Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Robert.Evans]

Creating the superior designs by sheer fluke is the tricky part, make any random change in a 747, and the chances of screwing it up entirely, is always vastly higher than the odds of accidentally creating a significantly improved aircraft, this tendency increases the more highly evolved the design.

And taht is the problem isn't it. I don't deny evolution myself as regards a physical mechanism that works - but boy, is it the most incredibly lucky "natural" process you are ever going to meet.... Why do things mutate that are better? I think that is mind-numbing IF we were saying there was no intelligence involved in any form whatsoever.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Can we verify there is only one God, and not a million? Can we verify that God loves humans opposed to hating them? Can we verify a God even exists, or is even necessary?

We are talking about sceince now. It is supposed to be able to give physical evidence for things. That is why he is asking.

 

[Robert.Evans]

and if God did not do it?.......speak a greater Cause for all of this reality

That is something they fail to do. But that is a massive ask, is it not?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can we verify there is only one God, and not a million? Can we verify that God loves humans opposed to hating them? Can we verify a God even exists, or is even necessary?

I acknowledge the element of faith in my belief, do you?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'd love to know more about what you mean by this, but I can't quite figure it out... Natural selection doesn't "guide" anything. Either traits increase reproduction or they don't. Any trait that has any benefit to increasing reproduction is going to outnumber things that don't. That's not a "guide."

we agree- do me a favor and take that up with Leibowde,"through trillions of beneficial, detrimental, and neutral mutations over billions of years guided by natural selection"
or anybody else that suggests that natural selection can somehow guide mutations-

This significant benefit to increasing reproduction must arise first, entirely unguided, by complete and utter fluke (according to evolution) that's the problematic part

 

[Thief]

That is something they fail to do. But that is a massive ask, is it not?

I have been operating in the scheme of regression for a long time
and science has been pointing back to the singularity for a long time.

What science will not do is go that one step further.....into the void.
for the singularity to be truly singular....no secondary point can be allowed.
In the instant a secondary forms.....so too infinity.

BANG!

but can substance be it's own volition?
can substance beget the living?

If substance first then all of life is physical and all is dust.

If Spirit first, then we have a shot of continuance.
and Man is not the mystery many people think he is.

 

[leibowde84]

Again the misconception created by stating it this way, is that natural selection is somehow capable of guiding the significant beneficial changes themselves, of somehow helping overcome the odds against such a remarkable fluke

But the significantly beneficial changes must all happen before they can be naturally selected as such- by pure chance as evolutionists would have it.

Natural selection goes without saying, it's the process by which the Mustang outlived the Pinto, obviously if you have a significantly superior design, it will outperform it's competitors- nobody debates this

Creating the superior designs by sheer fluke is the tricky part, make any random change in a 747, and the chances of screwing it up entirely, is always vastly higher than the odds of accidentally creating a significantly improved aircraft, this tendency increases the more highly evolved the design.

By these simple laws, nature selects the fittest yes- aka the least unfit, the least damaged version of it's predecessor. That random changes would somehow inherently favor increasingly superior designs for nature to select from is a fallacy.

"That random changes would somehow inherently favor increasingly superior designs for nature to select from is a fallacy."

I'm not sure what your point is here. The "random mutations" in question in no way "favor increasingly superior designs", and evolution in no way claims this. There are detrimental mutations, neutral mutations, and beneficial mutations. Evolution does not contend that beneficial mutations occur more frequently. It merely describes how detrimental mutations tend to not survive, neutral mutations don't make much of a difference, and beneficial mutations tend to make reproduction easier.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think your being honest....let's see if you are....

Spirit first?.....or substance?

be honest

Can you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

 

[leibowde84]

Perhaps you are the wrong person to ask. People ask where does God come from. I am asking (IF there were no God) where does this "natural" come from.

It could have come from some kind of natural process we are currently not aware of. But, this seems like an argument from ignorance. The lack of an alternative explanation in no way supports the argument that God did it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And taht is the problem isn't it. I don't deny evolution myself as regards a physical mechanism that works - but boy, is it the most incredibly lucky "natural" process you are ever going to meet.... Why do things mutate that are better? I think that is mind-numbing IF we were saying there was no intelligence involved in any form whatsoever.

Something like 99.9% of every species that has ever existed has gone extinct. If you want to call that luck ...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

We established that evolution is not directly measureable, testable, observable, i.e. that it is not ascertainable by traditional scientific principles, in contrast with e.g. the distance to the moon which can be directly measured, observed tested.

That's why nobody debates the distance to the moon, but most people doubt evolution, the evidence is indirect and not particularly convincing as yet.

No one debates the legitimacy of evolution except those who are unqualified to do so and almost unanimously based in religious reasoning.

I believe evolution is correct, but it cannot be dismissed so lightly, that things look designed, and usually, there is good reason for such obversations. Usually we accept it as evidence. Can we really say it was because of some natural forces which accidentally arose in order to shape other randomness?

Yes we can say that. And what is the evidence that it is designed? Other than a hunch? The fact that it is functional? In which case you have set up a false axiom. Anything that ends up being functional has to be designed? There is ZERO possibility of it not being designed?

and if God did not do it?.......speak a greater Cause for all of this reality

Perhaps god doesn't exist and its just a simple answer people like to put in.. I doubt it is anything so simplistic.

 

[dust1n]

We are talking about sceince now. It is supposed to be able to give physical evidence for things. That is why he is asking.

I'll take that as a "no."

 

[dust1n]

I acknowledge the element of faith in my belief, do you?

Well, considering I don't believe in any sort of objective reality, yea I have to work with uncertain knowledge on a daily basis.

Okay, if evolution requires any element of faith, as you assert, than its foundations in knowledge are at most as well grounded as your knowledge in the belief of God.

 

[dust1n]

we agree- do me a favor and take that up with Leibowde,"through trillions of beneficial, detrimental, and neutral mutations over billions of years guided by natural selection"
or anybody else that suggests that natural selection can somehow guide mutations-

This significant benefit to increasing reproduction must arise first, entirely unguided, by complete and utter fluke (according to evolution) that's the problematic part

Gotcha.. that helps a bit. "Guide" is too metaphory for my tastes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No one debates the legitimacy of evolution except those who are unqualified to do so and almost unanimously based in religious reasoning.

Likewise - 100% of astrologers believe in astrology, and they are the only ones qualified to determine it's legitimacy, according to astrologers

science is a method, not a popular opinion among a like minded group of people- that's the exact opposite of science

But aside from this, it's simply not true, obviously an academic 'evolutionary biologist' like Dawkins will subscribe to academic evolutionary biology based in atheistic reasoning

a climatologist by definition subscribes to climatology based on environmentalist reasoning

Skeptics of both are found in deeper fields of biochemistry and atmospheric science, which not only delve deeper, but are less constrained by inherent conclusions of their more superficial ideological counterparts.

Better still, are those who delve beyond mere academic exercises, into practical fields with real world consequences and results. e.g. Dr Ben Carson, has more practical experience and appreciation for the pinnacle of biological design- the human brain, than any of us here.

 

[leibowde84]

and if God did not do it?.......speak a greater Cause for all of this reality

This = arguing from ignorance. The absence of an alternative does not support the claim that "God did it".

 

[leibowde84]

Likewise - 100% of astrologers believe in astrology, and they are the only ones qualified to determine it's legitimacy, according to astrologers

science is a method, not a popular opinion among a like minded group of people- that's the exact opposite of science

But aside from this, it's simply not true, obviously an academic 'evolutionary biologist' like Dawkins will subscribe to academic evolutionary biology based in atheistic reasoning

a climatologist by definition subscribes to climatology based on environmentalist reasoning

Skeptics of both are found in deeper fields of biochemistry and atmospheric science, which not only delve deeper, but are less constrained by inherent conclusions of their more superficial ideological counterparts.

Better still, are those who delve beyond mere academic exercises, into practical fields with real world consequences and results. e.g. Dr Ben Carson, has more practical experience and appreciation for the pinnacle of biological design- the human brain, than any of us here.

Dawkins explicitly bases his arguments on evidence and the lack thereof. Not atheism.

 

[Thief]

Can you rephrase the question? I'm not sure what you are asking here.

the question is already simple.
at the point of singularity a choice is made.....choose.....

Spirit first?......or substance?

you have to begin somewhere.

 

[Thief]

This = arguing from ignorance. The absence of an alternative does not support the claim that "God did it".

not at all....
I understand cause and effect.

there's nothing ignorant about it.

 

[leibowde84]

the question is already simple.
at the point of singularity a choice is made.....choose.....

Spirit first?......or substance?

you have to begin somewhere.

What singularity? Are you referring to the Big Bang? Can you rephrase the question more specifically as to what you are asking?