Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Acim]

You do know that math has numbers, right?

Present your math that math has numbers.

 

[Acim]

Cre·a·tion·ism
krēˈāSHəˌnizəm/
noun

1. the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

Is there any? I often hear creationists lean on arguments from ignorance or the present lack of scientific understanding, but I've never heard of any verifiable evidence for it.

Do you exist? If yes, how might I verify that?

 

[Dante Writer]

still waiting for you to present MATH, not philosophy.
You do know that math has numbers, right?

Still waiting for you to show where I used a math expression to substantiate my position.

You do kow what a math expression is right?

 

[Riders]

Watch parts coming together by itself is not the same as :molecule and nuetrons and all the other science words for particles to grow together; then burst out of a rock to make the living earth and create life .

Big big difference. Nature took it took its course. I believe in nature and its power.

 

[Dante Writer]

Is somebody claiming that such a thing will happen?

Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Natural selection by itself would not result in evolution.

Therefore, you must calculate the odd of a random mutation and the process of natural selection in any theory of evolution.

I gave the way those odds are calculated and if someone want to sit down and do the math they can and will quickly realize that the odds of a complex organism forming from random mutations and natural selection is so mind boggling it is not a viable theory in my opinion.

Something else is at play!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Natural selection by itself would not result in evolution.

We've got natural selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift.

Therefore, you must calculate the odd of a random mutation and the process of natural selection in any theory of evolution.

So nobody is actually asserting that some scraps of metal and plastic can naturally come together to form a fully functional object or being. Your analogy doesn't work because watches are not living organisms that are capable of reproducing.

I gave the way those odds are calculated and if someone want to sit down and do the math they can and will quickly realize that the odds of a complex organism forming from random mutations and natural selection is so mind boggling it is not a viable theory in my opinion.

You explained how to calculate the odds but you didn't actually calculate them? How can you say what is impossible or possible then?

Something else is at play!

Maybe. There could be additional mechanisms involved in evolution that haven't been figured out yet.

 

[Dante Writer]

We've got natural selection, mutation, migration and genetic drift.


So nobody is actually asserting that some scraps of metal and plastic can naturally come together to form a fully functional object or being. Your analogy doesn't work because watches are not living organisms that are capable of reproducing.

You explained how to calculate the odds but you didn't actually calculate them? How can you say what is impossible or possible then?

Maybe. There could be additional mechanisms involved in evolution that haven't been figured out yet.

Other than natural selection and migration the other theoretical causes of evolution are all based on random odds. That is only further evidence against evolution through that process.

You misunderstood what I posted and the odds of the basic elements of an organism are non living and do not reproduce so it is the same as a watch parts coming together to form a functioning watch and when you add in that the watch must also be able to reproduce itself the odd go up exponentially.

I did not calculate them because I think it is obvious that the odds of it happening would make it nearly impossible for even a simple organism let alone for a complex organism like man to be produced through that process. I gave you the way odds are calculated so you can do the math if you want and prove it to yourself.

Yes I believe something more is at play and if we become rigid in our thinking we will probably never discover what that is.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Other than natural selection and migration the other theoretical causes of evolution are all based on random odds. That is only further evidence against evolution through that process.

You didn't factor them into your odds calculations?

You misunderstood what I posted and the odds of the basic elements of an organism are non living and do not reproduce so it is the same as a watch coming together to form a functioning watch and when you add in that the watch must also be able to reproduce itself the odd go up exponentially.

Watch parts are not involved in the types of biochemical reactions that occur between the basic elements that make up life. And biochemistry is not chance.

What did I misunderstand?

I did not calculate them because I think it is obvious that the odds of it happening would make it nearly impossible for even a simple organism let alone for a complex organism like man to be produced through that process. I gave you the way odds are calculated so you can do the math if you want and prove it to yourself.

Yes I believe something more is at play and if we become rigid in our thinking we will probably never discover what that is.

No wonder everybody is asking you to do the math. We've seen similar claims around here before, with similar results.

 

[Dante Writer]

You didn't factor them into your odds calculations?

Watch parts are not involved in the types of biochemical reactions that occur between the basic elements that make up life. And biochemistry is not chance.

What did I misunderstand?

No wonder everybody is asking you to do the math. We've seen similar claims around here before, with similar results.

Basic elements are just that. Non living and thrown in a hot pool of acid rain will still remain non-living and unable to reproduce.

Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?

I also know your type that badgers for math so I gave you the way to calculate odds and if you want to do math on here be my guest.

Rigid thinking is what keeps people from progressing towards answers!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Basic elements are just that. Non living and thrown in a hot pool of acid rain will still remain non-living and unable to reproduce.

Unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?

Miller, Urey, Oro, MacNevin, Bada, and others have demonstrated that what you declare to be impossible, is actually a viable possibility.

I also know your type that badgers for math so I gave you the way to calculate odds and if you want to do math on here be my guest.

Rigid thinking is what keeps people from progressing towards answers!

I'm just wondering how it is that you're making all these determinations about what is possible and what is not, when you haven't even done the math yourself. It seems strange.

 

[Dante Writer]

Miller, Urey, Oro, MacNevin, Bada, have demonstrated that what you declare to be impossible, is actually a viable possibility.


I'm just wondering how it is that you're making all these determinations about what is possible and what is not, when you haven't even done the math yourself. It seems strange.

I can say jumping off the empire state building and surviving is possible. When you calculate the odds you see that it is not a viable or even a realistic possibility and is considered preposterous. Hanging on to that method/theory of evolution is just as preposterous in my opinion.

I have done the math enough to know that it is not reasonable to believe that to be a viable theory for the process of evolution. I gave you the process for calculating the odds so you can do the math for yourself.

I am sure you would be much more satisfied with your own results!

 

[SkepticThinker]

I can say jumping off the empire state building and surviving is possible. When you calculate the odds you see that it is not a viable or even a realistic possibility and is considered preposterous. Hanging on to that method/theory of evolution is just as preposterous in my opinion.

I have done the math enough to know that it is not reasonable to believe that to be a viable theory for the process of evolution. I gave you the process for calculating the odds so you can do the math for yourself.

I am sure you would be much more satisfied with your own results!

All I feel I can do at this point is to throw your own words back at you:

"Yes I believe something more is at play and if we become rigid in our thinking we will probably never discover what that is."

 

[Dante Writer]

All I feel I can do at this point is to throw your own words back at you:

"Yes I believe something more is at play and if we become rigid in our thinking we will probably never discover what that is."

Yes and I am more than willing to look at all possibilities and you seem to have a limited view.

Is a theory of spontaneous origin of life from non living elements possible?

Yes but certainly against all reasonable odds.

There are many other theories as to the origin of life and mechanisms of evolution that you should explore.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes and I am more than willing to look at all possibilities and you seem to have a limited view.

Is a theory of spontaneous origin of life from non living elements possible?

Yes but certainly against all reasonable odds.

There are many other theories as to the origin of life and mechanisms of evolution that you should explore.

What makes you think I have a limited view? I've pointed out to you that something you are declaring to be impossible, is actually possible. And demonstrably so. The scientists I referred to have demonstrated in a lab setting that it is possible that the building blocks of life can form from nonliving material given the right conditions. And you continue to brush it off as next to impossible. So I have to wonder who has the limited view here.

 

[leibowde84]

Do you exist? If yes, how might I verify that?

There are many ways. You might meet me. Look me up in social media. Speak to me on the phone, skype, facetime, etc. The list goes on.

Verification doesn't mean absolute proof. It means external, objective supporting evidence that backs up a claim.

 

[Acim]

There are many ways. You might meet me. Look me up in social media. Speak to me on the phone, skype, facetime, etc. The list goes on.

Verification doesn't mean absolute proof. It means external, objective supporting evidence that backs up a claim.

Doesn't mean that to me. Partially means that, but I'd desire evidence outside of the physical for it to be (truly) objective. Otherwise the claim would be self reinforcing. It's interesting that of the ways you chose, many of them could lead to a verification where it is not actually you.

I don't see me meeting you as necessarily objective nor external. After all, are we not already 'meeting?'

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Doesn't mean that to me. Partially means that, but I'd desire evidence outside of the physical for it to be (truly) objective.

And what if there is no such thing as "outside of the physical"? Aren't you then just setting up an impossible standard? What is an example of evidence that is "outside the physical"?

 

[Dante Writer]

What makes you think I have a limited view? I've pointed out to you that something you are declaring to be impossible, is actually possible. And demonstrably so. The scientists I referred to have demonstrated in a lab setting that it is possible that the building blocks of life can form from nonliving material given the right conditions. And you continue to brush it off as next to impossible. So I have to wonder who has the limited view here.

You are taking a huge leap of faith claiming life from inorganic elements can create/form organic life. That is no different than the belief you can jump off the empire state building and survive. It flies in the face of mathematical odds and reason.

I did not declare anywhere it was not possible- just not mathematically reasonable based on odds and therefore other answers must be looked for.

I have studied their work many times and they absolutely did not create organic life and the fact that they had to set up a specific controlled experiment is evidence only that the odds of it happening naturally are even higher against that theory unless you want to throw a God, creator, or mad scientist in your theory to substantiate it.

If you hang your hat on that theory and experiment as evidence then you are limited.

 

[Dante Writer]

You are taking a huge leap of faith that claiming life from inorganic elements can create organic life. That is no different than the belief you can jump off the empire state building and survive. It flies in the face of mathematical odds and reason.

I did not declare anywhere it was not possible- just not mathematically reasonable based on odds and therefore other answers must be looked for.

I have studied their work many times and they absolutely did not create organic life and the fact that they had to set up a specific controlled experiment is evidence only that the odds of it happening naturally are even higher against that theory unless you want to throw a God, creator, or mad scientist in your theory to substantiate it.

If you hang your hat on that theory and experiment as evidence then you are limited.

 

[McBell]

Random mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Natural selection by itself would not result in evolution.

Therefore, you must calculate the odd of a random mutation and the process of natural selection in any theory of evolution.

I gave the way those odds are calculated and if someone want to sit down and do the math they can and will quickly realize that the odds of a complex organism forming from random mutations and natural selection is so mind boggling it is not a viable theory in my opinion.

Something else is at play!

Still waiting for your math...
Not holding my breath seeing as you are merely interested in making unsubstantiated claims.