Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

but even if they are not, how would you test the idea that a designer mutated a segment of DNA?

How would you test the idea that “random chance” mutated a segment of DNA? I can ask the same thing.

Without invoking supernatural causes,

No, lets represent it correctly, INTELLIGENT CAUSES, not PERSE supernatural causes.

how would you explain how a designer mutated DNA? Or how would you tell if said mutation is random or not?

Nothing is random, just some things are not understood. When something is not understood, we call it random, but that word random is only used to fill the gap of our ignorance, but our ignorance is not evidence for “chance” being an entity. When things are understood, they are predictable and have order about them. And if they have order, they have complexity, which is where we infer design, thus the scientific theory of intelligent design.

I'm not sure that is a scientific prediction, nor am I sure this had anything to do with a designer.

If we predict it and it comes true, then it is a scientific issue. If it’s not a scientific prediction, what kind of prediction is it then?

Why would a designer design things that appear simple but are complex?

The cell without a microscope looks simple, but it’s complex when you get near it. Sort of like if you see someone at a far off distance, they look small and simple, but when you get a close up look, you see lots of details. What is wrong with God designing it that way? That is good actually, it keeps us from being like a sheet of paper sort of speak. So it’s not like God designed things to LOOK simple but are complex, it’s that God designed things to be able to zoom in and out. To look closely and look far away from.

This statement looks like a non-sequitur, a logical fallacy in which the conclusion does not follow the premise; 'If there is a designer, than things that appear simple will really be complex'. Why not complex things actually being simple? In terms of computer code design, the simpler the better as there is less chance of error.

Simple does not mean not complex at all. If something is PURE simple and has no complexity at all, then it would not exist. Something that is complex, whether a little bit or a lot, how can it come about naturally?

Even if we exclude the misuse of the word "proven", the idea that X will never be shown is not a scientific prediction. You need something more applicable, something that can be tested via experiment. This statement just works off of ignorance.

We predict that things that appear simple will be shown to be complex as that prediction is TESTED. You can test that prediction with experiment. I don’t understand how it’s not a scientific prediction? Anything that is a prediction and comes true should be highly taken seriously.

Also the prediction is not based on ignorance, it’s based on knowledge of complexity.

So, you predict the first law of thermodynamics? Interestingly enough, physicists have observed things come from 'nothing'. Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time.

I want evidence/proof that they observe particles come from nothing? How do they know the particles come from nothing?

They might be fine 'predictions' someone might use Sunday morning at the pulpit, but they simply aren't scientific predictions, which is what ID needs if it wants to be part of the scientific process.

A prediction is a prediction. How is it not a scientific prediction? What it comes down to is, it’s either a false prediction or a true one, what’s with this, some predictions are religious and some are scientific? A prediction is a prediction, it’s either true or false.

It depends. If we find a Cambrian bunny evolution would be in trouble. But things that are wrong, but not far off, might revise the pathway here and there, but it wouldn't destroy the theory.

Ok.

That really isn't a prediction about evolution though.

Yes, it’s a prediction against evolution. Because you see, your view holds that SOMETHING simple or NOTHING caused or made something. They thought the cell was simple, they found out it was not, thus that poses a problem, how did it get made?

Also, I don't think it was a prediction, more of an accepted fact that the cell was simple - showing that facts are not air-tight solid.

Not everyone believed the cell was simple.

It was also an accepted fact that light didn't have a speed. Now, however, we know that it does ~ 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per second.

And I’m sure not everyone believed that either. I know I would not have, common sense tells me light has a speed and moves forward.

One other thing I do want to mention, there is nothing wrong about being wrong in science. In science you are supposed to make wrong hypotheses, but science is also a self-correcting process in which it takes the failures that it gets and learns from them to formulate new/better hypotheses and eventually develop well supported theories.

Your suppose to make false hypothesis? Why not try to make a right hypothesis the first shot around, save a lot of time, would it not?

I was thinking of something a little more specific. I could say that the Earth looks flat, and we can interpret the data to have the Earth flat. However, if I bring up that during Earthquakes P and S waves travel at different rates and the proportion of the timing between waves felt differs depending on where you are on the Earth's surface (because it is round and the Earth has 'layers' of different material underneath the surface), I need something other then 'the Earth LOOKS flat therefore it can be interpreted as flat.'

Your comparing apples and oranges again, this does not help me. Just because you show illogic with the flat earth interpretation, that does not equal you showing illogic with the design interpretation. So as I said, if it LOOKS designed, then we can interpret it to BE designed. Now what is wrong with what I said here?

For example. Why is it that in the fossil record, the oldest layers have only single celled life, then includes primitive aquatic life, crustaceans, amphibians, reptiles, then finally mammals and birds?

What does that have to do with it not being designed? Whether they are in those layers because of floods or because God designed them first, either way, they LOOK designed.

 

[Jollybear]

That is why science has experiments, data collecting, hypotheses, conclusions and theories. Science goes beyond what something "looks" like on the surface, it is all about getting into the facts and explaining why those facts are facts.

So after science does their experiments, data collecting, hypotheses, conclusions and theories, macro evolution APPEARS to be the truth AFTER all this has been done, right? Ok, just because something APPEARS to be the truth after all the investigation, does not make it so then, right? And if it does, then nature LOOKS designed even after experiments and data collecting as well. So I could say it IS designed, right?

1-1=0

I’m sorry but that doesn’t work because you are starting OFF with SOMETHING (1) and then you’re taking away something (1) and then that equals zero.

Mine was 0 (nothing) + 0 (nothing) = 0 (nothing).

From nothing, nothing comes. And if you think that something can come from nothing, HOW?

If you have multiple universes, as long as the total energy is 0, you can get something from nothing.

Ok, you just lost me? Explain that more please.

First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes, secondly, how is it that if the energy is zero you can get something from nothing? Thirdly, your starting off with something (multiple universes).

Many have theorized that while this universe is mostly matter, other universes may be virtually nothing but anti-matter. Freaky stuff, really.

Ok, and how does that relate to what we are talking about?

One of my favorite ideas about the Big Bang is that it happened from one of these virtual particles that popped into existence in the quantum field that had a lot of energy and just started expanding.

Why doesn’t all these particles that supposedly pop into existence from nothing keep expanding then?

Not to mention all the weird things that happen regarding black holes and matter/anti-matter particles. It is possible for a black hole to lose mass/energy by in-taking matter!

How do you know black holes exist?

Also how do you know black holes lose mass and energy by taking in more matter?

Only to the public because a false dichotomy has been inserted where it need not be. Falsifying evolution does not add scientific support for ID and vise versa.

Well I think it does bring more support for ID because you only have 5 views all together on the table, either something came from nothing and that something evolved into what we got now, or what we see now was always here, or what we see now birthed itself, or what we see here, is an illusion, or God made it. If all of these were falsified accept the design view, that would lend ALL the strength to the design view.

If that is correct than Dawkins is wrong, but I have my doubts that Dawkins would imply such a thing.

I was looking for the quote, but I can’t find it now. Anyway, if God exists and if the spirit world exists, why are those things not scientific issues?

It is a fact that the Earth is round. The pictures are evidence, and the evidence is strong enough for it to be fact that the Earth is round. The same thing cannot happen with the theory of evolution as a theory is much broader in scope and explains facts.

Right, the earth being round has stronger evidence/proof for it being so, then evolutions evidence supporting it.

I'm not sure I understand. Science doesn't make hypotheses about the supernatural. Science sometimes does, however, make hypotheses regarding natural elements that may be supernatural in origin. For example, they did studies on prayer and meditation and how it effects the brain. Yet this is a natural pursuit, there is nothing supernatural or about God in the science itself. One could draw personal conclusions about the supernatural, but such conclusions are not science.

What I am saying is if gravity cannot be detected ITSELF, why don’t they try to come up with a means to try to detect the gravity ITSELF? And if they just make hypothesis about gravity, why do they do that, but won’t make hypothesis about God/spirit world/souls? That seams selective. Also if they are trying to detect gravity itself, why be selective? Why not try also to detect God and the spirit world too?

Such is simply out of the realm of scientific methodology.

Why is it out of scientific methodology to detect the spirit world?

If you were to create a methodology to detect such things, it would probably include some elements of science as it would probably have some sort of epistemological background too, but it would not be science.

You just said it would include elements of science then said it would not be science? I don’t understand.

So, why don’t they come up with this methodology to detect gravity, spirit world and God?

God is part of the supernatural, meaning 'above' the natural, something distinct from the natural. You cannot take methodological naturalism and apply it to the supernatural.

It depends on how you define him, for purposes of this discussion, I am not defining God as supernatural, I am defining him as a HIGH intelligence and a designer and a powerful being. All of that CAN be natural, natural to him, but it may not be natural to us. For example, something natural can be unnatural to some people, and that is because that natural thing is RARE to the experience of some people, so for them it’s unnatural. So my point is this, science is the quest for TRUTH, right? And if not why not?

It would be like trying to light up a room with radio waves, it just will not work.

Lighting up a room with radio waves is apples and oranges again.

 

[Jollybear]

Well, we could be part of a multiverse, and that can get crazy very fast when talking about how new universes are formed. Just to give you an idea, if two edges (membranes) from two different universes collide, they could create a new universe in-between the two. I've also heard that when a star callapses into a black whole, it might actually be creating a universe in which from the inside, would appear to be expanding.

COULD be part of a multiverse, but where is the evidence for that? Also where would the FIRST universe come from? It just begs the question.

Also where is the evidence for the black holes and the black hole creating a universe?

If there is a multiverse and equall amounts of matter and anti-matter, you could get such a system from random quantum fluctuations.

How does equal amounts of matter and anti-matter bring RANDOM quantum fluctuations?

I don't remember any of the details now, but if an electron and a positron interact in a certain way, you could theoritically create enough potential energy to start an expansion, thus a new universe from essentially 'nothing'.

What? You lost me there. I have two questions for you.

1: if the “electron” (something) and a “positron” (something) interact in a certain way to theoretically create enough potential energy to start an expansion, how is that creating another universe or a universe period from “NOTHING”?

2: where did the electron and positron come from? Nothing? How?

My personal favorite, and one I've already mentioned before, is a virtual particle that randomly popped into existance (we know they do) and had so much energy it just started to expand.

You know that virtual particles RANDOMLY pop into existence? How do you know it happens RANDOMLY?

Secondly, how do you know they pop into existence from NOTHING causing it?

Thirdly and assuming for a split moment that these particles do pop into existence from nothing for no reason or by no cause, WHY does a particle then pop into existence if it’s coming from nothing?

God is in a box in the sense that it doesn't deal with God. God in untestable, therefore it can't be science. I do think it is right, and smart, for science to know its own limitations and act accordingly.

How does science know God is untestable? Also how does science know that it CANNOT detect the spirit realm if it does not try?

Because that's all it can do.

Why is that all science can do, is study the natural world? Why? Why can’t it study the spirit realm or come up with ways to detect it? Saying because that’s all it can do does not answer my question

You get very bad theology, like the day-age idea, and you will tend to look at the physical more than the spiritual, missing the message and focusing on things it never wanted to imply.

No, that is a wrong assumption you are making there. Just because we focus on the natural or the physical world being designed by God does not mean we stop focusing on the spiritual side of things. That’s like saying that if I go to work and focus on work (something physical) then that means I never focus on spiritual stuff, see how foolish that sounds?

Plus, if the message in genesis 1 did not “IMPLY” that God created the physical world and that it was implying we should not focus on THAT, then just what was it implying?

Plus, to have a spirituality without the physical world and finding the connection between the two, is BAD spirituality because it is a spirituality that is out of touch with REALITY.

You get very bad science, which usually isn't even science. This is quite possibly even worse than the bad theology,

So if it’s worse to have bad science then bad theology are you then telling me that you value science more than your faith in the bible?

as you slow down and in some cases reverse scientific progress which is used to save lives and relieve suffering.

How does intelligent design theory slow down or stop scientific progress for society and technology? I really don’t get it.

At least the bad theology will not, or should not, cause or interfere with relieving suffering.

Well, yes bad theology can cause spiritual suffering, both in this life and the afterlife.

Although, in times past when the 'church' had more power, bad scientific theology lead to the deadening of minds (I guess it still does) and has caused much unneeded suffering and stunting of scientific progress.

How does it deaden the mind to believe in intelligent design as being a scientific theory?

My mind don’t feel dead for believing that.

Yes granted, sometimes my mind is STRESSED or should I put it, STRETCHED by trying to learn all this STUFF. But that would be the case for my mind learning ANY DEEP SUBJECT, not just science.

Basically chemicals rush to the brain, bind to specific sites on the brain causing a cascade of events involving a ton of other chemical pathways that excite brain activity that can cause a wide range of sensations.

Ok, and just how do you know those chemicals going to the brain which attach to certain sites which cause other complex things to happen, how do you know this process is causing people to see things that are NOT there, opposed to actually BEING their?

 

[Jollybear]

It all has to do with the chemical state the person is in. It is all about chemicals and what binds to what. I know they've injected chemicals into the brain causing 'near death experiences'. Each person is slightly different, and each person has a slightly different chemistry from day to day. Also, it appears that the situation a person is in can also have an effect - those that are under more stressful situations tend to have more vivid near death experiences.

Ok, but I still don’t understand how the chemicals are making them see things or experience things that are NOT really happening? How do you know that the chemicals that they put in the people’s brains to make them have near death or out of body experiences that these experiences were not truly happening? How do you know they were illusory?

Chemicals can only bind to specific things. If it isn't the right chemical, it will not bind and ultimately will not produce a near death experience. In order to be science, it must be testable, which is why ideas about the spirit or soul cannot be undertaken by science.

Ok, well so far it appears to me that when a scientist or someone says that chemicals are making people experience things that are not really happening < that statement is NOT testable.

How do they know it&#8217;s not really happening?

And if they want to say it&#8217;s not REALLY happening, then why not come up with a scientific means to try to DETECT if it IS really happening or NOT really happening, that would verify or test to see if there statement is true or false, and if it proved there statement to be true, then it would dampen the statement that says there is a spirit realm, if it proved the statement false, then it would give proof FOR a spirit world, then science could build on that and study the spirit realm.

What say you?

They have induced near death experiences with the chemical DMT, which is a powerful psychedelic and is known to cause hallucinations, and is also a chemical that is released when the brain perceives death.

Ok, how do they know the chemical DMT is causing hallucinations rather than giving an open door to having REAL experiences? How do they actually &#8220;KNOW&#8221; this?

I don't know the chemical(s) they used for alien abductions, but I know they've induced hallucinations about alien abductions in patients before. Completely different topic and study, I know, just thought I'd throw that out there - inducing hallucinations via chemicals/drugs is not a new thing.

Again how do they know the drugs are making people see things that are NOT their opposed to the drugs making people see things that ARE there?

There is hard evidence that shows that chemicals can cause hallucinations, just talk to anyone who's taken LSD.

Ok, explain to me this scientific evidence that chemicals cause hallucinations rather than causing real experiences? Also how does LSD cause hallucinations rather than real experiences?

There is no scientific answer, it all comes down to opinion. Maybe one day in the future such things could be answered, but for now opinions will have to do. I think statistically, if you have a near death experience, you are quite likely to believe that such an experience is supernatural. If you almost die, but don't have one, you are likely to think that there is no afterlife. Again, whether it is completely natural or not is all opinion. My opinion is that some are, some aren't. I haven't done enough looking to say much more than that, other than those that have them usually change their lives and view of the world and become more spiritual. That, in of itself, makes me inclined to believe that such experiences are divine in nature, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Ok, so what is your &#8220;opinion&#8221; on what the differences are between a false near death experience and a real one is? And the difference between out of body experiences as well. Give me your OPINION?

Yes your opinion is there is differences but now tell me your opinion on what those differences are?

God works in mysterious ways. Through the natural unfolding of events I believe God can and does touch peoples lives in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

So God works in &#8220;mysterious&#8221; ways is your answer? That is another way of saying you don&#8217;t know. As a recap my question was, why doesn&#8217;t God reach out and touch the people WITHOUT the out of body or near death experience, to which you say God is just mysterious. So you don&#8217;t know the answer to this.

Mystery is a problem

No one has truly died and came back to tell us. People have officially died and were resurrected, but they have not experienced death without chemicals, which is the issue here. You can't say that the light at the end of the tunnel cannot be a hallucination because we simply don't know, and any appeal otherwise is solely opinion more than likely based off of a religious idea, not science.

How many days does it take for the certified dead, non functioning brain to be RID of chemicals?

Out of body experiences are usually explained by the brain taking in information from the senses and for some reason 'hallucinating'

For some REASON hallucinating? What is that reason?

yourself over yourself watching X from the hallucination's perspective. It is simply my opinion in that I give more weight to near death experiences than astro-projection, nothing scientific about it, just opinion. There is no scientific reason to take either one as fact.

Again your assuming out of body experiences are hallucination and that SOME near death experiences are real. But you&#8217;re not telling me WHY you have this opinion.

You can&#8217;t say because you just do, opinions have reasons behind them.

Oh, PS, sorry I did not write earlier, I was taking it slow and easy and plus I was on vacation, I went to myrtle beach. It was fun. When I was there I swam and I thought about how wonderfully intelligently DESIGNED God made the ocean, lol.

 

[RedOne77]

RedOne77
Ok so speciation is not a gain of information but a loss of it?

I honestly don't know what you mean by "information". The only scientific information that I've ever seen regarding mutations and DNA sequences is some crazy math formula that I didn't understand that some how showed that every single mutation was an increase in information. I don't understand it conceptually or mathematically. And frankly, I think thinking in terms of "information" is pointless and possibly detrimental to understanding.

Plus, these changes that are observed are SMALL changes, micro changes, not macro. Macro is not observed.

What do you mean by "macro"? We've observed speciation, which is by definition macro-evolution.

Actually I was reading in that online biology text book and it said a law has more certainty then a theory does. So the law of gravity has more certainty then the theory of evolution does in that case.

Generally a law is more certain than a theory in that a law describes what happens. The law of gravity, for example, is expressed in an equation: (G*m1*m2)/r^2
But even so, I would not say the law of gravity is more certain than the theory of evolution. For one thing, the law of gravity is not absolute, and falls apart at the subatomic level and over vast distances. The gravity constant, G, is not really a constant and changes over distances and other factors.

I don't think it is good to talk about laws and theories being more certain than the other. Rather, it is the relationship that is important in science. Laws ultimately describe a phenomena, a theory ultimately explains the phenomena.

Also why is it “just the way science works”?

It's just the methodology used. It is like asking why does philosophy work the way it works.

Also when you say a theory will never change into a fact, is that statement a hypothesis, theory or a fact?

It is the methodology of science that a theory will never change into a fact.

I don’t think I understand what you’re telling me here. It is a FACT that my computer is in front of me and I am using it and it exists. That is a FACT. So how is that fact NOT 100% true?

A fact is simply an observation. You observe that a computer is in front of you. It is not true in a scientific sense as science has its roots in epistemology which states that nothing can be known with 100% truth. And science has adopted this idea, so nothing in science is seen as truth or is proven. Now people themselves can claim, outside of science, that something is true. Doesn't mean that it is true, but one could certainly claim that X is true.

MICRO (small changes over time) evolution happens and is a FACT, but macro (big changes over time) is not a proven fact. Do you think macro evolution is a proven fact, if so, why?

Macro evolution is defined as evolution at or above the species level. IOW, speciation is macro-evolution observed. So yes, macro-evolution is a fact too.

So the theory of evolution explains why they change, ok, why do they change?

It would be more accurate to say evolution explains how they change. Evolution works off of three basic ideas. First, is that there is variation within the population. Second, is that these variations have different levels of fitness. Thirdly, that these variations are heritable. And possibly a fourth in that replicating a heritable trait is not perfect (mutations happen).

So you SEE the masses, you don’t see the gravity, right? And gravity is NOT the masses themselves, right?

Gravity is a tricky thing. No one really knows what it is or what exactly causes it.

I’m not saying we don’t know that masses attract, but what is the cause of their attraction? You call it gravity, how do you “KNOW” that? You have not SEEN, heard, or touched, or smelt gravity, have you? So my point is, why doesn’t science come up with a means to try to DETECT the ACTUAL gravity itself? And if it is trying to do that, why not then stop being selective and come up with a means to try to detect the spirit world as well?

We see masses attract, we observe that it is a fundamental force in the universe, and decided to name that fundamental force "gravity". We detect gravity all the time every time we detect an attraction of mass. What causes gravity is up for debate. People have theorized that a particle called a graviton is responsible, others go with the curvature of space/time.

How do you know those five bone specimens are transitions of one another? And not just separate species of themselves? Just because people found the bones and lined them up together does not make them transitions, right?

Plus just looking at them they don’t even look like the same kind of creatures.

The first skull is from a chimp, the last is from a modern human, the second to last is a Cro-Magnon (an archaic modern human from Europe). The rest are various extinct hominids and australopithecines. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

What do yo mean by "separate species of themselves"? There are various species and genera shown in the pic.

I don’t see how intelligent design is a failed idea and I also don’t see how it’s not a scientific theory.

It explains everything by explaining nothing. A true hallmark of a pseudo-scientific idea. I think this youtube video explains why ID fails as a scientific theory: [youtube]b_HxiUwf4Eg[/youtube]
YouTube - Lesson 13/16: Intelligent Design Part 1

 

[The_Evelyonian]

From nothing, nothing comes. And if you think that something can come from nothing, HOW?

Ok, you just lost me? Explain that more please.

First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes, secondly, how is it that if the energy is zero you can get something from nothing? Thirdly, your starting off with something (multiple universes).

If you really want to know the answers to those questions then watch this.

[youtube]7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, but I am not defending a man, I am defending an idea and asking questions about your views. I don’t care about Behe, intelligent design does not stand or fall based on a representative, nor does it stand or fall based on the motive of that representative.

In order for ID to be considered science, the definition of science has to change to include non-science paradigms. This indicates that ID is a pseudo-scientific idea and not real science.

First off, I remember Stephen c meyer a strong intelligent design advocate say his motives were NOT to bring religion into the schools, but to teach the scientific theory of intelligent design alone. Now, to assume he is lying is just that, an assumption. Just because a judge says this is the MOTIVES of intelligent designers to get religion in the door, does not make it so. A judge can judge wrong too you know.

It is not an assumption that ID is religiously motivated. It is a verified observation, a fact. I didn't chose to show Judge Jones ruling because he is a judge, rather he is an educated person who had political reasons for siding with ID, looked at the evidence, and gave a very objective criticism to ID outlining why it isn't science and is religion in disguise.

Secondly, even if that was there motive, again, intelligent design does not stand or fall based on the motives of it’s representatives.

ID falls first and foremost because it simply isn't science. It cannot make scientific predictions, it cannot conduct scientific experiments, nor does it explain facts in a natural way.

Thirdly intelligent design is NOT religion wearing a mask of science, it’s NOT religion, it’s observations on nature and the world and then it makes the inference that there is design and that it is not just an appearance of design. So, this makes it science since it deals with the physical world, nature.

How? What experiments can be done with ID? It is the next step in the evolution of creationism. The school book 'Of Pandas and People' illustrates its religiosity nicely with its "cintelligent designism" transitional fossil in one of its previous editions with the change made right after the U.S. supreme court ruled that teaching creationism in the science classroom was illegal. This alone essentially makes it illegal to teach ID in the science classroom.

First, why is that the RULE of science to rule out or ignore what COULD be the ACTUAL CAUSE of the making of this universe?

Science is limited in what it ponders about. It can only tackle that which is testable in our physical reality. IOW, only the natural can be scientifically investigated.

Secondly, intelligent design is not perse invoking a supernatural causation, it is simply invoking an intelligent causation. This is how it should be represented.

So, how does one scientifically test this intelligent agent and/or causation?

What is wrong with the irreducible complexity argument?

Because there is no structure that has been shown to be irreducible complex. The most famous example is the bacterial flagellum, which was broken down into a type 3 secretion system. On the youtube video I linked to in my previous post, you can also look at the next video in the series and it will further debunk IC as a scientific tool.

What are those refutations? I don’t just take the judges word for it, I am going to question everything.

Well first I need to know exactly what the argument against evolution was. Another example of failed IC was the immune system, in which during the trial scores of textbooks and peer-reviewed papers were shown to outline the evolutionary pathway of the immune system in great detail.

Whether this trial had evidence for certain motivations from the representatives of intelligent design or not, I don’t care about, because the fact is, there is a difference between intelligent design and young earth creationism or just the biblical creationism. Intelligent design does not stand or fall based on it’s representatives or their motives.

In science, its ultimate fate is decided on whether or not it is testable (which it isn't). And once something is determined as testable, it can then go on into scientific inquiry where the evidence will decide its ultimate fate. ID neither has the correct falsifiability nor evidence to back it up in a scientific setting.

Oh my gosh, now I am getting frustrated again, I was hoping this would not happen. Just because Christians believe and push for intelligent design does not make intelligent design religion. Intelligent design does not stand or fall based on it’s representatives or their motives or religious affiliation. So when they say “intelligent design is grounded in theology, not science” this is false, they should have said “intelligent design is grounded in science and people of theology are happening to push for it.” Stephen c Meyer up front will admit he is a Christian and then says who cares, that is not what matters for intelligent design. And I agree, he is LOGICALLY right about that.

It isn't so much that religious people adhere to ID, the majority of Christians are in fact evolutionists. The bottom line is that ID is not science because it isn't testable, it doesn't add to the body of scientific knowledge, it can't make scientific predictions and it alludes to the supernatural. ID claims to explain things with an "intelligent agent", IOW God. Except they can't say "God" because it would be illegal, so they come up with a vague term that means the same thing.

What is the scientific scrutiny that they avoided?

ID doesn't even attempt to publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals like the rest of the scientific community. In science, that is how you get your ideas recognized as valid, you submit them to peer-review. ID simply doesn't even try, probably because they know any scientist who gets an ID paper will destroy their methodology and show that it isn't real science but pseudo-science.

Yea and some things that are called evidence are not really truly evidence either.

By all accounts mutations appear to be the cause of random oversights in DNA replication, radiation and so on. We can more or less calculate the rate of mutations in a given segment of DNA, we just can't predict what mutation or exactly where. Similar to radiometric dating in that we can calculate the rate of decay, just not which individual atoms will decay as it is random.

 

[RedOne77]

How would you test the idea that “random chance” mutated a segment of DNA? I can ask the same thing.

Scientists have actually tried to predict where and when mutations would occur, but couldn't do it because it was random. Mutations are normally caused by errors in DNA replication, it is completely random, even when talking about other mutagens like radiation. I suppose one could posit the idea that God (or somehow a non-supernatural intelligent agent/cause) is doing something we are not aware of is fine in a non-scientific sense. But when talking about science, it doesn't fly. We know randomness exists in nature as seen in the uncertainty principle and radiometric dating. Mutations are just another random ingredient to the very strange universe we live in.

No, lets represent it correctly, INTELLIGENT CAUSES, not PERSE supernatural causes.

Actually ID posits an 'intelligent agent'.

Nothing is random, just some things are not understood. When something is not understood, we call it random, but that word random is only used to fill the gap of our ignorance, but our ignorance is not evidence for “chance” being an entity. When things are understood, they are predictable and have order about them. And if they have order, they have complexity, which is where we infer design, thus the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Some things are just random as ****, seriously. The individual atoms that decay during beta decay (used in radiometric dating) is purely random. We can predict the rate of decay, but not which atoms will decay. And you don't want to start pondering the craziness of light in QM, which is used in mathematical models for multiple universes based on the potential randomness of light.

How would one falsify ID?

If we predict it and it comes true, then it is a scientific issue. If it’s not a scientific prediction, what kind of prediction is it then?

I wild guess that came true. Now, if you could somehow objectively quantify simplicity and complexity and make specific quantitative predictions it would carry much more weight. Your predictions have to be very specific for them to count in science, and they have to make sense - your prediction has to clearly follow from your model.

The cell without a microscope looks simple, but it’s complex when you get near it. Sort of like if you see someone at a far off distance, they look small and simple, but when you get a close up look, you see lots of details. What is wrong with God designing it that way?

Nothing inherently wrong with it, it just isn't science.

That is good actually, it keeps us from being like a sheet of paper sort of speak. So it’s not like God designed things to LOOK simple but are complex, it’s that God designed things to be able to zoom in and out. To look closely and look far away from.

See how it is trivial to show that ID is religiously based? You stopped using 'intelligent cause' and just started using "God". Those ideas are fine, but they simple are not applicable to science. They don't add to our body of knowledge.

Simple does not mean not complex at all. If something is PURE simple and has no complexity at all, then it would not exist. Something that is complex, whether a little bit or a lot, how can it come about naturally?

I don't follow. What does this have to do with why an intelligent agent would make a complex world appear simple? If you want to have any validity in science, questioning the axiom of methodological naturalism is not the way to do. You would essentially be trying to force the supernatural into science.

We predict that things that appear simple will be shown to be complex as that prediction is TESTED. You can test that prediction with experiment. I don’t understand how it’s not a scientific prediction? Anything that is a prediction and comes true should be highly taken seriously.

I predict that the Sun will come up tomorrow as Ra has blessed me. Is that a prediction that should be taken seriously? I can assure you that the Sun will come up.

Also the prediction is not based on ignorance, it’s based on knowledge of complexity.

How is complexity evidence for a designer? Likewise, how is this designer theory an improvement to evolutionary theory?

I want evidence/proof that they observe particles come from nothing? How do they know the particles come from nothing?

I think the video Evelyonian posted talks about it a little bit. From what I understand we have actually 'seen' these particles pop in and out of existence from 'nothing'. But perhaps they aren't from nothing, they could be from an alternate universe, although I think it is very unlikely.

A prediction is a prediction. How is it not a scientific prediction? What it comes down to is, it’s either a false prediction or a true one, what’s with this, some predictions are religious and some are scientific? A prediction is a prediction, it’s either true or false.

A scientific prediction has to make logical sense, it has to be precise in what it expects. Saying that things will turn out to be more complex isn't specific enough nor does it make logical sense in a scientific framework.

Yes, it’s a prediction against evolution. Because you see, your view holds that SOMETHING simple or NOTHING caused or made something. They thought the cell was simple, they found out it was not, thus that poses a problem, how did it get made?

That isn't something against evolution. Evolution is about how populations change over time, not about how nothing made something, or how the cell came into existence, or even about how complex the cell is.

Not everyone believed the cell was simple.

All you could really see of the cell was essentially a simple glob. The evidence pointed to a simple cell and that is what the vast majority of scientists (evolutionists and non-evolutionists alike) adhered to back then.

And I’m sure not everyone believed that either. I know I would not have, common sense tells me light has a speed and moves forward.

Even in the face of empirical observation that showed that light moved instantaneous across large distances? The ancient Greeks tried to calculate a speed for light by measuring how long it took for light to move across vast distances using mirrors. All the experiments showed that it was instantaneous, to deny it would have meant you would have to deny all of philosophy, which included what we would call science.

Your suppose to make false hypothesis? Why not try to make a right hypothesis the first shot around, save a lot of time, would it not?

You try to make as truthful hypotheses as possible. But just the nature of science demands that in order to do it properly you have to have a few false hypotheses thrown in there, otherwise you are doing something wrong.

Your comparing apples and oranges again, this does not help me. Just because you show illogic with the flat earth interpretation, that does not equal you showing illogic with the design interpretation. So as I said, if it LOOKS designed, then we can interpret it to BE designed. Now what is wrong with what I said here?

If the Earth LOOKS flat, then we can interpret it to BE flat.

What does that have to do with it not being designed? Whether they are in those layers because of floods or because God designed them first, either way, they LOOK designed.

Evolution has a perfectly good explanation for why we see this progression in the fossil record; they evolved. As a supposedly competing model, how does ID explain the fossil record without invoking the supernatural and working off of real scientific data?

 

[McBell]

First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes

There is no evidence for God, but here you are claiming that he created everything.....

 

[RedOne77]

So after science does their experiments, data collecting, hypotheses, conclusions and theories, macro evolution APPEARS to be the truth AFTER all this has been done, right? Ok, just because something APPEARS to be the truth after all the investigation, does not make it so then, right? And if it does, then nature LOOKS designed even after experiments and data collecting as well. So I could say it IS designed, right?

The real question is what does the evidence suggest?

I&#8217;m sorry but that doesn&#8217;t work because you are starting OFF with SOMETHING (1) and then you&#8217;re taking away something (1) and then that equals zero.

Mine was 0 (nothing) + 0 (nothing) = 0 (nothing).

From nothing, nothing comes. And if you think that something can come from nothing, HOW?

The great thing about math is that you can switch the equation around and it says the exact same thing.

0 = 1 - 1

You can start off with nothing, and have something with the exact opposite.

Ok, you just lost me? Explain that more please.

It's been a long time since I learned this stuff, so I can't go into detail. Basically there are certain fundamental properties of the universe which can theoretically be different in other universes. If these properties are complementary in the right way, the total amount of energy will be balanced out and you can get something (our universe) from nothing.

First off, there is no evidence for multiple universes, secondly, how is it that if the energy is zero you can get something from nothing? Thirdly, your starting off with something (multiple universes).

While there is no direct evidence for multiple universes. There are mathematical models that make it a real possibility, and there is no observation that is preventing multiple universes from existing. In the next few years, however, certain observations from the 'edge' of our universe might give us more information. Only time will tell.

Ok, and how does that relate to what we are talking about?

It could explain the distribution of matter and anti-matter in our own universe from a mutliverse.

Why doesn&#8217;t all these particles that supposedly pop into existence from nothing keep expanding then?

Not sure. For one thing they pop in and out of existence. If the universe did come about via a virtual particle it would most likely be the exception, not the norm. So for me, the real question is why did this one expand and not pop out of existence as we know it.

How do you know black holes exist?

We see their gravitational effects. With some, we see an accretion disk surrounding one, and they can release jets of energy which scientists can detect.

Also how do you know black holes lose mass and energy by taking in more matter?

It has to be the right scenario. Most matter going into a black hole will increase the mass/energy of a black hole.

Well I think it does bring more support for ID. If all of these were falsified accept the design view, that would lend ALL the strength to the design view.

Not in a scientific sense in the way to imply it. ID needs its own positive evidence. You don't get anywhere in science by only falsifying the competition, unless you bring evidence for your own model, it is just as useless (or even more so) than that which you have disproved.

I was looking for the quote, but I can&#8217;t find it now. Anyway, if God exists and if the spirit world exists, why are those things not scientific issues?

I'm not sure what else to say other than trying to understand anything about God or the supernatural, even when it comes to their existence, is comparing apples and steel.

Right, the earth being round has stronger evidence/proof for it being so, then evolutions evidence supporting it.

Both evolution and the Earth being round is a fact. Is it more of a fact that water is composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atom, or that methane is composed of 1 carbon atom and 4 hydrogen atoms?

What I am saying is if gravity cannot be detected ITSELF, why don&#8217;t they try to come up with a means to try to detect the gravity ITSELF? And if they just make hypothesis about gravity, why do they do that, but won&#8217;t make hypothesis about God/spirit world/souls? That seams selective. Also if they are trying to detect gravity itself, why be selective? Why not try also to detect God and the spirit world too?

Gravity is a fundamental force of nature. We detect gravity by observing the attraction of masses, that is what gravity is. Science can't detect God because God is of the supernatural whereas science is only deals with the natural.

Maybe this video will help: [youtube]i1ztIx55YfQ[/youtube]
YouTube - "To say nothing of God..."

Why is it out of scientific methodology to detect the spirit world?

How would you test the existence of the spirit would through methodological naturalism?

You just said it would include elements of science then said it would not be science? I don&#8217;t understand.

I said it probably would include elements of science. However, it wouldn't include all the elements, and it would probably include elements of its own that isn't part of science.

It depends on how you define him, for purposes of this discussion, I am not defining God as supernatural, I am defining him as a HIGH intelligence and a designer and a powerful being. All of that CAN be natural, natural to him, but it may not be natural to us.

So how do we test this? How do we make experiments out of this? How do we make predictions out of this? How does this high intelligence control mutations? How did this high intelligence create life? How does this intelligence explain....

For example, something natural can be unnatural to some people, and that is because that natural thing is RARE to the experience of some people, so for them it&#8217;s unnatural. So my point is this, science is the quest for TRUTH, right? And if not why not?

Science is a methodology to understand the natural world. Once you start talking about things outside of the natural world it simply isn't science like talking about graphic design is out of the realm of music theory. Also, you are equivocating on the use of "natural" and "unnatural". "Natural" has a specific definition in science that doesn't include the dictionary definition of something being standard to a group of people.

Lighting up a room with radio waves is apples and oranges again.

That is exactly my point. Trying to test God and other aspects of the supernatural is like trying to light up a room with radio waves, it simply doesn't work.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Why don't people ever get it ...
There is no something that came from nothing

 

[Smoke]

I think this youtube video explains why ID fails as a scientific theory:
[youtube]b_HxiUwf4Eg[/youtube]
YouTube - Lesson 13/16: Intelligent Design Part 1

I like that video. I also like the phrase "modern Christian folk science."

 

[RedOne77]

COULD be part of a multiverse, but where is the evidence for that? Also where would the FIRST universe come from? It just begs the question.

The 'evidence' is mainly mathematical models, and other ideas that have yet to be disproved. There is no hard evidence for the existence of multiple universes, but at this time science can't rule it out either.

Also where is the evidence for the black holes and the black hole creating a universe?

Black holes creating universes is again from mathematical models and ideas in theoretical physics. Black holes are accepted as real phenomena among astronomers, they see the gravitational effects of them, and in some cases see accretion disks around them.

How does equal amounts of matter and anti-matter bring RANDOM quantum fluctuations?

It would be a result of the quantum fluctuations, not the other way around.

1: if the “electron” (something) and a “positron” (something) interact in a certain way to theoretically create enough potential energy to start an expansion, how is that creating another universe or a universe period from “NOTHING”?

2: where did the electron and positron come from? Nothing? How?

'Nothing' in physics is really something. I don't remember any of the details, and there is so much colloquial weight to any words I say that me going into it will only confuse you further. Plus, I don't really understand it myself.

You know that virtual particles RANDOMLY pop into existence? How do you know it happens RANDOMLY?

I don't know how scientists determined it, only that (as far as I know) they've determined that it is random.

Secondly, how do you know they pop into existence from NOTHING causing it?

For one thing, they violate the first law of thermodynamics on a sub-atomic level by merely existing. What do you mean by 'nothing causing it'?

Thirdly and assuming for a split moment that these particles do pop into existence from nothing for no reason or by no cause, WHY does a particle then pop into existence if it’s coming from nothing?

Quantum fluctuations.

How does science know God is untestable? Also how does science know that it CANNOT detect the spirit realm if it does not try?

How would you test the supernatural with only a natural methodology?

Why is that all science can do, is study the natural world? Why? Why can’t it study the spirit realm or come up with ways to detect it? Saying because that’s all it can do does not answer my question

.

How would you test the supernatural with only a natural methodology?

No, that is a wrong assumption you are making there. Just because we focus on the natural or the physical world being designed by God does not mean we stop focusing on the spiritual side of things. That’s like saying that if I go to work and focus on work (something physical) then that means I never focus on spiritual stuff, see how foolish that sounds?

That is not what I'm saying. There are shades, people will tend to focus more on the physical (doesn't mean that you have to) and will usually come up with religious ideas based on passages that shouldn't be read as such.

Plus, if the message in genesis 1 did not “IMPLY” that God created the physical world and that it was implying we should not focus on THAT, then just what was it implying?

Plus, to have a spirituality without the physical world and finding the connection between the two, is BAD spirituality because it is a spirituality that is out of touch with REALITY.

Genesis doesn't teach that the world is 6K yrs old, or that evolution is wrong. It is about finding the right balance between religion and science. And once either side crosses the line it is bad for both.

So if it’s worse to have bad science then bad theology are you then telling me that you value science more than your faith in the bible?

One doesn't need religion or spirituality to be a good person. And oftentimes religion is nothing but a mere catalyst to advanced corruption, greed, hate, bigotry, violence, fear, death, famine, and all else that is utterly evil. All in the name of God. In a way I do value science more than religion, as religion isn't the only way to learn morals and ethics, and many times religion has it backwards.
James 1:27 "Pure religion, undefiled before God and the Father, is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world."
Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Romans 2:13-25 "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

I would take a moral atheist over a crooked theist any day.

How does intelligent design theory slow down or stop scientific progress for society and technology? I really don’t get it.

Because you can't do anything with ID as a science. It will not teach people the skills they need as a practicing scientist or to understand science as scientifically literate layperson. You can't advance scientific progress with it which means it can't improve our technology.

Well, yes bad theology can cause spiritual suffering, both in this life and the afterlife.

It shouldn't, but it does, yes.

How does it deaden the mind to believe in intelligent design as being a scientific theory?

By saying 'God did it', which is what ID does, it teaches us to not pursue knowledge.

My mind don’t feel dead for believing that.

Yes granted, sometimes my mind is STRESSED or should I put it, STRETCHED by trying to learn all this STUFF. But that would be the case for my mind learning ANY DEEP SUBJECT, not just science.

It's not a physical deadening, it represents how critical thinking is lost.

As I know you'll come back with some answer about how it hasn't hurt your critical thinking. It is more complicated then just believing X over Y. It has to do with the education system.

Ok, and just how do you know those chemicals going to the brain which attach to certain sites which cause other complex things to happen, how do you know this process is causing people to see things that are NOT there, opposed to actually BEING their?

Can you give an example? I don't know anyone who thinks people on LSD see things that are actually there that everyone else can't see. Why would a hallucinogen give people the power to physically see things that are there that others can't?

 

[evolved yet?]

Yea, it is falsifiable if you can show that something simple can create all this complexity, or that nothing can create something, or that chance and natural selection can PUSH something forward and upward in building it, or can show how an infinite regression of causes can take place. If you can show any of this by logical means, you can then falsify my view.

Example/Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

 

[RedOne77]

Ok, but I still don’t understand how the chemicals are making them see things or experience things that are NOT really happening? How do you know that the chemicals that they put in the people’s brains to make them have near death or out of body experiences that these experiences were not truly happening? How do you know they were illusory?

So you think it is possible to have a (supernatural) near death experience without being near death?

Ok, well so far it appears to me that when a scientist or someone says that chemicals are making people experience things that are not really happening < that statement is NOT testable.

How do they know it’s not really happening?

Do you honestly think that people on hallucinogens/drugs are seeing things that are there but sober people can't?

We give a person a certain chemical/drug, they have a unique experience, you repeat the test with multiple people, they all say basically the same thing with some variance (expected as each person is slightly different), why would it not be the chemical/drug in question as it is the only changing variable in the experiment.

But it gets better. When people do pot, the chemical THC goes into the brain and binds to receptors making people 'high'. However, some people don't have the THC receptors in the brain. For these people, no matter how much pot they intake, will never get 'high'. This supports the idea that (certain) chemicals binding to the brain will cause sensations and hallucinations.

And if they want to say it’s not REALLY happening, then why not come up with a scientific means to try to DETECT if it IS really happening or NOT really happening, that would verify or test to see if there statement is true or false, and if it proved there statement to be true, then it would dampen the statement that says there is a spirit realm, if it proved the statement false, then it would give proof FOR a spirit world, then science could build on that and study the spirit realm.

What say you?

Do you honestly think that people who take hallucinogens are seeing things that are really there that sober people can't see, even with equipment that sees other parts of the electro-magnetic spectrum beyond visible light?

Ok, how do they know the chemical DMT is causing hallucinations rather than giving an open door to having REAL experiences? How do they actually “KNOW” this?

How would you test this through naturalism?

Again how do they know the drugs are making people see things that are NOT their opposed to the drugs making people see things that ARE there?

Again, do you honestly think that people who take hallucinogens are seeing real things that sober people can't see?

Ok, explain to me this scientific evidence that chemicals cause hallucinations rather than causing real experiences? Also how does LSD cause hallucinations rather than real experiences?

The experiences are real, just based off of things they 'hallucinated'. If such hallucinations are caused by the supernatural, science will never discover it.

Ok, so what is your “opinion” on what the differences are between a false near death experience and a real one is? And the difference between out of body experiences as well. Give me your OPINION?

They are all experiences, but whether or not they are divine in nature is question. My opinion is simply 'I don't know'. I believe God is God of the supernatural as well as the natural as God is God of all. I think some are divine, but that doesn't mean God will not use a natural experience to communicate.

Yes your opinion is there is differences but now tell me your opinion on what those differences are?

I simply am not versed in this topic very well, so my opinion is very limited and mostly made up of 'I don't know, yet God can work through many ways, and who am I to pontificate on these matters in any detail?'

So God works in “mysterious” ways is your answer? That is another way of saying you don’t know. As a recap my question was, why doesn’t God reach out and touch the people WITHOUT the out of body or near death experience, to which you say God is just mysterious. So you don’t know the answer to this.

Mystery is a problem

I never said God can't reach out to people in different ways, this appears to be one avenue of communication, but certainly not the only one. How is mystery a problem? Mystery is what makes life exciting, God clearly says that there are mysteries about Himself and the spiritual realm that we simply cannot comprehend. Isaiah 55:9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

How many days does it take for the certified dead, non functioning brain to be RID of chemicals?

It's not that they are rid of chemicals, but that all chemical reactions stop. I don't know how long it takes for this to happen, but I do know that once this happens there is no chance of revival.

For some REASON hallucinating? What is that reason?

The brain is simply trying to understand the stimuli that it is being given. To do this it can give 'hallucinations', thus why we have dreams in REM sleep. I don't know much about it specifically, but perhaps others do.

Again your assuming out of body experiences are hallucination and that SOME near death experiences are real. But you’re not telling me WHY you have this opinion.

You can’t say because you just do, opinions have reasons behind them.

Well sure, all opinions have reasons behind them, doesn't mean they are good reasons, or backed by the evidence available. My over all intuition isn't astro-projection friendly. Because I'm not into this thing I don't feel it is appropriate for me to pontificate on such matters in detail, and just reply cautiously without authority. You are welcome to believe whatever you want, such things are just not science.

Oh, PS, sorry I did not write earlier, I was taking it slow and easy and plus I was on vacation, I went to myrtle beach. It was fun. When I was there I swam and I thought about how wonderfully intelligently DESIGNED God made the ocean, lol.

I'm glad you had fun. I'm stuck at home for another 2 or 3 weeks while I finish up summer school. After that I'll probably take a vacation and go see family.

 

[staffi01]

Hi Folks,

New here and this is the first thread that caught my attention. I&#8217;ve got to 25 pages now and not seen any credible evidence.
Could anyone possibly help save me from reading the other 65 pages by letting me know if anybody has provided one single piece of evidence for creationism that hasn&#8217;t been thoroughly refuted in this thread?

I know I&#8217;m being lazy and should really try to read the whole thread but I&#8217;d hate to do that then realise that it was a complete waste of time due to there being no evidence provided.

And, I really would love to see evidence for creationism as a lot of people keep telling me there is mountains of evidence but not actually telling me what it is.

Thanks
Staffi

 

[Wotan]

Hi Folks,

New here and this is the first thread that caught my attention. I’ve got to 25 pages now and not seen any credible evidence.
Could anyone possibly help save me from reading the other 65 pages by letting me know if anybody has provided one single piece of evidence for creationism that hasn’t been thoroughly refuted in this thread?

I know I’m being lazy and should really try to read the whole thread but I’d hate to do that then realise that it was a complete waste of time due to there being no evidence provided.

And, I really would love to see evidence for creationism as a lot of people keep telling me there is mountains of evidence but not actually telling me what it is.

Thanks
Staffi

Short answer: No.

It is still a position that relies on circular reasoning. There is order in the universe. Order requires design. Design requires a designer. The bible says god designed the universe.

The designed universe we see was designed by bible god.

QED

 

[McBell]

Hi Folks,

New here and this is the first thread that caught my attention. I’ve got to 25 pages now and not seen any credible evidence.
Could anyone possibly help save me from reading the other 65 pages by letting me know if anybody has provided one single piece of evidence for creationism that hasn’t been thoroughly refuted in this thread?

I know I’m being lazy and should really try to read the whole thread but I’d hate to do that then realise that it was a complete waste of time due to there being no evidence provided.

And, I really would love to see evidence for creationism as a lot of people keep telling me there is mountains of evidence but not actually telling me what it is.

Thanks
Staffi

No, there has not been a single piece of anything presented by creationists that has not been thoroughly refuted, debunked, etc.

 

[lunamoth]

What is taught as Creation Science? I have heard many people saying that we should teach creation science, or 'both sides' of the science.

Does this simply mean to teach the Bible's creation story in science class? How is that science?


I never thought I would pose this as a serious question, but in an alarming number of states this is something that is actually presented to school boards.

It leaves me feeling pretty sad about the state of critical thinking in our country.

 

[Wotan]

What is taught as Creation Science? I have heard many people saying that we should teach creation science, or 'both sides' of the science.

Does this simply mean to teach the Bible's creation story in science class? How is that science?


I never thought I would pose this as a serious question, but in an alarming number of states this is something that is actually presented to school boards.

It leaves me feeling pretty sad about the state of critical thinking in our country.

You don't get out much do you?

Do the names John Scopes and Dayton, TN have any meaning for you?