Creationists, please provide evidence

[Herman Tripleton]

Only in a completely different sense of the word "faith" than religious faith. I would say that I provisionally accept that consensus because of the confidence that you and I share in the scientific method, confidence that is warranted by historical experience.

You want to argue about how two types of the same thing are different. I am sorry but I do not need any clarity on that topic. Now, If you want to argue about how two types of the same thing are the same, that could be interesting.

No, the subject is innapropriate in this forum. It would belong in general religious debates. Manners, you know.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you either post whatever this alleged subject is, somewhere that we can discuss it, I don't care where, or move on to something more productive?

Yes, I understand that you don't want to acknowledge the several Buddhist sources that make it clear that you're wrong.

By the way you have presented your opinions I suppose I could see how you would perceive it that way.

Moving along to the many indigenous animistic/shamanistic religion that emphasize spirits, rather than a creator God or gods, such as the Okinawan, s well as ancestor worship, such as in ancient China. Neither of these broad groups of indigenous religions focus on a creator. Go back and read again. What is rejected is specifically a creator-God, the world having been created, or that "a God created everything." Unless you're asserting that Buddhism holds that something other than a God created everything? If so, what?

You are going to have to be more specific that that. Ancestor worship does not negate a creation myth and all creation myths have a creator, Even the Ryukyu.

Creator is not the same creator-god, nor god. We cannot apply our own definitions to these terms. We have to work with the definitions found in the various scriptures themselves.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

So, a little tip. You may want to familiarize yourself with the forum before making assumptions and trying to impose them on the community, lest you make a fool of yourself. In this forum--Evolution vs. Creationism, the word "creationism" refers to specific psuedo-scientific views that God created living creatures (or sometimes, the entire universe) magically, in a way different from current scientific thinking. The most popular version is Genesis-based Young Earth Creationism, but occasionally we get a Muslim, an Old Earth Creationist, or even an ID proponent, all of them equally anti-scientific. Discussions about theism vs. atheism take place in General Religious debates.

Being an atheist does not mean that one has to deny a creator. A true atheist, as far as I am concerned, is merely one who refuses to accept any theist's argument as to the nature of the creator.

There is no difficulty with a creator in evolution. Evolution does not speak to creation, merely to what occurs to things after they are created. Creationism, in its most broadest sense, and perhaps its most purest, does not speak to how things evolve, merely how things came to be in the first place.

If we want to understand creation, we cannot measure it with evolution. And if we want to understand evolution we cannot measure it with creation. What we can understand is that both creation and evolution follow the same inherent patterns that we find in every thing and for which we create wonderful and elegant equations to express their meaning and further develop our own understanding. Science was created by religion which was created by science which was created by religion, on and on, they are intrinsically connected and it is only when we get bogged down in trying to adapt both outdated sciences and religions that we reach the type of hurdle that we seem to be facing here.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

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

"If a thing is created then ...

...it exists
...what created it will have already existed
...it was created by some thing else
...it will resemble that which created it
...it can be defined
...it is capable of creating".

I am sure I can think of more.

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.

I'm down with glowing trees as long as they don't give me radiation poisoning.

 

[PolyHedral]

It's just a shame evolutionary computation is about probabilities and not real science.

Blondie24 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution can beat the single best checkers algorithm ever, and can almost certainly beat any human. No probability involved.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Ok! I am neither an evolutionists nor a creationist. I am fairly new to examining both arguements an from what I have gathered there seems to be no "positive" evidence for either. Can someone please direct me to a site or other ways of coming to a decision on these matters?

I recommend reading Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth" which deals with the evidence for Evolution. It's a beautiful read and quite accessible for the layman.

Amazon.com: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (9781416594789): Richard Dawkins: Books

 

[newhope101]

Yeah well computers send bills to dead people also so in other ways they are not so smart and rely on the genius operating them.

You may deflect as much as you like and a probability will remain a probablilty. The result will never amount to certainty. All the algorithms look pretty wiz bang...too bad they can't produce facts. eg 3+2=5 (fact),

(fact),
Fixation index (probability), genetic distance (probability). A fact will never change and does not use undefined or probable quantities as substitution rates. It's just the way it is!


Wiki: Main article: Probability interpretations



The word probability does not have a consistent direct definition. In fact, there are two broad categories of probability interpretations, whose adherents possess different (and sometimes conflicting) views about the fundamental nature of probability:

1. Frequentists talk about probabilities only when dealing with experiments that are random and well-defined. The probability of a random event denotes the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment's outcome, when repeating the experiment. Frequentists consider probability to be the relative frequency "in the long run" of outcomes.[1]
2. Bayesians, however, assign probabilities to any statement whatsoever, even when no random process is involved. Probability, for a Bayesian, is a way to represent an individual's degree of belief in a statement, or an objective degree of rational belief, given the evidence.

 

[PolyHedral]

Yeah well computers send bills to dead people also so in other ways they are not so smart and rely on the genius operating them.

And thus you show you haven't read the article I linked. It explicitly states that "its ability to play checkers did not rely on any human expertise of the game, rather, it came solely from the total points earned by each player and the evolutionary process itself. The evolving players did not even know which individual games ended in a win, loss, or draw."

I read the book he ended up writing, and around halfway, they try playing the machine. They lose. There is no genius operating this machine. Its wins are entirely its own. This is quite impossible if evolution doesn't work.

You may deflect as much as you like and a probability will remain a probablilty. The result will never amount to certainty. All the algorithms look pretty wiz bang...too bad they can't produce facts. eg 3+2=5 (fact),

(fact),

I could, if I really wanted to, ask my computer to iterate every mathematically true statement, one after the other. However, since I would need a universe-sized computer to get anywhere useful, I will instead give you this link. Notice the section headed "solutions." If that is not a fact, what is? You will also notice a distinct lack of any uncertainty in Wolfram's answer. It knows this to be correct, just as certainly as you know 2+3=5

 

[jarofthoughts]

It is strange to me that you cannot understand that all things are created... [Deleted a lot of stuff that did not in any way address the arguments made].

Is that your attempt at writing a hypothesis, or would you like to dodge the question some more?

 

[evolved yet?]

Ok! I am neither an evolutionists nor a creationist. I am fairly new to examining both arguements an from what I have gathered there seems to be no "positive" evidence for either. Can someone please direct me to a site or other ways of coming to a decision on these matters?

I would recommend looking through this thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/101633-evolution-evidence-redux.html

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I don't care what the ToE says, I still think I create the universe.

 

[Gunfingers]

...it exists
...what created it will have already existed
...it was created by some thing else
...it will resemble that which created it
...it can be defined
...it is capable of creating".

I guess this is my fault, i should have been more specific. "If something were created rather than arose through natural processes it would have these properties..."

Remember that step two in this process is testing, so i dunno how you plan on testing whether it resembles its creator.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

Is that your attempt at writing a hypothesis, or would you like to dodge the question some more?

No, just trying to help you understand basic reality.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

I guess this is my fault, i should have been more specific. "If something were created rather than arose through natural processes it would have these properties..."

Remember that step two in this process is testing, so i dunno how you plan on testing whether it resembles its creator.

I am not sure how you separate creation and natural processes. Please explain the difference.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Ok! I am neither an evolutionists nor a creationist. I am fairly new to examining both arguements an from what I have gathered there seems to be no "positive" evidence for either. Can someone please direct me to a site or other ways of coming to a decision on these matters?

Hey Created Madness,

Try these

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

-Q

 

[jarofthoughts]

No, just trying to help you understand basic reality.

So, when you're done dodging the question, is there any chance we could see that hypothesis perhaps?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I am not sure how you separate creation and natural processes. Please explain the difference.

Don't act as if you're unaware of what this tread is about.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

The capitals are an expression of exasperation. I am still absolutely dumbfounded when theists start whining when people start asking for proof of the things they are saying.

I hear you there.

Once again sorry i misinterpreted your posts.

No problem.

 

[Gunfingers]

I am not sure how you separate creation and natural processes. Please explain the difference.

"Creation" varies from one person to another in the specifics, but is generally some variation of a "magic poofing". That is, some creator more-or-less says "abra cadabra" and magics the universe into being.

However i could be misunderstanding your statement. You may be trying to tell me that there's no way you're aware of to distinguish a created universe from a universe that arose through the cosmological principles currently theorized by most physicists. If that's the case, then creation has no predictive power and thus no scientific value. It's like saying "maybe the whole universe is The Matrix". It's interesting to think about, but because our lives work the same exact way whether it's true or not there's no reason to build a hypothesis around it.

 

[DarkSun]

It's just a shame evolutionary computation is about probabilities and not real science.

What on Earth do you think real science is?

Yeah well computers send bills to dead people also so in other ways they are not so smart and rely on the genius operating them.

You may deflect as much as you like and a probability will remain a probablilty. The result will never amount to certainty. All the algorithms look pretty wiz bang...too bad they can't produce facts. eg 3+2=5 (fact),

(fact),
Fixation index (probability), genetic distance (probability). A fact will never change and does not use undefined or probable quantities as substitution rates. It's just the way it is!


Wiki: Main article: Probability interpretations



The word probability does not have a consistent direct definition. In fact, there are two broad categories of probability interpretations, whose adherents possess different (and sometimes conflicting) views about the fundamental nature of probability:

1. Frequentists talk about probabilities only when dealing with experiments that are random and well-defined. The probability of a random event denotes the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment's outcome, when repeating the experiment. Frequentists consider probability to be the relative frequency "in the long run" of outcomes.[1]
2. Bayesians, however, assign probabilities to any statement whatsoever, even when no random process is involved. Probability, for a Bayesian, is a way to represent an individual's degree of belief in a statement, or an objective degree of rational belief, given the evidence.

Everything is a probability. Nothing is certain. Some things are just more probable than others, and that is the only fact there really is.

 

[aggamon]

I think creation is merely the fair tale of those who do not like to observe and investigate everything.