Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

That's wrong. In the absence of evidence you say "I don't know" and search for evidence.

 

[tayla]

Where is the evidence for anything besides creationism?

This question comes from a Christian perspective. If the earth and universe are old, Christian creationism is false; it's that simple.

 

[tayla]

Life from elsewhere, theory

Science doesn't require life to be planted on earth from somewhere else. Just because a scientist has proposed an idea doesn't make it proven science. The scientific method requires proposing ideas, many (most) of which will be shown to be false.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This question comes from a Christian perspective. If the earth and universe are old, Christian creationism is false; it's that simple.

To be fair the question was poorly asked. We don't even know what sort of "creationism" the OP is talking about. I have seen some Christians that go as far as saying that if one believes that God caused the Big Bang and everything else followed naturally that that person is a "creationist". The term is all but worthless because no one seems to be willing to put a clear definition on it.

 

[exchemist]

That's wrong. In the absence of evidence you say "I don't know" and search for evidence.

This. Is. Fundamental.

 

[exchemist]

This question comes from a Christian perspective. If the earth and universe are old, Christian creationism is false; it's that simple.

Not a "Christian" perspective, then: a creationist perspective.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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?

It is certainly true that 21st century science has not been kind to the naturalist, Darwinian, Victorian model. The more we learn, the more we understand a world built on information, instructions, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws & random chance (as once believed (in much of academia at least))

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is certainly true that 21st century science has not been kind to the naturalist, Darwinian, Victorian model. The more we learn, the more we understand a world built on information, instructions, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws & random chance (as once believed (in much of academia at least))

If that is the case where are the peer reviewed articles that support this claim?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Non-creationism" is ultimately code for "actually researching things".

 

[exchemist]

It is certainly true that 21st century science has not been kind to the naturalist, Darwinian, Victorian model. The more we learn, the more we understand a world built on information, instructions, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws & random chance (as once believed (in much of academia at least))

Yes, thanks for this. I had forgotten there is this fifth rhetorical argument used by creationists, namely a mischaracterisation of information theory as implying "instructions". I need to add that to the list I was compiling on post 16 of this thread: Why do theists... partial rant

 

[exchemist]

It is certainly true that 21st century science has not been kind to the naturalist, Darwinian, Victorian model. The more we learn, the more we understand a world built on information, instructions, not a handful of simple 'immutable' laws & random chance (as once believed (in much of academia at least))

Science has not been kind to c.19th determinism.

However methodological naturalism has always been a basic rule of science. It is entirely false to suggest that anything in modern science it has cast doubt on this principle.

It is true that it has been called into question by the "Intelligent Design" movement. But that is all about American politics and social engineering and merely seeks to subvert science for those ends.

 

[Ibni Abbas]

I found that the analogy to answer the question :


Why don't you doing false worship/syirik only to your own "self," but take care it just the same .

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science has not been kind to c.19th determinism.

However methodological naturalism has always been a basic rule of science. It is entirely false to suggest that anything in modern science it has cast doubt on this principle.

It is true that it has been called into question by the "Intelligent Design" movement. But that is all about American politics and social engineering and merely seeks to subvert science for those ends.

Intelligent design and methodical naturalism are not mutually exclusive.

If you determine that the Rosetta stone required intelligent design, is that a supernatural explanation?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Intelligent design and methodical naturalism are not mutually exclusive.

If you determine that the Rosetta stone required intelligent design, is that a supernatural explanation?

No one is stopping Intelligent Design proponents from using the scientific method, so why don't they use it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No one is stopping Intelligent Design proponents from using the scientific method, so why don't they use it?

Hi Thermos, do you ever take a break?! it's summer now you know!

They define 'scientific method' the old fashioned way- empirical, observable, testable, measurable- quaint old principles like that, which have not been as kind to Darwinian evolution as the vagaries of academic fashion have..

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

They define 'scientific method' the old fashioned way- empirical, observable, testable, measurable- quaint old principles like that, which have not been as kind to Darwinian evolution as the vagaries of academic fashion have..

I have shown you those very things for the nested hierarchy, distribution of mutations, and many other empirical and testable observations for the theory of evolution. You ignore them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have shown you those very things for the nested hierarchy, distribution of mutations, and many other empirical and testable observations for the theory of evolution. You ignore them.

I accept them to the extent these things can be observed empirically, scientifically, & I can show you apples falling from trees, this does not provide a comprehensive explanation for physical reality.

I accept the direct evidence for gravity, not a universe ruled by classical physics
I accept the direct evidence for adaptation, not a biosphere ruled by Darwinian evolution

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I accept them to the extent these things can be observed empirically, scientifically, & I can show you apples falling from trees, this does not provide a comprehensive explanation for physical reality.

How does common ancestry and random mutation not provide a comprehensive explanation for the genetic differences and similarities between the human and chimp genomes?

I accept the direct evidence for adaptation, not a biosphere ruled by Darwinian evolution

We observe that transversions outnumber transitions and CpG mutations outnumber both transitions and transversions when we look at mutations in the human population. We observe that same pattern when we compare the human and chimp genomes. Why isn't that direct evidence for random mutations producing the differences between the chimp and human genomes?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How does common ancestry and random mutation not provide a comprehensive explanation for the genetic differences and similarities between the human and chimp genomes?



We observe that transversions outnumber transitions and CpG mutations outnumber both transitions and transversions when we look at mutations in the human population. We observe that same pattern when we compare the human and chimp genomes. Why isn't that direct evidence for random mutations producing the differences between the chimp and human genomes?

Just as one could have asked, and many did: how do apples falling from trees NOT provide us with a comprehensive explanation for all physical reality?

You are extrapolating a superficial observation into an entirely hypothetical explanation. And the problem is the same; you can't explain evolution with adaptation any more than you can explain gravity with classical physics- it's ultimately an insurmountable paradox

a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in... do not provide for the information necessary to describe the larger reality. The superficial observations in both cases are, necessarily, features of the grander design which underwrites them, not the design mechanism

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You are extrapolating a superficial observation into an entirely hypothetical explanation.

That's what science is, hypothetical explanations. When data supports those hypotheses, as it does in the case of the evidence I have shown you, then that is a supported hypothesis. That's how science works.

a handful of simple laws + lots of time and space to randomly bump around in... do not provide for the information necessary to describe the larger reality.

So all you do is repeat your assertions in the face of contradictory evidence. That's not how science works.