Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

and several [cosmologists] complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[49] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest

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!

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator


As above, it should not matter how intellectually unfashionable the implications are, if it implies God, so be it. Atheism v science has clearly delayed the progress of science in many key areas.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator

and several [cosmologists] complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics; this objection was later repeated by supporters of the steady state theory.[49] This perception was enhanced by the fact that the originator of the Big Bang theory, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, was a Roman Catholic priest

Indeed. However evidence was on his side. Prior to the evidence I can understand their concern.

As above, it should not matter how intellectually unfashionable the implications are, if it implies God, so be it. Atheism v science has clearly delayed the progress of science in many key areas.

It hasn't really delayed anything. When evidence was found it was accepted. A few people here and there didn't accept it but so be it. They don't define science. Now if we want to talk about religion and god hampering science, well friend have I got a story for you. Do you have six years for me to go over the basics of how religion has hampered science?

 

[Robert.Evans]

By definition

it is therefor not factual.

No. Something can be fact without anyone knowing it. The laws of nature

are fact whether we know them or not.

People are natural. I fully agree that god exists as a concept. You can't

really argue he is any more real.

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.

Atheism is blind faith. You can't believe in God without Grace; so that is not blind; faith is the sign or evidence of things not seen, ie, God. Blind faith is saying luck or clind chance will do it, or worse still, not even caring and saying I don't know.
The evidence that is first needed is within, the evidence outside comes later. There is plenty, but most look for evidence outside to believe inwardly. With Grace, it is the other way round. That is why it is so neat.

 

[Robert.Evans]

and several [cosmologists] complained that the beginning of time implied by the Big Bang imported religious concepts into physics;

I have heard of this as well.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

No. Something can be fact without anyone knowing it. The laws of nature

are fact whether we know them or not.

The definition of "fact" is "A thing that is indisputably the case."

If the case can be disputed then it is not fact.

Atheism is blind faith. You can't believe in God without Grace; so that is not blind; faith is the sign or evidence of things not seen, ie, God. Blind faith is saying luck or clind chance will do it, or worse still, not even caring and saying I don't know.
The evidence that is first needed is within, the evidence outside comes later. There is plenty, but most look for evidence outside to believe inwardly. With Grace, it is the other way round. That is why it is so neat.

Blind faith is believing in something without evidence. I don't believe in anything without evidence. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in design, I don't even believe in luck.

Grace is just a word used by Christians that often ends up being meaningless. If I have to be brainwashed before I can believe then I doubt your beliefs as well as how much you actually believe it.

Show me evidence of god. I'll believe. So far its come up empty.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Indeed. However evidence was on his side. Prior to the evidence I can understand their concern.

It hasn't really delayed anything. When evidence was found it was accepted. A few people here and there didn't accept it but so be it. They don't define science. Now if we want to talk about religion and god hampering science, well friend have I got a story for you. Do you have six years for me to go over the basics of how religion has hampered science?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't at first, even if it did later. That is right isn't it? It is certainly what I have read. The very reason Newton looked for order in the universe was because he thought there was a law-giver.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The definition of "fact" is "A thing that is indisputably the case."

If the case can be disputed then it is not fact.

Blind faith is believing in something without evidence. I don't believe in anything without evidence. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in design, I don't even believe in luck.

Grace is just a word used by Christians that often ends up being meaningless. If I have to be brainwashed before I can believe then I doubt your beliefs as well as how much you actually believe it.

Show me evidence of god. I'll believe. So far its come up empty.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Indeed. However evidence was on his side. Prior to the evidence I can understand their concern.

It hasn't really delayed anything. When evidence was found it was accepted. A few people here and there didn't accept it but so be it. They don't define science. Now if we want to talk about religion and god hampering science, well friend have I got a story for you. Do you have six years for me to go over the basics of how religion has hampered science?

OK, so to the original point, which set of predictions were validated?

Had the atheist predictions been validated:

Say the universe turned out to be static/eternal uncreated (no creation hence no creator)
classical physics held true (no room for God's hand)
and evolution a smooth steady transition

I'd be perfectly willing to accept the implications explicitly touted by atheists at the time, because I don't characterize atheists as 'ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked' as Dawkins does creationists. I think atheists are usually perfectly intelligent, sane, and well meaning, I've nothing personal against atheists or their beliefs.

I'm just willing to accept the opposite implications also, those of observed reality, I have nothing against those either.I'm interested in the truth, intellectually fashionable or not.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The definition of "fact" is "A thing that is indisputably the case."

If the case can be disputed then it is not fact.

Don't agree. You limit it.
fact

fact [fakt]
(plural facts)
n
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case


[15th century. < Latin factum "deed" < fact- , past participle of facere "do, make"]

after the fact after something, especially a criminal act, has been done
before the fact before something, especially a criminal act, has been done
in fact or in actual fact used to correct a previous misunderstanding or to reinforce a previous statement

The phrase in fact, as in She is, in fact, correct, is spelled as two words, never as infact.

The Latin word facere "to do, make," from which fact is derived, is also the source of Englishdifficult,effect,facile,faction1,factor,fashion,feasible,feat,feature, andfetish.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Blind faith is believing in something without evidence. I don't believe in anything without evidence. I don't believe in god. I don't believe in design, I don't even believe in luck.

I don't believe in God without evidence either, that was what I was saying. You are starting from a position of non-belief in the first place and trying to see everything in the physical world. I have no problem with that if you are happy with it however. But it is wrong.

Grace is just a word used by Christians that often ends up being meaningless. If I have to be brainwashed before I can believe then I doubt your beliefs as well as how much you actually believe it.

Show me evidence of god. I'll believe. So far its come up empty.

Evidence is Grace. I can't keep saying it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it didn't at first, even if it did later. That is right isn't it? It is certainly what I have read. The very reason Newton looked for order in the universe was because he thought there was a law-giver.

There was loose evidence. It wasn't as strong as it is now. That much is true.

Yes. Newton personally felt that the laws of the universe were written by god and were immutable.

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself

That isn't the definition of blind faith but Ok.

OK, so to the original point, which set of predictions were validated?

Science overwhelmingly. Evolution. Ect. The context of the bible has to be warped and pulled to make sense in our world that we know exists. So much so I believe it tears.

Had the atheist predictions been validated:

Atheist predictions are validated every day. What you are attempting to say is that an atheist based theory, this of course is nonsensical. Static universe was not an atheist theory. Newton himself held this position. Newton believed god had made a perfect universe. His theories were not validated. By the same vein cant we say god doesn't exist because of it?

Say the universe turned out to be static/eternal uncreated (no creation hence no creator)
classical physics held true (no room for God's hand)
and evolution a smooth steady transition

Evolution has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Evolution seems to have happened exactly as evolution currently predicts. We make predictions nearly every day with evolution and they are almost always right. Rare cases they are wrong and then we discover more. The concept of a pure steady state evolution without incriments of rapid change is wrong. However nothing in the bible even comes close to being correct. There are RAPID rates of evolution. Which means over the course of hundreds of thousands of years with one gene at a time we see changes. It is still very slow. However it isn't a constant steady state of change that had been predicted long ago.

I'd be perfectly willing to accept the implications explicitly touted by atheists at the time, because I don't characterize atheists as 'ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked' as Dawkins does creationists. I think atheists are usually perfectly intelligent, sane, and well meaning, I've nothing personal against atheists or their beliefs.

Then accept science for what it is and have your beliefs. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that science provides evidence of your world view.

I'm just willing to accept the opposite implications also, those of observed reality, I have nothing against those either.I'm interested in the truth, intellectually fashionable or not.

Clearly you are not.

Don't agree. You limit it.
fact

fact [fakt]
(plural facts)
n
1. something known to be true: something that can be shown to be true, to exist, or to have happened
2. truth or reality of something: the truth or actual existence of something, as opposed to the supposition of something or a belief about something
based on fact

3. piece of information: a piece of information, e.g. a statistic or a statement of the truth
4. law actual course of events: the circumstances of an event or state of affairs, rather than an interpretation of its significance
Matters of fact are issues for a jury, while matters of law are issues for the court.

5. law something based on evidence: something that is based on or concerned with the evidence presented in a legal case


[15th century. < Latin factum "deed" < fact- , past participle of facere "do, make"]

after the fact after something, especially a criminal act, has been done
before the fact before something, especially a criminal act, has been done
in fact or in actual fact used to correct a previous misunderstanding or to reinforce a previous statement

The phrase in fact, as in She is, in fact, correct, is spelled as two words, never as infact.

The Latin word facere "to do, make," from which fact is derived, is also the source of Englishdifficult,effect,facile,faction1,factor,fashion,feasible,feat,feature, andfetish.
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Let me re-phrase then, even if it is fact, which I don't believe it to be so, you have no way of sharing that. I have no reason to accept it as fact. Therefore in our conversations it is not fact. It is only your opinion.

I don't believe in God without evidence either, that was what I was saying. You are starting from a position of non-belief in the first place and trying to see everything in the physical world. I have no problem with that if you are happy with it however. But it is wrong.

I started as a christian. I was raised christian. I grew out of it. I know what it is like to be a believer and why so many people do believe. I also know why that train of thought is wrong.

Evidence is Grace. I can't keep saying it.

apparently you can. Can you say it in a way that is meaningful in any way? An example perhaps?

 

[Robert.Evans]

There was loose evidence. It wasn't as strong as it is now. That much is true.

Yes. Newton personally felt that the laws of the universe were written by god and were immutable.

That isn't the definition of blind faith but Ok.

Science overwhelmingly. Evolution. Ect. The context of the bible has to be warped and pulled to make sense in our world that we know exists. So much so I believe it tears.

Atheist predictions are validated every day. What you are attempting to say is that an atheist based theory, this of course is nonsensical. Static universe was not an atheist theory. Newton himself held this position. Newton believed god had made a perfect universe. His theories were not validated. By the same vein cant we say god doesn't exist because of it?

Evolution has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Evolution seems to have happened exactly as evolution currently predicts. We make predictions nearly every day with evolution and they are almost always right. Rare cases they are wrong and then we discover more. The concept of a pure steady state evolution without incriments of rapid change is wrong. However nothing in the bible even comes close to being correct. There are RAPID rates of evolution. Which means over the course of hundreds of thousands of years with one gene at a time we see changes. It is still very slow. However it isn't a constant steady state of change that had been predicted long ago.

Then accept science for what it is and have your beliefs. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that science provides evidence of your world view.

Clearly you are not.

Let me re-phrase then, even if it is fact, which I don't believe it to be so, you have no way of sharing that. I have no reason to accept it as fact. Therefore in our conversations it is not fact. It is only your opinion.

I started as a christian. I was raised christian. I grew out of it. I know what it is like to be a believer and why so many people do believe. I also know why that train of thought is wrong.

apparently you can. Can you say it in a way that is meaningful in any way? An example perhaps?

It is only an opinion to you. That does not mean it is not fact. Fact is fact. It is a fact that the law of gravity works, whether you, I, or anyone else knows it.

You started as Christian. I started as ignorant.

An example of Grace. Me believing...which is of course, personal and of no use to you whatsoever. But it will always be that way.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It is only an opinion to you. That does not mean it is not fact. Fact is fact. It is a fact that the law of gravity works, whether you, I, or anyone else knows it.

You started as Christian. I started as ignorant.

An example of Grace. Me believing...which is of course, personal and of no use to you whatsoever. But it will always be that way.

I mean I could literally say anything and claim it to be fact. It would be the exact same thing as you do. You don't have to agree with me on everything but do you at least understand that?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I mean I could literally say anything and claim it to be fact. It would be the exact same thing as you do. You don't have to agree with me on everything but do you at least understand that?

Yes but to say it, it would have to be fact. You might say the law of gravity is fact. There are no doubt people still on this planet that would have no idea what you would mean. Does that mean it is now not fact?? I don't think you would say that. I think you would say that they were ignorant or uneducated, wouldn't you?
See, I wasn't going to argue it, and I have.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes but to say it, it would have to be fact. You might say the law of gravity is fact. There are no doubt people still on this planet that would have no idea what you would mean. Does that mean it is now not fact?? I don't think you would say that. I think you would say that they were ignorant or uneducated, wouldn't you?
See, I wasn't going to argue it, and I have.

What I mean is that you can say whatever you want and claim it to be fact. If you don't have the supporting evidence behind it its meaningless. What separates your message from Jihad's message? Why should I believe in Christ rather than Muhammad?

 

[leibowde84]

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

Evolution only refers to life though, and it doesn't speak to how life originated.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What I mean is that you can say whatever you want and claim it to be fact. If you don't have the supporting evidence behind it its meaningless. What separates your message from Jihad's message? Why should I believe in Christ rather than Muhammad?

I would say they were both true, at least somewhere. Different realms/realities, the many-world theory I guess.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Evolution only refers to life though, and it doesn't speak to how life originated.

Sure; But life evolves because the divine-pattern evolves. Nothing new under the sun said the wise man. Everything comes from a singularity of existence that cannot be recognised.

 

[Robert.Evans]

My point is that, if God is all of these things, God cannot be bound by the laws of nature in the physical sense. If this is true, then God is supernatural.

This is what I wished to refer to: You have now agreed that 'God is everything'. So then God is either natural and supernatural (depending on your definition - which means he can split in some way) or he is natural.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I would say they were both true, at least somewhere. Different realms/realities, the many-world theory I guess.

What is your basis for the many-world theory?

 

[Robert.Evans]

What is your basis for the many-world theory?

It is from scripture and I see science theorize about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation