Question: What answers can philosophy give us that science can't?

Why the fuck is Lenin there?

A rabbit seems more likely, now that I see it

Science is about observing the natural world correctly. What does that have to do with living a good life, helping others, finding meaning in life, contributing to your society/political system, learning how to overcome suffering, etc? Only philosophy or religion can do those things. Science can help inform them to a great extent, but it can never answer those questions itself. To suggest that it can is to fundamentally misunderstand what science is and what it does.

OP, the creation vs evolution debate is far from over.

A lot of scientists are losing faith in darwinism. It's nothing but a modern myth. Here is the current state of the theory of evolution:

"Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux… all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproven" - Professor Denis Noble, Evolutionist, Physiologist and Biologist, May 2013

1. Abiogenesis. They have given up on it and now say it's not part of evolution theory.
2. They are now admitting that they have no explanation for diversity. So now it's not evolution either.
3. They have given up on the fossil record since it looks like creation. So now they say they don't need the fossils.
4. Gould and associates say there is no gradualism (no transitionals). Stasis is the underlying factor in the fossils so it's not evolution either.
5. Random mutations and natural selection produce nothing so that's out too and they are rejecting it as evolution.
6. All they have left is the common ancestor monkey. The inability for "kinds" to interbreed destroys that one so it's not long for this world.
7. PE is now a failure so it's out as evolution as well.
8. The “tree of life” has also been rejected.

And natural selection is in favor of creationism, not evolutionism.

Your underlying assumption is wrong OP. We did not "evolve" and the earth is not gorillions of years old. It's fine if you believe that, but don't call it a fact because it's not.

>American education

I'm from Europe, retard.
Also not an argument.

Damn i thought you guys were supposed to be smart and didn't believe that you came from angel jizz anymore

>turks are "european" now

But we are smart. We believe in facts.

You believe in monkey myths.

Samefag troll

and where do these facts come from, the bible?
come on now, I would suspect someone on a history board to understand what reliable sources are

>creationism
>facts

Pick 1

Ok

philosophy can´t replace science, supposedly should be the link between science and religion

From science.

newgeology.us/presentation32.html
trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience
icr.org/mutation
>Darwinism's Downfall
youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY

Evolution is a religious myth.
If you want to believe your grandpa was a monkey that crawled out of a soup (lol!), that is your personal belief and you should keep it to yourself.

Logical Fallacies of Evolution 101

How often have you heard evolutionists say: "There's really no disagreement among reputable scientists when it comes to evolution." Or: "Evolution is settled science." Creation Moments has heard such statements fall from the lips of Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Eugenie Scott and many others, too numerous to mention.

Clearly these evolutionists are all working off the same page in their playbook. They're also showing that they aren't thinking clearly. Why? Because they are writing books, making films and giving speeches tearing down scientists who disagree with them. But wait - didn't they just say that there's no disagreement among reputable scientists and we're dealing with settled science?

By saying things like this, evolutionists believe that people can be easily fooled by one of the oldest logical fallacies in the book - the argumentum ad populum. As used by evolutionists, this fallacy can be stated like this: "Since all scientists believe in evolution, evolution must be scientifically correct."

Even if the first part of this assertion were true - which it isn't - the second part does not logically follow. It's like the child who tries to justify some undesirable behavior by saying, "It must be okay because all the kids are doing it." Besides, if scientific truth is determined by majority vote or by what most scientists believe at a certain point in time, then Darwinism itself would have been rejected when it was first proposed.

Evolutionists have to rely on logical fallacies, because there is no evidence supporting the theory that species produce offspring that are not of their species. Only by using logic errors can evolutionists generate a belief in something that has not occurred and is not occurring.

Begging the Question: This is circular logic. An assumption is used to validate a premise. Evolution is assumed to be factual; therefore, evolutionists dismiss outright fraud as being acceptable because it illustrates a true point. One popular form of this is, "Although it is mathematically impossible for life to have occurred by chance, we're here, so that proves it happened."

Hasty Generalization: A small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, evolutionists like to claim that evidence of people dwelling in caves in former times means humans came from a more primitive species. This is overgeneralizing at its extreme. In fact, humans are still dwelling in caves, and not because they are a primitive species.

Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: This tries to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, evolutionists state that theists are retarding science. This is contrary to fact. Many scientific advances were made and are being made by people who believe in God. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Mendel, for example, all believed in God.

Misuse of Authority: A group of “experts” is used to prove a conclusion, even if that group does not actually agree with it. An example is "All educated people know evolution is a fact."

Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy says that the evidence is ancient, so it can't be verified by observation. Thus we have the "millions" of years timetable for evolutionists.

You will find that every argument in favor of evolution hinges on a logical fallacy. All the evidence clearly points to design, not accident, as the source of life.

To see the fallacy Hypothesis Contrary to Fact in full force merely read the literature of any evolutionist and note that the literature will have references such as: may or may have, must or must have, possibly, could or could have, should or should have, might or might be, etc. Then note that their conclusion demands to be recognized as scientific fact. Apparently evolutionists did not get instruction concerning scientific axioms and principles that demand that any conclusion that rests on these kinds of phrases can never be considered a valid theory or fact.

One hasty generalization is when micro-evolution (adaptation within a species) is used to support macro-evolution (the change of one species into a different one.) The first is merely normal. The second never occurs. Yet evolutionists say that because some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, this difference within the species proves that species change into creatures that are not of their own kind. That's a hasty generalization for you.

Evolutionists are constantly begging the question. They base their extrapolations on assumptions. A good example of this is the rock record. Evolutionists say that slow, steady rate erosion created rock layers that were obviously caused in a cataclysm. Evolutionists ignore the real world of sudden disasters that dramatically and suddenly change the landscape, since that ruins their theory of slow, predictable change over millions of years.

The theory of evolution is often referred to as a tested and proven scientific fact, when evidence overwhelmingly is against it. In fact, the theory of evolution is based on conjecture, and from there assumptions are made that contradict observable fact. Evolutionary arguments cannot withstand objective, in-depth criticism because they are nothing but hot air.

By true scientific standards, evolution is not even a theory. A scientific theory is confirmed by observations and is falsifiable. There will be proof whether it is right or wrong.

Evolution cannot be put to a test, since it supposedly happened millions of years ago and we certainly never see it happening now. It can never be proved—either true or false. It has always been on speculation alone.

Because there is no actual evidence to support evolution, proponents resort to logical fallacies. Evolution puts forth a tautology, which is the circular argument that the fittest survive, and therefore those who survive are the fittest. See how one statement is used as proof of a repetition of the same argument. The fittest—those who leave the most offspring, evolutionists say— leave the most offspring. A hamster spinning in its cage could hardly go in more circles!

There is a line of reasoning known as a "reductio ad absurdum" ("reducing to absurdity"). Evolutionists like to do this all the time. They try to show that belief in a Creator is false because it is absurd. "We cannot see the Creator, we cannot hear the Creator, and we cannot touch him," they say. "So we're supposed to believe this tripe?"

Meanwhile, we cannot see species turning into another species, but they expect us to believe that they do.

Oh shit we have awoken the kraken of creationism. The deluge of shitposting misinformation be upon us. May god aka or creator have mercy on our "souls".

Evolution is a religion. Yes, evolution is the faith of atheism because it replaces God with man. When you've conned yourself into believing that some kind of ancient slime morphed into progressively complex and directional life forms, you are in the realm of faith, not science.

>Overwhelming Evidence for a Global Flood
youtube.com/watch?v=lktmmd7YnD8

>Overwhelming Evidence that Dinosaurs lived with Man
genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
youtube.com/watch?v=niDCq3TbvOo
youtube.com/watch?v=W6M1b36KbHs

>Archeological evidence for the Bible
bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm

>Atheists Don't Exist
youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0
In this film it's recognized there's no point in endlessly giving "atheists" classical or evidentialist arguments since their fallen nature and faulty unbelieving presuppositions prevent them from accepting them. Plus it is dishonoring to God to let them autonomously weigh evidence for God as if He was on trial and they were the judges. Rather, we reduce the unbeliever's worldview to absurdity noting it can't account for valid human experience (and that Christianity does), and show the God they know deep down is needed to rescue them from such absurdity.

>we
You are just 1 person, user.
>misinformation
*Scientific facts that proves your religion is false

A. Four Sons of Ham:
1. Mizraim (Egypt)
2. Cush (Sudan, Ethiopia)
3. Put (Lybia)
4. Canaan (Hivites, Jebusites, Arvadites, Girgashites, Amorites, Arkites, Sinites, Hittites,
Sidonians, Perizzites, Zemarites)

B. Five Sons of Shem:
1. Elam (Arabia)
2. Asshur (Assyria)
3. Lud (Lydians)
4. Aram (Aramaic, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria)
5. Arphaxad (From which Abraham descended)

C. Japheth's Descendants (14 Nations came out of Japheth):
The immediate descendants of Japheth were seven in number, and are represented by the nations designated Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Mesech, and Tiras; or, roughly, the Armenians, Lydians, Medes, Greeks, Tibarenians, and Moschians, the last, Tiras, remaining still obscure. The sons of Gomer (Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah) were all settled in the West Asian tract; while the sons of Javan (Elisah, Tarshish, Kittim and Dodanim or Rodanim) occupied the Mediterranean coast and the adjacent islands.

Seven Sons of Japheth
1. Javan (Greece, Romans, Romance -- French, Italians, Spanish, Portuguese)
2. Magog (Scythians, Slavs, Russians, Bulgarians, Bohemians, Poles, Slovaks, Croatians)
3. Madai (Indians & Iranic: Medes, Persians, Afghans, Kurds)
4. Tubal (South of Black Sea)
5. Tiras (Thracians, Teutons, Germans, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Jutes)
6. Meshech (Russia)
7. Gomer (Celtic)

The Bible not only shows the creation process, it also accurately explains how the various races of mankind developed after the Flood.

Archaeology is an important science that confirms the historical accuracy of the Bible. Since the Bible refers to hundreds of cities, kings, and places, we would expect to find evidence from on-site excavations. And this is exactly what we have found. The Bible is the most historically accurate book of history on earth.

i love how your faith and ego are so fragile that you have to shitpost on here to try prevent them from completely collapsing

newgeology.us/presentation32.html

The theory of evolution is the most laughable and ridiculous cult in the world.
Atheists dogmatically defend their prophet (Darwin), priests (pseudo-scientists) because their entire godless worldview hinges on it.

As rational, logical Christians who know the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate (it has survived tons of hammer blows throughout the ages), we should mock evolutionists and point out their flaws and errors.

Why would my faith be fragile when facts are on my side? That's a weird connection you're making.

Historical science is speculating and assuming what happened in the past. Creationists and evolutionists both have faith in their worldviews.

The difference is that creationists look where the evidence leads them to, whereas evolutionists have a prior rejection of God, presuppositions and bias. They are intellectually dishonest and constantly use logical fallacies.

Evolutionists are afraid to debate, because they know they would get destroyed. So all they can do is hide behind government funding, majority opinion and ridiculing opposing views instead of addressing the arguments.

don't bother responding to the atheists, they suffer from cognitive dissonance.

their hatred towards God literally blinds them. their "feelings" are more important than facts, evidence and proof.

You're right. Better to just hide this shitty thread and let fedoras wallow in ignorance and irrationality.

Why can't you just say that evolution is how god works creation?

>trueorigin.org
thanks for this link senpai, i knew evolution was wrong but this just solidifies it

literally no scientist would say metamorphosis is evolution
this ain't fucking pokemon

> No Strauss
>No Voeglin
>No Aron
>No Schmitt
>No Montaigne
>No Cassirer
>No Morgenthau
What the hell is this, OP?

>all these no names

Sorry no

This must be bait or a American from Utah