Is it "Deceptive" to say the GAE is "Consistent With" Evolution?

[Michael_Okoko]

@dga471

@Michael_Okoko

1+1 = 2

1+1 = 4

Which of the above calculations is wrong and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion?

We use deductive logic based on certain axioms, which are not “falsifiable” in the way that scientific statements are.

You don’t need any axioms or deductive logic here. You can literally count with your fingers or count other discrete objects to show why 1 + 1 does not equal four. John and Sarah gave me an apple each, how many apples do I have? Its obviously two and never four. That’s your falsifiability right there.

If you disagree, please show how you can use deductive logic alone to show that 1+1 does not equal 4.

@dga471

One cannot prove or disprove 1+1 = 2 using empirical science.

Yeah, but I can do that calculation using real life objects (chairs, boxes, cells, etc.) so many times that it always gives 2, thus, making anyone who argues for a different answer appear foolish and out of this world.

@dga471

Unfortunately cameras didn’t exist back then, and A&E and their relatives are long since gone. So such a statement is practically unfalsifiable today, except for those (mostly Christians) who think of the Genesis narrative as containing historical information to testify to their existence.

Good. Not only is AE creation in GAE models unfalsifiable, it is equally not consistent with science because nothing in our current scientific understanding of the world supports de novo creation of two human beings.

@dga471

But the impracticality of falsification does not necessarily mean that a certain hypothesis is then “inconsistent with science”.

This is true, but in the case of the de novo creation of AE according to GAE there is nothing consistent with it and modern science. Jesus creating AE de novo, Jesus walking on liquid water, Jesus restoring a blind man’s sight with baked mud, are all inconsistent with modern science.

@dga471

For example, the hypothesis “I ate scrambled eggs on the morning of August 1, 1998” is practically unfalsifiable too, because I nor any of my parents remember what I ate and there is no existing record. Yet it obviously seems odd to say that the hypothesis is “inconsistent with science”.

Yes I can’t falsify that claim (except if there was some register somewhere that documented exactly what you ate on that day), but there is nothing inconsistent with science about cooking or eating scrambled egg, because both processes are in line with what we would expect if our scientific understanding of the world held. If you told me you lifted a Boeing airplane in 1998 using your pinky finger, I might not be able to falsify your claim, but I certainly won’t take you seriously because lifting planes with pinky fingers is wildly inconsistent with modern science.