View Single Post
Old 05-04-2006, 08:33 PM   #112
ShadowTemplar's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,068
Originally Posted by IG-64
Just because it isn't testable, doesn't mean it isn't there.
Straw man. Nobody said that. What we did say is that if it's not testable, it's not science - and never will be. Your private metaphysical speculations are your own to have - they are none of my business, and frankly I don't really give a damn about them.

That's not to say that we could not have a theological debate in some other thread, but I would think that Kurgan would be a better bet for a debate partner.

Also, you are leaving out of this "debate" a very large majority of the world's population with that statement.
You have misunderstood the purpose of this thread. None of the participants from the reality-based community are interested in a 'debate,' since there are no real points to debate (that's not to say that there aren't interesting debates over the details and mechanisms of evolution. Such debates - controversies even - certainly exist, but they are rather beyond the scope of a forum thread).

That's because in the creation theory,
There is no 'creation theory'. Not a single one. Nada. Zip. In point of fact, there's not even a hypotesis.

Of course, if you do know a 'creation hypothesis,' I'd be happy to hear it. I hereby submit a concise explaination of the scientific method written by Lenny Flank.

If you (or anyone else for that matter) can come up with a model or description that could pass muster in all the five steps Flank outlines, I'll buy you a bottle of whiskey. It'd be a first.

To me, this thread doesn't seem like a debate.
That's because it's not.

It seems more like an excuse to tell each other how great the evolution theory is.
Not quite true. It was intended as a place where people of intellectual integrity and with a genuine curiosity could ask questions and recieve answers or pointers vis-a-vis the ToE without having to wear an asbestos suit.

Originally Posted by TK-8252
Alright, but, it must be fair to say then that even though you can't test that the sun is made of cheese, doesn't mean it's not made of cheese.
That's different. Because that's disprovable. There just... aren't enough cows.
One could imagine the sun having always been, and hence needing no cows - after all, there is very little decomposition in an anoxic environment. And we will likely never know 'for sure' in the creationist sense of the term, since it is massively unlikely that any probe will ever survive to within touching distance of the surface of the sun.

Besides, since the sun doesn't really have a rigid surface, one could always imagine that the probe just didn't go deep enough, and if one were to use standard creationist 'reasoning', one could speculate that if it had just gone a mite deeper into the very dense 'atmosphere', it would have hit a solid surface of cheese.

And this is what's fundamentally wrong with the kind of 'reasoning' that creationists routinely employ: There is - in principle - no way to prove a negative. I cannot prove that I didn't kill somebody. That's why it's up to the prosecution to prove that I did, if they want to put me behind bars (at least in civilised countries).

Point is, creation isn't really disprovable.
And that is the fundamental weakness. The lack of possible falsification renders creation utterly useless as a model of anything.

Many people have a hard time of seeing how that's the case, but it's really astonishingly simple:

Take two statments (A and B)


Thus, if there is not even in principle any observation B that is required for A to be true, then A implies absolutely nothing. No inferences can then be drawn from A, and A is a superflous statement, to be cut out in keeping with the principle of parsimony.

And you must remember that there is some basis for creation. It's not just something people believe out of spite.
But as you have kindly just pointed out yourself, there can be no possible evidence for creation, since - by your own words - creation implies nothing.

If there's anything we've learned throughout history, it's that being in the majority doesn't make you right.
That might be true in some cases, but not always. Besides, that wasn't really my point. I wasn't saying being in the majority makes me right, I was saying that if you're looking for debating opponets who don't believe in creation or evolution. Well... that's a rather small opposition.
We're not looking for 'debate opponents'. We're looking for people with genuine intellectual integrity and curiosity, that we may answer their questions about the ToE or tell them where to find people who can answer their questions.

Last edited by ShadowTemplar; 05-05-2006 at 01:07 PM.
ShadowTemplar is offline   you may: