Evolutionist contradict themselves and debunked-Story of Creation is Biblical Fact

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I would agree with that, that ultimately nothing can exist without purpose, creative intelligence, because that is the only phenomena that can truly create anything, rather than be constrained by an infinite regression of cause and effect

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think the notion that if something exists, it has purpose; the notion that if a thing existed that it must have been created by an intelligent being for a specific purpose; I see this is childish thinking.

 

[metis]

We see events, some constructive, some destructive, happening all the time, so are we to conclude that God is directly responsible for every single one of them down to every minute detail? If a woman has a miscarriage, was God behind that too?
Now don't get me wrong, the above proves nothing in regard to whether there's a God, Gods, or none of the above, so the debate is not over.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But what makes an invisible, magical personage, with no real evidence of his existence, a probable possibility at all? How is this not runaway agent detection?

what makes an invisible, magical automated universe making machine, with no real evidence of it's existence, a probable possibility at all? How is this not runaway naturalism?

It comes back to the fact that we have absolutely zero reference for how universes are 'usually' created, so there is no 'default' assumption v burden of proof, so any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

If a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we have 100% proof of a random card dealing mechanism that is perfectly capable of producing this result, in fact this result is no less probable than any other sequence of 50 cards right? and let's say we have no evidence whatsoever for cheating, (ID), in fact this scenario goes out of it's way to prevent such a thing from ever happening

So compared to the question of cosmogony, this analogy is heavily weighted towards chance and against ID

Yet we both know that cheating is the far better explanation than chance, why?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think the notion that if something exists, it has purpose; the notion that if a thing existed that it must have been created by an intelligent being for a specific purpose; I see this is childish thinking.

A child below a certain age does not recognize purpose, for them everything 'just is' as the universe 'just is' for atheists. They sleep in a bed because it's comfortable, they eat candy because it tastes good, it takes a little more critical thought to realize that these things could only exist by being made with that specific purpose in mind

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the general since of the argument, I do agree, but I don't think this possible creator is necessarily a god. Maybe life was created, maybe the universe is more than just a random event, but just because that is a possibility does not mean the next level, or creator, is a god. But, for all we know, our universe may just be a smaller part of much larger whole. And what if this "creator of life on Earth" is not the creator of the universe? What if our creator is just some "teenaged class clown" that intentionally did something wrong and here we are now?

I also agree with you here in the general sense, there are many possible versions of intelligent design.

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it 'feasible' that we could one day create our own universe, and that we can't rule out the possibility that this is how ours was created also- an experiment in an 'alien universe'

So in some cases even atheists are open to the possibility of ID, and whether or not an intelligent being that created all we see, beginning with 'let there be light' (the photon epoch) is referred to as 'God' or not gets a little semantic.

My money would be on God of the Bible, but that's a matter of personal faith, I am principally a skeptic of naturalism, random chance, I think that is the least likely of many possible scenarios

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So in some cases even atheists are open to the possibility of ID

The thing is, ID has so much religious baggage and because it pretty much is something that Christianity trademarked, even if there were to ever be a scientific movement where many of them do say they support that idea, they too would have to find supporting evidence beyond coincidence, and they would probably use a different name to neutralize the implications of what they are speaking about. It's likely they would go with something that is as generalized as they can get it, such as "Architect," but probably not even that because it has implications of Masonic bias. But because a claim requires evidence, I doubt such a thing is really every a part of science, because it's something that can't be proven or disproven, thus leaving to something in the realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The thing is, ID has so much religious baggage and because it pretty much is something that Christianity trademarked, even if there were to ever be a scientific movement where many of them do say they support that idea, they too would have to find supporting evidence beyond coincidence, and they would probably use a different name to neutralize the implications of what they are speaking about. It's likely they would go with something that is as generalized as they can get it, such as "Architect," but probably not even that because it has implications of Masonic bias. But because a claim requires evidence, I doubt such a thing is really every a part of science, because it's something that can't be proven or disproven, thus leaving to something in the realms of metaphysics and philosophy.

I'd say there very much is a scientific movement, that has been around a long time, it was a Christian Priest, Lemaitre, who discovered that the universe did in fact have a beginning, a creation point, which the majority of academic atheist scientists mocked as religious pseudoscience and 'big bang''. Certainly they saw it as evidence for a creator, that's why they didn't like it.

i.e. ID has always been part of science the method, the evidence, the discovery , 'nature is the executor of God's laws' as Galileo said. but it will never be accepted by naturalists, atheists, etc that often comprise the bulk of science the academic institution. By definition they will always interpret the evidence for their own conclusion, no matter what.

 

[McBell]

what makes an invisible, magical automated universe making machine, with no real evidence of it's existence, a probable possibility at all? How is this not runaway naturalism?

The fact that no one in proposing "an invisible, magical automated universe making machine" except you for your strawman.

It comes back to the fact that we have absolutely zero reference for how universes are 'usually' created, so there is no 'default' assumption v burden of proof, so any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

And though creationism sounds good to the choir, it doe snot stand up to scrutiny outside the choir.

If a gambler plays 10 royal flushes in a row, we have 100% proof of a random card dealing mechanism that is perfectly capable of producing this result, in fact this result is no less probable than any other sequence of 50 cards right? and let's say we have no evidence whatsoever for cheating, (ID), in fact this scenario goes out of it's way to prevent such a thing from ever happening

Huh?

So compared to the question of cosmogony, this analogy is heavily weighted towards chance and against ID

Yet we both know that cheating is the far better explanation than chance, why?

Do we?

 

[McBell]

A child below a certain age does not recognize purpose, for them everything 'just is' as the universe 'just is' for atheists. They sleep in a bed because it's comfortable, they eat candy because it tastes good, it takes a little more critical thought to realize that these things could only exist by being made with that specific purpose in mind

comparing something that you can not show has a purpose to things that were made to have a purpose does not show that the thing you cannot show has a purpose actually has a purpose.

Nice try though.

 

[Demonslayer]

It comes back to the fact that we have absolutely zero reference for how universes are 'usually' created, so there is no 'default' assumption v burden of proof, so any explanation must stand on it's own merits.

Perhaps this is true, but Creationism not only has no merits on which to stand, I would argue it's not even an explanation at all.

"God did it" is not an explanation. Certainly no one would accept "science did it" as a valid explanation, right?

For example, an explanation of evolution is not just "science made evolution." A true explanation would involved a discussion of how genetics and reproduction work in life forms, the nature of genetic mutations, an introduction to the idea that certain genetic traits may give life forms a survival advantage over time, linking these two ideas together to make the observation that over time we see more individual life forms with the genetic advantage surviving, and then probably some known, observable examples of speciation.

I can't just say "science does evolution" and expect anyone to call that an "explanation" at all, so I don't see why "God made the universe" is even considered an explanation, let alone one with any merit.

If you ask a religious person to drill down a little beyond "God did it" to provide an actual explanation of the HOW God did it, it starts getting murky very, very quickly. Allah made mud puppets. Yahweh created "light" days before the stars which are the source of light. Nyx the great black bird laid an egg that became the universe. A flower grew from someone's belly button.

If you don't accept "God did it" as an explanation and ask for a real, acceptable explanation, you get comic book grade nonsense. So before I'm asked to review a Creationist's 'explanation' on merit, I'm going to have to insist on getting a real explanation in the first place.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Perhaps this is true, but Creationism not only has no merits on which to stand, I would argue it's not even an explanation at all.

"God did it" is not an explanation. Certainly no one would accept "science did it" as a valid explanation, right?

For example, an explanation of evolution is not just "science made evolution." A true explanation would involved a discussion of how genetics and reproduction work in life forms, the nature of genetic mutations, an introduction to the idea that certain genetic traits may give life forms a survival advantage over time, linking these two ideas together to make the observation that over time we see more individual life forms with the genetic advantage surviving, and then probably some known, observable examples of speciation.

I can't just say "science does evolution" and expect anyone to call that an "explanation" at all, so I don't see why "God made the universe" is even considered an explanation, let alone one with any merit.

If you ask a religious person to drill down a little beyond "God did it" to provide an actual explanation of the HOW God did it, it starts getting murky very, very quickly. Allah made mud puppets. Yahweh created "light" days before the stars which are the source of light. Nyx the great black bird laid an egg that became the universe. A flower grew from someone's belly button.

If you don't accept "God did it" as an explanation and ask for a real, acceptable explanation, you get comic book grade nonsense. So before I'm asked to review a Creationist's 'explanation' on merit, I'm going to have to insist on getting a real explanation in the first place.

Fair to say as above, we have no slam dunk explanations to account for the origins, design of the universe or life

"chance did it" is a possible explanation, as is "ID"

Most people obviously consider the latter the least improbable explanation, which does not make it so in itself, but it's obviously a subjective debate - that's why we're all here!
again without reference, we cannot rule either out without good cause.

On the details, actual explanations, scientific evidence- well lets see, so far:

Once again
The Bible, as one account of a creator God, predicted a specific beginning, a creation event for the universe
Atheism/naturalism predicted a static, eternal universe (no creation = no creator), steady state, and then 'big crunch' where time would reverse and we'd all literally crawl back into the womb

You tell me, which turned out to be nonsense?

The Bible also as you allude to, even makes a point of identifying 'light' as an early and fundamental foundation of all physical reality

In physical cosmology, the photon epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe in which photons dominated the energy of the universe. The photon epoch started after most leptons and anti-leptons were annihilated at the end of the lepton epoch, about 10 seconds after the Big Bang.


Naturalism/materialism proposed the 'immutable' laws of classical physics accounted entirely for all physical reality, leaving no room for God
The idea of mysterious, inherently unpredictable guiding forces, and specific underlying instructions determining exactly how stars/ solar systems/ galaxies would form- was similarly mocked as religious nonsense

Remind me which was validated scientifically. No coincidence Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism.


So after being forced to continually retreat into the scientific gaps, naturalism/materialism is left with what?

the FSM, The Flying Spaghetti Multiverse.

an invisible, inherently untestable, infinite probability machine that can make absolutely anything, including this universe (oops but NOT God of course!)

I agree with Krauss on this,' if your theory involves an infinite probability machine, it's not clear you even have a theory'

aka. not even an explanation at all

 

[Demonslayer]

predicted a specific beginning,

Predicted? It was written well after 'the beginning." How is that a prediction?

 

[McBell]

Predicted? It was written well after 'the beginning." How is that a prediction?

now now.
No need to confuse with facts....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Predicted? It was written well after 'the beginning." How is that a prediction?

a scientific prediction.

Just as we predicted the existence of frozen water on Mars, well after the water actually first existed there yes?

cmon lets not get mired in semantics already, I think you knew what I meant!

 

[Demonslayer]

a scientific prediction.

Scientific? Please, believe in God all you want but let's not pretend the writers of the Bible engaged the scientific method to "predict" the beginning...something which had quite obviously already occurred since the writers of the Bible were sitting there, existing. Science requires a certain method. Writing down a story is not science.

Your Mars example would be apt if we said we predicted Mars would be there after we saw it. We hadn't seen the water on Mars yet, so you could say that was a prediction.

 

[McBell]

a scientific prediction.

A scientific prediction that the world was created after the event that is "predicted"?

 

[Demonslayer]

You tell me, which turned out to be nonsense?

I don't know, and neither does anyone. We don't yet know the real exact truth behind the 'origin' of our universe, if there is one.

Science has it's current model, which as you point out has changed over time based on emerging evidence/observation. But Big Bang isn't a complete answer, and abiogenesis isn't either.

The main thing I reject about Creationism is that it pretends we have the answer. Scientists are still searching, observing, refining. Creationists say "what's the big mystery, God did it" and then they drop the mic and walk away as if we've been given an answer.

 

[Demonslayer]

A scientific prediction that the world was created after the event that is "predicted"?

I predict that Mestemia will say "A scientific prediction that the world was created after the event that is "predicted"?

Look at me, I'm Nostradumbass!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Scientific? Please, believe in God all you want but let's not pretend the writers of the Bible engaged the scientific method to "predict" the beginning...something which had quite obviously already occurred since the writers of the Bible were sitting there, existing. Science requires a certain method. Writing down a story is not science.

Your Mars example would be apt if we said we predicted Mars would be there after we saw it. We hadn't seen the water on Mars yet, so you could say that was a prediction.

The Bible claimed a specific beginning to the universe, which was scientifically validated beyond most reasonable doubt

atheist scientists proposed multiple variations of static, eternal, steady state models, all explicitly avoiding creation events for their overt theistic implications

All of which have been debunked beyond most reasonable doubt.

No way around this

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I predict that Mestemia will say "A scientific prediction that the world was created after the event that is "predicted"?

Look at me, I'm Nostradumbass!

talk about invisible entities!