Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

Yes, because you are totally unable to not post in what you call an obvious trolling thread

Interesting you do not understand how that reveals so much more about you than it does anyone else.

the tomatoes of your word salad are rotten.

I know.....call a mod and have someone kill this thread...

 

[McBell]

the tomatoes of your word salad are rotten.

I know.....call a mod and have someone kill this thread...

Thank you for the confirmation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Okay. Lets do this.

Not all naturalists predicted this. In fact current naturalists still accept this.

Nothing like the bible indicates. It still follows evolution perfectly.

Nothing about naturalist requires simple immutable "god refuting" mechanics. In fact these deeper forces still do the same thing to god as the old laws did. If anything it renders him further redundant.


Yes. Science and evidence continue to make advancements. Spiritual philosophic idealism doesn't. Isn't it funny how the ONE single religious deacon that you bring up was a scientist? It wasn't a regular old priest. It was a scientist who put all of his credit to his work in the science not the religion. Seems to me more like that scientist "just so happened" to be religious rather than the religion having any significance.

Of course naturalism changed it's predictions, it was forced to- slowly and painfully, often 'one funeral at a time' as Planck put it. And that highlights the deeper problem with the ideology..

In all these cases, 'naturalism' had a vested interest to back the most superficial observation as a final and complete explanation, thus closing the door of investigation before God can get a foot in

without this bias, Lemaitre, Planck etc, were open to the possibility that superficial observations of reality were just that- superficial observations- not case closing - self explanatory- God refuting answers to everything.

i.e. it was not their belief in God, but their skepticism of atheism that removed the blinders, that allowed science to progress.

As we see over and over again, it's the atheists who constantly linked their theories to their personal beliefs, and theists who went out of their way to disassociate the two- for this precise reason. when nature is viewed as the work of God, there is no agenda to over simplify it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Of course naturalism changed it's predictions, it was forced to- slowly and painfully, often 'one funeral at a time' as Planck put it. And that highlights the deeper problem with the ideology..

It didn't change its predictions. The scientific community accepted the new theory once it was supported by evidence. I think you also need to make sure you know the difference between pragmatic materialism and naturalism. As naturalism isn't an ideology of science. It isn't an ideology that has produced any kind of theories.

In all these cases, 'naturalism' had a vested interest to back the most superficial observation as a final and complete explanation, thus closing the door of investigation before God can get a foot in

without this bias, Lemaitre, Planck etc, were open to the possibility that superficial observations of reality were just that- superficial observations- not case closing - self explanatory- God refuting answers to everything.

i.e. it was not their belief in God, but their skepticism of atheism that removed the blinders, that allowed science to progress.

This is malarkey. Skepticism of atheism is a self defeating phrase. "Skeptical of skepticism" is what it amounts to. The progress was made because they made a discovery. Without the evidence science wouldn't have progressed in that direction. A good example is the creationistm movement now. Its bull and the people involved know it. The evidence doesn't support them.

As we see over and over again, it's the atheists who constantly linked their theories to their personal beliefs, and theists who went out of their way to disassociate the two- for this precise reason. when nature is viewed as the work of God, there is no agenda to over simplify it.

Who are the atheists scientists that have made theories and then proclaimed them in the name of atheism? What we see is scientists making theories. There is no religion involved. No one states this is an atheist theory or a theist theory. Anyone that dose is usually out for a political agenda and isn't actually producing a viable theory.

Under what logic is it simplifying to figure things out without god? This isn't the case at all. Historically god has always been the excuse to simplify things. Not the other way around. In fact, never the other way around.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It didn't change its predictions. The scientific community accepted the new theory once it was supported by evidence. I think you also need to make sure you know the difference between pragmatic materialism and naturalism. As naturalism isn't an ideology of science. It isn't an ideology that has produced any kind of theories.

This is malarkey. Skepticism of atheism is a self defeating phrase. "Skeptical of skepticism" is what it amounts to. The progress was made because they made a discovery. Without the evidence science wouldn't have progressed in that direction. A good example is the creationistm movement now. Its bull and the people involved know it. The evidence doesn't support them.

Who are the atheists scientists that have made theories and then proclaimed them in the name of atheism? What we see is scientists making theories. There is no religion involved. No one states this is an atheist theory or a theist theory. Anyone that dose is usually out for a political agenda and isn't actually producing a viable theory.

Under what logic is it simplifying to figure things out without god? This isn't the case at all. Historically god has always been the excuse to simplify things. Not the other way around. In fact, never the other way around.

As above, a static eternal, steady state, Big crunch universe was nice and simple- it circumvented the need to account for a unique creation event and thus made God redundant-
Hoyle called the primeval atom 'religious-pseudoscience' it introduced many more questions previously considered impossible- how time and space itself could be 'created'

so too classical physics was not simpler than mysterious unpredictable forces underlying them? the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named for a reason.

Many atheists here have argued the point that 'God raises more questions than he answers"

To me any line of investigation like Big Bang, QM, or what lies beyond the superficial observations of evolution, should not be avoided because they 'ask more questions'
that's how we learn.

Hoyle, Hawking, Dawkins all consistently- almost invariably and passionately relate(d) their personal atheist beliefs to their theories when talking about them.

the fact that the world's most prominent 'naturalist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' makes this point unambiguous

Lemaitre, Planck never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion'! because science was their focus, not cheerleading their personal beliefs.

 

[leibowde84]

If God does not create everything or have everything emanate from him, where then does it come from?
You said, "Who said God is everything". So I am asking, if EVERYTHING is not God, what then is it and where did he get it from.

He created it. We don't know where it came from.

Under your belief, how did God create everything?

 

[leibowde84]

Did the universe always exist as naturalists predicted-
or was it created in a specific creation event as in the Bible account? We don't know. It could be that the Big Bang started it all, but it also could have been one in many.

Did life arise in smooth steady transitions as evolution predicted,
or quick sudden jumps as in the Bible account? Smooth steady transitions. Even the "Cambrian explosion" was over millions of years.

Does physical reality rely on simple immutable 'God refuting' mechanics,
or deeper mysterious unpredictable forces? Seemingly immutable mechanisms, but we haven't quite figured them out yet.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

As above, a static eternal, steady state, Big crunch universe was nice and simple- it circumvented the need to account for a unique creation event and thus made God redundant-
Hoyle called the primeval atom 'religious-pseudoscience' it introduced many more questions previously considered impossible- how time and space itself could be 'created'

You keep pushing together a bunch of theories that have nothing to do with each other. Steady state and big crunch were held RIGHT ALONG SIDE permanent expansion. They were not considered to be fact. They were not considered to be true or simple. The static universe theory was a very old theory based on observations. We had no way of observing the expansion or measuring radioactivity and red shift. We saw that we stayed the same distance from the sun. Everything moved in a perfect harmony for the most part in our own solar system. This was based off of limited observations. It wasn't based off of an atheist ideology and had nothing to do with god. Static universe didn't require a lack of belief in god. Many people believed god made the universe as it was. Simple as that. The truth made things more complicated and mostly threw out traditional views of biblical creation.

so too classical physics was not simpler than mysterious unpredictable forces underlying them? the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named for a reason.

Old science is always more simple than new science. It has nothing to do with god or religion. Old school mathematics were nothing compared to what we have today.

Many atheists here have argued the point that 'God raises more questions than he answers"

And this is true. This is true regardless of science.

To me any line of investigation like Big Bang, QM, or what lies beyond the superficial observations of evolution, should not be avoided because they 'ask more questions'
that's how we learn.

They still answer questions. We have obtained more information than we had before. The same cannot be said about god. Finding answers in science is like reaching the top of a hill. Only when you reach that point you see all of the hills you have yet to climb. God is like painting a wall. Its whatever you want it to be but you don't go anywhere.

Hoyle, Hawking, Dawkins all consistently- almost invariably and passionately relate(d) their personal atheist beliefs to their theories when talking about them.

the fact that the world's most prominent 'naturalist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion' makes this point unambiguous

Lemaitre, Planck never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion'! because science was their focus, not cheerleading their personal beliefs.

No no no. People have related their atheism to the science. Not that the science is based on atheism. They have argued, totally separately from their science by the way, that the implications of scientific discovered assist them in their personal world view. Not that their world view in any way changes the observations and theories that they have. No one has created a new "atheist theory" in science. They have taken the discoveries of science and then made the personal connection to atheism for themselves. More than half of the scientists that work in the same fields are theists who believe the same things about science as they do. They accept the same science but still retain a belief in god. How do you think that is possible?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You keep pushing together a bunch of theories that have nothing to do with each other. Steady state and big crunch were held RIGHT ALONG SIDE permanent expansion. They were not considered to be fact. They were not considered to be true or simple. The static universe theory was a very old theory based on observations. We had no way of observing the expansion or measuring radioactivity and red shift. We saw that we stayed the same distance from the sun. Everything moved in a perfect harmony for the most part in our own solar system. This was based off of limited observations. It wasn't based off of an atheist ideology and had nothing to do with god. Static universe didn't require a lack of belief in god. Many people believed god made the universe as it was. Simple as that. The truth made things more complicated and mostly threw out traditional views of biblical creation.

Once again this is an assertion you would have to have argued with the founders and proponents of the theories, they were entirely explicit about their preferred atheist implications of a non-created universe and their distaste for the opposite implication
their arguments not mine.

You cannot tar theists with the same brush here

Atheists like Hoyle called the primeval atom religious pseudoscience. Lemaitre never called static universe models 'atheist pseudoscience' even though that's exactly what they turned out to be.

And you see the same on this site all the time, by declaring intellectual superiority, atheists make their beliefs a very personal passionate issue.
You really think Dawkins would be prepared to change his mind on any amount of evidence? after all the names he's called people?

Similarly Hoyle could never change his mind even on his death bed, it would simply be too embarrassing.

seeing nature as the 'executor of God's laws' allows a far more dispassionate, objective investigation of reality, wherever it leads. I have no problem with evolution being true, because I never questioned anybody's intelligence for believing it. I just don't believe it is. Like those other examples, I think there is more to it than meets the eye. For most creationists I know, it's not nearly as personal or bitter an issue as it is for Dawkins- or as the BB was for Hoyle.

 

[viole]

or as the BB was for Hoyle.

Or as evolution is for you.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

setting up an argument of proof...and knowing there won't be any.....
is trolling.
it's like calling everyone 'out'

I seem to recall such notation in the forum rules.

I made it clear that I didn't know of any evidence like this, but wanted to know if there was any I was not aware of. No trolling here.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We don't know. It could be that the Big Bang started it all, but it also could have been one in many.

atheism of the gaps aside, what we can actually establish is a unique creation event, a beginning to the entire universe and reality as we know it, including even time and space itself. a concept once decried as 'religious pseudo-science'

Smooth steady transitions. Even the "Cambrian explosion" was over millions of years.

smooth steady transition*
*with sudden explosions!

sounds a bit like global warming*
*with record Antarctic ice

Seemingly immutable mechanisms, but we haven't quite figured them out yet.

atheism of the gaps again, what we did establish, is that simple laws do not work for reality, as atheism once predicted.


Of course there will always be excuses for any prediction not panning out. But excuses are not equivalent to validated predictions like those of creationism

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Once again this is an assertion you would have to have argued with the founders and proponents of the theories, they were entirely explicit about their preferred atheist implications of a non-created universe and their distaste for the opposite implication
their arguments not mine.

Your arguments are entirely yours. None of their arguments had anything to do with religion. If they were proposing an atheist world view they would have been eaten alive. Atheism has not been taken lighting up until fairly recently. The vast majority of scientists have been and continue to be theists. You have no argument that the out dated and wrong scientific theories were based in atheism.

You cannot tar theists with the same brush here

Which brush?

Atheists like Hoyle called the primeval atom religious pseudoscience. Lemaitre never called static universe models 'atheist pseudoscience' even though that's exactly what they turned out to be.

Except it wasn't atheist in nature. It was based off of limited observations. New observations brought to light and look at that...we have new views. You take a radio comment of one scientist and make claims about atheism that you haven't got evidence to back up with. All the while claiming atheist psuedoscience yourself!

And you see the same on this site all the time, by declaring intellectual superiority, atheists make their beliefs a very personal passionate issue.
You really think Dawkins would be prepared to change his mind on any amount of evidence? after all the names he's called people?

I don't declare intelectual superiority on the side of atheism. I declare that science cannot incorporate god if there is no evidences for god. ID is a bunk theory. I didn't say god was bunk. I don't know what Dawkings would do. He claims he would change his mind with evidence. I don't know him personally. He is also of no importance in this debate. It would be of no importance if new science came to light if he declared it wrong or not.

Similarly Hoyle could never change his mind even on his death bed, it would simply be too embarrassing.

Perhaps. However this isn't evidence against science. This is about one person's declaration and obsession over a failed theory that was disproved with new evidence.

seeing nature as the 'executor of God's laws' allows a far more dispassionate, objective investigation of reality, wherever it leads. I have no problem with evolution being true, because I never questioned anybody's intelligence for believing it. I just don't believe it is. Like those other examples, I think there is more to it than meets the eye. For most creationists I know, it's not nearly as personal or bitter an issue as it is for Dawkins- or as the BB was for Hoyle.

This is simply false. Seeing nature as it exists and how we observe it regardless of the presence or absence of god is an objective investigation. Calling nature "executor of god's laws" creates a bias already. An unsubstantiated bias. Don't you see that?

 

[leibowde84]

atheism of the gaps aside, what we can actually establish is a unique creation event, a beginning to the entire universe and reality as we know it, including even time and space itself. a concept once decried as 'religious pseudo-science'


smooth steady transition*
*with sudden explosions!

sounds a bit like global warming*
*with record Antarctic ice




atheism of the gaps again, what we did establish, is that simple laws do not work for reality, as atheism once predicted.


Of course there will always be excuses for any prediction not panning out. But excuses are not equivalent to validated predictions like those of creationism

Saying "we don't know" cannot be an argument from ignorance.

There were no sudden explosions in evolution. Again, even the most well known was in no way sudden.

The laws do work. We just haven't figured them out yet. How can you be so certain that we won't discover them in the future?

 

[Robert.Evans]

We can see a child being born of it's parents. The child is a modified descendant of it's parent. That is a fact, that is basically evolution, if extrapolated to a population. But origins can only be explained in terms of choosing, because only choosing can do the job of creating new information. I don't accept evolution theory. I generally don't accept the timescales, I don't accept how they say things are changed, basically evolution theory is social darwinism in the way it is held to be in opposition to creationism.

I don't see how you can ignore science for evolution if you accept it for everything else. Please tell me you are not still riding on a mule.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Makes your evidence rather useless if one has to believe in it before it works....

You have to believe in Him, silly.

 

[leibowde84]

We can see a child being born of it's parents. The child is a modified descendant of it's parent. That is a fact, that is basically evolution, if extrapolated to a population. But origins can only be explained in terms of choosing, because only choosing can do the job of creating new information. I don't accept evolution theory. I generally don't accept the timescales, I don't accept how they say things are changed, basically evolution theory is social darwinism in the way it is held to be in opposition to creationism.

Why do you equate the theory of evolution with social darwinism? Do you understand what they both mean? Social Darwinism is a forced political theory, whereas the theory of evolution merely describes a natural process.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It is limited and that is a good thing. Other methods have not been proven to be effective at deriving factual information that has been verified. If it isn't limited and rigorous then just any old idea can be popped into the answer slot and it be called a day. I am not okay with that.

Same here.

You could just as easily be wrong as you could be right. In fact it seems that the odds are significantly against you. Its more a random guess than a deduction.

No, it is factual. and no, I can't prove it to someone else.

On god being natural, yes. If god exists and we are ever able to observe a being like god it would be "natural". It would be explainable. But the reason he isn't considered natural now is that he only ever seems to exist within the minds of his followers.

Okay; but are people not natural? If so, and he exists as knowledge within us, then that is natural, isn't it? I don't want to get picky, but it seems that way to me.

This is true of any religion. Several tests on the power of god such as prayer, magic, rituals, ect, all fail to yield any actual change to the physical world.

But it would be absurd to think they would wouldn't it? He says you will not see Me. So why do we think that we would? We can't even find solid evidence of the multiverse. That is like looking behind you and not perceiving two steps further back when you have just walked miles.

You will get no sign, as it is written.
All those kinds of arguments are lame and worldly and serve no purpose other than settling the minds of the non-believers who take them.

 

[Robert.Evans]

He created it. We don't know where it came from.

Under your belief, how did God create everything?

Evolving.
There was a point to this but now it is lost.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No, it is factual. and no, I can't prove it to someone else.

By definition it is therefor not factual.

Okay; but are people not natural? If so, and he exists as knowledge within us, then that is natural, isn't it? I don't want to get picky, but it seems that way to me.

People are natural. I fully agree that god exists as a concept. You can't really argue he is any more real.

But it would be absurd to think they would wouldn't it? He says you will not see Me. So why do we think that we would? We can't even find solid evidence of the multiverse. That is like looking behind you and not perceiving two steps further back when you have just walked miles.

You will get no sign, as it is written.
All those kinds of arguments are lame and worldly and serve no purpose other than settling the minds of the non-believers who take them.

Seems like an excuse to me from believers. If there is no evidence of a god I'm not inclined to believe there is a god. That is blind faith. I don't "do" blind faith anymore.