Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

Sophistry not worthy of note.

What you, of course, mean to say is "I have no way of answering that."

Perhaps I should refer you to http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_positivism#Criticism wherein you can see that I am not the only one who makes the criticism. What you, and most people on this forum are advocating, is what is known as strict verificationism, which has been associated with the now-defunct logical positivism school of thought. According to this standard, any statement that cannot be empirically tested is meaningless. I now quote from the above link:

Positivism asserts that any statement that cannot be empirically tested is meaningless. However, logical positivism is a philosophy, and cannot be empirically tested itself. By its own criterion, therefore, logical positivism is meaningless. This problem is by no means restricted to positivism, but more of an issue with sweeping, universal statements in general.

So you can call it "sophistry" all you want. I just say pwned.

 

[Acim]

No, I meant what I said. Especially since you do not display reason and confuse philosophy with sophistry ... but what the hey, they both have "soph" in them ... kinda like sophomoric.

Why do you summon me again with the same quote? You clearly do not understand philosophy well and are yet to provide indisputable evidence for any of your claims.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Source?

I figured someone would ask! I didn't post it, because I couldn't find it; but I'll keep looking in my volumes.

From what I've found in my notes, I think it's in the book "Evolution From Space", by Fred Hoyle.

And the calculation is in relation only to the development of the 2000 proteins serving as enzymes in a living cell, forming at random.

It's such a huge number, I thought it encompassed everything.

But really, everything needs to be considered. Life originating spontaneously? No wonder supporters of common descent (MACROevolutionists) don't want to deal with it. But that's like building the walls of a house, but not securing it to a foundation.

 

[Acim]

What do you think I am talking about when I say "verifiable" or "testable" evidence?

It is a mean of confirming what is evidence, that's not merely an subjective opinion or delusion, Zosimus.

Let's say I told you that I own a farmland, and I have 3 cows and 5 goats.

If you ask me to prove it, I could sent you some pictures of me standing beside some animals. That would be considered evidences (those photos or images).

You could still be skeptical; you could claim that I photoshop myself with pictures of those animals. So I could possibly fax you a copy of my receipts of when and where I brought each animal. Those receipts would be evidences.

You can still be stupidly skeptical, and claim those receipts are fakes.

So the only way I could convince you, would be to invite you over to my farm, and see the animals for yourself. You being to see, hear, touch and smell those goats and cows, would be another evidence of what I say is true.

That's what I called "verifiable" evidence, Zosimus.

But it would not be indisputable. Regardless of the so called evidence you provide, one could maintain skepticism and find it disputable. You could then use subjective assertion to say it is "stupidly skeptical." Which would all be part of the disputable aspect of the claim.

Can you do the same thing with someone's prayer? No.

Sure you can. Like science, it could plausibly come down to asking the right type inquiries or just having faith in the fundamental to then find verification with regards to the prayer. Just like prayers can be willy nilly and outside of a particular scope, so can scientific inquiries. It does take practice, leading to wisdom to understand prayers that can reasonably be discerned as having been addressed. Examples tend to deal with what is going on within, without thinking something outside of you has to change. Such as a prayer for strength, courage, wisdom. Those type of appeals could be met with something that is seen as needing outside influence to occur, and via self deception a path could be manifested where one believes that as long as the outer influence is occurring, there is nothing within own self that is bringing about confidence, strength, courage. Like if I lack courage (and what many might consider common sense) to walk down a certain road at night, I could ask how to overcome that. Common sense solution might be (among many things) - get a gun. I get that, I now have more courage. I feel more safe. Not sure if I need to connect the dots here that leads to the wisdom (that increase in courage did occur) and the deception (that it is the gun that is leading to feeling of safety). But there is clearly a way to make the inquiry on this to Higher Power whereby the whole gun deception could be bypassed and the courage gained.

So, how is this verified by anyone? By overcoming the deception around most things that are asked. Recognizing that the outer solution isn't actually addressing the core / essence of the request, even while it sure as heck will appear to some (perhaps a majority) that it is precisely the outer influence that is the primary change.

Can you show me that God ACTUALLY answer his prayer, and that guy is not feeling heartburn or something other than this peace you are talking about?

This would take a deeper wisdom. In essence, it likely wouldn't matter that anyone be able to intellectually identify the source of prayer requests being answered/addressed. Similar to how it doesn't matter if intellectually one can establish the objective evidence for existence of a material universe, for all subsequent verifications to be seen as reasonable or verifiable. The fundamental faith that both rest on would be seen as sufficient for manifesting what follows.

 

[Acim]

There is no metaphysical claim to natural selection.

Very disputable assertion.

Here's a rather well referenced paper: http://bio150.chass.utoronto.ca/labs/cool-links/lab5/OBrien_et_al_1985_lab_5.pdf

...that contains numerable metaphysical assumptions.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It says nothing about a being outside of the universe, and outside of time. If you are trying to propose that a creator also has to be created, that dog won't hunt. The obverse of that coin is a creation without a creator. For years the steady state universe was the belief, always was and always will be. Now that we know the universe had a beginning, does that preclude a creator who always was and always will be ? I think not

Sure it does. And it says something about the complexity argument you were pushing. You just don't want it to.

I don't know why anyone thinks they can just explain it all away by simply declaring that they god they believe in doesn't require a creator, especially right after making the assertion that complex and complicated things require creators.

 

[shmogie]

Excellent post!

I read this somewhere.... It was suggested that for everything to be just right for organisms to live and thrive.....the four fundamental forces balancing perfectly off each other as they do, and being finely-tuned as they are; the cycles on this Earth, that clean it & promote life-essential symbiosis: oxygen-carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, etc.; the molecules of water rising when freezing; the size and placement of our moon; the distance of our Earth to the Sun....although at 93,000,000 miles, the nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere is perfectly set, because just the 23.5-degree tilt of this planet creates extreme cold or extreme warmth (to scale, if the Earth were the size of a peppercorn, the sun would be a soccer ball 78 feet away, emitting radiant energy, but the peppercorn's atmosphere would be so effective that just slightly tilting the peppercorn would make the closest part [1mm closer] hot, and the farthest part [1mm away] cold!!); then, on top of everything else, all the left-handed amino acids randomly forming the right protein chains again and again to aid in the development of RNA, to gradually form DNA; etc., etc.....Every one of these events being essential to life....
For all of this to happen before life, the odds were 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power!!

There's not that many atoms in the universe!

Yet, anything with odds of 1 to the 83rd power, scientists say it will never happen!

They look at a few of the trees, but ignore the forest!

There's too much complexity! I can't ignore it!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sure it does. And it says something about the complexity argument you were pushing. You just don't want it to.

I don't know why anyone thinks they can just explain it all away by simply declaring that they god they believe in doesn't require a creator, especially right after making the assertion that complex and complicated things require creators.

How complex is life that's invisible? No one knows. Would it have to be? Not necessarily.

 

[McBell]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

bull ****.
Your posts are evidence.
Compelling evidence in fact.

Nice try though.

 

[shmogie]

Sure it does. And it says something about the complexity argument you were pushing. You just don't want it to.

Read on and learn a little." The universe and everything in it is confined to a single finite dimension of time.Time in that dimension proceeds always and only forward. The flow of time can never be reversed or stopped. Because it has a beginning and only flows in one direction, it can be described as half a dimension. The proof of creation lies in the mathematical observation that any entity confined to this half dimension must have a starting point. That is, it must be created. The necessity of creation applies to the universe and everything in it. The necessity for God to be created would only exist if he were limited to this half dimension of time. He is not. By definition, time is the realm or dimension where cause and effect phenomena take place. According to the space time theorem of general relativity effects such as matter, energy, length, width, height and time were caused independent of the time dimension of the universe. So, there is at least one additional time dimension for God. In two or more dimensions of time, an entity is free of the need to be created. Time would expand from a line into a plane, in a plane of time, an infinite number of lines running in an infinite number of directions would be possible. If God were to so choose, he could move and operate on an infinite time line that never touches or comes into contact with the time line of our universe. He would have no beginning and no end". The Creator and the Cosmos, page 80, Hugh Ross PhD

 

[Parsimony]

I figured someone would ask! I didn't post it, because I couldn't find it; but I'll keep looking in my volumes.

From what I've found in my notes, I think it's in the book "Evolution From Space", by Fred Hoyle.

And the calculation is in relation only to the development of the 2000 proteins serving as enzymes in a living cell, forming at random.

It's such a huge number, I thought it encompassed everything.

But really, everything needs to be considered. Life originating spontaneously? No wonder supporters of common descent (MACROevolutionists) don't want to deal with it. But that's like building the walls of a house, but not securing it to a foundation.

Macroevolution doesn't need life to have originated spontaneously.

 

[McBell]

I figured someone would ask! I didn't post it, because I couldn't find it; but I'll keep looking in my volumes.

From what I've found in my notes, I think it's in the book "Evolution From Space", by Fred Hoyle.

And the calculation is in relation only to the development of the 2000 proteins serving as enzymes in a living cell, forming at random.

It's such a huge number, I thought it encompassed everything.

But really, everything needs to be considered. Life originating spontaneously? No wonder supporters of common descent (MACROevolutionists) don't want to deal with it. But that's like building the walls of a house, but not securing it to a foundation.

Where can the math be viewed?
Or is it yet another bold empty math claim?

 

[Parsimony]

Where can the math be viewed?
Or is it yet another bold empty math claim?

I think I've actually seen the calculations before. They were based on the odds of a prokaryote forming from all of its individual components coming together all at once from a disorganized state. In other words, based on an assumption not held by modern abiogenesis proponents...

 

[Sapiens]

Very disputable assertion.



...that contains numerable metaphysical assumptions.

It fascinates me how y'all jump from topic to topic never getting back to that that was upon the table which falsified your construct. Deal with the question of genetic diversity in cats and then we can move on the absence of metaphysical attributes to the TOE, if you want to continue to play pigeon chess, just say so, I can put you on ignore and I needn't trouble you with pesky thing like evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

I think I've actually seen the calculations before. They were based on the odds of a prokaryote forming from all of its individual components coming together all at once from a disorganized state. In other words, based on an assumption not held by modern abiogenesis proponents...

I've seen the calculations too, they were located just above a rather rigorous debunking that clearly showed that that sort of retrospective statistics is horse puckey and that proved the actual retrospective probability of the universe being like it is is equal to 1.

 

[shmogie]

I've seen the calculations too, they were located just above a rather rigorous debunking that clearly showed that that sort of retrospective statistics is horse puckey and that proved the actual retrospective probability of the universe being like it is is equal to 1.

Because it is, it is ? hmmmm and what does this prove ?

 

[Sapiens]

Because it is, it is ? hmmmm and what does this prove ?

The duplicity (or stupidity ... your choice) of attempting to pass off (or confusing ... again, your choice) retrospective analysis as prospective statistics.

 

[Acim]

It fascinates me how y'all jump from topic to topic never getting back to that that was upon the table which falsified your construct. Deal with the question of genetic diversity in cats and then we can move on the absence of metaphysical attributes to the TOE, if you want to continue to play pigeon chess, just say so, I can put you on ignore and I needn't trouble you with pesky thing like evidence.

Please put me on ignore since you are unable to see that I have reasonably contradicted your assertions and would just be restating things like you are yet to provide example of indisputable evidence or your linked text does incorporate a whole bunch of metaphysical assumptions. You putting me on ignore will make it easier for me to quote your posts and not then have you chime in with nonsensical attacks on my persona.

If it helps in making the decision, I'll just note that "genetic" is disputable, "diversity" is disputable and "cats" is disputable.

 

[Sapiens]

Please put me on ignore since you are unable to see that I have reasonably contradicted your assertions and would just be restating things like you are yet to provide example of indisputable evidence or your linked text does incorporate a whole bunch of metaphysical assumptions. You putting me on ignore will make it easier for me to quote your posts and not then have you chime in with nonsensical attacks on my persona.

If it helps in making the decision, I'll just note that "genetic" is disputable, "diversity" is disputable and "cats" is disputable.

Done, a step I recommend to all.

 

[Acim]

Consciousness is disputable. "Human" consciousness is disputable.