Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Segev Moran]

When someone says, "God is extremely unlikely," I want to see the exact calculation used to arrive at the "extremely unlikely" probability. Otherwise, it's just someone saying what he or she feels.

Ok..

I Think your missing out something here..
Your trying to find out how to calculate the absent of something rather the existence of something...


So you can ask what are the chances that GOD exists rather then what are the chances it doesn't...

We need to decide what is GOD, Lets use the standard religious (that is common to all religions) concepts:

1. GOD might have created Earth
2. GOD might have Created Life
3. GOD might have Created All animals and species
4. GOD might have Created man in its current form
5. GOD might govern the world and performs miracles
6. GOD might have govern life and death and raise people from the dead
7. GOD might have talk to you and answer you prayers
8. GOD might "bend" the physical rules we live in

Now, there are many more.. but lets give each the same weight in the odds..
So assuming that if all of the above is true, that means that GOD exists without a doubt.


So today for example... we know that god didn't create earth rather it was a process of billions of years..
thus the chances that GOD exists are now lower..
Cross Created all animals and species, this means odds are even less in GOD's favor...
So at the end of it... judging by our current understanding of the universe, and judging past events in our existence, there is no evidence what so ever about any of the above claims.
the only claim that can be possible, is that GOD created life. and this is only because we are yet to fully understand the process that actually created the actual living organism (Although there are some ideas about it).

So already the chances for GOD are very low.

Now, if we also consider the fact that there is no evidence that can prove that the existence of GOD is essential to life and the belief in GOD is not a necessity of survival, this means that the odds are now even lower...

If for example, we discovered that people who pray really have better life, then you could claim that the 7th claim is more likely.. and then you could say the chance of GOD existing is now higher..
But as you know, there is not even ONE claim, that can have any small tiny shred of grasp with reality.

Now, I'm not even talking about actual evidence. I'm talking about showing any deviation in standards that is caused due to religion or GOD...
If you could show that people who believe in GOD do better in life, live better life, are healthier or whatever.. you could start and claim that the chance of GOD is better.

Also, by the day, with each scientific understanding we learn, the already slim chances for GOD are getting even lower...
So you could say in somewhat confident that based on the evidence, and based on our current knowledge and based on our current understanding of the universe, GOD probably doesn't exist.

ANY Atheist, will tell you that the disbelief in GOD (Me included) is only due to the FACT that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise! and not just because he doesn't want to believe.

If you could even prove that one, Only one of the mythical stories in the bible are undeniably true, you'll surely change the world! so.. good luck i guess

 

[Thief]

ok, so the plea for evidence is suppose to win?.....in a religious debate
believing in God requires no proving
see Webster's

but on the other hand
science would insist.....nothing moves without something to move it
go back to the singularity as science would have you do.....
and decide
without proof

Spirit first?.....or substance

if substance first .....then science lied and substance has it's own volition

 

[Zosimus]

Ok..

I Think your missing out something here..
Your trying to find out how to calculate the absent of something rather the existence of something...


So you can ask what are the chances that GOD exists rather then what are the chances it doesn't...

We need to decide what is GOD, Lets use the standard religious (that is common to all religions) concepts:

1. GOD might have created Earth
2. GOD might have Created Life
3. GOD might have Created All animals and species
4. GOD might have Created man in its current form
5. GOD might govern the world and performs miracles
6. GOD might have govern life and death and raise people from the dead
7. GOD might have talk to you and answer you prayers
8. GOD might "bend" the physical rules we live in

Now, there are many more.. but lets give each the same weight in the odds..
So assuming that if all of the above is true, that means that GOD exists without a doubt.


So today for example... we know that god didn't create earth rather it was a process of billions of years..

Speculation.

thus the chances that GOD exists are now lower..

Well, that might be true if your above statement were true. Then again, that might only mean that the CHRISTIAN concept of God was less likely.

Cross Created all animals and species, this means odds are even less in GOD's favor...

I don't know who Cross is, but I doubt that he/she/it created all animals and species.

So at the end of it... judging by our current understanding of the universe, and judging past events in our existence, there is no evidence what so ever about any of the above claims.

Well, since there is no evidence either for or against, our final calculation will be the same as our a priori chance of God's existence.

the only claim that can be possible, is that GOD created life. and this is only because we are yet to fully understand the process that actually created the actual living organism (Although there are some ideas about it).

I guess you haven't heard that with God nothing is impossible (Luke 1:37).

So already the chances for GOD are very low.

Only because you have an a priori philosophical bias against the existence of such a creature.

Now, if we also consider the fact that there is no evidence that can prove that the existence of GOD is essential to life and the belief in GOD is not a necessity of survival, this means that the odds are now even lower...

No, it doesn't. What it means is that God is not a subject for scientific study.

If for example, we discovered that people who pray really have better life...

You mean something like findings that people who pray are healthier and live longer? Not necessarily. Correlation does not imply causation.

..., then you could claim that the 7th claim is more likely.. and then you could say the chance of GOD existing is now higher..
But as you know, there is not even ONE claim, that can have any small tiny shred of grasp with reality.

I know no such thing. The only thing I am certain of is that I am uncertain of just about everything.

Now, I'm not even talking about actual evidence. I'm talking about showing any deviation in standards that is caused due to religion or GOD...
If you could show that people who believe in GOD do better in life, live better life, are healthier or whatever.. you could start and claim that the chance of GOD is better

Well, there are lots of people who have tried. Results are mixed. The data are inconclusive.

Also, by the day, with each scientific understanding we learn, the already slim chances for GOD are getting even lower...

I doubt that, but post your math, and I'll take a look at it.

So you could say in somewhat confident that based on the evidence, and based on our current knowledge and based on our current understanding of the universe, GOD probably doesn't exist.

Exactly how confident are you? Post your math.

ANY Atheist, will tell you that the disbelief in GOD (Me included) is only due to the FACT that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise! and not just because he doesn't want to believe.

This claim presupposes the idea that evidence is required to believe in something. I guess we should narrow down exactly what you consider evidence.

If you could even prove that one, Only one of the mythical stories in the bible are undeniably true, you'll surely change the world! so.. good luck i guess

Well, let's pick what is arguably the most ridiculed story in the Bible–the talking donkey story. Some guy, I forget who, is on his way to somewhere, but an angel blocks his path. Unfortunately, the guy can't see the angel, but his donkey can and refuses to advance because the angel is carrying a flaming sword (as angels are wont to do). So the guy gets pissed at the donkey and beats him, but still the donkey won't go forward (donkeys can be stubborn that way). Finally, the donkey turns and tells the guy off.

At this point a lot of people ridicule the story and say, "Donkeys don't talk!"

How do you know that donkeys don't talk?

Well, because no one to date has seen a talking donkey.

So all the donkeys you have encountered in the past haven't spoken, so you know that all the donkeys that you become aware of now or in the future won't talk either? How do you know that unobserved donkeys will be similar to those you have already observed?

Here's where the circular logic and problem of induction comes in.

 

[james bond]

Can you support this claim? I've never heard this claim made by any scientists. Sounds like a straw-man.

To just claim strawman without any evidence is a strawman argument. Why are you so weak with the evidence and links to back up your beliefs? My posting the following link makes you wrong again. I'm not the evolutionist here, but here's the link for another piece of "biology" that you missed http://www.businessinsider.com/where-were-most-likely-to-find-alien-life-in-the-space-2015-4 .

Here's the SETI link -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/seti-alien-life-extraterrestrial_n_2655465.html .

 

[james bond]

All fossils are "transitional fossils" unless the species dead-ended with that particular fossil. You and I are "transitional forms" since there's no indication that evolution has come to a halt.

So, one does not "believe in" transitional fossils any more than one "believes" Earth has a moon-- either one accepts the reality or they don't. Contrary to what you wrote above, it is not based on "faith".

The evidence of dark energy is mathematically based on formulas far too complex for this guy to understand, but mathematics is still classified scientifically as being evidence. IOW, math works.

It's based on faith. Evos claim humans came from fish. The coelacanth was a transitional fossil until they found they were still living. Haven't you wondered why we do not hear much about them anymore? That's because it does not show a walking million years old fish. The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore. They're not land creatures, but fish. Occam's Razor has shown this for the other fishes to tetrapods. Not only that, these fish are not millions of years old and extinct. So your "beliefs" so far are not backed up by the science.

 

[Parsimony]

From Nova:

Thank you. It looks like james bond was indeed quote mining.

I woke up in the middle of the night to take a leak and couldn't get back to sleep. It struck me that you support mutation, but will you ingest it? Suppose the evo scientists claim this pill will increase your bone density better. Will you take it. Also, will you eat GMO foods? I try to avoid GMO foods and am an advocate for its labeling. I would not knowingly take any modified product to increase bone density or anything else. I would not recommend modified products that eat oil, for example, to use on oil spills.

I don't "support" mutation, I acknowledge that mutations happen. Whether I would take any pill or not depends on what my needs were at the time and whether testing had indicated that it was safe or not. You can't inject specific mutations into your own DNA by taking a pill anyway, so your scenario is not a realistic one. I probably have eaten GMO's before and unlike you I am not afraid of them.

Can we call it case closed on Lucy? Lucy was a chimp. Not rated interesting by the man who put her back together. http://www2.kent.edu/news/newsdetail.cfm?customel_datapageid_9299=27947

Australopithecines were absolutely not chimpanzees nor have you supplied even the tiniest bit of evidence that they were, whereas I have supplied plenty of evidence that they had anatomical differences from chimps. "Chimp-like" does not mean "chimp". Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but are not chimps.

 

[leibowde84]

To just claim strawman without any evidence is a strawman argument. Why are you so weak with the evidence and links to back up your beliefs? My posting the following link makes you wrong again. I'm not the evolutionist here, but here's the link for another piece of "biology" that you missed http://www.businessinsider.com/where-were-most-likely-to-find-alien-life-in-the-space-2015-4 .

Wrong again. This merely makes a claim of likelihood. Nowhere does it claim that we WILL find alien life at any point in the future.

 

[james bond]

Wrong again. This merely makes a claim of likelihood. Nowhere does it claim that we WILL find alien life at any point in the future.

Ha ha. No, I'm pointing out that you're ignorant. You ask people all these questions, but have failed to learn anything. The news that evos claimed aliens because of the vastness of space and now multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment was all over the news. Same with SETI. The evidence is right in front of your nose, yet you keep making these sweeping statements of your beliefs.

 

[james bond]

Thank you. It looks like james bond was indeed quote mining.

I don't "support" mutation, I acknowledge that mutations happen. Whether I would take any pill or not depends on what my needs were at the time and whether testing had indicated that it was safe or not. You can't inject specific mutations into your own DNA by taking a pill anyway, so your scenario is not a realistic one. I probably have eaten GMO's before and unlike you I am not afraid of them.

Australopithecines were absolutely not chimpanzees nor have you supplied even the tiniest bit of evidence that they were, whereas I have supplied plenty of evidence that they had anatomical differences from chimps. "Chimp-like" does not mean "chimp". Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but are not chimps.

How can I be quote mining when I posted an article from the same Professor Owen Lovejoy where he states he does not believe we came from chimpanzee-ape creatures. He's a premier expert in his field and reconstructed Lucy and Arvi.

You haven't even explained how we got to Australopithecines.

 

[leibowde84]

Ha ha. No, I'm pointing out that you're ignorant. You ask people all these questions, but have failed to learn anything. The news that evos claimed aliens because of the vastness of space and now multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment was all over the news. Same with SETI. The evidence is right in front of your nose, yet you keep making these sweeping statements of your beliefs.

Again, that merely deals with claims of likelihood, not certainty. Nowhere in your cited source does it claim that we WILL find alien life. You made a dishonest claim.

 

[leibowde84]

Ha ha. No, I'm pointing out that you're ignorant. You ask people all these questions, but have failed to learn anything. The news that evos claimed aliens because of the vastness of space and now multi-million dollar telescopes and equipment was all over the news. Same with SETI. The evidence is right in front of your nose, yet you keep making these sweeping statements of your beliefs.

I agree that the likelihood that there is life elsewhere in the universe is high, and SETI certainly makes it easier to find. But, this in no way means that we WILL find alien life in the future. It is merely a likelihood.

 

[metis]

It's based on faith. Evos claim humans came from fish. The coelacanth was a transitional fossil until they found they were still living. Haven't you wondered why we do not hear much about them anymore? That's because it does not show a walking million years old fish. The coelacanth turned out to live in very deep water, never come up on land and their fins aren’t strong enough to move them on land even if they did come ashore. They're not land creatures, but fish. Occam's Razor has shown this for the other fishes to tetrapods. Not only that, these fish are not millions of years old and extinct. So your "beliefs" so far are not backed up by the science.

It is not based on "faith", so you can say that all you want but what you are saying simply is not the truth. It is based on research that comes up with evidence, and "faith" does not need to rely on either one of those.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, taught about "evilution", considered going into the ministry, but then I did something stupid-- I did the research, and this was over 50 years ago when it became obvious there simply had to be an evolutionary process based even alone with the fossil record. What else could have caused all this sequencing, especially since the Bible says that God stopped creating at the end of the sixth "day" (yom).

Then there's the dating process that clearly shows that many fossils are millions to billions years old, and now there's the genome testing, which also shows an evolutionary process, and then then there's just plain old common sense: all material items change over time, and genes are material items. And we've seen micro-orgnaisms evolve into new species (google "speciaion").

Needless to say, I left that church for that and a couple of other reasons, refusing to go to such a "religious" facility that has to distort the reality in order to try and hoodwink its congregants into staying.

So, believe what you want, but I would suggest that if you actually do both the scientific research and study the theological writings seriously in an objective manner, you'll not be posting what you posted above.

BTW, the coelacanth story I'm very familiar with, and you have again distorted the reality. Organisms simply do not all evolve at the same rate, and this is especially true of aquatic life, which tends to evolve much more slowly than land forms. Another very slow-evolving organism is the shark, that has changed very little over millions of years. To those who have a basic understanding of the evolutionary process, this should come as no surprise; to those that don't, it smacks of "corruption", to use "the Donald's" term.

 

[Sapiens]

Thank you. It looks like james bond was indeed quote mining.

I don't "support" mutation, I acknowledge that mutations happen. Whether I would take any pill or not depends on what my needs were at the time and whether testing had indicated that it was safe or not. You can't inject specific mutations into your own DNA by taking a pill anyway, so your scenario is not a realistic one. I probably have eaten GMO's before and unlike you I am not afraid of them.

Australopithecines were absolutely not chimpanzees nor have you supplied even the tiniest bit of evidence that they were, whereas I have supplied plenty of evidence that they had anatomical differences from chimps. "Chimp-like" does not mean "chimp". Gorillas and orangutans are chimp-like but are not chimps.

In fact,we humans are so chimp like that Homo sapiens is often referred to as the "third chimpanzee." Were aliens doing the classifying, we'd undoubtedly be Pan sapiens.

 

[Parsimony]

How can I be quote mining when...

The quote mining statement is in regards to Nova, not the article.

I posted an article from the same Professor Owen Lovejoy where he states he does not believe we came from chimpanzee-ape creatures. He's a premier expert in his field and reconstructed Lucy and Arvi.

He never once stated in the article that Lucy was a chimpanzee nor did he say that we evolved from chimpanzees. Again, a "chimp-like" creature is not the same thing as being a chimp. Lucy was chimp-like but was not a chimp. The article itself even states that Lucy walked upright.

You haven't even explained how we got to Australopithecines.

Lucy is an Australopithecine, so we've been talking about them this whole time...

I will wait for you to address my remaining posts (A. sediba, A. africanus, nylonase, etc.) before I respond further. I don't want to get ahead of what needs to be addressed.

 

[Shad]

Your answer ignores the problem of contrastive underdetermination. If you're not familiar, I suggest this video as a starting point.

It ignores nothing but points out that you misused terminology. Even your own video supports the proper terminology which you are obvious to. Watch your own video. Solipsism does not apply in the context of the video.

Surely you meant loosely. Nevertheless, solipsism is a theory.

Nope it isn't. You are playing with your terms again. Watch your own video.

Then why are you arguing with me about it?

Your argument against the point was flawed due to the terms misused. For examples. Evolution does use maximum likelihood analysis which can counter parsimony. Continental drift was rejected based on the appeal to simplicity. Atomic theory was rejected based on the appeal to simplicity. The latter two are far more accepted than the former.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Well to even entertain an answer to what was/is beyond the Big Bang in itself is speculation. Any answer already violates parsimony.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Do you mean to say that the arguments in question are as flawed as parsimony? Or what?

No. The conclusion that god is not the answer based on the principle does nothing to show the answer is acceptable. It is merely mimicking a method but leaving the details blank in order to justify a view. There is no work put forward to argue what the poster considers unwarranted assumptions. For all we know the user could have already assumed God is an unwarranted assumption as a presupposition which is not justified. Unless stated we have no standard, no real criteria other than something invoked as a rationalization. This makes the comment a statement not an argument for. Statements can be rejected without issue if one does nothing to defend a statement with argumentation. Merely invoking a principle is not an argument. Anyone can do it.

 

[james bond]

Again, that merely deals with claims of likelihood, not certainty. Nowhere in your cited source does it claim that we WILL find alien life. You made a dishonest claim.

What does it claim to you then? Plenty of those kinds of articles from different people. I saw another NASA clip where a small fish darted past and that is what they theorized. Maybe that clip was replaced by the shrimp. I remember Carl Sagan, atheist scientist, who sent a time capsule in two satellites because he thought intelligent aliens existed due to the vastness or "billions and billions" of stars in space. What a waste of taxpayer money. Why don't they just claim we won't find alien life? Why don't they give more credence to the Fine-Tuning Theory. The evidence shows it. Some other person here whom I think is a non-believer and believer in evo was trying to teach me that these telescopes and multi-million dollar equipment is how we see invisible particles. I didn't want to tell him we still couldn't see it and that it takes a LHC. However, it does not mean the billions of dollars of great energy put in will create a universe or black hole. If we can find a source for cheaper quantum energy (not a quantum weapon) or discover more about the basic forces, then I'll be satisfied. What it probably did show was string theory is pseudoscience.

 

[james bond]

I agree that the likelihood that there is life elsewhere in the universe is high, and SETI certainly makes it easier to find. But, this in no way means that we WILL find alien life in the future. It is merely a likelihood.

Is this your worldview, philosophy, religion, opinion or something else? You answered the question I asked in my last post, so please disregard.

 

[james bond]

It is not based on "faith", so you can say that all you want but what you are saying simply is not the truth. It is based on research that comes up with evidence, and "faith" does not need to rely on either one of those.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, taught about "evilution", considered going into the ministry, but then I did something stupid-- I did the research, and this was over 50 years ago when it became obvious there simply had to be an evolutionary process based even alone with the fossil record. What else could have caused all this sequencing, especially since the Bible says that God stopped creating at the end of the sixth "day" (yom).

Then there's the dating process that clearly shows that many fossils are millions to billions years old, and now there's the genome testing, which also shows an evolutionary process, and then then there's just plain old common sense: all material items change over time, and genes are material items. And we've seen micro-orgnaisms evolve into new species (google "speciaion").

Needless to say, I left that church for that and a couple of other reasons, refusing to go to such a "religious" facility that has to distort the reality in order to try and hoodwink its congregants into staying.

So, believe what you want, but I would suggest that if you actually do both the scientific research and study the theological writings seriously in an objective manner, you'll not be posting what you posted above.

BTW, the coelacanth story I'm very familiar with, and you have again distorted the reality. Organisms simply do not all evolve at the same rate, and this is especially true of aquatic life, which tends to evolve much more slowly than land forms. Another very slow-evolving organism is the shark, that has changed very little over millions of years. To those who have a basic understanding of the evolutionary process, this should come as no surprise; to those that don't, it smacks of "corruption", to use "the Donald's" term.

Are you sure it's evidence because I'm sure it's not? You mention research, but do you understand that creation scientists' theories are not accepted today and they will not be published in Nature and Science? Before the 1800s, the church ruled science. Do you think religious people created science and the scientific method, i.e. Sir Frances Bacon? Have you heard about God of the Gaps which was created by religious scientists? They wanted to warn religious scientists to not use God to prove their theories or when stuck for an answer. Faith in evolution is defined, "Evolutionism, as opposed to Creationism, is the advocacy of or belief in biological evolution." If evolution was fact, then I, any creationist or anyone could use it, but it isn't and we don't.

All I can say is maybe you didn't research enough and maybe being a pastor was not something you were meant to be. One has to study Noah's Flood and Genesis. I can show you experimentally that the fossil record may not be correct because sedimentary layers are not age layers.

This is a starting point. Basically, there are two main theories about the age of the Earth and the fossils found in the rock layers. The old-earth theory says that the Earth is a few billion years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks formed slowly over a long time. The young-earth theory says that the Earth is a few thousand years old, and most of the fossil-bearing rocks were formed rapidly in a world-wide flood.

Both these theories are based on faith. One is based on the idea that a divine being (an intelligent designer) miraculously created life instantaneously. The other is based on the belief that unseen, unknown, impersonal, natural forces miraculously created life over a long period of time. Both theories have been constructed to support one or the other of these two "religious" beliefs.

Anyway, here's the experiment by French scientist Guy Berthault. If you google stratification and Mt. St. Helens, it shows a natural proof of the stratification happening in a short period of time.

 

[Zosimus]

It ignores nothing but points out that you misused terminology. Even your own video supports the proper terminology which you are obvious to. Watch your own video. Solipsism does not apply in the context of the video.

Nope it isn't. You are playing with your terms again. Watch your own video.



Your argument against the point was flawed due to the terms misused. For examples. Evolution does use maximum likelihood analysis which can counter parsimony. Continental drift was rejected based on the appeal to simplicity. Atomic theory was rejected based on the appeal to simplicity. The latter two are far more accepted than the former.



Well to even entertain an answer to what was/is beyond the Big Bang in itself is speculation. Any answer already violates parsimony.



No. The conclusion that god is not the answer based on the principle does nothing to show the answer is acceptable. It is merely mimicking a method but leaving the details blank in order to justify a view. There is no work put forward to argue what the poster considers unwarranted assumptions. For all we know the user could have already assumed God is an unwarranted assumption as a presupposition which is not justified. Unless stated we have no standard, no real criteria other than something invoked as a rationalization. This makes the comment a statement not an argument for. Statements can be rejected without issue if one does nothing to defend a statement with argumentation. Merely invoking a principle is not an argument. Anyone can do it.

I still have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll reach for the low-hanging fruit.

Solipsism is a theory.

The author of the video definitely agrees that solipsism is a theory. In fact, he agrees with the entire argument I've presented. How do I know?

Because it's not my argument. It's his.

 

[Shad]

I still have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll reach for the low-hanging fruit.

My point was clear.

Solipsism is a theory.

No it's a philosophical concept. Your supporting video was about empirical theories thus not applicable to Solipsism

The author of the video definitely agrees that solipsism is a theory. In fact, he agrees with the entire argument I've presented. How do I know?

No he points out, as I have, that the philosophical principle can fail via another philosophical view point called solipsism. He is comparing methodologies, science and religion, claiming to be the better method via the razor then defeating both claims via simplicity.

You have said far more than the video has stated. Hence it is still your argument.