Creationists, please provide evidence

[Autodidact]

Herman: Your argument rests on this premise: Every thing was created. Accepted.
It is not accepted. It is, in fact, what we are trying to figure out. It's circular. You first need to demonstrate that everything was created. You may begin any time.

 

[Wotan]

Herman: Your argument rests on this premise: Every thing was created. Accepted.
It is not accepted. It is, in fact, what we are trying to figure out. It's circular. You first need to demonstrate that everything was created. You may begin any time.

It would also be useful if we had a HT approved definition of "created." And how one would distinguish a created object from an Uncreated one. But of course if EVERYTHING was created than NOTHING was. Simply because it would not be possible to determine a created object. The word losses all meaning.

And maybe that WAS the point?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

That's very lovely.

Still no proof/evidence of god though.

-Q

 

[Gunfingers]

As i always do, i'm going to propose a scientific way to figure out Herman's "everything is created" view.

Science starts with a hypothesis. In this case: everything is created.

This hypothesis then needs to make a prediction. "If an object is created then ____". Finish the sentence and you have a prediction. If there is no prediction then the hypothesis is unverifiable and therefore irrelevant. Basically, if the universe is the same whether it was created or not, then who cares whether it was created or not?

If Herman can come up with a prediction we can find a way to test it. Either the prediction will be wholly false and can be discarded, imperfect in which case we can refine it and subject it to further testing, or correct, in which case we have an unknown creative power.

With no other information, i will be forced to assume that the creative power is J.R.R. Tolkien's all-father. I will host readings of The Silmarillion and we will begin attempting to genetically engineer glowing trees, to better honor Illuvatar and his Valar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What matter was not created? what living biological systems? and forces are not things. Things are formed of nature which is all energy.

All matter cannot be created nor destroyed, therefore all matter was not created. Living systems work the same way - they were not "created", they were formed through natural processes and replicate without inherent design. And yes, forces are things.

You are welcome to disagree, but can you explain why or how? What would be an example of a thing that was not necessarily created?

I've already named several things which our current understanding dictates are not created.

That is a convenient excuse but I am asking if you, specifically, can articulate a reason why?

Because the burden of proof is on you. Before you tell us to explain why you are wrong, you must first demonstrate some kind of evidence that you are correct. If you cannot, then there is nothing to disprove.

Thats not a very good example, because I could just come to your house and see for myself if your cat had wings.

But, in all likelihood, you would not do that. Therefore you could not prove that my cat does not have wings. In much the same way, you're making the claim that everything is created. Somebody could easily prove this assertion false, but you are not in a position open to the possibility of accepting that information.

Just as I could come to your house and see for myself if you had a thing that was not created. Where your analogy fails is that you can go anywhere you like, ask anyone you like, research the compendium of human knowledge on the known things in the universe and find that there is no known thing that was not created. Which necessarily means that all known things were created, moreover, it means that you cannot provide an example of any thing that was not created. So why are you drawing this out?

This is nothing more than an assumption. I've already asked you to demonstrate that everything was created. Can you do that or not?

Done and done ten times over. Whether you choose to realize it or not.

No, you haven't. Now, demonstrate that everything was created.

I am not demanding that you prove me wrong, I am just asking to rationally articulate why you think I am wrong. I do not know how one could think that there is any thing that was not created and I just want you to explain how you do.

Because there are things that are not inherently "created". Things can, have and do form through natural non-intelligent means without inherent design. Therefore, we can conclude that you are wrong.

What's more, you are wrong since your entire rationale is based on a logical fallacy - it's a circular argument without any rational basis, therefore we can conclude that your argument is not worth disputing since it has no merit.

 

[Danmac]

As i always do, i'm going to propose a scientific way to figure out Herman's "everything is created" view.

Science starts with a hypothesis. In this case: everything is created.

He may not be able to use science to prove everything was created, but you cannot disprove it with science. So all you have is assumptions correct?

 

[Danmac]

For the purposes of this debate, I am taking a neutral stance. I am not claiming that everything is created. Nor am I claiming that nothing is created.

I am making no claim of my own.

I think the fact that you are an atheist implies that you have taken a stance, unless you are an agnostic.

 

[Tristesse]

He may not be able to use science to prove everything was created, but you cannot disprove it with science. So all you have is assumptions correct?

It's no ones job to disprove a claim that someone else makes. It's the job of the claimant to provide evidence for his claim. By your reasoning we also can't disprove fairies, but does that mean one is justified in believing in fairies just because we can't disprove them? The answer is no, and the same answer applies to anything we don't have evidence for.

 

[Tristesse]

I think the fact that you are an atheist implies that you have taken a stance, unless you are an agnostic.

Yes, the stance is, "I don't believe you, please provide evidence."

 

[Autodidact]

He may not be able to use science to prove everything was created, but you cannot disprove it with science. So all you have is assumptions correct?

Is science the only way in the world to figure something out?

 

[Autodidact]

I think the fact that you are an atheist implies that you have taken a stance, unless you are an agnostic.

For the purposes of this debate
(emphasis added)

 

[The_Evelyonian]

For the purposes of this debate, I am taking a neutral stance. I am not claiming that everything is created. Nor am I claiming that nothing is created.

I am making no claim of my own.

I think the fact that you are an atheist implies that you have taken a stance, unless you are an agnostic.

For the purposes of this debate
(emphasis added)

What Auto said...

 

[jarofthoughts]

I think the fact that you are an atheist implies that you have taken a stance, unless you are an agnostic.

Read this:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/resources/102356-agnostic-vs-atheist.html

 

[jarofthoughts]

He may not be able to use science to prove everything was created, but you cannot disprove it with science. So all you have is assumptions correct?

Logic 101: The one making the claim is the one who has to back that claim up. Not the other way around. Also, anything that is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Logic 101: The one making the claim is the one who has to back that claim up. Not the other way around. Also, anything that is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, in this statement:

Yes, the stance is, "I don't believe you, please provide evidence."

One is claiming that evidence will make something believable, correct? And, if one sets standards on said 'evidence', one is also claiming that those standards are at the very least an efficient, and accurate method to determine something (be it physical properties, outcomes of interactions and so on).

So really, what you are saying is: You've given me what you think is 'evidence'. I've looked at it, and I've looked at other methods of evaluating your evidence, and have found that your 'evidence' is not sufficient for me. Please provide more sufficient evidence, preferably evidence that is similar to such and such.'

Make sense?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

There has been no evidence presented in this thread.

Sure there's been plenty of evolution bashing.

Sure there's been lots of supposedly "logical" arguments.

But still no evidence.

-Q

 

[jarofthoughts]

One is claiming that evidence will make something believable, correct? And, if one sets standards on said 'evidence', one is also claiming that those standards are at the very least an efficient, and accurate method to determine something (be it physical properties, outcomes of interactions and so on).

So really, what you are saying is: You've given me what you think is 'evidence'. I've looked at it, and I've looked at other methods of evaluating your evidence, and have found that your 'evidence' is not sufficient for me. Please provide more sufficient evidence, preferably evidence that is similar to such and such.'

Make sense?

That seems about right, yes.

In this tread though, we have yet to achieve the level of hypothesis. Evidence is only useful once you have a hypothesis of some kind. And so far, despite many requests and even posts outlining exactly what a hypothesis is, the Creationists have come up empty on that account, which is a shame, because if they did, THEN we might start examining the available evidence for or against said hypothesis.

Both the hypothesis and the evidence in question would of course have to live up to what we consider scientific standards to be accepted. This seems reasonable since what they are attacking, the Theory of Evolution, is held to exactly those standards.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That seems about right, yes.

In this tread though, we have yet to achieve the level of hypothesis. Evidence is only useful once you have a hypothesis of some kind. And so far, despite many requests and even posts outlining exactly what a hypothesis is, the Creationists have come up empty on that account, which is a shame, because if they did, THEN we might start examining the available evidence for or against said hypothesis.

Both the hypothesis and the evidence in question would of course have to live up to what we consider scientific standards to be accepted. This seems reasonable since what they are attacking, the Theory of Evolution, is held to exactly those standards.

I never said there was a hypothesis. But really, I don't know why anyone would bother making a different hypothesis when the Theory of Evolution is already supported so thoroughly.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I never said there was a hypothesis. But really, I don't know why anyone would bother making a different hypothesis when the Theory of Evolution is already supported so thoroughly.

We don't either, but this tread was an attempt to let the Creationists have their say and provide positive evidence for their view instead of just trying (and failing) to bash Evolution all the time. Alas, it seems this was not to be.

 

[Autodidact]

That seems about right, yes.

In this tread though, we have yet to achieve the level of hypothesis. Evidence is only useful once you have a hypothesis of some kind. And so far, despite many requests and even posts outlining exactly what a hypothesis is, the Creationists have come up empty on that account, which is a shame, because if they did, THEN we might start examining the available evidence for or against said hypothesis.

Both the hypothesis and the evidence in question would of course have to live up to what we consider scientific standards to be accepted. This seems reasonable since what they are attacking, the Theory of Evolution, is held to exactly those standards.

No, I think we finally got the initial outline of a hypothesis 20 or 30 pages ago. God magically poofed two of each kind into existence all over the world a really long time ago, then gathered them onto a boat around 6000 years ago, IIRC. It's been so long.