From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science never tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof.

I'm not against a section on biblical proof per se. Just not that one. The definition of 'God' is already in the God article, and as for the statement that proof of all things can be found in the Bible...well, I invite anyone who believes that to provide a proof (or disproof) of, say, Goldbach's Conjecture. Tsumetai 06:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Legal Proof

Is there a reason that legal proofs should not be included in this article? In summary, a criminal case is considered "proved" if the prosecution case can be made "beyond reasonable doubt", and a civil case is considered "proved" if the case can be made on the basis of more likely than not (although I'm not a lawyer and don't know the proper terminology). Philip J. Rayment 09:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sillybear25' edit comment

In removing the "Biblical Proof" section (which I'm not reinstating because I don't really understand what it was getting at), he said, "the bible doesn't give proof. the point of religion is tthat it is faith-based, and cannot be proven. That's why not everyone is a Christian. See Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide for the reasons)". When oh when are bibliosceptics going to stop telling Christians what the basis of their beliefs are? "Faith", in the Bible, is not something without evidence. It is trust, based on evidence. Sure, there may not be scientific/mathematical/etc. "proof", but neither is it evidence-free. And citing a work of fiction in support...??? Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so again I am going to put back the section on "Biblical proof". --Sciencebuff 05:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
See Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God? for an exploration of the above point.--CatWatcher 05:48, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Please NOte: Omnsicience and Omnipotence are mutually exclusive. A being who is omnipotent can change anything, anywhere, any time. A being who is omniscient knows exactly what they will do, even before they do it. Therefore an omniscient being cannot affect their own future actions, without destroying their omniscience, and an omnipotent being must be able to change anything, even something that they themselves have predicted would happen previously. Please remove this section as it does not belong in 'proof'. --CatWatcher 05:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Gravitation is a fact - Evolution is a fact

While the Theory of Gravitation and the Theory of Evolution are just that - scientific theories. Ed Poor's edit on the page is just confusing these simple facts :-) , it should be reverted.--BRichtigen 14:15, 4 November 2008 (EST)

The Theory of Evolution is disputed by 5% of scientists, so it's not wise to call it "a fact". Next, you'll be calling the "Greenhouse Theory" of global warming a fact too, I suppose.
Try to distinguish between ideology and science, please. --Ed Poor Talk 14:23, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I think what he means is that there are definite changes in species across time and generations... Evolution exists, meaning that genetics and mutations cause traits to change in a species over time - eg skin color, facial features, etc. that distinguish groups within a species. The Theory of Evolution, which attempts to explain the creation of new species through evolution, is a theory, not a fact.Mikek 14:28, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I'd never call a theory a fact. Try to read more carefully, please. --BRichtigen 14:30, 4 November 2008 (EST)
I'm not sure that I agree with Ed Poor's edit, but neither do I agree with BRichtigen's rebuttal. You (BRichtigen) are claiming that Ed Poor is conflating two different concepts (the existence of changes with the explanation of those changes) into the one word, "evolution". Yet you are doing the same sort of thing. You have failed to distinguish between observed changes within living things due mostly to genetic variation and natural selection and occasionally due to genetic-information-destroying mutations, and unobserved information-generating mutations that produce new features. You call both of these "evolution" and a fact, yet only the first of these is a fact; the other is a belief. In addition, most people would not even refer to the former as "evolution". When two creatures have offspring, each of the offspring get only half the DNA from each parent. This means that some genetic information in each parent is not passed on. This is why offspring do not look identical to their parents. Yet going by your definition, if this is repeated across all members of the species, then this is evolution! That "evolution" nobody has an issue with, but evolutionists go further and claim the entire evolutionary "family tree" as fact. That is incorrect, and would be what Ed Poor's edit was referring to. Philip J. Rayment 21:40, 4 November 2008 (EST)
Personal tools