Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2015, 07:09 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 06:58 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Just a general question. I think there is a miscommunication regarding the difference between proof/evidence and belief/claim. Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding proof is evidence but evidence is not always proof. Example. If a man is accused of murder because his fingerprints are on the gun that is only proof that he touched the gun but it does prove he fired the kill shot. However it is evidence supporting the claim that he is guilty. Same regarding belief/claim. A claim is always a belief but a belief is not always a claim. I always assumed that a belief was more (for lack of a better word) personal but a claim was taking a belief with supporting evidence to influence the beliefs of others. This is a honest question. Thank you.

You are correct. The problems arise when it is not at all clear whether someone is making a claim or stating a belief, or when someone takes evidence as proof.

A further problem arises when things like hearsay or conicidence are considered evidence.

Science rarely claims proof, only that a hypothesis is not contradicted by the evidence, or that a theory is well-supported by the evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
14-11-2015, 07:15 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(13-11-2015 07:07 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  What will it take to prove to you that God exists?

Show up like an actual person, answer all of my questions, go to eat with me and my family and answer all of their questions. Demonstrate his power, show me heaven, let me tour it, give me a tour of hell. Demonstrate he can actually do anything with a soul after someone dies.

I don't know, I guess if he actually acted like he really existed than all of this lame hiding shit and only revealing himself to believers through feels then I could believe.

It's this idea that something invisible exists, but it's only going to reveal itself through subjective mechanisms, he's going to have to reveal himself in an objectively demonstrable way and dispose of his chickenshit hiding. Otherwise, there's no reason to respond to this idea other than call it bullshit made up by bullshit peddlers.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
14-11-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2015 06:58 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Just a general question. I think there is a miscommunication regarding the difference between proof/evidence and belief/claim. Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding proof is evidence but evidence is not always proof. Example. If a man is accused of murder because his fingerprints are on the gun that is only proof that he touched the gun but it does prove he fired the kill shot. However it is evidence supporting the claim that he is guilty. Same regarding belief/claim. A claim is always a belief but a belief is not always a claim. I always assumed that a belief was more (for lack of a better word) personal but a claim was taking a belief with supporting evidence to influence the beliefs of others. This is a honest question. Thank you.

You are correct. The problems arise when it is not at all clear whether someone is making a claim or stating a belief, or when someone takes evidence as proof.

A further problem arises when things like hearsay or conicidence are considered evidence.

Science rarely claims proof, only that a hypothesis is not contradicted by the evidence, or that a theory is well-supported by the evidence.
Thank you. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page when I say things like "I have plenty of 'evidence' to support my belief" vs "I have proof that my claim is true."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 07:15 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(13-11-2015 07:07 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  What will it take to prove to you that God exists?

Show up like an actual person, answer all of my questions, go to eat with me and my family and answer all of their questions. Demonstrate his power, show me heaven, let me tour it, give me a tour of hell. Demonstrate he can actually do anything with a soul after someone dies.

I don't know, I guess if he actually acted like he really existed than all of this lame hiding shit and only revealing himself to believers through feels then I could believe.

It's this idea that something invisible exists, but it's only going to reveal itself through subjective mechanisms, he's going to have to reveal himself in an objectively demonstrable way and dispose of his chickenshit hiding. Otherwise, there's no reason to respond to this idea other than call it bullshit made up by bullshit peddlers.
Which is why it is futile to debate theism vs atheism with me. Seriously not trying to be rude. It is honestly the reason why I am not trying to convert anyone. Because I can't meet your request.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
14-11-2015, 08:00 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 06:58 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Just a general question. I think there is a miscommunication regarding the difference between proof/evidence and belief/claim. Correct me if I am wrong but from my understanding proof is evidence but evidence is not always proof. Example. If a man is accused of murder because his fingerprints are on the gun that is only proof that he touched the gun but it does prove he fired the kill shot. However it is evidence supporting the claim that he is guilty.

I don't disagree with that, with the caveat that "proof" is best left to mathematics and other rigorous systems. Finding his fingerprints on the gun are one bit of evidence supporting the claim that the man committed murder; if there is sufficient evidence overall then it is reasonable to believe that the man is guilty. I'm guilty of using "prove" when the evidence is overwhelming (e.g. evolution has been proven true) and that just has to be understood as a shorthand for the idea that there is a lot of compelling evidence to the point where it would be very difficult to overcome.

Quote:Same regarding belief/claim. A claim is always a belief but a belief is not always a claim. I always assumed that a belief was more (for lack of a better word) personal but a claim was taking a belief with supporting evidence to influence the beliefs of others. This is a honest question. Thank you.

I understand what you are saying and that does clarify some of what you've said before. I disagree because, coming at things as a skeptic, I don't hold beliefs unless I have supporting evidence and I find it difficult for me to understand how or why anybody else can or would want to. I may have beliefs that are false but if I discover that something I believe doesn't have supporting evidence then that belief gets reclassified as a hypothesis or conjecture or perhaps discarded depending on the specifics.

When I hear that you believe something I don't my natural reaction is to ask what the evidence is for that so that I can evaluate it to see if it makes sense to incorporate that same belief for myself. I want to understand how reality works so if you believe something that I don't then either I am missing something or you have an unwarranted belief and I want to know which is the case.

In that sense, your belief is a claim to be investigated.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
14-11-2015, 09:44 AM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2015 10:41 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 07:17 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(14-11-2015 07:09 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are correct. The problems arise when it is not at all clear whether someone is making a claim or stating a belief, or when someone takes evidence as proof.

A further problem arises when things like hearsay or conicidence are considered evidence.

Science rarely claims proof, only that a hypothesis is not contradicted by the evidence, or that a theory is well-supported by the evidence.
Thank you. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page when I say things like "I have plenty of 'evidence' to support my belief" vs "I have proof that my claim is true."

I can appreciate what you are saying yet I think for a skeptic like me this doesn’t hold water. Let me explain.

If I have plenty of evidence to support my belief/position/hypothesis I would expect that if I presented this evidence others would reach the same conclusion. My evidence has to be observable and testable by others. Falling short of these things it falls squarely in the “belief/feels” category.

So my question to you is where is the evidence so I can analyze it as well to see how you came about your belief. This is just restating what unfogged already said but I think it is a very important point.

I think there is an unfounded view of skeptics, that we are unmovable in our positions, close minded and rigid in our thinking. This is the very opposite of what a skeptic is. A true skeptic and a person who subscribes to the scientific process of discovery is always asking and always searching for the “truth”, as evidence mounts positions are changed and re-evaluated. I bring this up because I want to evaluate the “plenty of evidence” you have for your conclusions to see if I can learn something.

I think our sticking point here is your use of the word evidence. What you may consider evidence is not what I may consider as evidence.

1evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
14-11-2015, 10:24 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 09:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(14-11-2015 07:17 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Thank you. I just wanted to be sure we were on the same page when I say things like "I have plenty of 'evidence' to support my belief" vs "I have proof that my claim is true."

I can appreciate what you are saying yet I think for a skeptic like me this doesn’t hold water. Let me explain.

If I have plenty of evidence to support my belief/position/hypothesis I would expect that if I presented this evidence others would reach the same conclusion. My evidence has to be observable and testable by others. Falling short of these things it falls squarely in the “belief/feels” category.

So my question to you is where is the evidence so I can analyze it as well to see how you came about your belief. This is just restating what unfogged already said but I think it is a very important point.

I think there is an unfounded view of skeptics, that we are unmovable in our positions, close minded and rigid in our thinking. This is the very opposite of what a skeptic is. A true skeptic and a person who subscribes to the scientific process of discovery is always asking and always searching for the “truth”. I bring this up because I want to evaluate the “plenty of evidence” you have for your conclusions to see if I can learn something.

I think our sticking point here is your use of the word evidence. What you may consider evidence is not what I may consider as evidence.

1evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

None of the theists on this forum understand what evidence is, with the possible exception of KC.

This is also true of the conspiracy nuts.

Just read posts by Q, CotW, Tomasia, BlowJob, and the rest of the idiot squad and it is obvious.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-11-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
(14-11-2015 10:24 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2015 09:44 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I can appreciate what you are saying yet I think for a skeptic like me this doesn’t hold water. Let me explain.

If I have plenty of evidence to support my belief/position/hypothesis I would expect that if I presented this evidence others would reach the same conclusion. My evidence has to be observable and testable by others. Falling short of these things it falls squarely in the “belief/feels” category.

So my question to you is where is the evidence so I can analyze it as well to see how you came about your belief. This is just restating what unfogged already said but I think it is a very important point.

I think there is an unfounded view of skeptics, that we are unmovable in our positions, close minded and rigid in our thinking. This is the very opposite of what a skeptic is. A true skeptic and a person who subscribes to the scientific process of discovery is always asking and always searching for the “truth”. I bring this up because I want to evaluate the “plenty of evidence” you have for your conclusions to see if I can learn something.

I think our sticking point here is your use of the word evidence. What you may consider evidence is not what I may consider as evidence.

1evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something

None of the theists on this forum understand what evidence is, with the possible exception of KC.

This is also true of the conspiracy nuts.

Just read posts by Q, CotW, Tomasia, BlowJob, and the rest of the idiot squad and it is obvious.

Gasp What? Feels aren’t evidence? Sadcryface2

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
https://youtu.be/2assFIyLInE

I don't know if you would consider anything in this video as evidence but it is something. Here is a link for the trailer but the full documentary is on netflix. I am curious to hear what you think about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Why is it that creationist are trying to disprove evolution
https://youtu.be/2assFIyLInE
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: