Was stumped by a Creationist

[RandomPoster]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

 

[BlackFlag]

Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy. That’s not falsifiable either.

 

[DOTR]

One of those arguments better left alone. Whats the point?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

he responded that Evolution is not either.

Well, he was 100% incorrect when he said that. If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

 

[cnm]

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to.
[...]
Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

If evolution is not falsifiable, how are the criticisms hard to respond to?

 

[RandomPoster]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is

But that is not actually happening with scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Maybe that is what you were saying, put another way.

 

[RandomPoster]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is

But that is not actually happening with scientific theories. Creationism is not a scientific theory. Maybe that is what you were saying, put another way.

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter. Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant? Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

Do you agree that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism and do you believe that is relevant to the debate?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.

Right, because believing it is "faith". One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.

Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?

It isn't...?

Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

It isn't....?

 

[harmonica]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

 

[RandomPoster]

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.

Right, because believing it is "faith". One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.

Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?

It isn't...?

Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

It isn't....?

Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.

 

[jwoodie]

Believing one has all the answers is indicative of profound ignorance.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.

Right, because believing it is "faith". One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.

Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?

It isn't...?

Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

It isn't....?

Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.

Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.

Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.

If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.

And, remember a general principle:

The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.

Right, because believing it is "faith". One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.

Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?

It isn't...?

Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

It isn't....?

Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.

Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.

Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.

If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.

And, remember a general principle:

The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

 

[Blackrook]

What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And yet not one shred of ACTUAL evidence that a single mammal species ever evolved into two or more distinctly different species.

of course, that is hilariously false and would net you an f on a high school biology test.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.

Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!". Problem solved.

*Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around

 

[Blackrook]

What I find interesting about this debate between evolution and creationism is that both sides are EQUALLY wrong because both ASSUME that belief in God DEPENDS on the story of Genesis being LITERALLY TRUE, and that is not the case at all.

Very true. Creation and evolution can easily co-exist. Simply point at nature and say, "god did that!". Problem solved.

*Note the god-believer is the one who must adhere his stance to the established fact of evolution , and not the other way around

Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.

 

[fncceo]

...creationist must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared''--like a Star Trek energizer......!!!!!
...there is NO proof/evidence/etc of creation

Actually, a theoretical transporter doesn't create matter from nothing, it disassembles matter on one end, quantifies it and identifies its structure to the sub-atomic level, then recreates the same form of matter at another location using locally available matter.

The original matter is, for lack of a better term, killed and replaced by new matter with the identical structure.

One of the key actions in evolution is death. Death is the catalyst for natural selection.

 

[fncceo]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens. We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.

But, if you don't understand the mechanism or how it works, believing in it is no different that believing in a superstition. Even if it's true.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if you can or can't argue Evolution vs Creation. Let people keep those beliefs that work best for them and you can keep yours.

Nothing would be gained or lost by convincing a person to change his beliefs for yours.