Evolution vs. Creationism

Duty, I admit. You always manage to impress me with your responses! Ockham's razor strikes again! There's really not much I can say in response, you have some valid rebuttals there. As for empirical evidence, what would you require? Any experiences I or others relate will be annecdotal to you, which you said was not acceptable. How then do you get valid empirical data? Could you provide a hypothetic example?
 
Milon said:
As for empirical evidence, what would you require? Any experiences I or others relate will be annecdotal to you, which you said was not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Well, anecdotal evidence is rarely acceptable, with the exception of a person reporting on their personal perception or emotional states (as no one else can experience those states)...but then the epistemology of testimony and correct interpretation of the sensory data applies.

What makes it more difficult is that religious experiences are so often very different from one another. They don't report the same happenings, yet will assume the same entities or forces are behind their experiences.

The proper empirical evidence would be an entity that repeatedly, and under scrutiny, could display the powers attributed to it. This would be empirical evidence.

Milon said:
How then do you get valid empirical data? Could you provide a hypothetic example?
Click to expand...

I guess if God found it important enough, he could show himself to the scientific community in an obvious way. I find religion to be awfully subtle if it is true...like God is hiding himself. I mean, God supposedly just wants our love...so why does he make it so hard to even confirm his existence? My friend argues that "you're using a human standard, you have to use God's standard in this," but that seems to put the cart before the horse...and not only that, but I AM human, so a human standard is all I really have.

The example above is really the kind of thing it will take. It has to be consistent, it has to be communicable, and it has to be obvious. God is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...you would believe me if I told you I had 5lbs of salt in my room as that is not extraordinary, but you would require a LOT more proof (direct observational evidence probably) if I told you I had 5lbs of Plutonium...as that's extraordinary.
 
Eeek, evolution vs creationism. Well evolution is a creative process, I don't think it is one OR the other. The problem lying in the assumption that evolution is an involuntary process happening purely by action reaction without any conscious effort. What the question really comes down to is consciousness. The other issue being that we have also assumed that we have had no part in our creation/evolution, that it is down to some external force.

Now I don't remember or I wasn't there but I'm basing all my knowledge of history on what people have told me. A problem with the 5,000 years theory is that we are under the assumption that each of those years has been of equal length. Is it possible that the Earth's rotation may have sped up and therefore seemed longer? We are each here for a very small period of time, which is of course relative. Physics is uncovering surprising findings with quantum experimentation, come certainties may not be so certain afterall.

Note. Reader, we may all be a figment of your imagination!?!!!! You'll never know! Split personality disorder gone mad :O :) Seen Fight club?
 
gloomy-optimist said:
And when they say the world was made in 7 days a couple thousand years ago....did they have the same calendar as we do?
I mean, really; what's a "day" for God? A couple thousand years? Who knows.
Click to expand...

lol exactly!

If you lived on the moon and counted a day as the number of times you move around the Earth before completing a cycle, that's quite a different number. And that's completely missing out the cycle around the sun. What is a day?? Take a step back, there's a much bigger picture.

How about counting the number of complete turns the Sun has around the black hole in the centre of our galaxy?! Or our galaxy's cycle for that matter.
 
Duty said:
The proper empirical evidence would be an entity that repeatedly, and under scrutiny, could display the powers attributed to it. This would be empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
No Duty, that wouldn't be evidence of God. That would be evidence of scientific phenomenon. Even if it's not something that is understood, no one would question that it was a scientific phenomenon that was being witnessed.

When people say they want evidence of God, what they are usually looking for is for God to "break" one or more of the rules of physics that God established. Not only that, but to break it consistently so that all can see it. God doesn't break his rules. He uses scientific phenomenon that we don't understand fully. Even if God did decide to "break" a rule, would he truly be breaking the rule? Or just using it in a way that we don't understand? We've done a good job as a species of describing how things work, but we don't know it all. But let's say God did decide to break a rule. And let's say people notice it. We wouldn't conclude that God exists - we'd conclude that there is a higher rule or property that we weren't aware of. This is why I asked for a specific hypothetic example of something that could constitute proof of God.

The example above is really the kind of thing it will take. It has to be consistent, it has to be communicable, and it has to be obvious. God is a pretty extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence...you would believe me if I told you I had 5lbs of salt in my room as that is not extraordinary, but you would require a LOT more proof (direct observational evidence probably) if I told you I had 5lbs of Plutonium...as that's extraordinary.
Click to expand...
Nah, we'd just bomb you first, then check to see if it was true. :wink:

EDIT: Sorry for the delayed response there. I've subscribed to the thread now.
 
Last edited:
Or better yet, why would God want to break one of his rules? If God really exists, let's pretend like it's true whether you believe it or not...why would he? Why would he do anything out of his way for a bunch of whiny people that don't want to believe? Do you really think he'd care if you believe or not so much that he'd go out of his divine way to humor you?

The entire concept of God would pretty much explain why he doesn't feel the need to prove himself to his petty creations.

That's not to say you have to believe; just that it's kind of...not exactly the best answer to the question of whether he does exist or not to want him to stick is head out of the sky and give a howdy-ho.
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Do you really think he'd care if you believe or not so much that he'd go out of his divine way to humor you?
Click to expand...

Exactly, I knew he didn't care about us heathens!
 
^^ Not didn't care about US. Didn't care to try to prove himself to someone who doesn't believe him, despite other "signs" that he's here.

I'll help people with their homework. I won't help people that refuse to learn. It's the same concept.
 
What signs?
 
gloomy-optimist said:
^^ Not didn't care about US. Didn't care to try to prove himself to someone who doesn't believe him, despite other "signs" that he's here.

I'll help people with their homework. I won't help people that refuse to learn. It's the same concept.
Click to expand...

So believers have special insight into this that unbelievers just lack?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading


  • assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view
Example: I know you think that I should be giving my money to the poor, but you've never been rich before. There are things about wealth that you don't understand.
 
Yes that would be handy EB!

Y'know how litteral us Sensors can be. :D
 
Don't piss me off, Duty. I'm not playing that game right now.

I'm saying that religion has what they consider to be signs. I'm not saying they're real, I'm not saying you have to believe in them, but in the case that God does exist and those signs are real, I don't see why he would go out of his way to plant more.

Jest sayin'
 
Duty, I'd still like a response to my last post - an example of what "evidence of God" might be, or a better explanation.
 
One of my favorite videos on this topic...

[YOUTUBE]urlTBBKTO68[/YOUTUBE]
 
How are we defining this god? Is it a closed concept?
 
gloomy-optimist said:
Don't piss me off, Duty. I'm not playing that game right now.
Click to expand...

Then make a legitimate argument and not a fallacious one. My only purpose was to point out that your argument was a fallacy.

Milon said:
Duty, I'd still like a response to my last post - an example of what "evidence of God" might be, or a better explanation.
Click to expand...

k, give me some time though, I'm at work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top