Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[ImmortalFlame]

No, atheism is evolution, he's right. How are you going to justify the appearance of living things if you don't believe in a creator or abiogenesis?

That's a massive non sequitur. There are atheists who don't accept evolution, and there are theists who accept evolution. Belief in a creator or belief in abiogenesis have no relation to acceptance of evolution. That's total nonsense.

Want proof? Check out the videos by Kenneth Miller I posted earlier

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're jumping to the WRONG conclusion that I am quote mining.

I know you are quote mining because 1) I've read On the Origin of Species, and 2) I've seen this exact quote mine used many, many times before.

Now, I'm supposed to read these. I don't have time for this. None of it is scientific evidence. If it was, then it would be peer-reviewed and would have been a marvelous coup for evos. More people would believe in evolution.

If you were interested in actual answers to your questions, you would read them. And yes, it is all scientific evidence. The fact that you won’t even take a look at them speaks volumes. Maybe stop asking for explanations and evidence and such if you really aren’t interested at all in seeing it.

Why don't summarize what I'm suppose to get out of this. All of these are hypotheses by the media. The eye is very complex, so evolution does not have a good explanation for it. Instead, it is evidence for a creator.

What you’re supposed to get out of it is knowledge. Evolution does have a good explanation for it, you just refuse to look at it. You don’t get to just pretend it’s not there and say “god did it.”

"Evolutionist Robert Jastrow once wrote:

The eye is a marvelous instrument, resembling a telescope of the highest quality, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm for controlling the amount of light, and optical corrections for spherical and chromatic aberration.The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? (1981, pp. 96-97, emp. added).


How indeed? Though Dr. Jastrow argued that “the fact of evolution is not in doubt,” he confessed that “…there seems to be no direct proof that evolution can work these miracles.…It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance” (1981, pp. 101,97,98, emp. added). Considering the extreme complexity of the eye, it is easy to understand why Jastrow would make such a comment. In his book,Does God Believe in Atheists?, John Blanchard described just how complex the eye really is.

The human eye is a truly amazing phenomenon. Although accounting for just one fourth-thousandth of an adult’s weight, it is the medium which processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The tiny retina contains about 130 million rod-shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some one million nerve fibres, while nearly six million cone-shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation. The eyes can handle 500,00 messages simultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one five-thousandth of a second (2000, p. 313).


Statements like this proves that the eye was so well designed, and so complicated, that it could not have happened by accident, as evolution teaches."


http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=1412

More cut and pasted “quotes” from creationist sites. Yay.


Statements and random quotations don’t prove anything. We use evidence to demonstrate the veracity of truth claims.

Here's an article by Dr. Doug Borchman. He has a Ph.D. in chemistry and is the author of more than 100peer-reviewedarticles and has given more than 250 scientific presentations around the world.

http://www.southeastoutlook.org/news/features/article_9f63fbf8-bd7a-11e2-9f4b-0019bb30f31a.html

See above.

By the way, the article isn’t by Dr. Doug Borchman. It’s written by Ruth Schenk.

 

[McBell]

I simply hold to the word of God, which is plain enough:

Romans 1
"20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

If you can't see it you have been blinded to it. If you don't believe then you don't believe.

so much for your post:

Well, most of what you believe is assumed to be fact but not proven to be actual fact at all. Oops, kind of shot yourself in the foot there, pal.

seems you are confusing yourself for me.

 

[Parsimony]

No, atheism is evolution, he's right.

So atheism is "the process by which populations of organisms change genetically over time"? When did the dictionary change that? There are tons of theistic evolutionists (including the Roman Catholic Church and even myself), so our very existence proves you wrong.

How are you going to justify the appearance of living things if you don't believe in a creator or abiogenesis?

Who said anything about denying a creator? No one has to deny a creator in order to accept evolution or abiogenesis. So now you are committing the false dichotomy fallacy. One could easily argue that a deity used abiogenesis and evolution to create living things. It's not a black-and-white issue.

 

[james bond]

Well I agree with you on pretty much all of that, and I think far more people do than we perceive from popular culture. Belief in Darwinism in the US is <20% according to Gallup, after all these years of teaching it as fact.

And the 'consensus' is splintering even within evolutionists, with various versions of 'punctuated equilibrium' etc that fly in the face of just about everything Darwin predicted or most of us were taught in school.

Many of the most qualified scientists likewise do not concur with the very vocal pop-science, Richard Dawkins minority.

Is Evolution being taught as a course? When you said "teaching it as fact," I thought you meant withing a biology course or other science course. For example, is age of the earth taught? My classes never covered it, but we did cover fossils that were millions or billions of years old which infers old earth. I do not have a problem with the old earth, but the other worldview should be presented. However, creation science has not been able to present the other worldview without running into problems with the law and religion. Some states, they are making inroads.

 

[james bond]

There are many people who believe in both God and evolution, so your statement right there is exceedingly wrong. I even remember someone on these forums in the past who was an atheist and rejected evolution. Please do proper research before making such claims.

Given that 1 in 4 Americans still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, I wouldn't put much stock in public opinion when it comes to scientific matters.

Who needs to do research?

I defined evolution in terms that is laid out in the evolution.berkeley.edu course. Second, the way science is stacked against creation science is the scientific method will not study the supernatural, but only the natural, i.e. materialism. They have added a falsifiable clause. God is not falsifiable (I'll expand on this falsifiability in a later post). What creation science claims is that God is part of natural world and that the immaterial world is part of nature, i.e. both materialsim and immaterialism. Secularists believe that science and technology will ultimately explain anything that is now viewed as supernatural, even from a religious point-of-view. For example, we cannot see ultraviolet light, so in ancient times when humans received a sunburn, pagan deities were invoked to explain it. Another example is, we were led to believe sunscreen prevents skin cancer, but it wasn't true.

My take is most science is usually wrong, but eventually they get it right. Science does end up backing the Bible.

British atheist Sir Julian Huxley once boasted:

"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution…. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion…. Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion (1960, pp. 46,252-253,45, emp. added)."

17-Year-Olds, Evolution, and Atheism
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=450

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Who needs to do research?

Not you, apparently.

I defined evolution in terms that is laid out in the evolution.berkeley.edu course.

No you didn't. You said evolution was related to the origin of the Universe, and linked to the berkeley.edu page which explained how evidence from various fields of science have contributed to evolution theory. You never actually "defined" evolution, and nor did you even specify where in the article you were drawing such a definition from. You just misinterpreted one page of the site and used it to support your false assumptions.

Science does end up backing the Bible.

Where? You gave an extensive list of claims earlier in which you suggested that science supports the Bible, and I refuted practically every claim you amde.

British atheist Sir Julian Huxley once boasted:

"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution…. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion…. Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion (1960, pp. 46,252-253,45, emp. added)."

So?

17-Year-Olds, Evolution, and Atheism
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=450

Do you have any information NOT from biased, discredited, creationist websites?

 

[james bond]

So, do you agree that there was no human being 530 millions years ago?

Ciao

- viole

What I had was 300 million years ago. I do not think there was as the evidence is flimsy.

 

[Sapiens]

No, atheism is evolution, he's right. How are you going to justify the appearance of living things if you don't believe in a creator or abiogenesis?

We are all atheists, I just carry it one god farther than you do.

Evolution is science, science is not religion.

I have no need to "justify" the appearance of living things. I can supply you with a theoretical framework that is incomplete, but that you can not falsify, based on abiogenesis. I doubt if it will ever be "provable" in a technical sense due to the immense time required and the constantly changing conditions over that time. Life did not appear in a puff of smoke the way religionists would have you believe (and claim for creation). A good analogy is that I can (and have) driven from coast to coast but I can't possibly tell you every twist and turn that I made ... but I got there just the same.

 

[Parsimony]

Who needs to do research?

You, if you're still claiming that evolution is atheistic. Evolution is theistically-neutral.

I defined evolution in terms that is laid out in the evolution.berkeley.edu course.

Which in no way denies the existence of a deity.

Second, the way science is stacked against creation science is the scientific method will not study the supernatural, but only the natural, i.e. materialism. They have added a falsifiable clause. God is not falsifiable (I'll expand on this falsifiability in a later post). What creation science claims is that God is part of natural world and that the immaterial world is part of nature, i.e. both materialsim and immaterialism. Secularists believe that science and technology will ultimately explain anything that is now viewed as supernatural, even from a religious point-of-view. For example, we cannot see ultraviolet light, so in ancient times when humans received a sunburn, pagan deities were invoked to explain it. Another example is, we were led to believe sunscreen prevents skin cancer, but it wasn't true.

My take is most science is usually wrong, but eventually they get it right. Science does end up backing the Bible.

Regardless, evolution does nothing to falsify the existence of a deity and therefore is not atheistic. It does not require that a god not exist.

British atheist Sir Julian Huxley once boasted:

"Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed; since natural selection could account for any known form of life, there was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution…. The earth was not created; it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion…. Darwinism removed the whole idea of God as the creator of organisms from the sphere of rational discussion (1960, pp. 46,252-253,45, emp. added)."

17-Year-Olds, Evolution, and Atheism
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=450

That depends on how you look at it. If you ask a believer "does God make hailstones?", they could answer "yes" in the sense that He creates hailstones through the laws of nature that He put in place or "no" in the sense that the laws of nature are what create the hailstones without His direct interference. You can do the same thing with evolution.

 

[First Baseman]

We are all atheists, I just carry it one god farther than you do.

Evolution is science, science is not religion.

I have no need to "justify" the appearance of living things. I can supply you with a theoretical framework that is incomplete, but that you can not falsify, based on abiogenesis. I doubt if it will ever be "provable" in a technical sense due to the immense time required and the constantly changing conditions over that time. Life did not appear in a puff of smoke the way religionists would have you believe (and claim for creation). A good analogy is that I can (and have) driven from coast to coast but I can't possibly tell you every twist and turn that I made ... but I got there just the same.

Yep. You're right. Not provable.

And abiogenesis is atheism and yes, atheism is a religion. It is the religion of no god. It is a religion because science cannot justify or prove that no god exists. That's the truth, like it or not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yep. You're right. Not provable.

And abiogenesis is atheism

Wrong. You can be an atheist and not accept abiogenesis, and you can be a theist and also accept abiogenesis. The concepts are unrelated, and no amount of you mindlessly repeating yourself is going to suddenly render these statements true.

and yes, atheism is a religion.

Also not true. Religions are defined broadly as system of faith, worship, supernatural belief or ideology that are generally centred around core tenets and/or a doctrine. Atheism isn't a "system", and there is no atheist "tenets" or "doctrine". Atheism deals exclusively with a single reaction to a single subject. That subject being the claim that God exists, and that reaction being to reject the claim. If you think atheism is a religion, you understand neither the concept of atheism or religion.

It is the religion of no god. It is a religion because science cannot justify or prove that no god exists. That's the truth, like it or not.

So any claim that can't be proven is a religion? So, "believing the sun will rise tomorrow" is a religion? Thinking "David Bowie's earlier work was superior" is a religion? If that's your definition of religion, it renders the word so broad that practically anything can be considered a religion.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Who said anything about denying a creator?

Darwin did, for him any evolution that needed help from God made nonsense of the central point of evolution, which is an attempt to explain life on Earth without a designer

 

[McBell]

Yep. You're right. Not provable.

And abiogenesis is atheism and yes, atheism is a religion. It is the religion of no god. It is a religion because science cannot justify or prove that no god exists. That's the truth, like it or not.

Science does not need to justify any god.
The fact of the matter is that the proposed gods are not with in the realm of science.
That some people use that fact to claim god does not exist is on them, not science.

You are flat out wrong.
Abiogenesis is not atheism.
Atheism can be considered a religion as much as not collecting stamps is a religion.
Now if that is how you want to set your standard, that is on you, not atheists.
Though it would explain quite a bit of your posts.

 

[McBell]

Darwin did, for him any evolution that needed help from God made nonsense of the central point of evolution, which is an attempt to explain life on Earth without a designer

You really should stop reading what you want into what Darwin says.
It would help you to stop quote mining him.

 

[Parsimony]

Darwin did, for him any evolution that needed help from God made nonsense of the central point of evolution, which is an attempt to explain life on Earth without a designer

(1) Darwin was a theist when he wrote The Origin of Species, so to say the he had intentions of getting rid of God with his theory wouldn't make any sense.
(2) The point of evolution was to explain the patterns of biogeography and morphology seen in nature, not to get rid of God.
(3) Evolution explains life's diversity, not its origins.

You might as well argue that the theory of crystal formation is atheistic because it doesn't require outside help from a designer.

 

[Ouroboros]

You, if you're still claiming that evolution is atheistic. Evolution is theistically-neutral.

To add to it, just a thought I had. For a naturalistic pantheist, evolution is theistically-explanatory. Since all that exists and reality itself is "God" for a pantheist, evolution is explaining God and how God (Nature) "created" life, so to speak. For pantheist, evolution is evidence for "God's handiwork" (since, God and nature is the same). Same goes for all science. It's the study of God for a pantheist, so he's obviously really far off base since he thinks he speak for all people's view of God.

 

[Ouroboros]

You might as well argue that the theory of crystal formation is atheistic because it doesn't require outside help from a designer.

And math. Oh, and gravity too is atheistic. And traffic laws are atheistic too since the excuse "Jesus took the wheel" won't help in court.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

(1) Darwin was a theist when he wrote The Origin of Species, so to say the he had intentions of getting rid of God with his theory wouldn't make any sense.
(2) The point of evolution was to explain the patterns of biogeography and morphology seen in nature, not to get rid of God.
(3) Evolution explains life's diversity, not its origins.

You might as well argue that the theory of crystal formation is atheistic because it doesn't require outside help from a designer.

(1) debatable, but it was certainly explicitly about replacing God in explaining those patterns of life seen in nature
(2)..again to explain the patterns with natural mechanisms instead of intelligent design/ God..
(3) yes, attempts to explain them without God, and acknowledges that problem of getting the system up and running without God in the first place is a potential flaw in the whole theory.

If crystals self improved themselves until they developed intelligence and pondered their own existence, I'd say God was involved yes, and any claim that this could have happened through millions of lucky flukes would be a similarly atheistic theory, similarly designed to appeal to atheist beliefs.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh, and gravity too is atheistic. .

In the classical sense, yes it was! atheists declared Newton's laws 'immutable' refuting any 'theistic' notions of deeper, mysterious, unpredictable forces, detailed plans and designs specifically guiding what physics did.

No coincidence Max Planck was a skeptic of atheism.