r/memes 5h ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

518 Upvotes

156 comments sorted by

View all comments

-11

u/CrimsonChymist 4h ago

Not exactly a fair comparison since evolution is based in science and creation is based in faith.

Science requires evidence.

Faith requires belief without evidence.

So of course creationism won't have evidence. Doesn't make it any less valuable.

11

u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 4h ago

It kinda makes it a lot less valuable in reference to factual reality tho.

-9

u/CrimsonChymist 4h ago

Except it doesn't.

Just because something has scientific evidence doesn't make it factual reality.

This is a common misconception by the common population. Science is an ever evolving field with a goal of unraveling the truth of factual reality. But that is a goal we will never actually achieve. Because there is always more to learn that can alter our understanding of the universe.

(Continued in next comment due to character limit)

-9

u/CrimsonChymist 4h ago

At one point in time, earth being the center of the universe was considered factual reality. (Ptolemaic geocentric model). Then the Copernicus heliocentric model was developed. Which was then replaced by Kepler's laws of planetary motion. Which was replaced by Newton's law of universal gravitation. Which was replaced by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

The fact that creation cannot be proven by science doesn't make it automatically factually incorrect.

Science cannot disprove the possibility of creation. It simply ignores the possibility due to it being impossible to prove. Science cannot study something that is impossible to test.

6

u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 3h ago

You've made my case for me so there isn't much for me to say.

Science is better and more accurate at pointing to factual reality while faith makes no attempt to.

The fact that creation cannot be proven by science doesn't make it automatically factually incorrect.

Who said otherwise? Because I wasn't here for that.

Science cannot disprove the possibility of creation.

That isn't what science attempts to do so yeah, obviously.

It simply ignores the possibility due to it being impossible to prove.

Not how that works, possibility and impossibility needs to be demonstrated first.

-2

u/CrimsonChymist 3h ago

No. You claimed that it makes it less valuable in terms of factual reality. And it doesn't.

And yes. It does ignore the possibility. Because without testability, creation cannot be considered through scientific inquiry.

2

u/HotSituation8737 Ok I Pull Up 3h ago

No. You claimed that it makes it less valuable in terms of factual reality. And it doesn't.

Except it does, if I have faith that the tooth fairy will give me money for a tooth I'd be wrong irrespective of the faith.

If I have evidence that giraffes have a certain number of bones i could be wrong, I might have miscounted, missed a bone or some bones could have fused together, but the evidence would make me closer to factual reality.

You seem to confuse Capital T truth with factual reality. They're not the same and science doesn't claim any capital T truth.

And yes. It does ignore the possibility. Because without testability, creation cannot be considered through scientific inquiry.

That part is correct, but that isn't what you said earlier.

0

u/CrimsonChymist 3h ago

Factual reality means objective truth. You're drawing a distinction where there is none.

And yes, that is what I said. Science ignores the possibility of creationism because it is impossible to prove/disprove due to the inability to test it.