, so looking at the fossil record is test of creationism.

The problem is that creationism fails those tests. Once a theory fails a significant test it is no longer a theory by definition.

 

[Audie]

Science still rests on axioms. It's strength is in constantly trying to find ways to test them, but they're still there... although we are getting into the area where the line between science and philosophy is blurred, I agree.

I probably missed something, but, can you name a axiom or two
that science depends on?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I wonder how you find creationism to be a theory. May as well say Batboy is a theory.

Not a great comparison, but in essence, yes. Don't take the bait that Creationists often use of trying to make this a word game, though. Creationism and evolution are both theories the same way a rusted, overgrown, wheelless, engineless, burnt out, rolled over and wrecked model-T and a new Mercedes-Benz Maybach Exelero with a full tank are both "cars".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

their both theories because they both fit the definition of theory. This doesn't make them equivalent, though, beyond that particular word.

Creationism isn't a theory because it lacks testable hypotheses and can not be falsified. For example, there is no potential fossil that would falsify creationism. There is no shared genetic marker that would falsify creationism. There is no observation in the field of creationism that would falsify creationism.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

The problem is that creationism fails those tests. Once a theory fails a significant test it is no longer a theory by definition.

By which definition? Everything I've ever read says a failed theory is still a theory, the "failed" part is the important bit, which is why Creationists often play semantics over the "theory" bit, because it distracts from the "failed" bit (to the scientifically unfamiliar, at least, they hope). Like5he examples I offered before. Phlogiston theory is still a theory. Newtonian gravity is still a theory. We know where they are in error, but they're still theories.

I'm frankly rather surprised to see you returning the Creationist's serve like this.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Creationism isn't a theory because it lacks testable hypotheses and can not be falsified. For example, there is no potential fossil that would falsify creationism. There is no shared genetic marker that would falsify creationism. There is no observation in the field of creationism that would falsify creationism.

If creationism were accurate, we'd see flowering plants in coal seams and fossil elephants and dinosaurs in the same strata. That's testable.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I probably missed something, but, can you name a axiom or two
that science depends on?

Cell theory, Bohr's axioms in the Copenhagen interpretation. "Reality is objective" is a big one.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If creationism were accurate, we'd see flowering plants in coal seams and fossil elephants and dinosaurs in the same strata. That's testable.

You would think so, but that isn't the case. YEC's claim that we shouldn't see those things because Noah's flood magically sorted the fossils in some untestable and unknown process.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

By which definition? Everything I've ever read says a failed theory is still a theory, the "failed" part is the important bit, which is why Creationists often play semantics over the "theory" bit, because it distracts from the "failed" bit (to the scientifically unfamiliar, at least, they hope). Like5he examples I offered before. Phlogiston theory is still a theory. Newtonian gravity is still a theory. We know where they are in error, but they're still theories.

I'm frankly rather surprised to see you returning the Creationist's serve like this.

Creationism can't fail because no evidence can ever run contrary to the belief.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
Statement of Faith

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You would think so, but that isn't the case. YEC's claim that we shouldn't see those things because Noah's flood magically sorted the fossils in some untestable and unknown process.

Put it this way. If Creationism isn't a testable theory, how do you know it's wrong?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Creationism can't fail because no evidence can ever run contrary to the belief.

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."--Answers in Genesis
Statement of Faith

If you accept Answers in Genesis as the arbiters of Creationism, I guess. Personally, I don't see how a whole lot if goal post shifting and ad hocing to try to save a failed theory by its fans after it's been discredited makes the initial theory any less of a theory. But please note, it is exactly this arguing over the semantics of "theory" that Creationism advocates rely on. They can't argue scientifically, so they play word games. Instead of arguing about what is and isn't a theory, let's just accept Creationism is a theory the same way spontaneous generation was a theory, ir the same way the ether was a theory, and leave it on the failed theory shelf with phlogiston and Geocentrism.