Evolution or Creation??

by dottie 172 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  An interesting thing about the non-falsifiable possibilities is that they all have an equal chance of being right. There's absolutely no way - nor any reason - to distinguish between them. If one of those is correct, we can never ever know which one. It could be one of the above or one I just made up. Even if a god did reveal itself, there'd still be no way of knowing. Is he the real god, is he just the god for our section of the universe or is it part of an elaborate practical joke by the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

  While they all may be unfalsible, it may still be possible to appeal to reason that one is more likely than the other. For example while "creation by french toast" and "creation by an intelligent God" are both unfalsible, the concept of "creation by an intelligent God" is probably more likely since french toast is generally thought of as having no intelligence.
• 

  funkyderek

  funkyderek, while it is possible to divide things into falsifable and unfalsifable scenarios. I think for the sake of simplicity it is probably better to divide them according to the general concepts of Evolution or Creation. For example if we are comparing the fossil record between the two models it is easier to expalin the data in terms of what we would expect from the general concepts.

  But nobody can argue against your claim of creation. It's the same as arguing internal combustion versus elves. If you manage to prove that the car doesn't move by internal combustion, then there are still a million other possibilities just as likely as elves. If, on the other hand, the car appears in every way to move by means of an internal combustion engine the elfist can still claim that it's really elves pulling the strings. Basically, unless you make a falsifiable claim, there's no point in arguing.
• 

  funkyderek

  the concept of "creation by an intelligent God" is probably more likely since french toast is generally thought of as having no intelligence.

  Prove that French toast has no intelligence.
• 

  SixofNine

  Shouldn't that be "freedom toast"?
• 

  hooberus

  While we may disagree on whether or not creation by one creator is more likely than the other different proposed creator, the facts remain that the evidence for the creation model can be treated independantly of the proposed creation mechanism. This can also be conceded to evolution. For example it is commonly said that Evolution is a fact and that the various proposed mechanisms are theory. Thus the evidence for evolution occuring in the past is not strictly dependant on any proposed mechanism. So I also would say that the evidence for creation is not strictly dependant on any proposed creation meachanism. One could say "Well at least the proposed evolutionary mechanisms are falsible while the creation mechanisms are not" This is conceded, however even if all the current proposed mechanisms were somehow falsified it would still be taught that the evidence for Evolution occuring in the past is overwhelming based on fossils, DNA, etc. So if the evidence of evolution can be separated from its various proposed mechanisms then the evidence of creation could also be separted from its various proposed mechanisms.
• 

  hooberus

  funkyderek said:

  the concept of "creation by an intelligent God" is probably more likely since french toast is generally thought of as having no intelligence.

  Prove that French toast has no intelligence.

  funky derek, I am tying to discuss general concepts with regards to falsification and the Evolution/Creation issue. Please try to understand the general concepts that I am tying to get across rather than arguing every sub-point to the point of missing the general concept.
• 

  funkyderek

  So if the evidence of evolution can be separated from its various proposed mechanisms then the evidence of creation could also be separted from its various proposed mechanisms.

  The problem with this is that evolution can be disproved if the evidence doesn't support it. Creation can not. Every evidence of evolution that's been mentioned so far is, according to you, compatible with a creation model. And you're right. Anything can be compatible with a creation model. Not everything is compatible with an evolutionary model, regardless of mechanism. That's the crucial point. Falsifiability is everything.
• 

  funkyderek

  funky derek, I am tying to discuss general concepts with regards to falsification and the Evolution/Creation issue. Please try to understand the general concepts that I am tying to get across rather than arguing every sub-point to the point of missing the general concept.

  I didn't really want you to prove that French toast has no intelligence, hoob. The point I was trying to make is that you really can't say that one imaginary being is more likely than another when you don't require them to conform to known physical laws.

  (Edited to say: I've got a long weekend so I won't be back to this thread before Tuesday!)
• 

  hooberus

  funky derek said:

  I didn't really want you to prove that French toast has no intelligence, hoob. The point I was trying to make is that you really can't say that one imaginary being is more likely than another when you don't require them to conform to known physical laws.

  While it may be impossible to "prove according to the scientific method" that one being is more likely to have created something then another when neither being is directly visibly extant, it is possibe to postualte from reason that one is more likely than the other.
• 

  hooberus

  If evolutionists do not have to first "prove" a specific evolutionary mechanism before appealing to evidence from the past such as fossils etc., then creationists do not have to first "prove" a specific creation mechanism (such as God etc.) before appealing to evidence from the past such as fossils etc..