But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.
69 comments
Sure there is; you're just not creative enough to think of one (of many possibilities, might I add).
But you're not going to disprove whatever you think evolution is. You have to be able to think harder to do that.
Depends how you define "creation", I suppose. Although, chances of disproving evolution are pretty slim to none.
"Your universe is your eyes and ears." Ruler of the Universe, THHGTTG.
Yeah, whatever. You have to disprove evolution first, remember. More intelligent people than you have tried to do that through the centuries. Some idea of evolution existed even before Darwin started with his book, you know.
So, as evolution has been proven again and again, creation has ben disproven again and again? You can't have it just one way, dumbass.
There would still be numerous different models....
3. The earth's magnetic field is responsible for speciation.
There you go... 3 more options.
But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.
There is much more than a third option. There are several other creation myths out there.
"But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation."
That's not how science works. If you disprove a theory you'd damned well better have something to replace it (and creationism sure as hell wont do so) or you've wasted a lot of time, effort and trees writing your critique as we'll just keep on using the theory since there'd be nothing to replace it.
"Because there is no third option."
Sure there is. You're all figments of my imagination, hence neither evolution nor creationism is true.
See? That wasn't so hard. I could probably come up with a dozen more options if I thought about it.
No, if you disproved evolution then there would be no evidenced based explanation of biodiversity. In this case, "I don't know" would be preferable to an explanation that has no evidence. I could make up explanations that have no evidence all day, and there would be no way to tell which, if any, were correct.
"If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation"
No. If you disproved evolution, then you would have disproved evolution. To prove creation, you must come up with a compelling explanation that is able to fit with all the evidence and things we have discovered to date. That's two Herculean tasks just there.
Also, you would have to decide which creation theory you wanted to prove and even before that, assuming you want to prove your fundie version, you need to agree amongst yourselves exactly how to 'interpret' the wholly babble and come up with a single creation story, since there are so many interpretations of the babble stories.
So, good luck with that...
First, disprove evolution. Second, explain why there are no other options. Don't worry; I'll wait.
Also, once you prove Genesis chapter 1, you'll have disproved Genesis chapter 2, and vice versa.
Wikipedia has around sixty major creation myths, that's without all the minor variations within the chief religions or taking into account all the views of smaller societies around the world.
But as evolution is a fact it's all irrelevant anyway.
No, if you disprove evolution (and you won't, because even if it is disprovable, you're not smart enough to even know how it works, much less figure out how to show that it doesn't), you then have to take extra steps to prove creation. See, putting a new theory into science requires not only disproving the current standard, but showing how your new theory explains what the old theory both did and did not explain.
And there are other possibilities. I can think of several. All of them are far less likely than evolution and about as likely as creation.
The Sky Woman fell to earth from the Sky World and had twins, Right-Handed Twin and Left-Handed Twin, who then went on to make everything in the world.
If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation.
Incorrect. If the real theory Evolution is disproved, that does not prove creationism is correct
There are several options. First of all, evolution doesn't even cover the beginnings of the planet, or the start of life. Those are separate theories. Secondly, "creation" as it's described, doesn't account for the diversity of life on this planet. Thirdly, even if we accept a divine creation, you still have to explain why all the evidence seems to point towards gradual evolution.
But it does not change the idea: If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation.
No you haven't. Disproving something doesn't prove anything other than that the disproven idea was wrong. Proof is a positive concept not an inferred concept, If I were to disprove the theory of gravity I have not "proven" the theory of Intelligent Falling. If I were to disprove christianity I have not "proven" atheism. Even if you were to prove creation by divine being you haven't proven biblical creation since christianity is just one of thousands of religions with it's own creation myth.
Because there is no third option
Your right, there is no "third" option, there are millions of different options. Just because you only limit yourself to 2 of them that doesn'tmean those are the only 2, It just means that you are intellectually dishonest on the matter. Just because you only recognized forward and back as direction that doesn't mean that left and right are not options, it just means you have artificially narrowed the range of options.
But would you be able to prove what version of "creation" is correct?
Even if evolution was proven wrong, it wouldn't proof Adam and Eve to be true.
You mean that we were carved out of drift wood [da,mm it\s hiard tp tupe with a rpttl.oe rotties help]
You mean that we were carved out of driftwood by Odin? Well of course!
Oops! It wasn't me....
The DP I mean...
Goddidtit!
OK, I'll bite. Which creation story would that prove?
Judeo-Christian? Babylonian? Aztec? Cherokee? Greco-Roman? Nordic? Aboriginal?
There are dozens!
In the middle ages, people thought the Plague was a curse from God. Then some people noticed that it was often passed to people who went near bodies that had died of it. Since the bodies smelled, they thought the smell carried the disease, so they went about with masks filled with herbs and flowers to keep out the smell. That didn't work. Does that mean that the first idea, God's curse, was automatically proved right? No. It just meant the second idea was wrong.
'sigh'
philosophers invented a whole god damn term just to tell people like you how messed up that 'exact' logic is.
False Dichotomy. look it up.
and just to show you how little that argument works. Aliens. there, third option.
Dammit Frogflayer, you stole my idea! Oh well...
No, you wouldn't. You are creating a false dilemma.
The idea that aliens created life on Earth is far, far more likely than a god creating life.
“If I disproved the evolution, I proved creation. Because there is no third option.”
Disproving the current theory does nothing to prove or disprove whether Ptah made the universe, or if Zeus even exists.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
