Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Sapiens]

Are you presuming I am believer in Genesis? Do you want me to defend Genesis for sake of argument?

Then how do you determine what is true or false?

How do know your creation and creator are true (Genesis 1 - 3)?

Via Reason.



Via Reason.

Am I now to assume it unreasonable to expect you to apply reason (thinking, understanding, and forming judgments by a process of logic) to Genesis? Will you give us a list of those things you will defend and those you can not?

Acim's Cafeteria Christianity. Nice ring to it.

Let's extend the Testaments! Let us have a book of Acim's Cafeteria Christianity! We shall hex the Pentateuch and slip it in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!

(with apologies to Lawrence and Lee)

 

[YmirGF]

Life is far too short for some discussions....

 

[gnostic]

How do know your creation and creator are true (Genesis 1 - 3)?

Through prayers? Through belief? How do you know that such belief in god is real? How do you know your prayers have been answered?

I would call it blind faith in a book that have no scientific knowledge, BECAUSE it explain nothing.

There is no reason other than that of superstition, which is based on ancient ignorance and fear.

The author of Genesis clearly had no understanding of the natural world. Genesis 1 to 3 merely describe something that they don't understand.

And Genesis creation is based on the older Babylonian creation myths, which they borrowed and modified to suit their own religion.

 

[Zosimus]

Sorry, I misspoke myself, what I meant to say was; "The bible has never falsified either science or plumbing, but science (and I suspect plumbing) has routinely falsified the bible." That is far more objective and testable. Absent special pleadings religion is, however, eminently falsifiable.

If religion is falsifiable, then religion is science.

 

[Zosimus]

Big Bang cosmologists ONLY have to show verifiable evidences FOR ONLY the Big Bang or inflationary universe, not disprove all other theories.

No, you don't get it. There's no such thing as verifiable evidences for a scientific theory.

Given theory T that predicts observations O, upon finding O you think that T has been confirmed.
However, you have merely engaged in the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

You cannot even claim that this confirmation makes the theory more probable.

You really don't know science works.

Science doesn't work. First of all, science is based on a logical fallacy. Second, in the real world, most published research findings are false. That means that even after scientists have checked their work, submitted it for peer review, and gotten it published in a prestigious venue it is still wrong.

 

[gnostic]

No, you don't get it. There's no such thing as verifiable evidences for a scientific theory.

Given theory T that predicts observations O, upon finding O you think that T has been confirmed.
However, you have merely engaged in the affirming the consequent logical fallacy.

You cannot even claim that this confirmation makes the theory more probable.


Science doesn't work. First of all, science is based on a logical fallacy. Second, in the real world, most published research findings are false. That means that even after scientists have checked their work, submitted it for peer review, and gotten it published in a prestigious venue it is still wrong.

Zosimus.

You are bloody generalizing. You really don't know.

After high school, I chose a career as civil engineer, but in my mid-30s I had changed my career path, in computer science (as a programmer). Sure, I am not a scientist, but in both courses, a lot of my subjects involved science, more specifically with physics and (for civil) with chemistry. And in both courses, they stressed the importance of evidences and testings. And so far, none of them had steer me wrong.

So are you telling me, science don't work in the fields of works that I have done? What they have been teaching me are nothing more than fallacies?

You truly have no credibility, Zosimus, to make such sweeping generalizations.

 

[Zosimus]

Zosimus.

You are bloody generalizing. You really don't know.

After high school, I chose a career as civil engineer, but in my mid-30s I had changed my career path, in computer science (as a programmer). Sure, I am not a scientist, but in both courses, a lot of my subjects involved science, more specifically with physics and (for civil) with chemistry. And in both courses, they stressed the importance of evidences and testings. And so far, none of them had steer me wrong.

So are you telling me, science don't work in the fields of works that I have done? What they have been teaching me are nothing more than fallacies?

You truly have no credibility, Zosimus, to make such sweeping generalizations.

Oh, THEY, who shall remain nameless, and whom I assume to be your teachers, stressed the importance of evidences(sic) and testings(sic). Out of curiosity, who was your English teacher, and what did he or she stress? I think that he or she should have stressed the difference between countable and uncountable nouns.

Well, when I left high school I majored in electronic engineering. I learned that bad boys rape our young girls but Violet goes willingly. I learned how to Thevanize, how to build class A, B, and C amplifiers, and how to construct logic gates such as NOR, XOR, NAND, etc.

What does that prove? No more than your example proves.

Given any data set, we can construct an infinite number of mathematical formulae that fit that data set. So which one has been confirmed?

Sure, we can get another data point, which will falsify some of the formulae, but with the new data set an infinite number of new mathematical formulae can be constructed. So which theory is confirmed by the data?

You know, before there were scientists, people sailed round the world, grew crops, built pyramids and cathedrals and did many amazing things. So what makes science so special?

 

[Parsimony]

Oh, THEY, who shall remain nameless, and whom I assume to be your teachers, stressed the importance of evidences(sic) and testings(sic). Out of curiosity, who was your English teacher, and what did he or she stress? I think that he or she should have stressed the difference between countable and uncountable nouns.

Well, when I left high school I majored in electronic engineering. I learned that bad boys rape our young girls but Violet goes willingly. I learned how to Thevanize, how to build class A, B, and C amplifiers, and how to construct logic gates such as NOR, XOR, NAND, etc.

What does that prove? No more than your example proves.

Given any data set, we can construct an infinite number of mathematical formulae that fit that data set. So which one has been confirmed?

Sure, we can get another data point, which will falsify some of the formulae, but with the new data set an infinite number of new mathematical formulae can be constructed. So which theory is confirmed by the data?

You know, before there were scientists, people sailed round the world, grew crops, built pyramids and cathedrals and did many amazing things. So what makes science so special?

What would you propose that we use in place of science when we, say, test the safety of a new drug?

 

[Acim]

Am I now to assume it unreasonable to expect you to apply reason (thinking, understanding, and forming judgments by a process of logic) to Genesis? Will you give us a list of those things you will defend and those you can not?

Acim's Cafeteria Christianity. Nice ring to it.

Let's extend the Testaments! Let us have a book of Acim's Cafeteria Christianity! We shall hex the Pentateuch and slip it in neatly between Numbers and Deuteronomy!

(with apologies to Lawrence and Lee)

I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, but my guess is you think I am likely old school Christian and therefore take the bible literally. And because of this, I of course have some belief in OT and therefore do see Genesis as Creator God's factual story about how life came into existence, in which case, in a thread such as this, I ought to be able to present my reasonable argument that defends Genesis.

Here, I'll update you on things:
1 - Honestly, past creation type stories of almost all varieties (including scientific theories), are of little importance to me. I entertain them for sake of discussion but generally don't find much that is pertinent to practical life or current spiritual predicament.

2 - Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are in very broad terms, allegory to me.

3 - I do actually believe, have argued (do have a recent RF thread on this) that part of purpose of Genesis 2 is to explain to any spiritual person that god in that chapter caused humanity to fall into a deep sleep and has no reference to a waking up. I do not identify in that chapter a reference to Creator God past the first 3 verses. Any discussion about this is perhaps done in that other thread, but the narrative is still allegory for me, wish to make that clear in this thread.

4 - In my Christian understandings, via Reason, I do not subscribe to a notion that the Bible is the last time God has spoken to humanity. I actually consider that blasphemous. While I have respect for Gospel, it is not the end all for my Christian knowledge.

5 - Therefore, if I do enter into discussion about "verifiable evidence for creationism" it isn't, primarily, an argument for old school understanding on this concept. I get that for most on either side (theist or atheist), it is only about that conceptual approach. I enter such discussions with understanding of verifiable evidence for intelligent designer that is pertinent to current life. And is really me just entertaining a pet hypothesis I have which does, I find, have connection to current spiritual predicament, but is a round about way of getting to that. Less direct than what I think many would identify as clearly in domain of spirituality - that being forgiveness.

I understand "cafeteria Christianity" to be intended as derogatory term for how some Christians pick and choose what to accept as Christian teaching to abide by. Given the blasphemy I spoke of earlier, I would hope a Christian comes prepared if they really wish to have such an intellectual argument. If it is atheist/agnostic making this assertion, I observe them to be vastly under prepared.

 

[Acim]

What would you propose that we use in place of science when we, say, test the safety of a new drug?

Philosophy - which wouldn't rule out things dealing with existential consideration, that science has never truly addressed and overcome.

Because today's science is currently weighing in on a product I use/have appreciation for and is using "safety" as primary consideration for recommended regulations, I find the philosophical approach does outweigh the scientific one. The scientific one, as demonstrated by some of the scientists in the popular/visible debate going on, are lost in the woods regarding safety. Making extraordinary claims and coming to certain conclusions that are not, nor do I believe are they intended to be, readily verifiable. In practice, the (so-called) scientists are attempting to corner the market of ideas, or eliminate the free market for the existing product, based on fallacious understandings regarding "safety."

Such a debate has lead me to the overarching conclusion that, in sound bite terms, the FDA is a joke. Practitioners of pseudo-science. Fooling a whole lot of people to think of them otherwise, as a legitimate authority on safety of new/existing products.

 

[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

Well, yes. If you invoke God to explain things we don't know, you are not different from believers in Thor and Zeus as the origin of lighnings and thunders a few centuries ago. The historical track record of such way of thinking is quite dismal.

This should become apparent when you try to answer the following two questions:

1) How many times a metaphisical explanation has been replaced by a naturalistic one?
2) how many times a naturalistic explanation has been replaced by a metaphysical one?

By the way, we do know where the complexity of life comes from. Spoiler: it is not Zeus, nor any similar entities with equivalent plausibility.

So, I am not sure what your point is.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

What would you propose that we use in place of science when we, say, test the safety of a new drug?

Nothing! I propose simply that people who are in need of the drug try it themselves and carefully determine their own reaction to the drug. Wherever possible, drugs should be avoided. People don't have heart attacks becaue of a deficiency of Wellbutrin. Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food.

Out of curisoity, what scientific method do you use to determine whether prayer is safe and effective?

 

[SkepticThinker]

What a bizarre irrelevant question.

It's very relevant. If complex and complicated things require creators, then what does that say about a creator god that would most likely be much more complicated and complex than it's creation?

 

[Sapiens]

If religion is falsifiable, then religion is science.

You are grossly mischaracterizing Popper (and others) in a vain attempt to shift the topic and cover your face plant.

As conservapedia notes: "To be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be "falsifiable", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see pseudoscience). However, the history of science is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong."

That is rather different than your abortion of if it is falsifiable it is science.

 

[Parsimony]

Nothing! I propose simply that people who are in need of the drug try it themselves and carefully determine their own reaction to the drug. Wherever possible, drugs should be avoided. People don't have heart attacks becaue of a deficiency of Wellbutrin. Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food.

Trying medicine on themselves would be a form of scientific test. They are testing the hypothesis that it will either help them or not. Also, testing a formerly untested drug on yourself sounds like a recipe for disaster: how could anyone even know what the drug does if no tests have been done?

Out of curisoity, what scientific method do you use to determine whether prayer is safe and effective?

None, as I'm not even sure that prayer works at all. How it could possibly be "unsafe" is beyond me, however.

 

[Zosimus]

You are grossly mischaracterizing Popper (and others) in a vain attempt to shift the topic and cover your face plant.

As conservapedia notes: "To be considered scientific, a hypothesis must be "falsifiable", i.e., capable of being proven false. If no one, not even the supporters of the hypothesis, can think of a way the hypothesis might be proven false, then most scientists would agree that it is not part of science (see pseudoscience). However, the history of science is full of examples whereby supporters of various theories refused to consider the prospect that someone might prove them wrong."

That is rather different than your abortion of if it is falsifiable it is science.

I'm afraid that it is you who have butchered the concept. Plus, when did "conservapedia" become some sort of an authority on these things?

Popper claimed that we could determine which theories were better by assessing empirischer Gehalt, which means something like "empirical content." A valid scientific theory should make novel, testable predictions. Basically, the more a theory (or law) forbids the better the theory is. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity forbids a lot. It not only forbids objects to float or move sideways, but also forbids them from moving down at a constant rate or accelerating more slowly than its calculations allow. That makes for good science (although the law is wrong and demonstrably so).

By way of comparison, the God concept in general and Genesis account in particular doesn't really forbid much. It spells out a certain order and a certain time frame, but that's about it.

Similarly, the theory of natural selection contains little if any empirical content. If a breeding pair of domestic housecats is turned loose on a predator-free island filled with finches, what will happen? Well, the cats might kill all the finches and the starve. The cats might kill some finches while others live. The finches might adapt to the existence of the cats by engaging in avoidance behavior that has nothing to do with genetics. The finches adapt to the existence of the cats by displaying measurable changes in alleles. The cats might fail to catch enough food and starve to death.

Proponents of natural selection will claim that all of the above is consistent with natural selection. That's why natural selection is not really scientific – it predicts nothing at all and thus is consistent with any empirical finding. What does that prove, really? A theory that fits every conceivable fact isn't much of a theory. I'll pass.

 

[Zosimus]

Trying medicine on themselves would be a form of scientific test. They are testing the hypothesis that it will either help them or not. Also, testing a formerly untested drug on yourself sounds like a recipe for disaster: how could anyone even know what the drug does if no tests have been done?

None, as I'm not even sure that prayer works at all. How it could possibly be "unsafe" is beyond me, however.

A Christian who doesn't think prayer works. Well, now I've seen everything!

But no, I want to take exception to your claim that trying a drug to see whether it works for you is a form of a scientific test. It is most emphatically not. Scientific tests require numerous controls because humans are biased and routinely skew the results whether accidentally or on purpose. At the very least, the groups will need to be randomized. RCTs are typically blinded as well, with large randomized double-blind studies being the "gold standard" for scientific inquiry.

Let's suppose, however, that approximately 20 percent of the treatment group show significant improvement whereas the remainder of the treatment group show no change. The results will be considered statistically significant (or if not, some careful massaging of p-values will fix that) and the medication in question will be prescribed for the general public even though 80 percent of the people reap no benefit at all.

Of course, even with large-scale randomized blinded trials, some 25 percent of those will be wrong. So basically, your chance of getting any kind of benefit from the treatment will be 0.2 x 0.75 = 15 percent chance of improvement, improvement that may be only moderate and will be accompanied by side effects, some of which will doubtless be serious.

So basically, even after science gets through doing its thing and spending billions, it'll still be a crap shoot.

 

[Parsimony]

A Christian who doesn't think prayer works. Well, now I've seen everything!

But no, I want to take exception to your claim that trying a drug to see whether it works for you is a form of a scientific test. It is most emphatically not. Scientific tests require numerous controls because humans are biased and routinely skew the results whether accidentally or on purpose. At the very least, the groups will need to be randomized. RCTs are typically blinded as well, with large randomized double-blind studies being the "gold standard" for scientific inquiry.

Let's suppose, however, that approximately 20 percent of the treatment group show significant improvement whereas the remainder of the treatment group show no change. The results will be considered statistically significant (or if not, some careful massaging of p-values will fix that) and the medication in question will be prescribed for the general public even though 80 percent of the people reap no benefit at all.

Of course, even with large-scale randomized blinded trials, some 25 percent of those will be wrong. So basically, your chance of getting any kind of benefit from the treatment will be 0.2 x 0.75 = 15 percent chance of improvement, improvement that may be only moderate and will be accompanied by side effects, some of which will doubtless be serious.

So basically, even after science gets through doing its thing and spending billions, it'll still be a crap shoot.

Sounds like you have a problem with the way that science is implemented in our society rather than with science itself.

 

[Acim]

Sounds like you have a problem with the way that science is implemented in our society rather than with science itself.

Who doesn't?

 

[Zosimus]

Sounds like you have a problem with the way that science is implemented in our society rather than with science itself.

It's not so much that I have a problem with science, per se. Science mostly doesn't work. Like a bumbling oaf, science might eventually stumble its way into a good answer. It's not likely, but stranger things have happened.

Yet there are so many dyed-in-the-wool true believers who cannot accept that I'm quite willing to take all of science with a huge grain of salt and suspend judgement.

True Believer: "You have no evidence! We have all the answers! Global Warming/Evolution/The Big Bang/the flu shot/etc. is a fact. The science is settled. Anyone who remains skeptical must be a radical Christian. Let me explain to you how science works! (Insert really poor half-baked explanation of the so-called "scientific" method). Now that we have educated you, you have to accept our version of events!"

Me: "What about the problem of induction? Ravens Paradox? Problem of the Priors with Bayesian statistics? New Riddle of Induction? Logical problems with scientific method? Peer-reviewed publications showing that even when science is done perfectly with 0 bias, the chance that the result is true is only about 30 percent? Any of this ringing a bell?"

True Believer: "Blasphemer! You will burn in Darwin hell forever! You have no credibility! etc. etc. etc."