A question for creationists

[riley2112]

Neither has a god, but that doesn't stop people from believing in one.

you got that right, funny how that works.

 

[Tristesse]

Charles Darwin evolution Theory and creation are two different topic, or am I wrong here?

They are. One is real (evolution) and the other is an unfounded assertion (creation). I'm not sure what you were implying the the bold lettered theory, but just to be clear, a theory is the highest level that anything in science can acheive. So, calling it a theory is a valiant term in science, it means this is something that has massive amounts of evidence and is confirmed through many data points.

 

[riley2112]

You say we can detect design by looking for purpose but how would we know that the purpose preceded the design? Your examples, like mine, depict pre-existing objects being used for a new purpose.

Like you , I too am looking for answers. In my search I come to forums like this one and watch and read other peoples thoughts on these things. Also I throw out my thoughts and beliefs to see what kind of holes other people will punch in them. It helps me to rethink my beliefs and discover why I hold the beliefs I do. However , Just because we , using the minds we have , can think of other ways to use object other than for the way they were designed does not mean that they were not designed for a predetermine purpose. I think I said that right.

 

[riley2112]

They are. One is real (evolution) and the other is an unfounded assertion (creation). I'm not sure what you were implying the the bold lettered theory, but just to be clear, a theory is the highest level that anything in science can acheive. So, calling it a theory is a valiant term in science, it means this is something that has massive amounts of evidence and is confirmed through many data points.

A theory is just that , a theory. I to believe in Evolution, however evolution is after life , planets and universes were created. Evolution and Creation are two completely different topics. What evidence would make you think that creation is an unfounded assertion?

 

[fantome profane]

Charles Darwin evolution Theory and creation are two different topic, or am I wrong here?

You are very wrong. I guess you are new to this whole discussion. “Intelligent Design” and creationism are pseudo-scientific garbage ideas that are put forth by people as alternatives to the theory of evolution. And please don’t misunderstand, the idea of “God” and the idea that “God” is responsible for the creation of all these things is a separate idea. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not “God” exists.


In the 18th century Paley argument was reasonable. I think it was a flawed arugment even back then, but I can understand how Paley could reasonably come to that conclusion. In 2012 it is not a reasonable argument. Such an argument can only be made today in complete ignorance of science. Today it is pseudo-scientific, anti-scientific, garbage.

p.s. I did notice that you put the word “theory” in bold. This makes me wonder if you know what the word theory means. Do you know what the word theory means?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

One step at a time, that old saying, cart before the horse , comes to mind, Before we could even begin to start on that question, would we not have to learn more about the designer that may have designed this universe before we could even begin to question how he came to be?

Apply the same thinking to the Universe itself. Would we not have to learn more about the Universe before we could state "it must have been designed"?

History itself would tell us to be cautious in that regard. Every time our ancestors assumed intelligence behind certain natural forces (storms, illnesses, etc) they were eventually proven wrong.

No one know who are what the designer of our universe is yet.

We're not even certain there was one.

 

[riley2112]

You are very wrong. I guess you are new to this whole discussion. “Intelligent Design” and creationism are pseudo-scientific garbage ideas that are put forth by people as alternatives to the theory of evolution. And please don’t misunderstand, the idea of “God” and the idea that “God” is responsible for the creation of all these things is a separate idea. The theory of evolution has nothing to do with whether or not “God” exists.


In the 18th century Paley argument was reasonable. I think it was a flawed arugment even back then, but I can understand how Paley could reasonably come to that conclusion. In 2012 it is not a reasonable argument. Such an argument can only be made today in complete ignorance of science. Today it is pseudo-scientific, anti-scientific, garbage.

p.s. I did notice that you put the word “theory” in bold. This makes me wonder if you know what the word theory means. Do you know what the word theory means?

theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Internet , isn't it great?

 

[Tristesse]

A theory is just that , a theory. I to believe in Evolution, however evolution is after life , planets and universes were created. Evolution and Creation are two completely different topics. What evidence would make you think that creation is an unfounded assertion?

Riley, you have to look up the definition of a scientific theory and not lump it in with the colloquial term of a theory. A scientific theory is almost the complete opposite of what most people mean when they say theory.

Creationism is an unfounded assertion because it has no evidence to support itself and instead relies on falty analogies(as you proposed and william), appeals to emotion and gaps in our knowledge. None of which constitutes evidence, and therefor is an unfounded assertion. Creationism has to be demonstrated and not asserted.

 

[fantome profane]

theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Internet , isn't it great?

Great.

 

[Tristesse]

theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Internet , isn't it great?

Good. Now, what about that implies, "just a theory?"

 

[riley2112]

Good. Now, what about that implies, "just a theory?"

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities
which was later proven wrong.​

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be.

which again was later proven wrong.
I can go on and on about theories that once were believed as fact and then later proven wrong. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am just searching for information. Just because someone or a group of people have a theory about something now, does not mean that theory will not chance in the future. I have many doubts about what man thinks he knows , be it science or theist. ​

​

 

[riley2112]

Apply the same thinking to the Universe itself. Would we not have to learn more about the Universe before we could state "it must have been designed"?

.

Very good point.

 

[riley2112]

I would like to recommend the book In Six Days [SIZE=-1](why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation)[/SIZE] edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)

 

[fantome profane]

I would like to recommend the book In Six Days [SIZE=-1](why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation)[/SIZE] edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)

How many of them are biologists? Or geneticists? Or something that has something to do with the theory of evolution?

 

[riley2112]

How many of them are biologists? Or geneticists? Or something that has something to do with the theory of evolution?

A few. You may also want to look up thermodynamics, I guess what I am trying to say here is , with the information that is now available, many people have many theories. And theories are not facts.



The theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature.

For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Why , because it was not a fact, so don't make the mistake of confusing theory with fact. I don't have the answers, you don't have the answers, come to think of it , no one on this planet has the answers as to how we got here. Any one claiming to is doing just that,Claiming. The important thing is that we keep looking, keep trying to learn. But saying one is wrong because of someone else's thoughts, ( and that is what we are doing, or was those posts your discoveries)? If so , my mistake) make most of the things we say absurd. Would not you agree? ​

 

[Tristesse]

One of the oldest and most controversial theories in psychology and philosophy is the theory of the blank slate, or tabula rasa, which argues that people are born with no built-in personality traits or proclivities

which was later proven wrong.​

Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be.

which again was later proven wrong.

I can go on and on about theories that once were believed as fact and then later proven wrong. I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong. I am just searching for information. Just because someone or a group of people have a theory about something now, does not mean that theory will not chance in the future. I have many doubts about what man thinks he knows , be it science or theist. ​

​

Why is gaining more knowledge and changing your position based on where the evidence leads a bad thing? Thats the core principal of science.

 

[Tristesse]

I would like to recommend the book In Six Days [SIZE=-1](why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation)[/SIZE] edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)

Do any of those scientists have evidence? Because I'm not persuaded by authority, but rather evidence. And 50 scientists? Really? I'm sure you can find scientists who believe that the earth is 6-10,000 years old, that doesn't make their claim credible.

 

[fantome profane]

A few. You may also want to look up thermodynamics, I guess what I am trying to say here is , with the information that is now available, many people have many theories. And theories are not facts.

I think I have a good understanding of thermodynamics and would be happy to discuss it with you.

The theory of cold fusion states that such a reaction is possible at room temperature.

For years after, the idea of cold fusion became synonymous with fringe science. Why , because it was not a fact, so don't make the mistake of confusing theory with fact. I don't have the answers, you don't have the answers, come to think of it , no one on this planet has the answers as to how we got here. Any one claiming to is doing just that,Claiming. The important thing is that we keep looking, keep trying to learn. But saying one is wrong because of someone else's thoughts, ( and that is what we are doing, or was those posts your discoveries)? If so , my mistake) make most of the things we say absurd. Would not you agree?​

​

I read this three times and honestly it strikes me as just an incoherent ramble. Why are we talking about cold fusion? What is your point?

 

[riley2112]

Why is gaining more knowledge and changing your position based on where the evidence leads a bad thing? Thats the core principal of science.

You have misunderstood me or I have misrepresented myself, You statement is the exact point I was trying to make. At this point in time I have not seen any undisputed evidence from either side ( evolution or creationism). I feel that both side have some very strong ideas and some very good arguments but at this point neither side can prove or disprove the other, I am not even sure they are on different sides, one may coincide with the other as more information and knowledge is had.

 

[Tristesse]

You have misunderstood me or I have misrepresented myself, You statement is the exact point I was trying to make. At this point in time I have not seen any undisputed evidence from either side ( evolution or creationism). I feel that both side have some very strong ideas and some very good arguments but at this point neither side can prove or disprove the other, I am not even sure they are on different sides, one may coincide with the other as more information and knowledge is had.

Thats because you haven't looked for the evidence. But we can dispose with this claim of evidence for creationism, because as far as I'm aware there isn't any. The only argument from creationists are appeals to ignorance, which is deffinitely not evidence.