Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Thief]

Why? Obviously what happens is disputable, so why would any supernatural force judge us for choosing the wrong option to believe?

not so much a judgement call.....
I think that action is reserved for those who make such practice.

I think it's more to a regrouping .....
you alongside everyone else with the same hesitation.

 

[McBell]

not so much a judgement call.....
I think that action is reserved for those who make such practice.

I think it's more to a regrouping .....
you alongside everyone else with the same hesitation.

Yet if everyone believes as you do, who could you feel superior to?
Yeah, you talk a good game in the here and now, but one wonders if you have actually thought it through beyond what you want to be true....
I mean, you ditch things the second they get you where you want to be, I.E. science, cause and effect....

 

[leibowde84]

not so much a judgement call.....
I think that action is reserved for those who make such practice.

I think it's more to a regrouping .....
you alongside everyone else with the same hesitation.

Seems like a judgment/punishment based on lacking a specific belief to me. I think everyone would prefer death to not be the final permanent end, whatever their beliefs might happen to be.

 

[Thief]

Seems like a judgment/punishment based on lacking a specific belief to me. I think everyone would prefer death to not be the final permanent end, whatever their beliefs might happen to be.

oh....maybe....maybe not....

but to end up alongside others like yourself.....
How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

 

[leibowde84]

oh....maybe....maybe not....

but to end up alongside others like yourself.....
How else to be happy?
How else to be fair?

What would be unfair would be to base one's future after death on their beliefs held before they died. We, as humans, have no way of knowing what happens after death (at least for the time being). So, it is completely reasonable to lack belief in an afterlife but still prefer that one actually existed. Imho, we can't choose what we believe. Either something seems plausible, reasonable or sufficiently evidenced or it doesn't to us subjectively. So, it seems cruel to deny anyone an afterlife simply because it might make others feel uncomfortable or "unhappy" (can't understand why that would be an issue). If there is an afterlife, it shouldn't be denied merely because someone didn't believe that there would be one during their life.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Right, and any scientist (or intelligent person for that matter) will tell you that appearances don't mean too much in this context. Just because it "appears" that these organisms were "planted there", that doesn't support the conclusion that they actually were. It merely supports the conclusion that we don't have enough information as of yet.
.

Right, so we don't know, leaving only an argument from ignorance- we don't have evidence, observation, measurement, repeatable experiments...
so let's just assume evolution and slap a 'science;' label on it anyway

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes we did, several times. Which is why I'm wondering why you're still making the same misleading claim at this point in time.

Dawkin's claim not mine, debate it with him, or Leibowde here!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dawkin's claim not mine, debate it with him, or Leibowde here!

No, it's not his claim. Leibowde doesn't think it's his claim either. Because it's not. Anyone reading the chapter, in context, knows that is not Dawkins' claim.I've provided the context to you many times. First of all, what he's discussing there is the argument between Gould and Eldridge over punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. He then goes on to explain (as Leibowde did here) that it only appears that way and gives examples of intermediate forms from the preCambrian and within the Cambrian explosion itself.

We've all been over this so many times now, that your quote mining isn't even funny at this point. The next time you post that one-liner and someone points out the dishonesty of it, don't bother whining about ad hominem attacks, okay?

 

[outhouse]

Dawkin's claim not mine, debate it with him, or Leibowde here!

yes. But it is typical quote mined rhetoric WAY out of context.

 

[leibowde84]

Right, so we don't know, leaving only an argument from ignorance- we don't have evidence, observation, measurement, repeatable experiments...
so let's just assume evolution and slap a 'science;' label on it anyway

I am only referring to the Cambrian Explosion, not the ToE in general. Our lack of an explanation for this specific occurrence doesn't diminish the ToE in general. Stay on topic please.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Dawkin's claim not mine, debate it with him, or Leibowde here!

Its been pointed out to you that Dawkins quote that you have quote mined does not support your position. Its like quoting the Vedas to support Christianity.

 

[leibowde84]

Dawkin's claim not mine, debate it with him, or Leibowde here!

Actually, you are taking it out of context, which is something that Dawkins has addressed with this specific quote being "mined" and used fraudulently. "I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: "It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history." Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader's appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore "gaps" in the fossil record."

 

[gnostic]

I thought this topic was about finding "verifiable evidences" for creationism, not evidences for evolution.

And evidences for creationism are not just about the evidences of the natural world, but it has to be evidences for the existence of a CREATOR(s) involving in "creating".

If there are no evidences for any creator god, then it is highly likely such a deity don't exist.

 

[McBell]

I thought this topic was about finding "verifiable
evidences" for creationism, not evidences for evolution.

And evidences for creationism are not just about the evidences of the natural world, but it has to be evidences for the existence of a CREATOR(s) involving in "creating".

If there are no evidences for any creator god, then it is high likely such a deity don't exist.

Please be so kind to list the conditional modifiers you assume when using the word evidence in the above quoted post.

 

[gnostic]

Please be so kind to list the conditional modifiers you assume when using the word evidence in the above quoted post.

My post is why we are directing the spotlight on evolution, and not on creationism.

The thread title is "Verifiable evidences for creationism" and the OP are focused on creationism, not evolution. leibowde84 wanted know "Is there any [evidence]?"

I am not saying that there are evidences for creationism. I am saying this topic is not about evolution, and focusing on evolution is going off-topic in this thread.

My post (last paragraph) is also saying there are no evidences to support creationism because there are no evidences to support existence of any creator god.

So the bottom line for me, is that if there are no evidences to support the existence of any god, then the whole creationism is false, baseless, unsubstantiated.

 

[McBell]

My post is why we are directing the spotlight on evolution, and not on creationism.

The thread title is "Verifiable evidences for creationism" and the OP are focused on creationism, not evolution. leibowde84 wanted know "Is there any [evidence]?"

I am not saying that there are evidences for creationism. I am saying this topic is not about evolution, and focusing on evolution is going off-topic in this thread.

My post (last paragraph) is also saying there are no evidences to support creationism because there are no evidences to support existence of any creator god.

So the bottom line for me, is that if there are no evidences to support the existence of any god, then the whole creationism is false, baseless, unsubstantiated.

And I asked you specify what conditional modifies, if any, you are attaching to the word evidence.
You have not clearly answered.
Though based upon your explanation, it appears you want objective empirical evidence.
If this is not what you are asking for, please clarify.

I ask for clarification because without any conditional modifiers, anything that convinces someone of something is technically evidence, as per the very definition of the word "evidence".

 

[gnostic]

And I asked you specify what conditional modifies, if any, you are attaching to the word evidence.
You have not clearly answered.
Though based upon your explanation, it appears you want objective empirical evidence.
If this is not what you are asking for, please clarify.

I always view "verifiable evidence" as "objective empirical evidence".

The "verifiable" being something (evidence) that can be repeatedly tested and be tested independently by anyone. And verifiable evidences that are not based on anyone's personal belief; so any conclusion are based on evidence, not on someone's belief or opinion.

 

[gnostic]

The definition provided is not consistent with what is written in the bible.

Proof of the possibility of creation is mankind's ability to create.

We manipulate natural processes to rearrange matter into other things, etc.
We manipulate the elements and forces now available to manipulate, and also set in motion chain reactions of natural processes toward a predetermined end.

Except that humans exist, and they are real.

You can meet the person who invent, create, build or fix things (as long as this person didn't die); he is not invisible, he doesn't have any magical powers. He is born to parents, naturally.

But just because humans can do the things you say they can do, that doesn't in any way prove that God exist and can do things too.

This is why I am not a fan of the Watchmaker analogy, because it rest on people having never met the Watchmaker. It has full of BS holes, in which you are required to leave all logic and common sense behind.

 

[Thief]

imagination is the problem solving part of the mind.
without it...there are no problems you can solve.

imagine a room empty, but for one table.
the first time you come looking.....there is only the table.
you come back latter....and there is a coin on the table.
an item indicating someone has been there.

you come back later again....and find the coin is spinning....
someone is very close by....maybe even behind you.

when we look up.....there's a lot of spin in what we see.

 

[Etritonakin]

Except that humans exist, and they are real.

You can meet the person who invent, create, build or fix things (as long as this person didn't die); he is not invisible, he doesn't have any magical powers. He is born to parents, naturally.

But just because humans can do the things you say they can do, that doesn't in any way prove that God exist and can do things too.

This is why I am not a fan of the Watchmaker analogy, because it rest on people having never met the Watchmaker. It has full of BS holes, in which you are required to leave all logic and common sense behind.

I actually don't see much use in trying to prove God exists. Time is better spent proving what brings good consequences for all.

I know God exists, but science as a whole will have to wait until it has evidence it will accept.

We know enough about our immediate environment to know much about a person we have never met -or may not be able to meet because they existed in the past -but, from a scientific viewpoint, we do not know enough (or do not realize we do) about the origin of everything to determine whether or not a self-aware designer was necessary -or at what point.

The watchmaker analogy is not wrong -we know certain things can't happen in our present environment without humans (or similar), but we do not understand the environment which preceded ours enough (or realize we do) to scientifically determine what could and could not happen without a "God". We may have the knowledge and data necessary, but are not looking at it correctly.

We can know that what preceded us was of a nature to cause what exists.