For creationists: Show evidences for creation of man

[Audie]

Who says God has nothing to do with the study of science?

Is there a universal master controller somewhere that decrees that God cannot be considered when practicing science ?

There are hundreds maybe more of well qualified scientists who believe that the natural evidence leads to intelligent design of everything. They use science, and it leads them to God

They are rebels to the great controller, if he exists, and they reject his dogma.

Other than shunning and harassment, is there any other penalty for rejecting the dogma ?

Of course God can be considered as a possibility, just as all the unknowable processes and theories the dogmatists accept as possibilities.

No doubt this is so.

But

Something else that is so: they are without data to show that it is anything but an opinion. Based on religious conviction, at that.

I'd guess that all prove to be as intellectually dishonest
as the famed Dr K Wise, YEC paleontologist, who is
famously quoted saying that if all the evidence turned
against yec, he would still be a yec because
that is what the bible seems to indicate. (emphasis added)

What intellectually honest people do is shun all dogma,
and, of course, opinion-as-fact. A culture of doubt,
of show-me. Show some sign of "god", some way to figure
it in, fine. Same with Batboy or flying saucers.

For the religious, faith despite all is a highest virtue.

 

[Audie]

Then how would you bring God into any equation?

By the way, there is no "atheistic science" not is there any " creation science ", there is only science. And many of the so called "creation scientists" have sworn not to use the scientific method. That means calling them any sort of scientist is a misnomer.

"Creation science" is what we calls a oxymoron.

 

[shmogie]

No doubt this is so.

But

Something else that is so: they are without data to show that it is anything but an opinion. Based on religious conviction, at that.

I'd guess that all prove to be as intellectually dishonest
as the famed Dr K Wise, YEC paleontologist, who is
famously quoted saying that if all the evidence turned
against yec, he would still be a yec because
that is what the bible seems to indicate. (emphasis added)

What intellectually honest people do is shun all dogma,
and, of course, opinion-as-fact. A culture of doubt,
of show-me. Show some sign of "god", some way to figure
it in, fine. Same with Batboy or flying saucers.

For the religious, faith despite all is a highest virtue.

I see. Hmmm. So then thge big bng isn't fact, or a theory, it is an opinion, as is abiogenisis and some other theory';s,. OK. Lets apply that standard equally then and I will agree with you. Any belief n an unknown untestable process or dea is an opinion. We agree now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. Hmmm. So then thge big bng isn't fact, or a theory, it is an opinion, as is abiogenisis and some other theory';s,. OK. Lets apply that standard equally then and I will agree with you. Any belief n an unknown untestable process or dea is an opinion. We agree now.

Where did that come from?

Remember, just because you do not understand the evidence does not mean that it does not exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I live with, among, practically sleep with no one other than christians. I have yet to me any christian who does not understand the idea of science apart from god. They know their beliefs, connections, and boundaries. I think youre the only I speak with that doesnt recognize the two trains of thought.

Who says God has nothing to do with the study of science?

The study of the natural world (what info, data, testings people use) has nothing to do with god. Christian scientist who come together to talk about the theory of pluto does not put god in their equations no more than a psychistrist does when perscribing medications.

You honestly cant tell the difference?

Is there a universal master controller somewhere that decrees that God cannot be considered when practicing science ?

Not for the study of the natural world, no. Beliefs do not hold place to study the natural world. People do it but its not called science (western definition).

If a christian scientist tries to find out if life is on mars, how would god play into his estimates, data, and tests?

There are hundreds maybe more of well qualified scientists who believe that the natural evidence leads to intelligent design of everythi

The diffence, now you finally "get it" (no atheist science): they dont use their beliefs to study the natural world.

They are rebels to the great controller, if he exists, and they reject his dogma.

How so?????

How can you reject something that doesnt exist?

Thats like handing you an invisible pencil, you see none, and tell you, you reject its existence. Does that make any sense to you at all??

The pencil not god

Other than shunning and harassment, is there any other penalty for rejecting the dogma ?

No. I reject Vishnu; but the only penalty, if there is one, is in the Hindu belief. The penalty is in the eyes of the believer. The rest of us have better things to do than accuse people of rejecting our belief system.

Of course God can be considered as a possibility, just as all the unknowable processes and t

Could. In the study of the natural world, god isnt.

Do you honestly not understand what study of the natural world means apart from god being in the equation???

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is a HUGE difference between a "creation scientist" and a " evolutionary biologist ". Every creation scientist that I am aware of has sworn not to use the scientific method. When one works at a creationist site one is usually required to sign a Statement of Faith where a literal interpretation of the Bible is taken to be correct no matter what. That means if evidence goes against that biblical view that evidence is wrong. Since science is evidence based that is an oath not to use the scientific method. Now you will not find an evolutionary biologist that thinks evolution did not happen, but they have not sworn an oath stating that evolution is right no matter what and they would change their minds if the evidence told them they that they were wrong. They follow the scientific method.

 

[Polymath257]

God created man. Period. I hope that is clear

We understand that is your claim. But you have given no reason to think that claim is true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@shmogie

Let me make it simplier?

When a doctor perscribes medication, where does god play into the medicine's ability to cure?

If an astrologist is figuring out the order of the planets and their distance from the sun, where is god in their equation?

(Edit) What can we use from the bible about god that scientists do not have today so we can solve equations not yet known during the BC era?

Which god should scientist use if they incorporate it into their tests; why one god over another...

On that note, what is the purpose of the christian god in science when christianity is about faith in christ not validity of, say, pluto's existence?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I see. Hmmm. So then thge big bng isn't fact, or a theory, it is an opinion, as is abiogenisis and some other theory';s,. OK. Lets apply that standard equally then and I will agree with you. Any belief n an unknown untestable process or dea is an opinion. We agree now.

Are you saying that the creation of man, as proposed by creationists, is not testable and is not scientific?

 

[Polymath257]

Tell me, how can you believe in the alleged singularity, it was outside the universe and totally untestravle.

You have FAITH that it existed because if your dogmatic interpretation of the evidence.

The 'singularity' is something that only exists in those theories where time begins at some point. For example, in General Relativity, time cannot be extended infinitely far backwards and the singularity is simply a description of that fact. it is not a 'thing', but rather a failure of our systems. On the other hand, most quantum versions of gravity do NOT have a singularity. That GR singularity gets 'smoothed out' by quantum effects and time can be extended farther back.

he Bible says God instantly created the universe, you say something of infinite energy and density the size of the period at the end of this sentence or much smaller created the universe. You can't test that any more than God can be tested.

When, precisely, have I said that?

So, why one over the other ? I have faith in one possibility,you the other., I have thoroughly considered where you place your faith, can you say the same for where I place mine ?

At this point, we only have evidence back into the period of inflation (and it is weak even there). The speculations we have for quantum gravity, which is what is required to deal with the Planck time scale. are just that: speculations. But those speculations do NOT agree with your characterizations. And given the limitation of making QM and GR consistent, any merger of the two has to be taken at least somewhat seriously.

But, if you have a more testable theory, or an alternative that actually merges QM and GR, please let someone know.

 

[shmogie]

The 'singularity' is something that only exists in those theories where time begins at some point. For example, in General Relativity, time cannot be extended infinitely far backwards and the singularity is simply a description of that fact. it is not a 'thing', but rather a failure of our systems. On the other hand, most quantum versions of gravity do NOT have a singularity. That GR singularity gets 'smoothed out' by quantum effects and time can be extended farther back.



When, precisely, have I said that?



At this point, we only have evidence back into the period of inflation (and it is weak even there). The speculations we have for quantum gravity, which is what is required to deal with the Planck time scale. are just that: speculations. But those speculations do NOT agree with your characterizations. And given the limitation of making QM and GR consistent, any merger of the two has to be taken at least somewhat seriously.

But, if you have a more testable theory, or an alternative that actually merges QM and GR, please let someone know.

Well then, show me where my charterizations are in error, specifically. I said that mathematics and physical laws can only go so far back into the Planck epoch, or period of expansion, but, they break down, quoting Hawking, before the can be applied to the singularity. Please explain how this is an error.

 

[shmogie]

Are you saying that the creation of man, as proposed by creationists, is not testable and is not scientific?

I am saying it is just as testable and scientific as the other accepted theoryś I listed.

 

[Polymath257]

Well then, show me where my charterizations are in error, specifically. I said that mathematics and physical laws can only go so far back into the Planck epoch, or period of expansion, but, they break down, quoting Hawking, before the can be applied to the singularity. Please explain how this is an error.

Well, there are proposed laws that go back to before the start of the expansion.

 

[Audie]

I see. Hmmm. So then thge big bng isn't fact, or a theory, it is an opinion, as is abiogenisis and some other theory';s,. OK. Lets apply that standard equally then and I will agree with you. Any belief n an unknown untestable process or dea is an opinion. We agree now.

It explains much about your understanding of science
that you can derive such an utterly weird take from what I wrote.

 

[Polymath257]

I am saying it is just as testable and scientific as the other accepted theoryś I listed.

Those theories you mention are admitted to be speculation. We have actual evidence for how humans evolved. So speculations about the BB are irrelevant to the question of how humans arose.

 

[Audie]

I am saying it is just as testable and scientific as the other accepted theoryś I listed.

"theories"

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I am saying it is just as testable and scientific as the other accepted theoryś I listed.

Here is a test for common ancestry between humans and chimps:

"First, the distribution of provirus-containing loci among taxa dates the insertion. Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
INAUGURAL ARTICLE by a Recently Elected Academy Member:Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences

There are 200,000 ERVs in the human genome. It seems that we can use them to test whether we share a common ancestor with chimps.

 

[shmogie]

@shmogie

Let me make it simplier?

When a doctor perscribes medication, where does god play into the medicine's ability to cure?

If an astrologist is figuring out the order of the planets and their distance from the sun, where is god in their equation?

(Edit) What can we use from the bible about god that scientists do not have today so we can solve equations not yet known during the BC era?

Which god should scientist use if they incorporate it into their tests; why one god over another...

On that note, what is the purpose of the christian god in science when christianity is about faith in christ not validity of, say, pluto's existence?

The theory of intelligent design, formulated by the interpretation of physical evidence is valid in many scientific quarters.

Those theories you mention are admitted to be speculation. We have actual evidence for how humans evolved. So speculations about the BB are irrelevant to the question of how humans arose.

You believe you have evidence of how humans evolved good ! I personally believe the evidence is weak.There you go, impasse. Itś interesting how I simply made the point that the first ´parent´s of all life on earth are volcanic rocks, according to the prevailing theory,comparable to God creating humans from soil. One comment, and now you want to drag in Darwinś theory. Nope, not going there. Don´t need to, don´t want to. You and I have been down this road before, you remain convinced about the soundness of the theory of evolution. I remain convinced that it is much weaker than proposed and has been in many cases based on faulty evidence, and in a few cases, outright falsification of data. So, have a good day

 

[Polymath257]

You believe you have evidence of how humans evolved good ! I personally believe the evidence is weak.There you go, impasse. Itś interesting how I simply made the point that the first ´parent´s of all life on earth are volcanic rocks, according to the prevailing theory,comparable to God creating humans from soil. One comment, and now you want to drag in Darwinś theory. Nope, not going there. Don´t need to, don´t want to. You and I have been down this road before, you remain convinced about the soundness of the theory of evolution. I remain convinced that it is much weaker than proposed and has been in many cases based on faulty evidence, and in a few cases, outright falsification of data. So, have a good day

Wrong. The 'prevailing theory' is that the 'parent' is the atmosphere---that's where all the main chemicals necessary for the formation of the chemicals of life were found.

And, again, irrelevant to the origin of humans, which happened billions of years later. I was pointing, not to Darwin, but actual fossils, dated, and showing a progression to humans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well then, show me where my charterizations are in error, specifically. I said that mathematics and physical laws can only go so far back into the Planck epoch, or period of expansion, but, they break down, quoting Hawking, before the can be applied to the singularity. Please explain how this is an error.

Now you are changing your claim. Earlier you said that they did not come into existence until after planck time. What you are saying now is what I said before the big debate.