Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

What makes you so certain that there was a "first", rather than the universe being infinite? Science only gets us to the Big Bang, but you haven't provided any evidence that a natural event didn't cause the Big Bang.

Someone had to be First

 

[leibowde84]

science will take you there.....
but the question, and it's answer are up to you

try using your sense of choice

I would say that since "science" is unable to tell us whether the Big Bang was initiated by a naturally occurring event and is certainly unable to tell us whether that event wasn't caused, in turn, by another naturally occurring event, it is impossible to know that God must have initiated it with any certainty, as you claim.

 

[Thief]

I would say that since "science" is unable to tell us whether the Big Bang was initiated by a naturally occurring event and is certainly unable to tell us whether that event wasn't caused, in turn, by another naturally occurring event, it is impossible to know that God must have initiated it with any certainty, as you claim.

science will take you there.....then it's up to you

 

[leibowde84]

Someone had to be First

There is no evidence that conclusively shows that. We don't understand nearly enough about the beginning of our universe to know that for sure. It could be an infinite progression of expansion and contraction without any "first" at all. Thus, there is no certainty that anything ever was "first". We don't have enough scientific understanding to know that.

 

[Thief]

There is no evidence that conclusively shows that. We don't understand nearly enough about the beginning of our universe to know that for sure. It could be an infinite progression of expansion and contraction without any "first" at all. Thus, there is no certainty that anything ever was "first". We don't have enough scientific understanding to know that.

logic shows.....Someone had to be First

 

[leibowde84]

science will take you there.....then it's up to you

Science takes us to the Big Bang. But, science does not take us to the event or events that led up to the Big Bang. There could have been one event, there could have been many events, and there could have been an infinite number of events.

So, what evidence do you base your certainty on? Are you going on faith that before the Big Bang there were no naturally occurring events? Because, "science" certainly has not gotten to that point yet.

 

[Thief]

Science takes us to the Big Bang. But, science does not take us to the event or events that led up to the Big Bang. There could have been one event, there could have been many events, and there could have been an infinite number of events.

So, what evidence do you base your certainty on? Are you going on faith that before the Big Bang there were no naturally occurring events? Because, "science" certainly has not gotten to that point yet.

science got to the point.....you just don't get it

 

[leibowde84]

logic shows.....Someone had to be First

You pointed to the Big Bang specifically as evidence, though, assuming that it was the starting point of everything. Logic does not demand that the Big Bang was the starting point of everything. There are many competing hypotheses that contend that it wasn't. What if there was an event that caused another event that caused the Big Bang. And, not the Big Bang, but that specific event (2 prior to the Big Bang) was caused by "spirit"? That is certainly a possibility, and it couldn't be currently evidenced by "science" as you say.

 

[leibowde84]

science got to the point.....you just don't get it

Science has not progressed to understanding that before the Big Bang there were no naturally occurring events. I would suggest that you look into the various hypotheses that explore these alternatives. Neil DeGrass Tyson has some excellent explanations as to what some of these possibilities would mean.

Are you unaware that "science" is not certain that the Big Bang was the beginning of naturally occurring events? If you are unaware of this, I would suggest doing some research into the possible alternatives. It is very interesting stuff.

 

[Zosimus]

No assumptions required, you've shared enough self-refuting statements that everyone can see your "policy" is honored more in the breach than in the practice.

Name one.

 

[Zosimus]

Christianity is a religion, and fall under theology, not science.

There have been many good scientists, who were Christians, just as there have been good ones who were Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, desists, etc, but working in any field of science is a profession, not religion or religious belief.

You can have a trade or profession and be religious or not. The religion shouldn't affect the trade.

Your argument is absurd, really.

It is like saying Jesus was said to be a shepherd, does that mean all shepherds are Christians?

The majority of his apostles were fishermen, does that mean all fishermen are Christians?

Stupid creationists make the mistaken assumption that evolution is synonymous with atheism. Well, guess what, Zosimus?

Charles Darwin was a Christian, not an atheism. Although, he was leaning towards agnosticism later years of life, but he was still a Christian, and never an atheist.

Evolution is biology, it is not atheistic, agnostic or theistic; so that's basically make creationists ignorant to the point of stupidity when they can't distinguish the difference between evolution and atheism.

Well, I am not surprise by creationists' ignorance, because they also can't distinguish science and religion, between science and philosophy, between evolution and abiogenesis, between fact and faith, between evidence and faith, between evidence and proof, between theory and hypothesis, and the list goes on and on.

Why are evolution up is treated as atheism, but not other branches or fields of science?

That because creationists often used dishonest propaganda, just like they do with Intelligent Design.

But back to your point of Christianity should be science.

They have tried that in Darwin's time. A movement was led by T H Huxley in the 19th century, to separate science from theology and religion, just like they separate state (politics and laws) from religion with secularism.

If you want to teach creationism, ID or religion, then it should be taught as theology, not as science.

You talk a lot but say nothing.

First of all, where in this rant did you address the tacking by disjunction problem?

Second, do you not agree that finding a dead Jewish guy in Jesus of Nazareth's tomb would effectively falsify Christianity?

 

[Thief]

You pointed to the Big Bang specifically as evidence, though, assuming that it was the starting point of everything. Logic does not demand that the Big Bang was the starting point of everything. There are many competing hypotheses that contend that it wasn't. What if there was an event that caused another event that caused the Big Bang. And, not the Big Bang, but that specific event (2 prior to the Big Bang) was caused by "spirit"? That is certainly a possibility, and it couldn't be currently evidenced by "science" as you say.

the hall of mirrors trick has an end .....
it ends with that beginning

Let there be light

God's first creation
can't have mirrors without the beginning

 

[Thief]

gotta start somewhere......

apparently .....some participants can't (or won't) .....fathom a beginning

 

[shmogie]

As any informed intelligent design proponent knows, ID is just another name for creationism. The current use of the term was concocted by the editor of the text book Of Pandas and People in 1987 to replace the word "creation," "creationism," and "creation science." Now there's no problem with including the creation of the universe and life within its scope, but it's perverse to bring them in as points when arguing against evolution.


Nice attempt at equivocation. Go sit in the back of the room.


.

I use the term interchangeably, they mean the same. So what is your point ? I and millions of others use the terms micro evolution and macro evolution. You may find the terms objectionable, but what does that mean ? Nothing

 

[shmogie]

It doesn't work.

Like I said in my last reply, there are no evidences to support the existence of Designer (CAUSE) involved in biology than in the origin of the universe, any more than there are evidences for leprechaun awaiting on the other side of rainbow with pot full of shining gold coins.

Intelligent Design advocates used circular reasoning, not science to support their unsubstantiated claims. All advocates can do is to project their make-believe beliefs.

The Designer is no better than arguments for Creator or God, or for the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, leprechauns, fairies, ghouls and goblins, etc.

Where are the evidences for Designer?

Sources, please.

As I said earlier, which absurdity do you have faith in ? What is evidence ? There is no more evidence for abiogenesis than Divine creation of life. So, using your terminology, do you accept that fairy tale of creation by something ? Circular reasoning, what circular reasoning ? There had to be a cause, everything that begins was caused to begin. A simple contention that current cosmology grudgingly accepts.The beginning of life had a cause. So, what is your particular pot of gold at the end of the rainbow ? You don't know, then say so.. Like Don Quixote you tilt at windmills, thinking they are giants. Wave your lance in front of them, they are theology. The giant is no one knows anything on the issue except by faith. Whether it be an entire universe creating itself, or it being created by a being outside of space/time. Your personal biases don't change this equation

 

[McBell]

gotta start somewhere......

apparently .....some participants can't (or won't) .....fathom a beginning

More like they do not toss science and logic out the window once it gets them to a point they feel comfortable inserting god.

 

[shmogie]

The biggest name in science who advocate for Intelligent Design (ID) is biochemist Michael Behe, who is a professor Lehigh University.

His paper that was meant to herald ID - Irreducible Complexity (IC) - was supposed to be Discovery Institute (DI) crown jewel for ID. But IC has been rejected on the ground as being unscientific (hence pseudoscience) and untestable, because it neither meet the requirements of falsifiable hypothesis, nor that of Scientific Method (SM).

Any statement (in science), whether it be hypothesis or theory, required the statement to be FALSIFIABLE.

Do you need to be "falsifiable", shmogie?

It mean that the statement needs to be able to be refuted, by the mean of being testable and scrutinised. If you can't test it, then it is not scientific.

In the nutshell, Behe's Irreducible Complexity is about the biology at cellular or molecular-level to be too complex for mechanisms of evolution, therefore it must be "designed" by some intelligent being, known as the "Designer".

If his argument for biological unit (be they genes, cells, chromosomes, DNA, etc) "designed" as the EFFECT, and the Designer as the CAUSE, hence the CAUSE-AND-EFFECT argument, then there should be evidences for not only the EFFECT (designed), there should be evidences for the CAUSE (in this case for Designer) too.

That being the case, Behe should know about Scientific Method as much as the 7 Nobel prize winners who are advocates for Intelligent Design. His IC not only has to provide the platform for testing biochemical for "design" (EFFECT), but also platform for testing the "designer" (CAUSE).

The kicker is this, Behe cannot test for this DESIGNER, so no evidences for Designer. Behe's argument using this CAUSE-AND-EFFECT model, completely falls apart if there are no evidences for the CAUSE. And if the CAUSE has no evidences, then the EFFECT (design) also falls apart.

Scientific Method required there be evidences for both "cause" and "effect", or else the cause-and-effect don't really work at all. And clearly, IC don't work, which make IC nothing more than pseudoscience.

The Irreducible Complexity is nothing more than a textbook case of logical fallacy, known as "circular reasoning".

Behe appeared in some court cases to support ID being taught in science classroom in the US public school, as the star expert witness, but in reality, Behe's appearance turn out to be nothing more than a PR stunt.

In (2005) the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, where the Dover (the school board) tried to implement teaching of ID as science, using Of Panda And People as a textbook. Even with Behe's help, the court ruled that Intelligent Design is religion in the form of creationism, not science.

And this true. Intelligent Design is nothing more than Christian creationism masquerading as science. Like I said before, in my previous post to you, that the Wedge Document revealed the true intentions of the Discovery Institute, using Intelligent Design. And Behe is one of the senior member of DI.

Have you read the Wedge Document, shmogie?

BTW, shmogie. His own department in biology and biochemistry has issued a disclaimer notice that despite Behe work for them at the university, this in no way support Behe's view on Intelligent Design. Why would his department issued such a statement about Behe?

Been through this all before. As one who has experience in dealing with courts, I don't put much value in a single decision in a civil case. You are arguing with yourself, intelligent design and creationism are the same. You seem to be wasting energy on refuting a point I never made. Have I read the "wedge document", no. I don't even know for sure what "The Discovery Institute" is. I don't believe I have any of their publications, if they publish. You seem to be spending much time on the messengers, and not the message. I certainly could produce evidence of manipulation of data and purposely weighted outcomes of experiments that result in support for the other side, but why ? The issue isn't resolved by this. Here is what is resolved, however,. You are blatantly biased, and your claim of objectivity is a clumsily devised ruse. The facts are facts, and you have done nothing to alter them

 

[Thief]

More like they do not toss science and logic out the window once it gets them to a point they feel comfortable inserting god.

you do realize......you haven't really presented a discussion

your personal denial.....as always......noted

 

[Skwim]

I use the term interchangeably, they mean the same. So what is your point ?

So, although there is evolution, then there is EVOLUTION, they're both the same thing? You're making a distinction without a difference?

 

[shmogie]

The distinction is simple. Evolution within a species is clearly evident. The ability to change related to environment or other factors is apparent (micro evolution). The ability for a species to morph into another, Or further, for lizards to change into birds is not apparent at all. In fact, there are very significant problems with, and very little evidence for this idea. Now, I anticipate that you will complain about the terms micro evolution and macro evolution. Complain away, evolution is not just evolution. It is observable and quantifiable on the one hand, and just the opposite on the other hand.