Challeng for anti-Evolutionists

[SpidermanTuba]

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.

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

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.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

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.

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?

 

[no1tovote4]

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

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:

 

[no1tovote4]

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:

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.

 

[Powerman]

Could a logical Supernatural Being have created life using evolution?

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.

 

[Powerman]

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.

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

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.

 

[Nienna]

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.

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.

 

[manu1959]

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.

first, evolution is an accident....it wasn't planned....it would happen no matter what

second, why did a creator create us?

 

[Powerman]

first, evolution is an accident....it wasn't planned....it would happen no matter what

second, why did a creator create us?

To amuse himself and send the majority of us to an eternity of torment and torture....sorry I'm not buying it.

 

[dilloduck]

To amuse himself and send the majority of us to an eternity of torment and torture....sorry I'm not buying it.

Can you prove that by scientific method?

 

[5stringJeff]

Can you prove that by scientific method?

:rotflmao:

 

[Bonnie]

Can you prove that by scientific method?

It's just a theory..lol

 

[Mr. P]

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.

The biggest gripe that most anti-creationist have with creation is that it has not been "proven."

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

To demonstrate this - I challenge any anti-creationist to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.

But first, pull yer head out yer ass.

 

[manu1959]

The biggest gripe that most anti-creationist have with creation is that it has not been "proven."

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

To demonstrate this - I challenge any anti-creationist to prove that the Earth orbits the Sun.

But first, pull yer head out yer ass.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh the beauty of the symmetrical argument

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

My neighbor showed me a nail that supposedly scratched his paint job. The nail was laying on the fender, and had four little marks by it, oddly enough, the four spots were in a perfect square. I challenged him, to show me how it could have happened "accidentally" by doing it purposefully. I claimed if he cant reproduce it, and do it on his own, then I dont buy that it could have happened accidentally by the nail.

I also subscribe to the irreducable complexity of the single cell. Impossible for it to have evolved, hence, a creator must be involved. End of issue. Dont need to know if the sun orbits the earth or visa versa to come to that conclusion.

 

[Powerman]

Can you prove that by scientific method?

I was being sarcastic. I can't think of any rational reason why a perfect God would want to create an imperfect group of beings to watch over and why he would want to send a great majority of them to burn in hell for eternity. This guy sounds like an asshole to me.

 

[Powerman]

My neighbor showed me a nail that supposedly scratched his paint job. The nail was laying on the fender, and had four little marks by it, oddly enough, the four spots were in a perfect square. I challenged him, to show me how it could have happened "accidentally" by doing it purposefully. I claimed if he cant reproduce it, and do it on his own, then I dont buy that it could have happened accidentally by the nail.

I also subscribe to the irreducable complexity of the single cell. Impossible for it to have evolved, hence, a creator must be involved. End of issue. Dont need to know if the sun orbits the earth or visa versa to come to that conclusion.

In other words you're an idiot?

How would you expect someone to reproduce an accident? That tells you nothing at all yet you use that to jump to conclusions about the existence of life. You've got to be kidding me.