Why Evolution and Christianity are Fundamentally Irreconcilable

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

I would prefer to say that Creationism isn't scientific, and if Creationism is true then it would require God to be a deceiver.

If we did try to make Creationism scientific it would obviously fail, and spectacularly so. However, you will find that in any discussion where Creationism is shown to be false by the scientific method there is instant backlash against the idea that science should be used (e.g. the statement of faith from Answers in Genesis).

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If you accept Answers in Genesis as the arbiters of Creationism, I guess.

In my experience, the position taken by AiG is representative of Creationism as a whole. Creationists start with the conclusion that YEC is true, and then reject or ignore any evidence that contradicts it. They will also come up with all sorts of made up mechanisms to save their conclusion, up to and including direct supernatural intervention that breaks every known natural law.

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.

That's why I prefer to ask creationists some simple questions. Their inability to answer those simple questions is all that is needed to demonstrate that creationism is a dogmatic religious belief.

1. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

2. What shared genetic marker, if observed, would you consider to be evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

3. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify the claim of a young Earth or a recent global flood?

 

[Audie]

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".

Well do I know the use of equivocation by the creationists!
But I dont see creoism as a theory past present, or, future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

By the scientific definition of a theory. Since this is a discussion of a scientific concept the proper definition to use in context is that of a scientific theory.

And sorry, but what you are doing is playing semantics. It is a fact that words have multiple usages at times. When using a term it should be one appropriate for the conversation one is having. You appear to be attempting to use a non-scientific definition of the term.

 

[Audie]

In my experience, the position taken by AiG is representative of Creationism as a whole. Creationists start with the conclusion that YEC is true, and then reject or ignore any evidence that contradicts it. They will also come up with all sorts of made up mechanisms to save their conclusion, up to and including direct supernatural intervention that breaks every known natural law.



That's why I prefer to ask creationists some simple questions. Their inability to answer those simple questions is all that is needed to demonstrate that creationism is a dogmatic religious belief.

1. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

2. What shared genetic marker, if observed, would you consider to be evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

3. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify the claim of a young Earth or a recent global flood?

A person well enough informed to respond to those
might well already be cured of creationism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A person well enough informed to respond to those
might well already be cured of creationism.

And don't forget honest. Remember Kurt Wise.

 

[Audie]

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.

I am pretty sure that the ph and the geo both deeply predate the modern
ideas of what constitutes a theory.

 

[Audie]

And don't forget honest. Remember Kurt Wise.

Might well recover from the vice of Creationism is all I said.

The alternative is to go Wise, lapsing into t he morass
of cog dis and intellectual dishonesty.

I am probably not alone in feeling sorry for him.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe, but it's still the fundamental doctrine for the majority of conservative Christians, especially in the central United States.

Actually the unfortunate mythical concept of original sin remains at the heart of pretty much all of traditional Christianity, and the Roman Church.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The alternative is to go Wise, lapsing into t he morass
of cog dis and intellectual dishonesty.

I actually consider Kurt Wise to be one of the more honest creationists. He openly admits that the evidence is on the side of science and evolution, but he chooses to believe in creationism because of his religious beliefs. Doesn't get more honest than that, at least in my eyes.

 

[Audie]

I actually consider Kurt Wise to be one of the more honest creationists. He openly admits that the evidence is on the side of science and evolution, but he chooses to believe in creationism because of his religious beliefs. Doesn't get more honest than that, at least in my eyes.

You can do better. Honestly admitting to intellectual dishonesty
still has a ways to go.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We do indeed live in a time of sound bites;

• Tough on crime
• Weak on defense
• Build the wall
• Bring back the mines
• Make America great again
• Fake news

The question that needs to be asked is why do people believe complex issues can be reduced to catch phrases? My answer is that it goes back to early childhood indoctrination. GodDidIt.

Nah...I see no reason to believe that. My country is increasingly secular, yet the trend continues. There are many reasons, but I'd offer media trends (including social media) as impactful. Religion seems entirely beside the point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Sorry, your meaning is obscure.

 

[David T]

Sorry, your meaning is obscure.

Actually not really. You cant carry on a conversation about that which is carrying on the Conversation without it being recursive and self referential. A bit like "with saying" it's only neurology, "with no awareness that it's a self evident statement said as if it's meaningful and the statement itself is neurology.

So in regards to Darwin life interconnected not created literally is in fact a self evident statement and what we observe or experience through the eye. All the rest is a limited auto mechanics take on nature. It's mearly a mechanical narrative. We already know factually that's nonsense in physics rather 16th century actually. Math isn't reality its a neurological created for modeling. For modeling and modeling practices science uses models but the model is not determining the observed. Just as the Bible is not determining the observed. The observed is doing the determining. It's big the observer is small. I am totally nature oriented not religious at all.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

In my experience, the position taken by AiG is representative of Creationism as a whole. Creationists start with the conclusion that YEC is true, and then reject or ignore any evidence that contradicts it. They will also come up with all sorts of made up mechanisms to save their conclusion, up to and including direct supernatural intervention that breaks every known natural law.



That's why I prefer to ask creationists some simple questions. Their inability to answer those simple questions is all that is needed to demonstrate that creationism is a dogmatic religious belief.

1. What features would a fossil need in order for you to accept it as evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

2. What shared genetic marker, if observed, would you consider to be evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other apes?

3. What features would a geologic feature need in order to falsify the claim of a young Earth or a recent global flood?

Are you, perhaps conflating creationism with creationIST?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Actually not really. You cant carry on a conversation about that which is carrying on the Conversation without it being recursive and self referential. A bit like "with saying" it's only neurology, "with no awareness that it's a self evident statement said as if it's meaningful and the statement itself is neurology.

So in regards to Darwin life interconnected not created literally is in fact a self evident statement and what we observe or experience through the eye. All the rest is a limited auto mechanics take on nature. It's mearly a mechanical narrative. We already know factually that's nonsense in physics rather 16th century actually. Math isn't reality its a neurological created for modeling. For modeling and modeling practices science uses models but the model is not determining the observed. Just as the Bible is not determining the observed. The observed is doing the determining. It's big the observer is small. I am totally nature oriented not religious at all.

I'm sure you're meaning is clear to you. Your meaning is obscure to me.

 

[David T]

I'm sure you're meaning is clear to you. Your meaning is obscure to me.

Every mentally ill person is the same.. They all have ideas. I have Spent at least 500 days camping and hiking out over the last 10 years. Never met one of them out hiking but they sure gravitate to the city. So city have all kinds of odd ideas about nature. Mostly that books determine it.

 

[dfnj]

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

Why is "reasonable test" necessary in a conversation about creationism? This is what I don't understand about your position. You just will not allow science NOT to be part of the equation. Are you allowed to use the word God in a sentence?

Either you accept the premise an omnipotent God exists or you do not. But if you do, then an omnipotent God could certainly create man exactly how it is described in the Bible including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.

I totally get your way of thinking but only if I accept the idea God does not exist, or God is not omnipotent, or God's omnipotence is bounded by the laws of physics.

You position on God is certainly going to color your view on creationism.

 

[dfnj]

Every mentally ill person is the same.. They all have ideas. I have Spent at least 500 days camping and hiking out over the last 10 years. Never met one of them out hiking but they sure gravitate to the city. So city have all kinds of odd ideas about nature. Mostly that books determine it.

I agree spending 500 days camping and hiking is mentally ill.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Every mentally ill person is the same.. They all have ideas. I have Spent at least 500 days camping and hiking out over the last 10 years. Never met one of them out hiking but they sure gravitate to the city. So city have all kinds of odd ideas about nature. Mostly that books determine it.

Sorry...no idea.