Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

It's more than a hypothesis if we would not exist or certain elements would not exist. Here's an experiment with a supercomputer to see how the fine tuned universe would be by changing the parameters.

"For the parameters that describe forces inside the atom, physicists have few hints at how fine the tuning is. In other words, how many different dial settings would create a universe that supports life as we know it?

To try to answer such questions, nuclear physicist Ulf Meissner of the University of Bonn in Germany and colleagues ran complex computer simulations at the Juelich Supercomputing Center, home of the largest supercomputer in Europe. In their simulations, the scientists created a simplified model universe that included specific values for the masses of particles and the way they interact. The simulations were based on the Standard Model, physicists' main theory of fundamental particles and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. (The other fundamental force, gravity, is described by the general theory of relativity.)

The recent development of extremely powerful computers that can crunch through a thousand trillion calculations per second has now made this possible, said Meissner. With these computers, he said, "We can explore worlds where the constants have different values."

Meissner and his colleagues ran their simulations while varying two constants. One was the average of the masses of the up and down quarks. These fundamental particles make up protons and neutrons, which in turn make up people and the universe we see. (The quarks in protons and neutrons are held together by what is called the strong nuclear force.)

The scientists also varied the fine structure constant, which accounts for the strength of the electromagnetic force between charged particles. The strong force must overcome the electromagnetic force to bind protons and neutrons into stable nuclei that make up the familiar chemical elements: helium, carbon, oxygen and all the rest.

The values of the average quark mass and the fine structure constant together also form a deep mystery. While the universe's matter is almost entirely hydrogen and helium, humans and other life forms on Earth are, by weight, mostly oxygen and carbon. All of that carbon and oxygen was produced in now long-dead stars, when they had finished fusing nearly all their hydrogen fuel into helium, and began fusing helium into heavier elements."

A More Finely Tuned Universe
Could life as we know it have developed if fundamental physics constants were different?
https://www.insidescience.org/content/more-finely-tuned-universe/2601

Again, I never said that small changes would not have made life impossible here. I am pointing out that isn't evidence of intelligent design.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

After double checking, m theory and string theories are not considered to be scientific theories, as they are not sufficiently supported with evidence. Wikipedia is mistaken on that page.

As for evokution, this is a great site from Berkley that explains why that theory is sufficiently supported.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topics.php?topic_id=14

We agree there, and I think much of the scientific community does also. I'd go a step further, that even the word 'theory' is a bit of a stretch.

I agree with Krauss 'If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

On evolution, there is always the problem of definition here, I am/ most people are skeptical of the Darwinism that evolution generally teaches, that life evolved through purely naturalistic mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection- and this accidental v designed process is the most fundamental distinction I think between evolutionists/darwinists and creationists/ID proponents of all stripes.

Genesis also states that life changed over time, in significant separate stages

 

[Ouroboros]

So your measure of design is complexity?
So if something is not complex, does that mean it's not designed?

You read my mind. I was thinking the same thing.

Most of the time, the best designs in our society tends to be the simplest ones. Apple iPhone's success was dependent on a very easy to use OS, not a complex one. Microsoft had a smartphone many years before iPhone, but it was too complicated to use. So complication or complexity isn't any good indicator of design, rather the opposite. Programmers know well that more programmers and longer time for a software will produce more and more complex and "spaghetti" code. It's rather difficult to keep things simple, and it's very easy to make something overly complicated or complex. Today, most API libraries for programming languages are very complex (but not complicated, just there's a lot of stuff to know), yet, the programming languages on the old TI-57 or HP-41 were extremely simple and you could do some cool stuff with it still. BASIC was simple, but still designed. A tube radio is fairly simple, yet designed. While Economics in or world is very complex and not really by design even if humans are the "creators" of it. Some things just emerge from other things, and when they do, they tend to be less simple. Redundancy and complexity in the biological system suggests natural processes rather than design, at least to me.

 

[leibowde84]

We agree there, and I think much of the scientific community does also. I'd go a step further, that even the word 'theory' is a bit of a stretch.

I agree with Krauss 'If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

On evolution, there is always the problem of definition here, I am/ most people are skeptical of the Darwinism that evolution generally teaches, that life evolved through purely naturalistic mechanisms of random mutation and natural selection- and this accidental v designed process is the most fundamental distinction I think between evolutionists/darwinists and creationists/ID proponents of all stripes.

Genesis also states that life changed over time, in significant separate stages

What Genesis says doesn't really matter, unless it is supported by external, verifiable evidence. Are you saying that Genesis could have been describing evokution?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You read my mind. I was thinking the same thing.

Most of the time, the best designs in our society tends to be the simplest ones. Apple iPhone's success was dependent on a very easy to use OS, not a complex one. Microsoft had a smartphone many years before iPhone, but it was too complicated to use. So complication or complexity isn't any good indicator of design, rather the opposite. Programmers know well that more programmers and longer time for a software will produce more and more complex and "spaghetti" code. It's rather difficult to keep things simple, and it's very easy to make something overly complicated or complex. Today, most API libraries for programming languages are very complex (but not complicated, just there's a lot of stuff to know), yet, the programming languages on the old TI-57 or HP-41 were extremely simple and you could do some cool stuff with it still. BASIC was simple, but still designed. A tube radio is fairly simple, yet designed. While Economics in or world is very complex and not really by design even if humans are the "creators" of it. Some things just emerge from other things, and when they do, they tend to be less simple. Redundancy and complexity in the biological system suggests natural processes rather than design, at least to me.

Yes, that is what I was getting at. Thank you for providing the explanation.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What Genesis says doesn't really matter, unless it is supported by external, verifiable evidence. Are you saying that Genesis could have been describing evokution?

Genesis gave us some basics which are now very much scientifically verified, as absurd as they were once considered to be by some 'scientists'

The universe began in a specific creation event
Early earth was water covered
then one land mass and one ocean
and life appeared in distinct stages.

No I don't think Genesis describes evolution, it describes the opposite, the reality of natural history- distinct separate species appearing suddenly separately and changing little thereafter

 

[leibowde84]

Genesis gave us some basics which are now very much scientifically verified, as absurd as they were once considered to be by some 'scientists'

The universe began in a specific creation event
Early earth was water covered
then one land mass and one ocean
and life appeared in distinct stages.

No I don't think Genesis describes evolution, it describes the opposite, the reality of natural history- distinct separate species appearing suddenly separately and changing little thereafter

But there isn't any evidence supporting that speciation did not occur, is there?

 

[viole]

No I don't think Genesis describes evolution, it describes the opposite, the reality of natural history- distinct separate species appearing suddenly separately and changing little thereafter

Ergo, Genesis is false.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes, that is what I was getting at. Thank you for providing the explanation.

Thanks. I only threw it together. Glad that it made some sense.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But there isn't any evidence supporting that speciation did not occur, is there?

we lack the transitionals to support speciation happening by a Darwinian process- to a sufficient degree to account for the diversity of life we see arising in such a short period of time., But again, whether or not anything happened accidentally or by design is the more fundamental question

 

[leibowde84]

we lack the transitionals to support speciation happening by a Darwinian process- to a sufficient degree to account for the diversity of life we see arising in such a short period of time., But again, whether or not anything happened accidentally or by design is the more fundamental question

No, you said that species just "appeared" as is. Then, when asked for evidence, you point to things you see as issues with evolution. Am I right in believing that you have no basis for believing that speciation did not occur?

 

[Parsimony]

Atheist theories are theories proposed by self professed atheists with overt atheist implications, and explicitly cited by them and others as specifically supporting atheist beliefs.

If that's the case, then a whole wide range of existing theories could have fit under your "atheist theory" definition had history played itself out slightly different. If the theory of orbital mechanics had been invented by an atheist with the intent of explicitly removing God's power as an explanation for why the Moon moves around the Earth, then orbital mechanics would have been a "atheist theory" by your definition: "See? Natural laws cause the Moon to move. No God required." Yet since this isn't what happened, I don't see anyone calling orbital mechanics an "atheist theory", yet the content of the theory is exactly the same in each scenario. That being said, it sounds like you're just talking about semantics here.

Atheist Richard Dawkins, the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'

I don't know why you even listed this one, as you know very well that Dawkins didn't come up with the theory of evolution.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, you said that species just "appeared" as is. Then, when asked for evidence, you point to things you see as issues with evolution. Am I right in believing that you have no basis for believing that speciation did not occur?

That is simply what the record shows, sudden appearances followed by stasis. We do not see the vast array of transitionals that Darwinian speciation should have created. Of course I can't prove the negative- that the transitional species never existed, but it becomes ever clearer that we should find far far more evidence than we have if Darwin was correct

 

[leibowde84]

Atheist theories are theories proposed by self professed atheists with overt atheist implications, and explicitly cited by them and others as specifically supporting atheist beliefs.

Atheist Fred Hoyle proposed steady state explicitly to counter the 'religious pseudoscience' of a specific creation event like the Big Bang
Atheist Stephen Hawking likewise proposed the Big Crunch and posited that it 'made God redundant'
Atheist Richard Dawkins, the world's most prominent evolutionist's best selling book was called 'The God Delusion'

Dawkins is a self proscribed anti-theist. His views on religion have nothing to do with the ToE. And, he in no way speaks for so called "evolutionists". There are no authorities in science.

 

[metis]

That is simply what the record shows, sudden appearances followed by stasis. We do not see the vast array of transitionals that Darwinian speciation should have created. Of course I can't prove the negative- that the transitional species never existed, but it becomes ever clearer that we should find far far more evidence than we have if Darwin was correct

That defies what's found in scripture as creation ended at the end of the 6th day, and there are no verses that state God created any more organisms after that.

 

[leibowde84]

That is simply what the record shows, sudden appearances followed by stasis. We do not see the vast array of transitionals that Darwinian speciation should have created. Of course I can't prove the negative- that the transitional species never existed, but it becomes ever clearer that we should find far far more evidence than we have if Darwin was correct

Can you back up your claim that the record shows sudden appearances followed by stasis. I mean, even the Cambrian explosion, taking place over a relatively short amount of time (roughly 30 million years) contradicts this.

We have found many transitional species, and a plethora of evidence showing evolutionary changes even in humans. So, I have to say, this is patently false.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Can you back up your claim that the record shows sudden appearances followed by stasis. I mean, even the Cambrian explosion, taking place over a relatively short amount of time (roughly 30 million years) contradicts this.

We have found many transitional species, and a plethora of evidence showing evolutionary changes even in humans. So, I have to say, this is patently false.

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.

We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.

 

[leibowde84]

You just defined evolution and not ToE as stated.

More to evolution than just your dictionary definition under this RF topic of Creationism vs Evolution. As stated before, this is what is being taught in schools and why Creationists want equal time. That's why the website is trying create a formal teaching of evolution called Evolution 101. It includes the whole ball of wax including evolutionary thought and origins of life. Creation science delves into it, too. Creationists want to create Creation 101.

If you want to teach Larmarck and Darwin, there were people before them such as Malthus and Lyell who influenced their thinking. It's all relative.

What is the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution explains the changes in heritable traits of biological organisms over generations due to natural selection, mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift. Also known as descent with modification. Over time these evolutionary processes lead to formation of new species (speciation), changes within lineages (anagenesis), and loss of species (extinction). "Evolution" is also another name for evolutionary biology, the subfield of biology concerned with studying evolutionary processes that produced the diversity of life on Earth.


"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" in regards to evolution. http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

You just defined evolution and not ToE as stated.

More to evolution than just your dictionary definition under this RF topic of Creationism vs Evolution. As stated before, this is what is being taught in schools and why Creationists want equal time. That's why the website is trying create a formal teaching of evolution called Evolution 101. It includes the whole ball of wax including evolutionary thought and origins of life. Creation science delves into it, too. Creationists want to create Creation 101.

If you want to teach Larmarck and Darwin, there were people before them such as Malthus and Lyell who influenced their thinking. It's all relative.

What is the theory of evolution?



"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" in regards to evolution.

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions

 

[leibowde84]

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.

We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.

Can you support these claims with evidence?

 

[leibowde84]

Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. And it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find.

We actually may have fewer examples of smooth transition than we had in Darwin's time because some of the old examples have turned out to be invalid when studied in more detail.

Btw, it seems that you are claiming that somehow you poking holes in the ToE actually supports your theory of creationism. Why would you think that? Are you under the misconception that there are only two options? Theories must be supported on their own merits.