Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[james blunt]

Sorry, but the OP is terribly misinformed.

In all of biological research.

Physics also

 

[David T]

If we live in virtual reality then the virtual reality has a creator, this creator then also has a creator . If you looked beyond the beyond, then start there and religion will make sense.

Well virtual reality is a psychological issue. Science is very guilty of self promoting it without realization of that.creationism is scientific reductionism simple as.that it has zero to do.with the topic god.

 

[james blunt]

Well virtual reality is a psychological issue. Science is very guilty of self promoting it without realization of that.creationism is scientific reductionism simple as.that it has zero to do.with the topic god.

I disagree, science is the study of everything looking for a theory of everything. My scientific explanation of the Universe is a miracle of quantum mechanics that has a 1 in infinite chance of happening. Space is not tangible and space is inexplicable. Science cannot explain space.

 

[David T]

I disagree, science is the study of everything looking for a theory of everything. My scientific explanation of the Universe is a miracle of quantum mechanics that has a 1 in infinite chance of happening. Space is not tangible and space is inexplicable. Science cannot explain space.

Mystery not magic. Magic is reductive like random is another term for magic. Reductive.

 

[exchemist]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

I do not know how you intended it of course, but your question cannot be a scientific one.

Hypotheses involving supernatural intervention (i.e. miracles, suspending the laws of nature) are not considered by science, on principle. Science, more properly "natural science" is the search for natural, not supernatural, explanations of natural phenomena. In the absence of a natural explanation, science says: "We don't know yet" - and sets about researching natural explanations. It does not cop out by jumping to a Goddidit explanation.

In the case of the origin of life, we have evidence that once there was no life on Earth, whereas now there is. That implies it arose from inorganic chemistry somehow. The search is on for the mechanisms. To date all we have are speculative hypotheses, rather than real evidence for them. However this is what science tells us we should expect, in view of how long ago it was and given the rate of turnover of the Earth's crust by plate tectonics since that era. So there is nothing inconsistent with known science about the difficulty of the problem.

Some of the elements of the jigsaw look really exciting (to a chemist at least), my personal favourite being the hypothesis for how the handedness ("chirality") of biological molecules may have come about.

 

[james blunt]

Mystery not magic. Magic is reductive like random is another term for magic. Reductive.

I have done the reductive and reduced the Universe down to an unknown dimension of nothingness, from nothingness to time existing in nothingness is not a mystery or magic, it is a miracle . I am scientifically boggled, religiously boggled by my findings.
Space is synonymous to God.

Scratches head in the facts.

 

[sealchan]

That's the premise. In absence of evidence for something else, you choose the most likely option, no matter how speculative it might be.

Or, you can choose unknown.
I don't have a problem with speculation, even absent of any other evidence.

I will say that the premise may or may not include evidence for creationism, from a persons standpoint

Because you believe only in the Bible you think that that makes the creationist premise simpler. The problem with that thinking comes when you look at all the other creation stories...then how do you even begin to choose between them? A roulette wheel?

The non-creationist method is the least speculative because it most adheres to the massive accumulation of knowledge (not to mention the engineering derived from it) of science.

 

[sealchan]

I have done the reductive and reduced the Universe down to an unknown dimension of nothingness, from nothingness to time existing in nothingness is not a mystery or magic, it is a miracle . I am scientifically boggled, religiously boggled by my findings.
Space is synonymous to God.

Scratches head in the facts.

It is a huge, and probably incorrect, assumption that beyond the Universe is Nothingness. Quite the contrary, given that the Universe was "born" there must have been a something it was born from. Whether or not there was a mid-wife remains to be seen...

 

[james blunt]

It is a huge, and probably incorrect, assumption that beyond the Universe is Nothingness. Quite the contrary, given that the Universe was "born" there must have been a something it was born from. Whether or not there was a mid-wife remains to be seen...

I think you misunderstood, I am talking about the beginning of time and the Universe, not the observable Universe. Before substance existed, an infinite void of nothingness.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Keep in mind that we assume they are or were inhospitable. We assume quite a bit regarding how life works.

 

[sealchan]

I think you misunderstood, I am talking about the beginning of time and the Universe, not the observable Universe. Before substance existed, an infinite void of nothingness.

What evidence is there that there ever was such a time or place as an infinite void of nothingness before substance existed?

And do you see the paradox in saying "the beginning of time"?

What other Universe is there than the observable one?

 

[David T]

I have done the reductive and reduced the Universe down to an unknown dimension of nothingness, from nothingness to time existing in nothingness is not a mystery or magic, it is a miracle . I am scientifically boggled, religiously boggled by my findings.
Space is synonymous to God.

Scratches head in the facts.

Nothingness =does not exist.

 

[james blunt]

What evidence is there that there ever was such a time or place as an infinite void of nothingness before substance existed?

And do you see the paradox in saying "the beginning of time"?

What other Universe is there than the observable one?

The observable Universe is based on the inverse square law of visible light. The non-observable Universe is beyond the observable boundary of visible light.

The beginning of time, is when there is something to time, nothingness has nothing to time.

You ask what evidence is there that there was ever such a ''place'' , the evidence is that nothingness cannot be created or destroyed because there is nothing to create or destroy because it is nothingness.

Nothingness is neither dark or light, it has zero properties . Properties are the ''additives'' to nothingness that give us something in nothing.

 

[james blunt]

Nothingness =does not exist.

No,

Nothingness can be measured by creating boundaries, nothingness exists as nothingness.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

A lot of people believe Viking found evidence of life on Mars. I'd also hold off on declaring the Solar System sterile before we check out Europa and Encelidus

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

I have a question. How close is the creator?

If you can't know the property of "closeness" of this "creator", what properties can you know? Are there any?

Pretend you have no preconceived notions about anything the universe has to offer, you awake into awareness and are immediately presented with these options to explain your surroundings:

1. The universe (space, matter, etc.) has always existed
2. The universe came into being on its own
3. A supernatural intelligence created the universe
4. The universe as we experience it is a complex dream being had by a being in another realm
5. Conscious beings have simply always existed, and manifest the nature of the universe according to traditional adaptations of information that have become "instinct" as time has worn on

Being honest with yourself, which of those would seem most likely? I would assert that NONE of them should seem more likely than the other because you have NO INFORMATION on which to base such a selection. My point being - until we have evidence, positing a supernatural intelligence as the creator is pointless. As pointless as a choice of which of the 5 above is "true" made by a baby.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There was a time, before science discovered more about our solar system, when non creationists, basically were sure, that the close universe would be teeming with life.

What they found, were a bunch of inhospitable planets.

Life from elsewhere, theory, the best at the time, took a big hit.

The further away the proposed, "source", for the plants etc, on earth, the more unlikely

The proposed earth timeline, even taken to extremes, is problematic for the fabled "primordial swamp", and now the distance for interplanetary probability is surpassing sci-fi believability.



Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

I don't know of when "non-creationists" ever thought that our Solar System would be teeming with life. Yes, certain science fiction writers wrote stories based on that idea, but those were not scientists and were not even necessarily non-creationists.


Life on our planet probably arose through the process of abiogenesis. That hypothesis has never "taken a hit".

Instead of making broad statements it is always better to ask questions and to try to learn when you do not fully understand an idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absence of evidence is proof of something? Good luck...

It can be evidence that an event did not happen.

Jumi, come over quick, I just had a huge herd of reindeer (I usually use buffaloes, but since you are Finnish I changed it up) stampede through my kitchen. You come over and it is spotless. Not a dish broken, not a hoofprint to be seen in my pine flooring. There is no evidence of a stampede. Is that evidence that it did not occur? Is that "proof" that within the last ten minutes that a herd of reindeer did not stampede through my kitchen?

 

[Subduction Zone]

A lot of people believe Viking found evidence of life on Mars. I'd also hold off on declaring the Solar System sterile before we check out Europa and Encelidus

I think that the OP conflated "life" with "intelligent life". I have seen that before when discussing SETI and how it has failed to find any intelligent life. They make the error of thinking that is evidence against life elsewhere.

 

[Jumi]

It can be evidence that an event did not happen.

Jumi, come over quick, I just had a huge herd of reindeer (I usually use buffaloes, but since you are Finnish I changed it up) stampede through my kitchen. You come over and it is spotless. Not a dish broken, not a hoofprint to be seen in my pine flooring. There is no evidence of a stampede. Is that evidence that it did not occur? Is that "proof" that within the last ten minutes that a herd of reindeer did not stampede through my kitchen?

Elks would be more appropriate on this altitude, but good point.