Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Monk Of Reason]

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.

Dr Ben Carson is a moron and a liar. However this is of no consequence to this debate either way.

Science is a method. Many people have ideological views that stop them from accepting what science has found.

 

[McBell]

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

Not really.
It is merely a sad attempt at shifting the burden.
The point is that god is not required.
So to to ask then who did it if not god is nothing more than a complete avoidance of the point.
The burden is STILL on theists to show that an intelligence is required (as per their claim) regardless of what said intelligence is called.

 

[McBell]

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

I have no need to have faith.
But then, I am not afraid to admit I do not know.

 

[McBell]

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

Still stuck on your personification?

 

[McBell]

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.

Again:
Define "spirit" in a useful and or meaningful way.

Back to faith needs no proving, right?

 

[McBell]

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

there's nothing ignorant about it.

But you throw it out the window the second it gets you where you want to be..."GodDidIt".

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

This "natural process" you speak of - why can that not be God?

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

I would call it dissipating thoughts.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

.......................Perhaps God does exist, and it's just a simple answer that people like to put in... I doubt anything is so simplistic

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?

Unless it is something that takes the convenient title of "natural" (whatever that means) I think functional things need lots of processes to come together to make them "functional". So yes, I think we can say it needs intelligence behind it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

And the absence of a physical God does not support the claim that luck does it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

That depends on what he is arguing about. He does not speak with evidence when he preaches, does he? And he frequently bends the truth in those arguments - until he is found out however.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You obviously haven't read the God Delusion, or you would know that the book IS based on the lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

Based on the rantings of a man with no evidence is what I got out of it.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The book merely explains why Dawkins feels that God is an illusion created by man. He provides many forms of evidence in his argument for this.

If you can call that evidence, then we are replete with it - and I doubt D would agree!

 

[Robert.Evans]

right , so he concludes God does not exist (is an illusion) , merely from what he sees as lack of evidence that he does.

in other words X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

it's not just an argument from ignorance, it's an entirely personal subjective ignorance on his part

But it's a great hobby that takes him all over the world, where he meets new friends and makes millions - don't forget that bit.. haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, he provides evidence that certain notions of God cannot be correct. No one can prove that God doesn't exist, and he admits that.

So what is the point of the book? Oh I get it, he just wanted to tell everyone his OPINION.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Not really.
It is merely a sad attempt at shifting the burden.
The point is that god is not required.
So to to ask then who did it if not god is nothing more than a complete avoidance of the point.
The burden is STILL on theists to show that an intelligence is required (as per their claim) regardless of what said intelligence is called.

And of course, likewise for luck, which you forgot to print but were going to, right?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I have no need to have faith.
But then, I am not afraid to admit I do not know.

You don't know! Hold the press. I thought the way you were talking that you knew something when all along, you hadn't got a flaming clue!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Again:
Define "spirit" in a useful and or meaningful way.

Back to faith needs no proving, right?

So what are you back to? Turning the lights off and sticking your thumb in your mouth. Or is the fence you look for to sit on. Take a cushion, eh.

 

[leibowde84]

This "natural process" you speak of - why can that not be God?

I never said it couldnt. But we shouldn't jump the gun and assume God, as it will make us stop searching for a natural explanation. I don't want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable.