Creationists: Here's your chance

[darkendless]

The string theory suggests 11 spacetime dimensions. We have 4. What are you so quick to take sides against a God that may very well be in a dimension that cannot be accessed by science.

The string theory is incomplete though.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

stalemate

Wait..so let me get this straight. You focus on attacking aspects of science that seem to be in juxtaposition to your theology, with the ultimate goal of achieving a TIE!?!? Say all of the evidence for EVERYTHING, from geology to astronomy to biology that is in discord with your premise, was completely squashed, then what?

Why should I accept your premise as true? Even if we had zero explanation for how life got here, or where the earth came from, or where matter came from. Even if I was an idiot raised in a white room with no stimulus or education about ANYTHING, what reasons are there to accept your views as true?

Trying to discredit evolution doesn't really get you where you want to go.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose_Fly



Wrong, HOW DO THEY KNOW that macro evolution and cosmic evolution is a fact and not assumption? You’re NOT turning the tables, no you’re not.

Turning the tables? You accuse the entire field of biology of "filling the gaps not with facts but with assumptions" and you think it's out of line to ask "How do you know"?

Were you expecting everyone here to accept your accusation as unquestioned gospel? You feel absolutely no obligation to substantiate an accusation against an entire field of science? None at all?

But, for the record, I’ll answer your question. How do I know? I read stuff from atheistic and evolutionary scientists. So that is how I know about what they say.

What "stuff"? Please be specific.

I don’t go to the library (although I plan on doing so in the future) I mostly go to the book store and buy a book and read it and then finish it and put it on my shelf. And I read tons of stuff on the internet as well. Knowledge is the same everywhere. There is many ways of getting that same knowledge.

So your answer to the first question is "never".

I have not discussed evolutionary biology with a biologist, I have discussed the age of the earth with a geologist though. That is my history there. But, I don’t NEED (although I am not AGAINST talking with a biologist these issues) to discuss or talk with one, I can discuss on here with those who believe in their views. And I can READ about the views of these biologists in their books or articles they write.

So your answer to the second question is "never".

Also as a side question, have you discussed the work of ID scientists with them?

Most certainly. Back in the early stages of ID creationism, I debated Bill Dembski over at the old ISCID forums (before they banned all non-creationists). I've been debating ID creationists in all manner of forums for over a decade. I would venture I've read more ID creationist material than just about anyone here.

So back to the subject at hand...if you've never gone through the biology journals to see what biologists are publishing about evolution, haven't attended any conferences to hear what biologists are talking about and debating, and haven't discussed evolution with any biologist so you could question their work, how in the world are you at all qualified to accuse them of....well....anything?

And what do you think that says about you?

 

[painted wolf]

point 2. Denying scripture as evidence is flawed. Would you elaborate on Evolution without mentioning the book Origin of Species?

yup... I elaborate on evolution using modern experimental and observational science.
Evolution was an inevitable conclusion that was reached by people other than Darwin... all Darwin did was propose a testable mechanism. Mendal provided the key evidence for heritability.

wa:do

 

[Danmac]

Wait..so let me get this straight. You focus on attacking aspects of science that seem to be in juxtaposition to your theology, with the ultimate goal of achieving a TIE!?!? Say all of the evidence for EVERYTHING, from geology to astronomy to biology that is in discord with your premise, was completely squashed, then what?

Why should I accept your premise as true? Even if we had zero explanation for how life got here, or where the earth came from, or where matter came from. Even if I was an idiot raised in a white room with no stimulus or education about ANYTHING, what reasons are there to accept your views as true?

Trying to discredit evolution doesn't really get you where you want to go.

Because God is like taste. You cannot know what something tastes like until you eat it. You cannot know that God exists until you agree that he does. That is when he will reveal himself to you. A step of faith is all it takes. You remember the Indiana Jones movie where he had to step out into thin air before the bridge would appear. It's the same thing with God.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

You cannot know that God exists until you agree that he does.

Yes but I couldn't do that even if I wanted to. I can't just willfully decieve myself, I don't even think that's possible. In order for me to agree that god exists I would have to be convinced that he exists! Once you just blindly believe something you have betrayed truth, and more importantly, yourself. If there is no criteria for what makes 'just believing' this better than 'just believing' that, how can anyone know what to 'just believe'? Why shouldn't I 'just believe' that Allah is the true god? Or Odin?

Come now, there must be SOME reason to believe that creationism is true other than 'just believing' it. If not I don't see any reason to take it seriously.

You remember the Indiana Jones movie where he had to step out into thin air before the bridge would appear. It's the same thing with God.

Yes. Indy had reasonable evidence to suggest the path was there, and as I recall he threw sand on it first to make sure.

 

[McBell]

Let me follow you here. Mestemia gets mad when someone screws him over, therefore God exists? That's your argument?!?

That is exactly what it sounds like to me.

Of course, he tries to butter it up so as to sneak his god in there, but in a nutshell, yes, that is his argument.





On A Side Note:
I have to say that this thread is much more intelligent now....

 

[Peacewise]

yup... I elaborate on evolution using modern experimental and observational science.
Evolution was an inevitable conclusion that was reached by people other than Darwin... all Darwin did was propose a testable mechanism. Mendal provided the key evidence for heritability.

wa:do

gv-li-e-li-ga, I presume is the appropriate response. :tribal:

Thanks for correcting me.
Can you elaborate on evolution without using Mendel, Darwin, or modern experimental and observational science?

Do you see where I'm going... if every time you say something like "yes I can talk about evolution using (X)" - and then I simply deny you (X) as a source, all I do is deny your ability to discuss the topic.

It's fallacious grounds for argument that does not recognize that the primary written document for understanding christianity is the Bible, as such it does not allow worthwhile contribution to the discussion. This are the terms on which the OP requires a discussion of creation.

Just as I cannot understand all the in's and out's and details of evolutionary science without studying and practicing evolutionary science so too I can not understand all the in's and out's and details of Christianity without studying and practicing christianity.

The study of ontology (in this context) by it's very nature of first causes of the universe and life cannot be done using the strict scientific methodology that some attempt to use to deny or prove their opinion, for an opinion is all it can be.

The experiment of creating the universe can't (yet) be reproduced, as such strict scientific method fails in discussing it.

Similarly converting inert matter to a living organism cannot yet be reproduced.

When the scientists can achieve those last two sentences then they can talk objectively about creation all they like, till then they are as fallacious as the creationist's in stating a subjective matter as objective truth.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I'm sorry if some of these points are covered before, I read a few pages and instead jumped to the end of this thread.

The task the OP has set is a flawed task - it's been designed to fail.

No, It was designed to allow those who have some kind of evidence for creationism to post it. I would not have created the thread if I believed the standard of evidence required here to be an impossible one.

point 1. The current ontology that is widely believed to contradict a creationist view point is evolution, hence a discussion of evolution and it's validity is a reasonable thing to do. Did you not want it mentioned that Theory of Evolution does not include evidence on the start point of the first life.

Apparently you missed the point of my barring the posting of negative evidence regarding evolution. Let me clarify. If, tomorrow, evolution by natural selection were conclusively disproven; creationism would not become the scientific standard by default. You would still need some kind of scientific evidence that creationism is true. Without that evidence, creationism would be still be considered unscientific and it would get no more respect than it does right now.

Evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creationism.

It's a logical fallacy to say that, since theory A is wrong, theory B must be right.

point 2. Denying scripture as evidence is flawed. Would you elaborate on Evolution without mentioning the book Origin of Species?

Again, you've misunderstood. I'm not barring scripture altogether in point 2; simply using scripture alone. You can use scripture to help make your case.

1) [insert bible verse here] says the earth is only 6000 years old and here is proof that it's right. - This is acceptable

2) [Insert bible verse here] says the earth is only 6000 years old, therefore it is. - This is not

As for your point about evolution: Our knowledge of evolution by natural selection is not limited to The Origin of Species. As a matter of fact, we now know that Darwin was mistaken on a few of the points put forward in his book; such as his belief that domestication produces greater variety in a species than nature.

point 3. Sounds like a call for civility, and fair enough.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

point 4. OP requires tangible evidence for something that is not directly observable, that being the creation point of the universe and the creation point of life, this is currently impossible.

Another misunderstanding. Point #4 is a simple one and I thought it would be the easiest to grasp. It's there to simply prevent people from posting things like "God did it and you can't prove He didn't, therefore Creationism wins."

Assertions like that are meaningless in a scientific discussion. Without evidence, claims like that can (and should) be tossed aside with all the other pseudo-scientific woo that's out there.

Creationists here have repeatedly said that they are defeated before they ever get out of the chute because "Big Science" won't take their side seriously. The reason I put point #4 there is because, as long as creationists either can't or won't produce tangible evidence for their claims, the scientific community has no reason to take them seriously.

As is typical of an Atheist when "discussing" religion their discussion is far more about denying the very things that are most worthwhile in the discussion. This is quite natural, since by definition.

atheist : noun someone who denies or disbelieves the existence of God (or gods).
atheism : noun 1. the doctrine that there is no god. 2. disbelief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to theism). 2. godlessness.
(Macquarie dictionary 5th edition 2009)

Yes, you'll find that I, like all my godless brethren, will happily dismiss unscientific assertions and mumbo-jumbo. If you can't provide evidence, don't bother making the claim.

Constrained by the 'few points' in the OP, I find it impossible to provide evidence that creationism is true.

Well, there you go.

but to give the OP his false 'win' he so obviously looks for....

What?! What makes you think I'm looking for, or even want, some kind of 'false win'?

Even not constrained by the 'few points' I find it impossible to provide objective proof about either the start point of the universe or the start point of life. Whether either occurred as a matter of a will or a matter of non intelligent cause is objectively currently impossible for me to prove - or indeed disprove anyone else's opinions on the matter.

So, why post then?

 

[Jose Fly]

When the scientists can achieve those last two sentences then they can talk objectively about creation all they like, till then they are as fallacious as the creationist's in stating a subjective matter as objective truth.

You seem to be arguing that if scientists don't know everything about an event, then they know nothing about it, and their views on the subject are no more valid than people who just make stuff up.

Is that your position?

 

[Autodidact]

You cannot know what something tastes like until you eat it. You cannot know that God exists until you agree that he does.

Kinda like Tinkerbell?

We have a word for things that you cannot know exist until you agree that they do. And it's not "real."

 

[The_Evelyonian]

I was not claiming that the deity was MORE complex, or less complex or equally complex. Some have argued that the biblical God is simple, but I don’t believe that because it poses the problem that he would not exist, if he is PURE simple. As for equally complex, that does not really pose a problem, it just shows that he would be as complex as his universe he made, but he would be more powerful then it. And if he is more complex then the universe, you say it poses the problem that you mention below, which is the mansion is not designed but the house is concept.

Well, I take either he is equally complex or more complex.

Which takes us right back to the house analogy.

I see what you’re getting at, but I don’t see the problem because something has to be a first cause, it’s either nothing (which is crazy) or it’s mindless energy (which is more plausible then nothing, but still not great because it needs to break the cycle of eternity to begin something) or it’s God (which is more plausible then the other 2 because he is something and he knows the cycle of eternity needs to break in order to begin something).

Cycle of eternity? What?!

Looks like God wins.

No, because you're still stuck having to explain why the Universe's complexity must have been designed and, yet, god's complexity must not have been designed. Simply saying, "there must have been a first cause" does not nullify that obligation.

To say everything come from nothing is also not logical, to say that mindless energy is eternal and it created everything is not logical either. To say we are not here is not logical either. To say God did it, is MORE logical then the others.

I'll agree that none of the four views you've posted are logical.

Here you are making an argument then giving an example, but the example is based on an assumption that I disagree with. Evolution STILL has not answered this question with proven facts.

So here you are saying we should not resort to the god of the gaps, but you assume science has filled the gap with evolution. They have not filled it with facts, but assumptions.

Have you ever actually looked into evolution?

For two reasons we must attribute it to God. First reason is because it is the most plausible view out of the 4 views I mentioned (the only views that exist actually)

You keep saying that the four views you put on the table are all there are even though I, and other posters, have shown you that simply is not the case. Why then, continue to act as if it's these four views or nothing?

and second, people are going to find out it was God, but they’re going to find out the hard way (after they die) and finding out then is too late. That’s why agnosticism is NOT safe and I find it absolutely amazing that they think they are safe. They need to be shaken up a little bit.

Well, when you die and come face-to-face with Poseidon, give him my regards.

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, nothing plus chance plus time did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, eternal mindless energy did it! No need to look any further than that”

“Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, the animals created themselves! No need to look any further than that”

Can’t understand how all these animals got here? Right then, study the animals because we don’t know how they got here, but we know the first 4 views cannot be it (although we don’t know how we really know that) and then we keep studying and keep studying till doomsday (literally doomsday) and still find no answer.

See my above question about the four POVs

Also one more thing I must add. Your statement is a complete misrepresentation of my position and intelligent design position. I have heard this misrepresentation time and again and I am tired of hearing it and correcting it every time it’s posed to me.

Just because we believe God did it, that does not = no need to look further and study it. Studying it does not mean we doubt that God did it, studying it means we want to know how it works.

I'm glad to hear that a belief in ID hasn't closed you down to wanting to understand how the universe works.

Let me illustrate. By looking at a house, it has the hallmarks of design, therefore just by looking at it and knowing what design is, I call the house designed by intelligence. However I have not studied the house, I don’t know how the house works, I don’t know the ins and outs of plumbing, wiring and flooring and all those things. But if I studied those things, then I would know how houses work. I am not a mechanic, but I know when I look at a car, someone made the car, but a mechanic can describe how cars work, while I cannot do so.

But, why accept a mechanic's word as to how a car runs? Why accept a electrician's word, or a plumber's, or a construction worker's word?

I might say that I accept their word because they know more about the subject than I do.

But what about the evolutionary biologist? Is it possible that they know more about their field than me or you?

A biologist would tell you that a wing or an eye isn't designed. It arose by purely natural means. They can show you how it works by explaining the processes of genetic mutation and natural selection. They can show you examples of how it's happened in the past by showing you the fossil record. They can show you evolution right before your eyes in experiments involving bacteria and other forms of life.

Why trust the word of the mechanic, plumber, electrician, and construction worker; yet assume by default that the biologist is wrong?
.

]So, resorting to intelligent design does not = not studying nature, and studying nature does not = doubting design, it means wanting to know how that design works.

There, that is the correct representation. Please represent it like that, by all means disagree with it if you wish, but this is my position and the position of intelligent design proponents, this is how it should be represented.

Noted for future reference.

 

[McBell]

...You cannot know that God exists until you agree that he does. That is when he will reveal himself to you. ...

Wow.
No wonder God hates atheists.
If enough people refuse to agree that he exists, does that mean he just disappears?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

You cannot know that God exists until you agree that he does.

Kind of like the pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, and the celestial teapot.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Wow.
No wonder God hates atheists.
If enough people refuse to agree that he exists, does that mean he just disappears?

Well, you see, every time someone says "I do not believe in God", God dies just a little bit. And the only way to bring back that dead element of God is to clap your hands vigorously.....



...or was that Tinkerbell and the pixies?

 

[McBell]

Well, you see, every time someone says "I do not believe in God", God dies just a little bit. And the only way to bring back that dead element of God is to clap your hands vigorously.....

Well...
That certainly explains quite a bit....

...or was that Tinkerbell and the pixies?

What?
There is a difference?

 

[Autodidact]

Here, Jolly, let's simplify our discussion. I'll give you your strongest case. The first gospel we have is Mark. Who wrote it, and when?

 

[painted wolf]

gv-li-e-li-ga, I presume is the appropriate response

It is... Though I'm not sure about the ooga-booga guy, but I'll assume it was meant in a good way.

Thanks for correcting me.
Can you elaborate on evolution without using Mendel, Darwin, or modern experimental and observational science?

Why elaborate on science without mentioning science?
I suppose I could elaborate with opinion... but that wouldn't be scientific.

Do you see where I'm going... if every time you say something like "yes I can talk about evolution using (X)" - and then I simply deny you (X) as a source, all I do is deny your ability to discuss the topic.

Perhaps... but some forms of evidence are not appropriate to a discussion on science. Feelings and intuition are not for example, unless backed up with experimental evidence.

It's fallacious grounds for argument that does not recognize that the primary written document for understanding christianity is the Bible, as such it does not allow worthwhile contribution to the discussion. This are the terms on which the OP requires a discussion of creation.

Except that Creationism proposes that it is a science... capable of standing on it's own merit.

Just as I cannot understand all the in's and out's and details of evolutionary science without studying and practicing evolutionary science so too I can not understand all the in's and out's and details of Christianity without studying and practicing christianity.

if we were discussing religion then yes... but Creationism proposes that it is a true science and not simply religious faith. Indeed, modern forms (ID) propose that they are entirely without religious ties... and without saying who the designer/creator is.

The study of ontology (in this context) by it's very nature of first causes of the universe and life cannot be done using the strict scientific methodology that some attempt to use to deny or prove their opinion, for an opinion is all it can be.

But evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe. It has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of God.

The experiment of creating the universe can't (yet) be reproduced, as such strict scientific method fails in discussing it.

But this has noting to do with Evolution.

Similarly converting inert matter to a living organism cannot yet be reproduced.

Not fully but there is a lot of experimental evidence backing up abiogenesis... from producing the basic parts of a proto-cell like lipid bilayers and self replacating RNA molecules.

When the scientists can achieve those last two sentences then they can talk objectively about creation all they like, till then they are as fallacious as the creationist's in stating a subjective matter as objective truth.

Except that science says nothing about Gods existence... just the observable, testable nature of the world. Creationists claim that they are scientific... Science is certainly capable of discussing Creationism on the quality of it's scientific merit.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Then call it the fact of evolution and quit calling it a theory. A theory is a way to explain something when you cannot demonstrate it. Capish.

You truly need to learn what a theory is. A theory in the scientific community is an overall fact (a collection of facts if you will). We can't call evolution a fact of evolution because within evolution there are many, many facts. So instead of calling it (The Facts Of Evolution)...it is called the Theory Of Evolution. As with all sciences a theory of (whatever) is not closed to new facts. Theories aren't "static" facts. Your problem is you don't know.

You're thinking of it when people say ("I have a theory")....but that is an incorrect use of the word. It would be (I have an idea). What they propose is a hypothesis but it would sound silly if you heard someone stating...("I have a hypothesis").....

So why are you on here challenging the existence of God

I never did in this thread. You have the wrong person.

or creationism for that matter when scientists have the good sense to steer clear of it.

I personally am not a scientist so I fail to see your point of it being off limits to me. But unfortunately the other side of the coin is not seen the same way. Creationist make it their business to challenge the ToE so it is fitting that the tables are turned asking creationist to present evidence of creationism. ToE evidence has been presented and it's irrefutable by creationist but it doesn't stop them for challenging Evolution and making fools of themselves.

Most religions believe in a creator. The majority is in agreement.

Some believe the god(s) that is deemed creator is not the same god of the bible/quran how do you justify not acknowledging their gods as the creator and not the one you "believe" in? Do you have any evidence that shows their gods not to be as real to them as your is to you?

 

[Peacewise]

No, It was designed to allow those who have some kind of evidence for creationism to post it. I would not have created the thread if I believed the standard of evidence required here to be an impossible one.

I disagree, your 'religion' next to your avatar pic, is stated as atheist, hence you don't need nor require evidence for any purpose, you have already decided to deny theism, and it's quite obvious to you and me, that discussing the first cause, either of an intelligent creator or a creation without intelligence, either of life or the universe is based totally in opinion, because neither of these events has been observed by humans. To ask for evidence of these events is merely a trap for fools and I wanted to highlight that, hence my post.

I am quite surprised that "A Man of Science" would not consider that it is not currently possible to provide conclusive evidence for the two first causes under discussion and as such broaden the scope of the discussion to include subjective matters and lessen the rigor of the evidence or proof required to facilitate more meaningful debate.

Evidence against evolution is NOT evidence for creationism.

It's a logical fallacy to say that, since theory A is wrong, theory B must be right.

I agree. Yet that doesn't change the fact that a discussion of different theories is worthwhile in a discussion to decide which theory is most relevant or valid in its scope, you seek to be one-sided in the argument calling for only creationist views, one-sided argument is fallacious.

Again, you've misunderstood. I'm not barring scripture altogether in point 2; simply using scripture alone. You can use scripture to help make your case.

1) [insert bible verse here] says the earth is only 6000 years old and here is proof that it's right. - This is acceptable

2) [Insert bible verse here] says the earth is only 6000 years old, therefore it is. - This is not

As for your point about evolution: Our knowledge of evolution by natural selection is not limited to The Origin of Species. As a matter of fact, we now know that Darwin was mistaken on a few of the points put forward in his book; such as his belief that domestication produces greater variety in a species than nature.

Thank you for explaining your point. I do not hold that the bible can give an accurate number of years for the age of the earth, fyi.

Well, at least we can agree on something.

Another misunderstanding. Point #4 is a simple one and I thought it would be the easiest to grasp. It's there to simply prevent people from posting things like "God did it and you can't prove He didn't, therefore Creationism wins."

Assertions like that are meaningless in a scientific discussion. Without evidence, claims like that can (and should) be tossed aside with all the other pseudo-scientific woo that's out there.

Creationists here have repeatedly said that they are defeated before they ever get out of the chute because "Big Science" won't take their side seriously. The reason I put point #4 there is because, as long as creationists either can't or won't produce tangible evidence for their claims, the scientific community has no reason to take them seriously.

4) Bald assertion (I.E. the world itself is evidence) doesn't cut it. The evidence you provide must be tangible. (PW edit in)

As I have said, and you should well know since you claim to be "A Man of Science", there cannot be tangible evidence for how the original creation of the universe, nor first life occurred. The example statement of yours bolded just above, is a good example of fallacious reasoning - and I thank you for its revelation, but you seem unwilling to recognize that "The Big Sciences" also cannot provide tangible evidence on the creation of the universe or first life either, they are currently unobservable and currently non reproducible. As such the 2nd part of point 4 is currently an impossible request both for the creationists and the scientists, and hence is irrelevant to the discussion, whilst the one-sidedness of your OP conditions would not have revealed this reasoning.

Yes, you'll find that I, like all my godless brethren, will happily dismiss unscientific assertions and mumbo-jumbo. If you can't provide evidence, don't bother making the claim.

You ask for evidence for first causes when surely knowing that none can be provided, both creationists and atheists are fallacious in their reasoning. The atheist denies God created the universe and life without evidence to the contrary that being evidence on what did happen - when the agnostic view point is appropriately scientific. Whilst the creationist states beliefs as if they are facts, when they should stick to espousing their beliefs as statements of faith. The entire creationist vs scientific first cause argument is a waste of time and resources, neither methodology can currently prove or disprove the intelligence or lack thereof of the universes nor first life's creation.

What?! What makes you think I'm looking for, or even want, some kind of 'false win'?

So, why post then?

You are obviously looking for a win. The boundaries you have set for the discussion are one-sided, they are fallaciously propositioned, and that will only provide you with a false win.

I post because your title and op drew me in, such good marketing I couldn't resist, and I do so love a respectful debate about these matters, if we can avoid ad hominem I shall be enormously happy, and I apologize for my fallacious poisoning the well comment regarding atheism.

I think agnosticism is superior to atheism for a scientist.