@willpayton said:
@dshipp17 said:
And, being a scientist, in trying to understand something like evolution, I go to creation.com to find weaknesses in the theory; if you avoid going to a place like creation.com, than you're making evolution pseudo-science; you're trying to create the conditions where evolution is a certainty in your own mind; but, for the rest, it's just the latest adjustment to make an atheistic point of view seem right by trying to mischaracterize the evidence that supports Christianity and God as somehow completely invalid; if I took what he said, than the scientific branch of archaeology and history would have to be labeled in the pseudo-science category; it actually does not matter if you take the approach to confirm a hypothesis or disprove a hypothesis, as it's based on observations; so, either approach would tell you if a hypothesis is correct or incorrect; essentially, some things are not fully subject to scientific testing, like the proof for history, Christianity, and God, as I'd previously stated.
Going to a creationist website will in no way help you understand evolution or science. If you want to find weaknesses in any theory then you need to use logic and look at evidence. You need to look at the theory and its predictions and then compare them with what you see in the universe.
You also seemed to miss the whole point about why only trying to confirm a hypothesis is different from trying to dis-confirm it. Science tries to disprove theories because that's how you know whether a theory is incorrect, and that's how you can avoid self-delusion. Religion tries to confirm, but finding confirming evidence will never tell you whether an idea is true or not. I can say that "all cars are red" and then present example after example of red cars, but that neither proves that all cars are red or that all cars are not red. It only tells me that at least a certain number of cars are red. To really test the theory I need to try to find contradictory evidence.
As far as what's not scientifically testable... if it's not scientifically testable, then you have no way to know whether that thing is true or not.
"Going to a creationist website will in no way help you understand evolution or science. If you want to find weaknesses in any theory then you need to use logic and look at evidence. You need to look at the theory and its predictions and then compare them with what you see in the universe."
It appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what that website contains and what it's all about; so, what do you mean by a creationist website (or, what do you think the website contains, for the most part)? And I certainly do test evolution against science by getting information that allows me to remember information that allows me to apply critical thinking to a specific article purporting to substantiate evolution.
"I can say that "all cars are red" and then present example after example of red cars, but that neither proves that all cars are red or that all cars are not red. It only tells me that at least a certain number of cars are red. To really test the theory I need to try to find contradictory evidence."
Or, if, for centuries, all apples that I saw were red, so, I believe that apples are red; now, just because you find a green apple and become popular, and in the news for the notion that apples are not red; but, all you've found was a green apple; that did not displace my belief that apples are red. Basically, science is finding out some aspects of how nature behaves, but, that in no way displaces all Christians' belief that there is a God and He created the universe and earth within it.
Log in to comment