Challeng for anti-Evolutionists

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by SpidermanTuba, Oct 13, 2005.

  1. SpidermanTuba
    Offline

    SpidermanTuba BANNED

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,101
    Thanks Received:
    258
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    New Orleans, Louisiana
    Ratings:
    +258
    The biggest gripe that most anti-evolutionists have with evolution is that it has not been "proven."

    The fact is, the standard of proof that most of these anti-evolutionists apply to evolution would result in NONE of science being "proven"

    To demonstrate this - I challenge any anti-evolutionist to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.
     
  2. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    Science is not designed to provide proof of anything. The Scientific Method shows evidence, not proof. Scientists know that proof could only be obtained of theory was tested in infinite environments as well as infinite numbers. Therefore the Theory is the highest you get in science, once supported by evidence. However Theories have been found to be wrong in the past, and undoubtedly there will be some that will be found to be wrong in the future.

    I am always fascinated by the question to scientists. Could a logical Supernatural Being have created life using evolution? One doesn't prove or disprove the other. It is my opinion that science is simpy the art of discovering how the Creator did it.
     
  3. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    First of all, evidence and proof are the same thing. They're synonymous with each other. You would show "evidence" to support a hypothesis and you would also show "proof" to prove a hypothesis. Second of all, there is no way to prove that God exists. No evidence exists that would point to God and not to some other explanation, even if that explanation is out of our own grasp at the moment because our scientific knowledge is primitive. All arguments for God are philosophical, not physical. So science is all we've got to explain the world around us. You can say God created everything the way it is, incorporating systems like evolution, physics, etc. But there's no way to show that what you said was true. Unlike scientific theory, which as you said provides physical evidence.

    You're right about scientific theories being disproven. It happens all the time. But they are always disproven by a better scientific theory based on physical evidence. So if what you guys are discussing is whether or not ID or creationism should be taught in schools. I believe that it should be, but that it belongs in the philosophy classroom, not the science classroom. Because cell mitosis is cell mitosis and Pascal's wager is Pascal's wager. Ya dig?:D
     
  4. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    First of all Evidence and Proof are not the same thing. You have a real problem with definition and semantics, this is twice that you have gotten two words confused with each other. If you were to commit a crime and plant evidence that showed I committed the crime it would still be evidence but definitely not proof. Those are two different things. The Scientific Method provides evidence, but not proof. Evidence provides an indirect "proof" but it is only an accumulation of evidence. Later evidence may be contradictory to a Theory, as has happened in the past, thus showing that the Theory was flawed. The Scientific method is designed to gather evidence that can disprove a Theory or support it. When enough evidence is gathered to significantly support a hypothesis it become a Theory. It is important to note that a Theory is only supported by evidence, never proved by evidence.

    But heck, don't take my word for it:


    http://www.malone.edu/erodd/n160proof.htm

    http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node8.html#SECTION02123000000000000000

    http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html


    Secondly I never said that science was a way to prove or disprove a Creator and in fact said it could not. I also did say it was my opinion, thus you have "created" an argument for me out of whole cloth that I have not stated, and in fact the argument is absolutely opposite as to what I have stated.

    If Evidence was the same as proof as you postulated before then evidence could never disprove a Theory as a Theory is a hypothesis well-supported by evidence.
     
  5. Hagbard Celine
    Offline

    Hagbard Celine Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2005
    Messages:
    1,756
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +61
    ev-i-dence (n.) - A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.

    proof (n.) - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

    Dictionary.com

    :huh: :eek:
     
  6. no1tovote4
    Offline

    no1tovote4 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,294
    Thanks Received:
    616
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Colorado
    Ratings:
    +616
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

    ev·i·dence ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-dns)
    n.
    A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
    Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
    Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

    The definition you gave is the Verb, which is not the same thing, and not even the same word:

    tr.v. ev·i·denced, ev·i·denc·ing, ev·i·denc·es
    To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
    To support by testimony; attest.


    And then you gave the definition of "proof" that is valid in Math:

    proof ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prf)
    n.
    The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

    The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
    A statement or argument used in such a validation.

    From that same definition:

    The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.

    Either way one collects evidence in an attempt to prove something, they do not collect proof to show evidence. They are two different words for a reason, they are not the same thing.


    I guess I should have stated that Science doesn't collect "Truth" or cannot provide "absolute proof" as even with evidence some Theories are often proven false, it only collects evidence or proof if you must believe the two are the same.

    One piece of Evidence doesn't prove something, it is a collection of evidence that can lead one to believe something.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Sure. The funny thing is that most people that believe in "Intelligent Design" don't bother to look at the most obvious of all facts. IF there was a being that created us it would be very intelligent to have evolution built into the system and it would be supremely fucking stupid not to. Pardon the pun.
     
  8. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Where have I heard this before???

    Didn't know you posted here man. I might start posting here more often now that I know that you're here.
     
  9. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    A creator who decided to use evolution as part of his grand scheme for the universe? I don't have any problem with that. He most assuredly helped man in developing science too by giving man a mind.
     
  10. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Seems to me that an intelligent creator wouldn't have made something as complex and beautiful as the universe for the sole purpose of piddling it away.
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

ravinving tern