Creationism vs. Evolution

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo I see. So there is evidence that people are out to get me because I believe that people are out to get me.

That is an inaccurate analogy


The Bible is supposed to be a historical account of what Jesus and other God dudes did. Thus, it is historical evidence. Very flawed evidence, but still evidence.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos The Bible is supposed to be a historical account of what Jesus and other God dudes did. Thus, it is historical evidence. Very flawed evidence, but still evidence.

Maybe I'll get it this time. Because some people who believe in god believe that the Bible is the word of god, the Bible is evidence that there is a god.

[Jack]

Come on gallo, you can do this. It's like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is the history of the future of the planet.

Or something like that.

CC, did you really say "God dudes"? I love it. That made my day.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo Maybe I'll get it this time. Because some people who believe in god believe that the Bible is the word of god, the Bible is evidence that there is a god.

you are being deliberately dumb, but I will play along.

Some people believe the Bible includes first hand accounts of events that actually happened.

Would you consider an eyewitness account a form of evidence?

[Jack]

Ask any cop. Eyewitness accounts are some of the worst evidence you can have in a case. Circumstantial evidence is much more reliable than eyewitness. And there is no circumstantial evidence to support the bible stories except in the broadest sense.

[RickSp]

I am reminded of the "intelligent design" expert who was forced to admit on the stand in a trial that the standards used in ID were comparable to fortune telling or astrology. If one is willing to lower the bar so low that everything including folklore and faith is considered "evidence", then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

[gallo]

Quote by: Captain Chaos Some people believe the Bible includes first hand accounts of events that actually happened. Would you consider an eyewitness account a form of evidence?

AH! So the seven days of creation, Adam and Eve, and the phlud of Noah are eyewitness accounts? The Bible isn't evidence for the existence of god. It is just evidence that some people believe in a god.

If what you say is true, then the works of Homer is evidence for the existence of Zeus and Hera, Athena, Apollo and the rest. And Virgil's work is evidence for the existence of Jupiter, Juno, Venus, Mars and so on.

My only question is, who is it being dumb? Essentially what you have said is that because some people who believe in god also believe that the Bible is true, and that is evidence of god. Gosh! That sounds familiar.

[Fonceai]

I'm going to drop the qualifying warning now, because I can see it coming.

CC's opinions do not represent all theists. Don't think that his inability to argue this means that any of your sides are indisputably right.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo My only question is, who is it being dumb? Essentially what you have said is that because some people who believe in god also believe that the Bible is true, and that is evidence of god. Gosh! That sounds familiar.

Gallo, this is not complicated.

I am arguing over the definition of the word evidence. Do you understand that? You and I agree on the fact that the supposed eye-witness accounts in the Bible are bogus.

Before I take this any further, do you understand that one simple concept. That I am currently merely debating with you the meaning of the word evidence?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Don't think that his inability to argue this means that any of your sides are indisputably right.

Inability to argue what? I am not trying to convince Gallo that the Bible offers proof of God. He doesn't understand, or is unwilling to understand, the difference between proof and evidence. I plan on just plodding through it, bit by bit, until he either gets it, or exposes the fact that he is just trolling me. Because, well, it aint real complicated. Isherwood got what I am saying, I am sure Gallo can as well.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Gallo The Bible isn't evidence for the existence of god. It is just evidence that some people believe in a god.

It is evidence that some people claimed to have interacted with God.

Personally, I think that evidence is bogus. It is not non-existant evidence, it is bogus evidence.

Please tell me, do you comprehend the difference between the concept of weak evidence and the concept of nonexistant evidence?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Ask any cop. Eyewitness accounts are some of the worst evidence you can have in a case. Circumstantial evidence is much more reliable than eyewitness. And there is no circumstantial evidence to support the bible stories except in the broadest sense.

Right. The Bible is not at all believable, in my opinion. As evidence for God goes, it is terrible. That does not mean it doesn't exist, just that it is "some of the worst evidence you can have."

[kubedawg]

Evidence does not mean 100% absolute proof. But, lack of evidence does not mean 100% absolute incorrect. Therefore there is no way to prove creationism, no way to disprove it. Evolution can be proven but only since we, as humans have existed. Anything before that is a mystery. This means that any radiometric testing on fossils that supposedly were millions of years old, maybe are only thousands of years old. We don't know the variables of the past before we existed. Therefore, we can only make assumptions based on the facts and proofs of today.

Belief is where evolution and creationism should lie. We cannot ever find how we came about until death, or a time machine. Science is useless for trying to reveal something that could have happened before our time.

[Jack]

Evolution is a process. We know what spurs on that process (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) We have evidence of those subprocesses in action.
If you want to propose creationism, you have to also propose the creator. Now we're back to you providing evidence for the motivating force behind creationism.
You do not have to allow for every ridiculous notion that someone can imagine to be considered open-minded.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Kubedawg Therefore, we can only make assumptions based on the facts and proofs of today.

This is true, but those assumptions are not all that unrealistic. I mean, assuming that the rate of decay for radioactive isotopes is the same now as it was in the past, or that the speed of light is the same now as it was in the past, is not such a ridiculous assumption.

We cannot ever find how we came about until death, or a time machine. Science is useless for trying to reveal something that could have happened before our time.

That just is not true. Science may be unable to provide 100% proof of something that happened before our time, but it can provide 99.9999999999999999999999% proof. That is good enough for me.

[Jack]

Science is useless for trying to reveal something that could have happened before our time.

Why don't you take this argument to its logical extreme and doubt anything that happened before your time? After all, how can you be sure of anything you haven't personally witnessed?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Evolution is a process. We know what spurs on that process (natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.) We have evidence of those subprocesses in action. If you want to propose creationism, you have to also propose the creator. Now we're back to you providing evidence for the motivating force behind creationism. You do not have to allow for every ridiculous notion that someone can imagine to be considered open-minded.

The idea of a creator seems ridiculous to you, but you cannot prove that it is ridiculous. That is just an opinion.


Creationism, however, is at present untestable. It is religion, or metaphysics. Even when we debate over scientific research such as observations of supposed fine tuning: Science is involved in that debate, but given the untestability of the various hypotheses that explain apparent fine tuning (God, Gawd, the Sky Gnomes, evolution of universes, multiverse theories, brute force probability) those explanations are not really science. Although, science may conceivably allow for testing of multiverse hypotheses.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RickSp I am reminded of the "intelligent design" expert who was forced to admit on the stand in a trial that the standards used in ID were comparable to fortune telling or astrology. If one is willing to lower the bar so low that everything including folklore and faith is considered "evidence", then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

No...

Considering something to be evidence does not mean that we are considering a given hypothesis to be worthy of consideration.


Think of it as a court of law. On trial is the existence of God. On the God side are some religious types who bring in exhibit A - the Bible. Exhibit A, the Bible, is introduced into the courtroom as evidence.

The opposing counsel then quickly shreds the Bible (figuratively) to pieces. Thus, the jury dismisses that evidence as being unworthy of consideration.

This does not mean that the Bible did not exist. This does not mean that the Bible was never brought into consideration during discourse. What this means is that the Bible is useless evidence as regards the existence of God.

Quote by: American Heritage Dictionary ev·i·dence (v-dns) Pronunciation Key Audio pronunciation of "evidence" [P] n. 1. 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. 2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face. 3. Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.

Because the Bible helps some people form a conclusion about God, it is evidence. Crappy evidence, in my opinion, but it still meets the definition of the word.

If one is willing to lower the bar so low that everything including folklore and faith is considered "evidence", then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

If one is willing to ignore the meaning of a word, in order to use manipulative arguments, rather than rational arguments, then there is no point in continuing the discussion.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC Inability to argue what?

Your inability to argue.

You are bringing up points that are fairly easy to refute and dismiss. The problem is that the severe derailing that occurs could lead one to believe that since you are failing to successfully present irrefutable arguments, then the theist side is weak.

That's all. Just an observation. The Empirical Agnostic Personal Theist will continue lurking, now.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai Your inability to argue.

Pretend I just cursed at you.

You are bringing up points that are fairly easy to refute and dismiss.

Using a proper understanding of the word 'evidence' is easy to derail? No, Gallo was just baiting me.

The problem is that the severe derailing that occurs could lead one to believe that since you are failing to successfully present irrefutable arguments, then the theist side is weak.

I don't get what is so freakin' complicated about this. When people believe something, based on what they consider convincing evidence, then it is dishonest to say that such evidence does not exist. The honest statement would be to say that such evidence is crappy, or that such evidence better supports a different conclusion.

Atheists sometimes state that there is no evidence for God. This is incorrect. It makes it sound as if theists believe what they believe for no reason, as if it came out of nowhere. This is inaccurate. It may be the case that the evidence in question is crappy evidence, and that it better supports a non-theistic conclusion, but that does not mean that it does not exist.


You get a similar manipulative argument against paranormal phenomena. Materialists will say that the evidence for this does not exist. Actually, there is evidence. In fact, the evidence in question has been studied extensively. The question is what is the best interpretation of the evidence. To say it does not exist makes it sound as if it is just a random belief out of nowhere, which is simply not true.


Neither of these arguments is for or against theism or the paranormal. Instead, I am just making the point that it is misleading to characterize the believer's side as having no source.