Creationists, please provide evidence

[Valjean]

Science is not religion and seeks to disprove faith-based beliefs.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Science is not religion and seeks to disprove faith-based beliefs.

Science is definitely a religion. It has a dogma which requires faith, a priest-class that administers the accepted teaching, uneducated followers, fanatical terrorists, and continually points to a creator the more it is understood. The only difference is that the devotees deny their religious affiliation.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Depends on what you mean when you say god. Define your term.

Heck, any of the gods that theists attribute the creation of the universe to will do. Me, I don't believe in gods.

Every religion, from all parts of the world, and throughout time is not enough "independent" evidence for ya?

Nope. By that reasoning we would have to believe in dragons and vampires as well since just about every culture and region has myths about those too.

How about the fact that every 'scientific' alternative with any amount of credibility still requires a leap of faith?

It does? Please enlighten me as to what that is.

You are willing to accept faith one belief but not in another?

I don't do "faith". I base my view of reality on what we can empirically and evidentially show to be so.

Do you not see that by placing your 'faith' in these causal hypotheticals like the higgs boson you are allowing yourself to believe in everything else they represent? How is that different than any other religion?

I think you missed my point. I don't believe in the Higgs Boson. I have no opinion on whether it exists or not until conclusive evidence surfaces.

Religion declares it and modern science backs it up. Besides everybody knows that matter wasn't created until after electrons were.

I think you will find that electrons ARE matter, and no, science does NOT say that matter was created.
Also, just so you don't get confused, matter = energy and energy = matter.

 

[Autodidact]

My first post in this thread addressed all that but nobody wanted to subject it to scientific testing but I would direct you to my thread titled COSMOGONY for a discussion of that if you are interested. Mostly though, posters here just seem to want to argue about why their faith is better than another's. Apparently faith in science is more valid than faith in any other religion.

So your don't believe that science works?

 

[Autodidact]

Every religion, from all parts of the world, and throughout time is not enough "independent" evidence for ya? How about the fact that every 'scientific' alternative with any amount of credibility still requires a leap of faith? You are willing to accept faith one belief but not in another?

.

A religion is not evidence, it's a belief system. Further, I can't think of anything, not one single thing, that every religion in the world agrees on.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Heck, any of the gods that theists attribute the creation of the universe to will do. Me, I don't believe in gods.

Okay, lets just go with Creator then, go on.

Nope. By that reasoning we would have to believe in dragons and vampires as well since just about every culture and region has myths about those too.

Dragons and vampires are hardly comparable in prevance with a Creator

It does? Please enlighten me as to what that is.

Well, for instance. If you wish to believe in the validity of any higher maths you have to have faith in the existence of the higgs boson.

I don't do "faith". I base my view of reality on what we can empirically and evidentially show to be so.

Really, you have conducted the experiment to see an atom? That's admirable, most people have not, and yet when the priests of science tell them that atoms exist, they believe nonetheless. Their faith allows them to continue on without questioning their own existence.

I think you missed my point. I don't believe in the Higgs Boson. I have no opinion on whether it exists or not until conclusive evidence surfaces.

And yet you will comfortably rely on maths that do not represent observable reality in the meantime? How do you justify believing in science that proclaims that matter has no mass when clearly it does? Unless, you have faith in a field, in which there is no scientific evidence for, you would be crazy to follow a doctrine that was demonstratively wrong, wouldn't you?

I think you will find that electrons ARE matter, and no, science does NOT say that matter was created.
Also, just so you don't get confused, matter = energy and energy = matter.

Actually, matter only comes into existence when electrons form atoms and the atoms come together. And just so you don't get confused, everything is energy.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

So your don't believe that science works?

Science, while still in its fledgling stage, always works. Whether or not we use the right equations is another story altogether. We still have to use tremendous amounts of heat and pressure to create material equal what the silkworm can do at room temperature with fiber and acid. To use our level of understanding of science as the measuring stick for whether or not the universe was created is setting the bar awfully low, don't you think. Only the most easily convinced would fall for such a fallible proposition.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

A religion is not evidence, it's a belief system. Further, I can't think of anything, not one single thing, that every religion in the world agrees on.

How about a Creator?

 

[RedOne77]

How about a Creator?

Some Buddhists don't believe in a creator or any God or gods.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Okay, lets just go with Creator then, go on.

Nothing to go on about. If you postulate that there was a creator, who or what created the creator?

Dragons and vampires are hardly comparable in prevance with a Creator

And why, exactly, is that?

Well, for instance. If you wish to believe in the validity of any higher maths you have to have faith in the existence of the higgs boson.

No, I don't.

Really, you have conducted the experiment to see an atom? That's admirable, most people have not, and yet when the priests of science tell them that atoms exist, they believe nonetheless. Their faith allows them to continue on without questioning their own existence.

So, if I say that I have indeed performed the experiments, you will accept that science is right, is that it? Or perhaps you will just move on to a different field of science, knowing fair well that no-one could ever individually confirm for themselves all the knowledge we have accumulated.

Heh, sorry, but I'm not playing that game.

Scientific facts have been and are being tested and confirmed by many different people in many different ways and if you really want you can confirm them yourself. At least as many as you have time for in this lifetime.

Or am I to interpret this to mean that you do not believe in the existence of atoms?

And yet you will comfortably rely on maths that do not represent observable reality in the meantime?

We have loads of math that isn't even meant to represent observable reality. I'm sure Meow_Mix can enlighten you further on this, or any physicist for that matter. Math is a tool we use to describe reality. But it is not reality and when our equations come up short we know that we need to modify our equations, not blame reality for being wrong.

How do you justify believing in science that proclaims that matter has no mass when clearly it does? Unless, you have faith in a field, in which there is no scientific evidence for, you would be crazy to follow a doctrine that was demonstratively wrong, wouldn't you?

As I'm sure you know the "element" that carries gravity is not yet known, so your whole argument falls flat on something as simple as "we don't know yet". And I have no problem with that. There are many things I do not know, and I am fairly certain there are many things I will never know. I am at peace with that. How about you?

Actually, matter only comes into existence when electrons form atoms and the atoms come together. And just so you don't get confused, everything is energy.

So you do believe in atoms!

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Some Buddhists don't believe in a creator or any God or gods.

I just gotten done explaining how wrong that is.

 

[painted wolf]

If scientists believed in the Higgs Boson by faith they wouldn't have built CERN and the Tevatron to try to find out if it exists. :sarcastic

The difference between science and religion is that science is looking for physical proof of it's ideas, and if it can't be found, they admit it and move on to discover new things.

wa:do

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Nothing to go on about. If you postulate that there was a creator, who or what created the creator?

I am as comfortable with not knowing how the creator came to exist as you are with not knowing how your 'gravity element' works. Gravity is actually a type of force, by the way.

And why, exactly, is that?

because they are not as prevalent.

No, I don't.

yes you do

So, if I say that I have indeed performed the experiments, you will accept that science is right, is that it? Or perhaps you will just move on to a different field of science, knowing fair well that no-one could ever individually confirm for themselves all the knowledge we have accumulated.

That's why you have faith in science.

Scientific facts have been and are being tested and confirmed by many different people in many different ways and if you really want you can confirm them yourself. At least as many as you have time for in this lifetime.

Or you can just have faith in the scientists (priests) that they are not lying to you. When they tell you that atoms exist

Or am I to interpret this to mean that you do not believe in the existence of atoms?

At this point you can go ahead and interpret it anyway you like. I can see you are understanding the evidence I have and am continuing to give.

We have loads of math that isn't even meant to represent observable reality. I'm sure Meow_Mix can enlighten you further on this, or any physicist for that matter. Math is a tool we use to describe reality. But it is not reality and when our equations come up short we know that we need to modify our equations, not blame reality for being wrong.

But then we have maths that is intended to represent observable science and that particular math will tell you, every time, that matter has no mass.

As I'm sure you know the "element" that carries gravity is not yet known, so your whole argument falls flat on something as simple as "we don't know yet". And I have no problem with that. There are many things I do not know, and I am fairly certain there are many things I will never know. I am at peace with that. How about you?

One thing you should know is that gravity is a type of force. Force is different than energy. However, cosmogonically, force is to energy as energy is to force. Another little bit of truth brought to you by religion a few thousand years ago and only reaffirmed by science in the last couple hundred years or so.

So you do believe in atoms!

I have faith in the existence of atoms, if that's what you mean.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

If scientists believed in the Higgs Boson by faith they wouldn't have built CERN and the Tevatron to try to find out if it exists. :sarcastic

well, on one hand you are right. If scientists had faith in the higgs boson they wouldn't waste their time looking for something they knew existed. However, scientists need to find the higgs boson because scientists do not have faith in their own science. Only those that blindly follow what the scientists tell them, which is most of the population, have faith in science and treat it like a religion.

The difference between science and religion is that science is looking for physical proof of it's ideas, and if it can't be found, they admit it and move on to discover new things.

Science, looking for physical proof finds only proof of physical things. While religion does indeed address some physical things, it is by no means the focus of its study. To think that science will ever answer anything other than the physical 'how' is silly in the extreme.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am as comfortable with not knowing how the creator came to exist as you are with not knowing how your 'gravity element' works. Gravity is actually a type of force, by the way.

Well, since gravity is a measurable force in the universe, we know at the very least that it exists.
How do you intend to go about measuring the creator?

because they are not as prevalent.

Ah, so at which point is a superstition prevalent ENOUGH for us to have to start believing in it? Is it by geographical distribution, percentage of the population perhaps, or merely number of people? Because dragons are pretty prevalent...

yes you do

Right. Explain why you think so?

That's why you have faith in science.

Not nearly the same thing. Science is backed up by evidence. Evidence anyone can examine if they feel like it. Religion is backed up by...nothing. Except perhaps delusion. Not to mention the fact that science works, whereas the claims of religion has been refuted time and again.

Or you can just have faith in the scientists (priests) that they are not lying to you. When they tell you that atoms exist

Heh... aren't we of a conspiratorial mind today.
Sorry, but I'm having real problems taking you seriously at this point.

At this point you can go ahead and interpret it anyway you like. I can see you are understanding the evidence I have and am continuing to give.

I most certainly will interpret it any way I like, although I do make a note that you are unwilling to commit to a position. Also, I haven't seen you present any evidence of anything so far.

But then we have maths that is intended to represent observable science and that particular math will tell you, every time, that matter has no mass.

The magical word here is represent.
And as I told you before, if the math doesn't add up with reality, that just means that we are missing something.

One thing you should know is that gravity is a type of force. Force is different than energy. However, cosmogonically, force is to energy as energy is to force.

How enlightening... :sarcastic

Another little bit of truth brought to you by religion a few thousand years ago and only reaffirmed by science in the last couple hundred years or so.

Source?

I have faith in the existence of atoms, if that's what you mean.

Then why were you arguing as if you didn't?

 

[painted wolf]

well, on one hand you are right. If scientists had faith in the higgs boson they wouldn't waste their time looking for something they knew existed. However, scientists need to find the higgs boson because scientists do not have faith in their own science. Only those that blindly follow what the scientists tell them, which is most of the population, have faith in science and treat it like a religion.

Scientists don't have faith in science because it's not religion.. it's science. You can't do science based on faith or subjective personal experience.

Science, looking for physical proof finds only proof of physical things. While religion does indeed address some physical things, it is by no means the focus of its study. To think that science will ever answer anything other than the physical 'how' is silly in the extreme.

Science only addresses the physical because science can only deal with what can be measured. That is all that science focuses on... and makes no claim to answer anything but the "how". I know no one who understands science who claims otherwise.

Which is another reason it isn't like religion at all.

wa:do

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Well, since gravity is a measurable force in the universe, we know at the very least that it exists.
How do you intend to go about measuring the creator?

Well, since every thing in the known universe was created and no thing in the known universe can create itself, we know at the very least there is a creator.

Ah, so at which point is a superstition prevalent ENOUGH for us to have to start believing in it? Is it by geographical distribution, percentage of the population perhaps, or merely number of people? Because dragons are pretty prevalent...

I would not know about superstitions.

Right. Explain why you think so?

First you explain why you think not. You'll have to do more than say, 'nuh uh' if you want to continue this point.

Not nearly the same thing. Science is backed up by evidence. Evidence anyone can examine if they feel like it. Religion is backed up by...nothing. Except perhaps delusion. Not to mention the fact that science works, whereas the claims of religion has been refuted time and again.

I must have missed the time somebody refuted the existence of a creator. It certainly never made it into any mainstream media. Of course, I don't get my information from blogs.

Heh... aren't we of a conspiratorial mind today.
Sorry, but I'm having real problems taking you seriously at this point.

Its okay, I stopped taking most people in this thread seriously a long time ago. Not a lot of thinkers present, just folks trying to maintain the opinions of some scientists they heard or read once without having any real knowledge of what they are talking about. But I used to be that way, so I get a kick out of proving the old me stupid.

I most certainly will interpret it any way I like, although I do make a note that you are unwilling to commit to a position. Also, I haven't seen you present any evidence of anything so far.

You must not have read much of this thread, understandable its really long, but if you just peruse through the last ten pages or so, that's where I jumped in, then you will find my position and all the evidence you will need to attempt to formulate an argument against me.

The magical word here is represent.
And as I told you before, if the math doesn't add up with reality, that just means that we are missing something.

Magic is just science we don't yet understand.

How enlightening... :sarcastic

Thanks I get that a lot.

Source?

You can start with Bereshiyth, but its the same story pretty much anywhere you look.

Then why were you arguing as if you didn't?

I was just demonstrating how our faith in the existence of atoms is no different than everyone else's faith in a creator. faith is faith.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Scientists don't have faith in science because it's not religion.. it's science. You can't do science based on faith or subjective personal experience.

I just got done pointing out how that is wrong. Are you still going to cling to this discredited opinion? No individual escapes faith or subjective personal experience. That does not occur in reality only on Vulcan, and even there they go sex crazy every once in awhile trying to hold all that reality in.

Science only addresses the physical because science can only deal with what can be measured. That is all that science focuses on... and makes no claim to answer anything but the "how". I know no one who understands science who claims otherwise.Which is another reason it isn't like religion at all.

Then why try and use science as the instrument of understanding what is beyond the physical universe? What, you thing the creator is just over on the other side of the galaxy chillin or something?

 

[painted wolf]

We can demonstrate the existence of atoms. We can weigh and measure them and change them through fission and observe them decay.

You can not demonstrate, weigh or measure god... let alone observe god.
Science is not based on faith, but on what has been and can still be repeatedly demonstrated as existing.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I just got done pointing out how that is wrong. Are you still going to cling to this discredited opinion? No individual escapes faith or subjective personal experience. That does not occur in reality only on Vulcan, and even there they go sex crazy every once in awhile trying to hold all that reality in.

Scientific method limits subjectivity and personal experience by insisting on repeatability by several independent researchers. There are no lonely prophets in science.

Then why try and use science as the instrument of understanding what is beyond the physical universe?

I never have... nor do I know any other scientist who has every tried to.

What, you thing the creator is just over on the other side of the galaxy chillin or something?

Nope... my view of creator isn't so fantastical...

wa:do