Creationists, please provide evidence

[Herman Tripleton]

So, when you're done dodging the question, is there any chance we could see that hypothesis perhaps? Don't act as if you're unaware of what this tread is about. Don't act as if you're unaware of what this tread is about.

"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.

Magic is just science that we do not yet understand.

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.

What I am saying is that the cosmological principles currently theorized by most physicists clearly demonstrate that all things in the known universe are created from some thing else that already existed.

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.

(please, if you have a personal hangup with the word created, I have already posted dozens of synonyms that I am completely fine with substituting)
The assertion that all things are created is a basic fact of reality . Just as the assertion that all poodles are dogs is a basic fact of reality. There is not need to justify a fact until the antithesis can be evidenced. If one example of a thing that was not created by another thing can be shown then, absolutely, would a justification be required. However, when every thing in the known universe can clearly be demonstrated to have been created by another thing that already existed then it is time to move on and go from there.

Every thing was created. Accepted.

Did any of the created things in the known universe created themselves?

No, although some are thought to spontaneously occur as if by magic, yet we already accept that magic is merely since we do not yet understand.

So, all things in the known universe are created and no thing creates itself.

Then, the question arises, did the universe create all things?

Well, the universe is certainly from where all things are created. Every thing in the universe is made from some portion of the universe. Now do these portions make up the totality of the universe? Certainly not. What we know of the known universe is fractional. Using controlled collisions science can create new and foreign elements that only come into existence for single moments. But if we can create them here, then it is most likely that they occur naturally somewhere in the universe. There is much we do not understand, but what we continue to find out is that every thing in the known universe including the universe itself obeys certain laws of science. Immutable laws. By accepting that our science has knowledge of a few of the fundamental laws, which are in most likelihood just subsets of one Law of Nature, we can also accept that the universe itself was most likely created in the same fashion that all things within the universe are created.

If all things within the universe, including the universe itself, were created, then some other thing that is both superior and beyond the universe must have created the universe.

Ultimately, the question arises, what was that "thing"? That thing cannot be demonstrated with science because science can only deal with what is within the universe. Fortunately, the intellect is not limited by science. The intellect is capable of taking the science of the universe and extrapolating the sequence beyond. Every thing obeys pure science, the Law of Nature. Yet this Law is as intangible as anything we imagine beyond the universe. We can observe how the Law is demonstrated, but the demonstration is not the Law itself.

The Law is substantial, it never changes. But every thing, no matter how long it maintains its existence always changes. No thing is substantial, no matter how real it may appear. If no thing is substantial but that which is intangible is substantial or real then what does that say about the meaningfulness of any of our science?

I went off on a tangent there but hopefully you are picking up what I am putting down.

 

[PolyHedral]

What I am saying is that the cosmological principles currently theorized by most physicists clearly demonstrate that all things in the known universe are created from some thing else that already existed.

No they don't. Quantum mechanics lets you pull very small amounts of matter from literally nowhere, and there are theories out there that tell us that universe always existed.

 

[newhope101]

What on Earth do you think real science is?



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

That is an uneducated statement. Note the equations below have quantifiable amounts that lead to facts. Yes physics uses probability in relation to predicting the unknown however equations that relate to the here and now like circumference, gravitation and velocity do not use unknown quantities, are facts and do not change. Unlike evolutionary algorithims that use substitution rates gained by probability theories and computations that change. That's why the equation for a circumference always works and stays the same but genomic modellng does not.

FACTS:

PROBABLE:

 

[PolyHedral]

That is an uneducated statement. Note the equations below have quantifiable amounts that lead to facts. Yes physics uses probability in relation to predicting the unknown however equations that relate to the here and now like circumference, gravitation and velocity do not use unknown quantities, are facts and do not change. Unlike evolutionary algorithims that use substitution rates gained by probability theories and computations that change. That's why the equation for a circumference always works and stays the same but genomic modellng does not.

But evolutionary algorithms produce certain, repeatable results. Blondie will beat you at checkers, if you were to play it.

And the equation for circumference always works because it is pure mathematics, and true by definition. The equation for force almost always works because your instruments aren't perfect. What we consider "facts" have a very small but present uncertainty. Evolution is as certain as gravity, in that it is not irrefutable, but guaranteed for all intents and purposes.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

No they don't. Quantum mechanics lets you pull very small amounts of matter from literally nowhere, and there are theories out there that tell us that universe always existed.

"theorized by most physicists"
Not every crack-pot theory that a single scientist may hold.

 

[PolyHedral]

Quantum mechanics is accepted by any physicist worth the qualification.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What I am saying is that the cosmological principles currently theorized by most physicists clearly demonstrate that all things in the known universe are created from some thing else that already existed.

How exactly can you "demonstrate" that everything in the known Universe was created from something else that already existed?

You seem be to confusing your terms pretty badly here. No such thing has ever (or likely could ever) be demonstrable.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

How exactly can you "demonstrate" that everything in the known Universe was created from something else that already existed?

You seem be to confusing your terms pretty badly here. No such thing has ever (or likely could ever) be demonstrable.

Demonstrated a dozen times already in this thread, having to explain basic reality does get tiresome you know. I find it quite strange that there are people in this day and age who are so strongly opposed to religion and yet still so unaware of the very reality they inhabit, I would think that the people that covet science so much would be a little more aware of its teachings.

Go ahead and look for yourself back through the thread and when you are ready to move past basic reality let me know.

 

[PolyHedral]

You can't demonstrate everything was created unless you say that something not being created is impossible, which is obviously false. That's how evidence works.

 

[Herman Tripleton]

You can't demonstrate everything was created unless you say that something not being created is impossible, which is obviously false. That's how evidence works.

That's a little redundant don't you think? Not to mention illogical.

You say that somewhere in the universe, unbeknownst to mankind, there may be a thing that was not created, therefore we cannot say that all things are created? That's not how logic works. We say that all poodles are dogs and accept it, while in fact, there very well may be a poodle somewhere in the universe that is not a dog.

You cannot bend science to fit your desires.

 

[Tristesse]

That's a little redundant don't you think? Not to mention illogical.

You say that somewhere in the universe, unbeknownst to mankind, there may be a thing that was not created, therefore we cannot say that all things are created? That's not how logic works. We say that all poodles are dogs and accept it, while in fact, there very well may be a poodle somewhere in the universe that is not a dog.

You cannot bend science to fit your desires.

What characteristics would something that isn't designed have?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

"theorized by most physicists"
Not every crack-pot theory that a single scientist may hold.

I'm sorry, but I had to chuckle at this. It is true, quantum mechanics allows you to pull matter (energy) from nowhere, as long as it exists for a very short amount of time (very short). I'm a second year college student and I know that. Quantum mechanics is accepted. Period. No ifs ands or buts.
The theories that postulate the universe always existed aren't, at least to my knowledge, but the theory that our universe came from nothing (zero energy) is well known, and accepted by scientists.

 

[Gunfingers]

That's a little redundant don't you think? Not to mention illogical.

You say that somewhere in the universe, unbeknownst to mankind, there may be a thing that was not created, therefore we cannot say that all things are created? That's not how logic works. We say that all poodles are dogs and accept it, while in fact, there very well may be a poodle somewhere in the universe that is not a dog.

You cannot bend science to fit your desires.

No, it's like this:

In order to demonstrate that something was created you'd have to be able to show how it can be differentiated from something that is not created. Because you deny the possibility that anything is not created you also in effect deny the possibility of finding a way to differentiate created from un-created. Thus by extension you deny the existence of any way to prove anything is created.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Demonstrated a dozen times already in this thread, having to explain basic reality does get tiresome you know. I find it quite strange that there are people in this day and age who are so strongly opposed to religion and yet still so unaware of the very reality they inhabit, I would think that the people that covet science so much would be a little more aware of its teachings.

Go ahead and look for yourself back through the thread and when you are ready to move past basic reality let me know.

Rather than patronize me, perhaps you'd care to explain what scientifically viable and objectively verifiable means we have for demonstrating that everything in existence was specifically created?

 

[yodh]

You like to attack evolution but I have never heard positive evidence for your beliefs please provide some.

***Why Some Scientists Believe in God ***

http://www.watchtower.org/e/20040622/article_02.htm

 

[PolyHedral]

Interestingly, there were a few studies out recently that suggest that the laws of physics change.

 

[Youtellme]

I'll get killed for this...I haven't read every reply in this thread so I don't know if someone has mentioned it yet, but I'm religious and believe in evolution to a certain degree, in that change over time happens. (I have grey hair where there once was none!)
However, has anyone so far in this thread tackled the subject of how life evolved from non-life in the first place? Wouldn't that process have to involve evolution?
I know, it's off topic and this isn't about abiogenesis per say but I think that it's a valid point. Surely that is what happend in the fist place, life came from non life and then everything evolved from there on. But how, and perhaps, by whom did life start? Isn't that the foundation on which the teaching of evolution is based? Without a first cause, sorry if that term offends, evolution cannot take place.

 

[Gunfingers]

I'll get killed for this...I haven't read every reply in this thread so I don't know if someone has mentioned it yet, but I'm religious and believe in evolution to a certain degree, in that change over time happens. (I have grey hair where there once was none!)
However, has anyone so far in this thread tackled the subject of how life evolved from non-life in the first place? Wouldn't that process have to involve evolution?
I know, it's off topic and this isn't about abiogenesis per say but I think that it's a valid point. Surely that is what happend in the fist place, life came from non life and then everything evolved from there on. But how, and perhaps, by whom did life start? Isn't that the foundation on which the teaching of evolution is based? Without a first cause, sorry if that term offends, evolution cannot take place.

Don't worry, we're not gonna kill you. We have, however, thoroughly killed the topic of abiogenesis. The reader's digest version:
1) The purpose of this thread is to provide evidence of creationism, not to attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory, which makes this the wrong thread for such an idea.
2) Evolution explains the diversity in life, not the origin of life. Evolutionary theory starts with organisms that reproduce genetically, so where they came from is not covered by that theory. If it turned out that Zeus reached into the primordial soup and made love at an amino acid to create the first life evolution would not be affected.
3) I'm not sure if your example was in jest or not, but developing grey hair is not an example of evolution in the biological sense. Individual organisms never evolve, rather it is a trend among populations. The tendency to grey is an inherited trait, however.

 

[painted wolf]

Like Gunfingers said... evolution only works once you have inheritance.
How the actual molecule of inheritance formed is up to chemistry.

Once those molecules start making copies of themselves you get evolution.

wa:do

 

[Julian_22]

You're question is the same as asking someone what the weather is like on the moon... oh wait, science can answer that too... let me quote a creationist i heard on the show "The atheist experience" which you can watch on youtube and is very amusing; "I think creationism is pretty obvious" DONE DEAL!