Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Acim]

We can do a quantum experiment easily with a key-chain laser pointer we can buy at a dollar store. We can observe with our naked eye, light from stars that existed millions of years ago. Its not a bad question to ask how readily available the reproducible experiments are. Its very hard for science to make stuff up when experiments have to consistently yield the same results.

Depends what you mean by making stuff up.

 

[gnostic]

It humors me that observation means these things. Like saying when religion talks of prayer, it actually means contemplation, deliberation and gratitude. How can you not understand that? LOL.
Yeah, I get that observation means a whole lot of things in scientific methodology. Seems like overarching assumption that 'observation' is without bias/prejudice, but I think we all know that's not accurate. (I'm anticipating response of - yeah, but it's the best we can do.)

Observation means acquiring relevant information or data through the mean of evidences, tests or experiments.

It not necessary for observing as in seeing through the naked eye.

The human eye can't detect or measure many things, so they often devices to obtain the necessary data for them.

For instance, if you need to measure the current, voltage, resistance or signal frequency of any live electrical or electronic component with any precision, then it is not possible to do so through sight, sound, smell or touch (which I highly don't recommend doing), so an instrument such as a multimeter will do quite adequately, and an oscilloscope is even better.

Whatever instruments or devices that may be used to measure or record the necessary data, then human factors, such as human errors and bias can be limited, if not totally eliminated.

Of course, scientists are human too, and some might try to affect the results in their favour, but that's why new hypothesis are tested not only by the authors of the hypothesis, but also independently tests by other scientists, by their peers.

The peer review is used not only to verify or validate any presented hypothesis (or theory), but to refute any explanation, prediction, data or findings, to find errors in the hypothesis or the test results, and even more important, to catch any cheat.

Take the Large Hadron Collider, for instance, the largest and most expensive scientific experiment in the world, was meant to test some of the theoretical physics in particle physics, like the superstring theory, especially supersymmetry.

Superstring theory was meant to replace both general relativity and quantum physics, because these two theories clash with each other. But the thing is that there are at least half-dozen variations of string theory, produced and advocated by different scientists or researchers.

String theory, superstring theory, supersymmetry, M-theory (multiple dimensions, as many 11 of them) are all theoretical physics. They (theoretical physics) rely on solely on logic and proving, by solving complex mathematical equations, not on evidences.

The LHC tests yielded no evidences to support supersymmetry. LHC also produced no new dimensions, which M-theory researchers have indicated, so that's a bust too.

The thing is that it would take a scientist to refute another scientist's work, and that can only be achieved through evidences or through tests and experiments.

The questions now for scientists around the world, especially for particle physicists:

• Should they discard superstring theory because of the LHC experiment has refuted it?
• Or should they continue down this road, and find other mean for testing supersymmetry and multi-dimensional M-theory?

If we look at the Big Bang theory, this model was also originally theoretical physics, with no evidences to support it, until Edwin Hubble showed us that galaxies are moving away from each, or expanding, to be Redshifted.

But more conclusive evidence for BB is that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was predicted in 1948 by Alpher and Herman, but only discovered 16 years later, in 1964. NASA have better images of the early universe from the WMAP mission, which showed residual light or radiation that can be still detected.

My point is that verifying what is true or not, can take years in science.

So should we give science more time with superstring theory or not?

You seemed to think all science is based on blind faith. That's not true if you are basing on evidences discovered.

If you have evidences - verifiable and empirical evidences - then the theory is not based on faith.

Faith is all about accepting things based on belief alone, regardless if there are no evidences to support such faith, or the evidences goes against the belief.

And all religions, especially theistic religions, are all based on faith, not on evidences.

 

[Acim]

Observation means acquiring relevant information or data through the mean of evidences, tests or experiments.

It not necessary for observing as in seeing through the naked eye.

The human eye can't detect or measure many things, so they often devices to obtain the necessary data for them.

For instance, if you need to measure the current, voltage, resistance or signal frequency of any live electrical or electronic component with any precision, then it is not possible to do so through sight, sound, smell or touch (which I highly don't recommend doing), so an instrument such as a multimeter will do quite adequately, and an oscilloscope is even better.

Whatever instruments or devices that may be used to measure or record the necessary data, then human factors, such as human errors and bias can be limited, if not totally eliminated.

Yeah, observation doesn't strike me as the accurate word for this part of the process. Since you brought up measure(ment) and 'need to' that strikes me as more accurate word.

With certain hypotheses, I think need for measurement is understandable, but on others (that I'm familiar with), it strikes me as bias being introduced to say it must be measurable for the experimentation to determine validity of the hypothesis.

Of course, scientists are human too, and some might try to affect the results in their favour, but that's why new hypothesis are tested not only by the authors of the hypothesis, but also independently tests by other scientists, by their peers.

The peer review is used not only to verify or validate any presented hypothesis (or theory), but to refute any explanation, prediction, data or findings, to find errors in the hypothesis or the test results, and even more important, to catch any cheat.

Take the Large Hadron Collider, for instance, the largest and most expensive scientific experiment in the world, was meant to test some of the theoretical physics in particle physics, like the superstring theory, especially supersymmetry.

Superstring theory was meant to replace both general relativity and quantum physics, because these two theories clash with each other. But the thing is that there are at least half-dozen variations of string theory, produced and advocated by different scientists or researchers.

String theory, superstring theory, supersymmetry, M-theory (multiple dimensions, as many 11 of them) are all theoretical physics. They (theoretical physics) rely on solely on logic and proving, by solving complex mathematical equations, not on evidences.

This would then seem to be outside the domain of science. Strictly speaking.

My point is that verifying what is true or not, can take years in science.

So should we give science more time with superstring theory or not?

Depending on who's funding it (or being asked to), I don't see why we wouldn't.

But (changing gears) if science is saying, we don't have evidence that a product is safe over the long term and needs more evaluation/studies to determine that, then that alone I see no problem with. But if same scientists are also suggesting it would be best to regulate it very strictly, as if it is inherently unsafe, then I see that as a problem with those scientists and a negative reflection on science in general. As I am alluding to a specific issue (in my mind), this does make it challenging for me to accept some of what you convey. Essentially, you are conveying hard sciences (or science that is entirely math based) where softer sciences will tend to use same type of rhetoric to persuade in a direction as if they are hard science at every step of the process.

You seemed to think all science is based on blind faith. That's not true if you are basing on evidences discovered.

If you have evidences - verifiable and empirical evidences - then the theory is not based on faith.

Agreed. Once the fundamental faith in materialism is accepted, one can use reason and logic to determine if evidences support certain hypothesis.

Faith is all about accepting things based on belief alone, regardless if there are no evidences to support such faith, or the evidences goes against the belief.

And all religions, especially theistic religions, are all based on faith, not on evidences.

I obviously disagree with this. I disagree with assertion of "faith is all about" what you are suggesting. It's not. It's accepting something (arguably everything) as true with high degree of confidence. Like I do (currently) have faith in material existence. Still don't have objective evidence to support this belief, in which I have great deal of confidence in, but don't need that to maintain the faith (that I have).

My theism is based on Reason. I wouldn't claim to be a strong theist if it were based on something equivalent to blind faith.

 

[shmogie]

They do if they want Creation to be anything other than belief.


And yet it hasn't been outside those who have to use faith to justify their belief that it has been.


Yes.
And those who want Creation to be anything other than belief, will need to provide evidence.


Except that you do not know that for a fact...


False dichototmy


except there is evidence for it.

Not a false dichotomy, simple logic. What evidence do you require ? The world is inhabited by thousands of diverse and spectacular organisms. Biogenisis presupposes all of these organisms exist as a result non living chemicals combining to create a living organism/s from which all other organisms exist. This process has never been observed, never been recreated, never been explained or understood and the environment and chemicals involved are unknown. Therefore, I can point to any organism as proof of creation, and you cannot refute me. Consequently, I have provided you significant evidence

 

[Zosimus]

But more conclusive evidence for BB is that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was predicted in 1948 by Alpher and Herman, but only discovered 16 years later, in 1964. NASA have better images of the early universe from the WMAP mission, which showed residual light or radiation that can be still detected.

CMBR means nothing. It is far from showing the Big Bang Theory correct.

The logical pattern under which CMBR supposedly verifies the Big Bang Theory is fallacious.

If BB then CMBR.
CMBR
Therefore, BB is confirmed.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. It means nothing at all.

A simple google search will show multiple alternative explanations for CMBR. In fact, the discovery of the CMBR did not even match the predictions made by Big Bang advocates such as George Gamow, who predicted that the CMBR would be around 50ºK. Measurements show a number around 2.7ºK. The lowest prediction for CMBR by Big Bang advocates was around 5.0ºK, which is 46 percent off from measured values. That isn't much of a success. It's what we call HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known).

There are numerous problems with the BB theory such as the lack of universal galactic uniformity. However, proponents don't care because they are victims of confirmation bias. They magnify whatever small confirmations exist and ignore or downplay problems with the theory.

My point is that verifying what is true or not, can take years in science.

Science is not about verifying what is true. Science takes two theories that make different predictions and tests them against each other. One theory should be falsified, but that doesn't mean that the other theory is true. Ptolemy's model of the universe and Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation were repeatedly confirmed for centuries. Nevertheless, both theories are now known to be false.

If you have evidences - verifiable and empirical evidences - then the theory is not based on faith.

You say this because you are proceeding based on a bad definition of faith. Dictionary.com defines faith as "belief that is not based on proof." Evidence that you falsely believe supports something is not proof and never will be. You simply have faith that your pet theory is true.

The vast majority of published scientific findings are false. Some estimates are as high as 85 percent. To put it bluntly science, as currently practiced, just doesn't work.

 

[Skwim]

CMBR means nothing. It is far from showing the Big Bang Theory correct.

The logical pattern under which CMBR supposedly verifies the Big Bang Theory is fallacious.

If BB then CMBR.
CMBR
Therefore, BB is confirmed.

This is a classic example of the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. It means nothing at all.

Curious, where did gnostic say anything like "If BB then CMBR."

A simple google search will show multiple alternative explanations for CMBR. In fact, the discovery of the CMBR did not even match the predictions made by Big Bang advocates such as George Gamow, who predicted that the CMBR would be around 50ºK. Measurements show a number around 2.7ºK. The lowest prediction for CMBR by Big Bang advocates was around 5.0ºK, which is 46 percent off from measured values. That isn't much of a success. It's what we call HARKing (hypothesizing after the results are known).

I looked around and didn't find much of anything, other than a list from the religious web site techreader, much less any explanation that had the consensus of the BB theory among cosmologists. And, of course, one must remember that the BB theory, is just that, a THEORY, and unless you have a better theory the BB appears to be the best explanation to date. Got a better one?

There are numerous problems with the BB theory such as the lack of universal galactic uniformity. However, proponents don't care because they are victims of confirmation bias. They magnify whatever small confirmations exist and ignore or downplay problems with the theory.

I would guess its proponents do care, but don't find such problems to be deal breakers. However, I assume you do feel they are deal breakers and have an alternative theory of some sort that better fits the facts. Whatcha got?

You say this because you are proceeding based on a bad definition of faith. Dictionary.com defines faith as "belief that is not based on proof." Evidence that you falsely believe supports something is not proof and never will be. You simply have faith that your pet theory is true.

And do you know what Dictionary.com defines as belief? it's "something believed; an opinion or conviction.": So, so much for the definitions of Dictionary.com. A far, far better definition of faith is: a trust in belief. AND, a far better definition of belief is: an acceptance of a statement or concept as true without persuasive evidence as to its veracity.

The vast majority of published scientific findings are false. Some estimates are as high as 85 percent. To put it bluntly science, as currently practiced, just doesn't work.

Ah ha, the religious, anti-science bias finally sticks its head out of the muck And yes, I know you've said nothing about religion, but your script simply screams it.

 

[McBell]

Therefore, I can point to any organism as proof of creation, and you cannot refute me.

Big deal.
I can point to any organism as proof of abiogenesis and you cannot refute me.
Thus your argument is nothing more than a bold empty claim.
So your creation position is not on as solid ground as you would like to think it is.

Consequently, I have provided you significant evidence

yet abiogenesis has more evidence in support of it....

Basically all you have is bold empty claims based on wishful thinking supported at best with semantics and philosophy....

I understand that it works for the choir members, but it is an epic fail outside the choir.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are we supposed to take someone seriously who refers to others as "dumb ***" and "retard" in an adult conversation? I think not.

Good grief.

 

[viole]

Not a false dichotomy, simple logic. What evidence do you require ? The world is inhabited by thousands of diverse and spectacular organisms. Biogenisis presupposes all of these organisms exist as a result non living chemicals combining to create a living organism/s from which all other organisms exist. This process has never been observed, never been recreated, never been explained or understood and the environment and chemicals involved are unknown. Therefore, I can point to any organism as proof of creation, and you cannot refute me. Consequently, I have provided you significant evidence

Yes, the same quality of evidence that made the Thor hypothesys of lightnings obviously true.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shmogie]

Yes, the same quality of evidence that made the Thor hypothesys of lightnings obviously true.

Ciao

- viole

I see, So the existence of extremely complicated life forms, with no understanding by secularists as to how they came about, is evidence of nothing. Or, faith in a process that cannot be explained, is proof that complicated organisms arose from chemical interactions. Yet, faith in the concept of intelligent design based upon these very complicated organisms, is equivalent to a fairy tale, Pure imbecilic pap. If you propose bio genisis, but cannot provide any evidence to support it, then your proposal is worthless. However, there are many many evidences for intelligent design. Saying something is so, without evidence doesn't make it so

 

[shmogie]

Big deal.
I can point to any organism as proof of abiogenesis and you cannot refute me.
Thus your argument is nothing more than a bold empty claim.
So your creation position is not on as solid ground as you would like to think it is.


yet abiogenesis has more evidence in support of it....

Basically all you have is bold empty claims based on wishful thinking supported at best with semantics and philosophy....

I understand that it works for the choir members, but it is an epic fail outside the choir.

Your response is totally hollow. Your choir, which worships at the altar of chance, is singularly ignorant and ill informed. You speak of evidence, produce it. You can't point to any organism as proof of abiogenesis, because there is no evidence for abiogenesis. So, as an old song stated "something from nothing leaves nothing". As much as you want, you cannot make the quantum leap to complicated organisms from organisms that existed by a chemical process from non living chemicals, without the proof of that initial step.

 

[McBell]

Your response is totally hollow. Your choir, which worships at the altar of chance, is singularly ignorant and ill informed. You speak of evidence, produce it. You can't point to any organism as proof of abiogenesis, because there is no evidence for abiogenesis. So, as an old song stated "something from nothing leaves nothing". As much as you want, you cannot make the quantum leap to complicated organisms from organisms that existed by a chemical process from non living chemicals, without the proof of that initial step.

Perhaps one day you will be able to learn what science actually says instead of all the strawmen you call science and then when might be able to have an honest, meaningful adult discussion on the matter.
Until then, good luck with your choir.

 

[McBell]

Saying something is so, without evidence doesn't make it so

Something you really should take note of yourself....

 

[shmogie]

Something you really should take note of yourself....

I can produce a significant amount of evidence for intelligent design. I once was an atheist, macro evolutionist. So I have a pretty clear idea "of what science says".

 

[McBell]

I can produce a significant amount of evidence for intelligent design. I once was an atheist, macro evolutionist. So I have a pretty clear idea "of what science says".

your posts strongly indicate otherwise.

 

[Sapiens]

Since you don't elaborate, or even hint at, the other aspect of 'truth' in the assertion, then science has been rendered to elitism. And plausibly indoctrination, ya know, to be trained as an appropriate technician.

Science is like plumbing ... if everyone was capable of doing it for themselves everyone would.

Is science verifiable to one and all, or just those who have chosen to follow in the prescribed footsteps of what actual (and closely guarded) science entails?

Does plumbing work for everyone, or is it limited to those who grasp that water can't flow uphill?

Careful. Your assumptions are ignoring the easily identifiable hypocrisy of your chosen path. Given the many methodologies that plausibly exist, and that fact that actual science does clearly allow for rogue practices, the elitist version is the stuff hubris and (false) authority rest on.

The proof is in the pudding. Religion has never falsified either science or plumbing, but science (and I suspect plumbing) has routinely falsified religion

.
Past and future are both fables resting on the same type of faith, science takes for granted.

If you argue against uniformitarianism all you are arguing is that there is no reality, just chaos.

For some, an under-examined endeavor is apparently worth practicing.

That accounts for religion, now ... how about science and plumbing?

I can produce a significant amount of evidence for intelligent design. I once was an atheist, macro evolutionist. So I have a pretty clear idea "of what science says".

Please don't. I can assure you that everything you might "produce" has already been thoroughly debunked. I'll demonstrate, give us your top three "evidences."

 

[shmogie]

I can produce a significant amount of evidence for intelligent design. I once was an atheist, macro evolutionist. So I have a pretty clear idea "of what science says".

I understand the cosmological models, and the absurdity of chance being the only way everything came about. I understand very clearly the absence of evidence for abiogenesis, and once again chance being the only reason life exists, I understand the various scientific principles that must be abandoned for macro evolution to be viable,e.g. the second law of thermodynamics. You simply are a programmed snob, it has to be, there can be nothing else, so it is. I have taken the time to look at both arguments as objectively s possible, and see the absurdity of statistically impossible chances being a causal factor the existence of everything. Perhaps when you can emotionally let go of your absurd notions, and the baseless arrogance they produce, YOU might be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone you see as inferior to you and your blind faith in"science", or is it you simply fear hearing something that might cause you to question your faith ?

 

[shmogie]

your posts strongly indicate otherwise.

Really ? well you are a verbal sniper of the worst kind. Empty baseless comments. diaboli is a great name for you, sums up your tactics

 

[McBell]

I understand the cosmological models, and the absurdity of chance being the only way everything came about. I understand very clearly the absence of evidence for abiogenesis, and once again chance being the only reason life exists, I understand the various scientific principles that must be abandoned for macro evolution to be viable,e.g. the second law of thermodynamics. You simply are a programmed snob, it has to be, there can be nothing else, so it is. I have taken the time to look at both arguments as objectively s possible, and see the absurdity of statistically impossible chances being a causal factor the existence of everything. Perhaps when you can emotionally let go of your absurd notions, and the baseless arrogance they produce, YOU might be able to have an intelligent conversation with someone you see as inferior to you and your blind faith in"science", or is it you simply fear hearing something that might cause you to question your faith ?

please show your math.

 

[McBell]

Really ? well you are a verbal sniper of the worst kind. Empty baseless comments. diaboli is a great name for you, sums up your tactics

that you are all about "something from nothing" (strawman) and "nothing but chance" (strawman) indicates you are sorely ignorant of what science actually says.