Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Midnight Rain]

That does not explain how the seed came to be, or the complex processes that cause that seed to sprout and grow into a fruit tree, or perhaps a mighty oak. As the poet said, "Only God can make a [living] tree." Are we to believe what is beyond man's reach and ability to do, mere unintelligent processes did, millions of times over? That is not science, but wild speculation, IMO.

Actually we have a good understanding of that. We have a good understanding of how things happened all the way back to the big bang. What we don't know a terrible amount about is the big bang.

So lets skip to that part of the argument since I don't have the energy to explain to you the 14 billion year long process to get to a single tree in your back yard. What evidence do you have that it was a god that created the universe? Nothing from the point of the big bang to now had someone leaping in to design anything. Some people at tempt the pitcher argumetn where god reeled up and threw the perfect universe to lay out as he wanted but how do you know that to be true? Everything that exists can be explained by natural causes. The only possible backtrack you can take is that god created those laws but how do you know that?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not believe irreducible complexity has been successfully refuted. I do believe all things have been designed or the natural events producing them have been designed to do so.

You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

If you believe "all things have been designed or the natural events producing them have been designed to do so" then you're looking at designed things in a sea of designed things (not to mention the circular logic you are employing).
A way we actually determine design is by comparing designed things with un-designed things. That's how we know a carving on a tree is a man made design while the tree itself is not. It's how we distinguish between a watch we may find on a beach and the sand. Tree carvings, watches and paintings don't occur in nature and we can track down the designers of said things and verify that they were designed. If you just assume everything is designed then you can never actually demonstrate that, and you're stuck arguing in circles.

 

[leibowde84]

That does not explain how the seed came to be, or the complex processes that cause that seed to sprout and grow into a fruit tree, or perhaps a mighty oak. As the poet said, "Only God can make a [living] tree." Are we to believe what is beyond man's reach and ability to do, mere unintelligent processes did, millions of times over? That is not science, but wild speculation, IMO.

Human beings are merely animals. Scientific understanding is still a relatively new endeavor. And our ability to grasp certain concepts is severely limited. Thus, it seems absurd to jump to necessary design just because we don't understand something yet and maybe never will.

 

[rusra02]

You don't have to believe it for it to be true.

If you believe "all things have been designed or the natural events producing them have been designed to do so" then you're looking at designed things in a sea of designed things (not to mention the circular logic you are employing).
A way we actually determine design is by comparing designed things with un-designed things. That's how we know a carving on a tree is a man made design while the tree itself is not. It's how we distinguish between a watch we may find on a beach and the sand. Tree carvings, watches and paintings don't occur in nature and we can track down the designers of said things and verify that they were designed. If you just assume everything is designed then you can never actually demonstrate that, and you're stuck arguing in circles.

No,We discern man-made and man-designed objects from objects that occur without man's designing them. Thus a tree is not undesigned simply because we find them growing without man's help. The scene the artist paints has a far more brilliant Creator than the reproduction made by a skilled artist; no one claims the painting is not the product of an intelligent maker. Yet they claim the wonderful scene the artist painted just happened. The works of creation prove to me what our Creator attests at Isaiah 45:12; "I made the earth and created man on it.I stretched out the heavens with my own hands,And I give orders to all their army."

 

[rusra02]

Human beings are merely animals. Scientific understanding is still a relatively new endeavor. And our ability to grasp certain concepts is severely limited. Thus, it seems absurd to jump to necessary design just because we don't understand something yet and maybe never will.

A man in ancient times said; "However, ask, please, the animals, and they will instruct you; Also the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you. Or give consideration to the earth, and it will instruct you; And the fish of the sea will declare it to you. Who among all these does not know that the hand of Jehovah has done this? In his hand is the life of every living thing and the spirit of every human." I believe that not through a literal ability to speak but through the wisdom evident in their design and abilities, God's Creation can lead us to the correct conclusion that "the hand of Jehovah has done this." (Job 12:7)

 

[SkepticThinker]

No,We discern man-made and man-designed objects from objects that occur without man's designing them.

Yes by comparing them to things which are not designed - like things that occur in nature. If it were all designed we wouldn't be able to pick out the designed things.

Complexity doesn't seem to have much to do with it.

Plus, we have evidence that humans both exist, and design things. We have no good evidence that this god exists and/or designs things.

Thus a tree is not undesigned simply because we find them growing without man's help. The scene the artist paints has a far more brilliant Creator than the reproduction made by a skilled artist; no one claims the painting is not the product of an intelligent maker. Yet they claim the wonderful scene the artist painted just happened. The works of creation prove to me what our Creator attests at Isaiah 45:12; "I made the earth and created man on it.I stretched out the heavens with my own hands,And I give orders to all their army."

No one claims the painting is not the produce of an intelligent maker (humans) because the only experience we have with paintings is that humans produce them. We can verify that human painters exist.

Why even bother using the irreducible complexity argument if everything is designed? You're picking out things here and there where you see design, but claim everything is designed.

 

[james bond]

You still don't seem to understand what an ad hominem is. It's when you attack the character of the other person instead of attacking their argument. Since I have been attacking your argument this whole time, I am not committing an ad hominem fallacy. Also, calling someone "a liar" based on the fact that you have repeatedly demonstrated that they have lied is also not an attack on character. It is an assessment of their character based on the information available. If you lie, you are a liar. It's a statement of fact.


Considering that's exactly what I have done, at length, this counts as another lie.


So you've no interest in correcting your own?


Where is redshift radiation mentioned or alluded to in Genesis?


You asked for evidence of the Big Bang, I provided you with a website that lists evidence of the Big Bang. How does that fail to explain my point?


No, you just parroted them.


You do realize that your argument doesn't refute the anthropic principle, right? "Not yet finding something" is not a good defence of the claim "That thing doesn't exist". As for the "Fine Tuning Theory", it's utterly defeated by the anthropic principle. It is, at best, an argument from ignorance.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


Why do you keep bringing up steady state theory? I've never brought it up and it has never been a part of any of my arguments.


What are you even talking about? What is it "barely mentioning"? Big Bang theory? Steady State theory? What "goes against evo thought"? Now YOU'RE the one not explaining anything.


Prove it.

Also, it's hilarious that you accuse me of making ad hominems when you honestly think a suitable response to my arguments is that they are "full of ignorance and caca". I suggest you grow up.


They are incredibly poor arguments because they rely entirely on subjective qualities that are not inherent or measurable in any way.


Please demonstrate that nature cannot be produced "by itself".

As for you ignoring the rest of my posts - how incredibly convenient for you. Your entire argument got absolutely destroyed by facts, and you got exposed as a liar, and you're "choosing to ignore" it. I'll take that as an admission of defeat.

Look, I'll acknowledge what you said, but you are mostly wrong. And I have explained more times than I care to, but you still did not get it. Let's leave it at that.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Look, I'll acknowledge what you said, but you are mostly wrong.

And yet you have presented no facts to support your claims, while I have presented plenty, explained my position thoroughly, and successfully refuted the entirety of your argument and addressed every single point you have made. Excuse me if I don't take your word for it that I'm "mostly wrong".

And I have explained more times than I care to, but you still did not get it. Let's leave it at that.

Nope. I'll leave it as soon as you admit that you were wrong and your arguments were ill-founded.

 

[james bond]

Who claims the big bang came from nothing?
I mean other than you in your strawman?

Dawkins said no such thing.
Rather difficult to take you seriously when your "argument" relies so heavily on dishonesty, quote mines, fallacies, etc.

What schools did you attend that did not teach evolution?
I am assuming not in the US, right?
Or perhaps a religious based school, perhaps?

what you present is not evidence.
It is merely bold empty claims.

Lawrence Krauss (and Stephen Hawkins) claim that the Big Bang came from nothing. That's him I suppose. I know where my big bang comes from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lawrence Krauss (and Stephen Hawkins) claim that the Big Bang came from nothing.

Wrong. Lawrence Krauss provides a far more specific definition of what he means by "nothing" in his book A Universe From Nothing. Here is a quick rundown from Krauss himself:

As for Hawking, I can't find any source in which he states that the Big Bang came from nothing. Care to provide a source?

 

[james bond]

It is possible, but there isn't enough confirming evidence to make it a scientific theory. Dawkins correctly stated that it was a possibility.

How is it a possibility when there has been no evidence whatsoever? So far, the Fine Tuning Theory is winning and has the evidence for how in balance the Earth is. Doesn't that follow what the Bible states?

 

[james bond]

So, do you agree that the ToE doesn't speak to the origin of life? It is just as absurd as equating atheism with nihilism.

Please explain your "theory" of evolution? So, we've established that it's not a fact.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is it a possibility when there has been no evidence whatsoever?

Life developed on earth, therefore it is possible for life to have developed on other planets. There you go.

So far, the Fine Tuning Theory is winning and has the evidence for how in balance the Earth is.

There is no "Fine Tuning THEORY". It's just an argument from ignorance that ignores the anthropic principle.

Doesn't that follow what the Bible states?

I've already completely demolished your argument that the Big Bang theory and cosmology support the Biblical account of creation. The Bible gets almost everything in the wrong order, and most of the parts that DO follow only do so with judicious use of reinterpretation and imagination.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Please explain your "theory" of evolution?

The theory of evolution is the well-substantiated explanation for how change in allele frequencies over time in populations of organisms occur and how they lead to the variation of life we see today and account for the origin of all contemporary species from common ancestry.

So, we've established that it's not a fact.

So far, you've only said two things about evolution and both of them were false. You're certainly nowhere near establishing that it's "not a fact".

 

[SkepticThinker]

How is it a possibility when there has been no evidence whatsoever? So far, the Fine Tuning Theory is winning and has the evidence for how in balance the Earth is. Doesn't that follow what the Bible states?

There isn't any "Fine Tuning Theory."

 

[leibowde84]

How is it a possibility when there has been no evidence whatsoever? So far, the Fine Tuning Theory is winning and has the evidence for how in balance the Earth is. Doesn't that follow what the Bible states?

There is no evidence for the "fine tuning theory". It isn't a scientific theory, as it has not been confirmed through repeated experimentation, observations, and verifiable evidence. It is merely a hypothesis.

Where did you get the idea that the scientific community supports fine tuning?

 

[leibowde84]

Please explain your "theory" of evolution? So, we've established that it's not a fact.

Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[leibowde84]

How is it a possibility when there has been no evidence whatsoever? So far, the Fine Tuning Theory is winning and has the evidence for how in balance the Earth is. Doesn't that follow what the Bible states?

Just in our own galaxy, there are billions of "earth like planets". When you multiply that by the billions of galaxies out there, the probability that life exists elsewhere is extremely strong.

 

[leibowde84]

Please explain your "theory" of evolution? So, we've established that it's not a fact.

You seem to be ignorant of the vast difference between a hypothesis/theory and a "scientific theory". Evolution is not just a theory, it is a scientific theory.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[leibowde84]

Please explain your "theory" of evolution? So, we've established that it's not a fact.

Also, being that the word "fact" means something that is indisputably the truth, I would say it is reasonable to classify the ToE as such. There is a plethora of verifiable evidence, confirming experimentation, confirming observations supporting it, there is no alternative scientific theory supported in even close to the same way, and the theory has been used countless times to make confirming predictions.