Jump to content


Photo

What Is The Evidence For Creationism?


  • Please log in to reply
212 replies to this topic

#1 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 25 November 2009 - 04:13 AM

Hi guys,

By way of introduction, I'm a rationalist, a student of biology, and I'm very interested in belief, religions and science as phenomena.

This post is based on the assumption that creationism contends with evolutionary biology as a valid explanation for the diversity of life only if it is a scientific evidence-based discipline. That is, it must be what you would call 'creation science'. If it is based on faith, stories, anecdotes or emotions, it cannot be a coherent scientific theory that provides a rational explanation for all relevant observations. You are free to contend this assumption, but you have to provide an explanation for why, in principle, creationism then is a valid contender of evolutionary biology.

So, on we go. I want to know what creationists think is the evidence for creationism. I'm not interested in why creationists think evolution doesn't work. Please keep these separate, thank you. The reason for this is that if evolutionary biology is wrong, it does not automatically mean creationism is right, and vice versa. If you somehow falsified evolution, it would not mean creationism is correct. You would still need to have a coherent theory of creationism to account for all relevant observations.

I look forward to your answers <_<

#2 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:36 AM

Hi guys,

By way of introduction, I'm a rationalist, a student of biology, and I'm very interested in belief, religions and science as phenomena.

A rationalist. Does this imply you will intend to contend without any faith bias of your own?

This post is based on the assumption that creationism contends with evolutionary biology as a valid explanation for the diversity of life only if it is a scientific evidence-based discipline. That is, it must be what you would call 'creation science'. If it is based on faith, stories, anecdotes or emotions, it cannot be a coherent scientific theory that provides a rational explanation for all relevant observations. You are free to contend this assumption, but you have to provide an explanation for why, in principle, creationism then is a valid contender of evolutionary biology.


A slight correction of (at least my position); The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not proven therefore offers nothing to contend with. I support Intelligent Design (ID). I don't offer the title in place of Creationism. I am a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). However, I will not cite the Bible as evidence, unless (none on mind at the moment) related to the evidence in hand, usually historical, not science. Although there is no portion of the Bible that is scientifically incorrect, there is also no portion that will prove or falsify any fact, as far as I know. So, ID is more appropriate.

I don't dscuss ID as a contender, rather another avenue of study, equally unproven.

On that note I'll offer the most obvious portion of ID to begin. You land a spacecraft on a planet and find exactly the variation of operation and function and sophistication and diversity as you left o Earth. However, everything is mechanical, constructed of the minerals of the planet. The entire "bioshpere" is supported only by machines, even nano devices duplicating the life process of our microscopic organisms. The conclusion of any science team from Earth will be that the planet is populated by machines built by a hand not currently present. Why then is there a different assumption when the machines are biological as found in biosphere of Earth?

Take that analogy one step further. A machanical space crew depart the machine planet and lands o Earth. The survey crew encounter and dissect several organisms. Will the operation/function of the various organisms lead the crew to wonder when evolution began, or lead them to search for the builder of the biological machines of this new planet?

#3 Otto13

Otto13

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts
  • Age: 63
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Connecticut

Posted 25 November 2009 - 06:43 AM

larry: I dont think you answered the question. I think the OP asked for evidence of creationism.

#4 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:21 AM

A rationalist.  Does this imply you will intend to contend without any faith bias of your own?


Yes.

A slight correction of (at least my position); The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is not proven therefore offers nothing to contend with. 


No. Science does not deal with proof of any kind. It deals with explanations that are supported by evidence. The explanation that has the best evidential support is the one we go with, and the degree to which we are certain of the validity of the explanation depends on the strength of the evidence. This is the reason this thread also deals with evidence for creationism (or intelligent design, if you wish).

I support Intelligent Design (ID) [...] I don't dscuss ID as a contender, rather another avenue of study, equally unproven.


The theory of evolution (ToE), ID and creationism are contenders of each other only if they deal with the same observations. If you think the ID you support does not deal with the same observations as ToE, then this thread is not the place to deal with ID. What is it that ID tries to explain?

Why then is there a different assumption when the machines are biological as found in biosphere of Earth?


Whether there is a different assumption in evolutionary biology, or whether it is a conclusion and not an assumption, doesn't matter for the purposes of this thread. This thread is not about the validity of ToE, it's about what the evidence for creationism is, assuming creationism (or ID) deals with the same observations as ToE.

View Post



#5 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:00 AM

We use Exactly the same evidence and data as evolutionists do. The only real difference is our "interpretation" of said data.

From a Creationist point of view I don't feel compelled or the need to provide a "coherent theory of creationism". We're not the ones making claims that everything we observe in nature resulted from "natural" processes. We're the ones that claim that everything we observe in nature resulted from a "SUPER-natural" source. That claim takes us way beyond science but includes science. As a Creationist it's both obvious and logical from simple observance of the world including Faith that creation requires a Creator! As a Creationist we have no problems expressing said faith. Therefore how do you make a "coherent theory of creationism" when such a theory would require more than just the data that science discovers. Again, that data is "interpreted" differently. One openly expresses the aid of faith in interpreting said data the other claims the aid of "so called natural" explanations, stories, fairytales, imagination when interpreting said data.

So Creationist simply ask, where is the evidence then, to support your fairytale? If it's not based on "faith", like we freely admit our's includes, but the claim made by evolutionist's is that it's based on real "natural" evidence, then where is it? Enough of the stories, show us the goods. We don't want to hear stories of, look how this cold blooded lizard, for example, somehow was sweating (amazing since cold blooded animals don't have sweat glands but let's not quibble) causing their young to suckle on their sweat and voila, mammary glands evolved. Or other such nonsense. That's not evidence that's a bedtime story.

Evolutionists claim that what we call "creation" is NOT "creation" but rather "evolution". That's fine, if you want to "believe" that but as such it is the "evolutionist" who then needs to show the rest of us why it isn't creation but all "Oh Natural". The burden of proof is on them, not us, since we freely admit that we make the conclusion that such complex designs that we observe must obviously be the result of a "Designer" or "Creator" or "God" through faith. It's called the theory of faith based on the obvious conclusion that logically it's not possible that such complexities resulted from a source without supreme intelligence.

#6 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:06 AM

That was very well said Seth, and I don't know If I could've said it better. Besides a 6 day creation is not repeatable... well not that we can see so therefore it can't be a theory, but a part of history.

Oh come on, why did you delete it???

#7 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:11 AM

I put it back, I had to revise what I said.

Thanks

#8 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:12 AM

I put it back, I had to revise what I said.

Thanks

View Post


Ooohhh alrighty <_<

#9 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 25 November 2009 - 10:15 AM

Interesting stuff, Seth, I appreciate it.

Apparently you disagree with the assumption that, to quote myself,

"creationism contends with evolutionary biology as a valid explanation for the diversity of life only if it is a scientific evidence-based discipline. If it is based on faith, stories, anecdotes or emotions, it cannot be a coherent scientific theory that provides a rational explanation for all relevant observations."

Let me get this straight: you're not applying the same standards to ToE and ID. Firstly, you require natural evidence to believe ToE (and believe me there's plenty of that, but not in this thread) but you don't require any for ID. Despite the fact that you think they deal with the same data.

Secondly, if both are explanations concerned with the same data, then both require justification. You justify ID by faith, so would you accept a faith-based justification for ToE, then? If you only accept evidence-based justification for ToE, then why do you not require the same for ID? If the reason for that is faith, then we get back to square one: you shouldn't require evidence for ToE either, since both deal with the same data.

Is that correct, do you think?

I realise you may retort by saying that your interpretation of the data is different. (I'm just thinking aloud here.) But an interpretation that is based on your type of faith is biased by definition, because it presupposes a creator. If you agree that it presupposes a creator and all observations are interpreted in terms of that, how do you account for the creator (simply please)? If you don't agree, then you ought to think that the idea of a creator is borne out of the observations, and you'd have to justify your interpretation about the observations leading you to that conclusion.

Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, does not presuppose anything except whatever is required for the scientific method to work. Yes or no?

Moreover, could you give me examples of the data that you're interpreting? You don't have to spell out all observations you're familiar with, just some examples and why you think those observations are best interpreted in terms of ID.

I'm just gonna let pass your assertions that it's obvious and logical there's a creator, for now.

#10 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 07:57 PM

Yes.

Then you begin with a disadvantage.
I accept that part of my reaoning if faith based. With this knowledge I am able to steer clear of faith based arguments to support my scientific view.
You appear not to be aware of your faith bias. This could allow you to argue from faith instead of evidence. I am going to assume you do not know your bias exists, because that is common. You claim rationality but also atheism. The two are not equal positions. Rationality should look at evidence without regard for faith. Atheism claims no god exists in a universe that is to expansive for us to understand fully. Therefore your claim of no god is a decision of faith (believe without support of evidence).

No. Science does not deal with proof of any kind.

This is a fallacy many scientists wish to make reality by constant repetition. There are proofs in science. Sometimes things are proven to be 100% true. It does not indicate that everything will be proven or disproven. But if we are going to have honest debate, it must be understood that proof is possible, even if improbable.

The theory of evolution (ToE), ID and creationism are contenders of each other only if they deal with the same observations. If you think the ID you support does not deal with the same observations as ToE, then this thread is not the place to deal with ID. What is it that ID tries to explain?

I think we have some agreement here. However, it is your contention that nothing can be proven in science? You know I disagree. Is it also your desire to discuss ID without a need to defend ToE. Then I must suppose you will be countering any argument for ID without reference to ToE. True?
My contention is that both ToE and ID are valid avenues of scientific inquiry. Your counter might be that ToE has more evidence. Whether I accept the evidence or not, I ask you; Has it been true in the history of science that the idea with the most appearant evidence in support has always been the "victorious" idea?

This thread is not about the validity of ToE, it's about what the evidence for creationism is, assuming creationism (or ID) deals with the same observations as ToE.

View Post

View Post

That is why I presented the analogy of the machine planet. If you cannot perceive the possibility of design of the biology on Earth, then you have a bias to that possibility. The level of sophistication and of the biological machines that live here cannot be used as an evidence against design. Our inability to design such does not limit the ability of more advanced technology to design such. Humans are currently designing organisms. It is logical to assume the at some point we will be able to design very complex, even intelligent organisms. It is therefore, logical to assume that we may be a product of design.
I offer this not as evidence of occurence, only as evidence of possibility. Evidence is required to evaluate the probability.

#11 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 25 November 2009 - 08:01 PM

larry:  I dont think you answered the question.  I think the OP asked for evidence of creationism.

View Post

I do. But it is necessary to establish some basic understanding of our positions, both/all sides and a base set of parameters to be discussed.
I trust you will keep an eye on me? Not let me stray into faith to defend a scientific argument? :lol:

#12 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 25 November 2009 - 09:00 PM

You appear not to be aware of your faith bias.


No, I'm not aware of any faith bias because I don't think I have any.

Atheism claims no god exists in a universe that is to expansive for us to understand fully.  Therefore your claim of no god is a decision of faith (believe without support of evidence).


What you're talking about is active belief that there is no God, which is sometimes termed active atheism, or strong atheism. That's not my brand of atheism, because I don't think that's rational and I'm sure you would agree.

My atheism means that I don't hold the belief there is a God or gods. That is not the same as holding the belief that no God definitely exists.

My atheism, while not being equal to rationality, closely ties in with it. For the same reason I don't believe in God, I don't believe in a teapot orbiting the Earth nor do I believe in pink unicorns drinking tea under the antarctic ice. Both claims, like the God claim, cannot be disproven, and both claims need evidence for me to believe them. No one, even you, requires evidence to disbelieve an undisprovable claim - that's just not possible whichever way you look at it.

There are proofs in science.


Wrong, and that is a fact. There are definitely no proofs in science. Ask any scientist.

Sometimes things [in science] are proven to be 100% true.


Give me one scientific thing that is proven 100% true.

Is it also your desire to discuss ID without a need to defend ToE.  Then I must suppose you will be countering any argument for ID without reference to ToE.  True?


While this thread is not a debate in which I hold the formal a priori stance that ID is false, true. All I'm asking for is evidence, and I will attempt to the best of my ability to judge the evidence on its own merits, with respect to any independent evidence that can be gathered against creationism, and without reference to ToE.

Your counter might be that ToE has more evidence.  Whether I accept the evidence or not, I ask you; Has it been true in the history of science that the idea with the most appearant evidence in support has
always been the "victorious" idea?


Yes, I believe so. However, while one theory might seem to have more evidence now than another theory, the theory that will eventually win will be the one with more evidential support, even if it is the one that at a previous time had less support. Frankly, it's probably quite common in science that a theory with little evidence grows to be the theory that eventually wins. After all, all theories must begin from something.

If you cannot perceive the possibility of design of the biology on Earth, then you have a bias to that possibility.


Oh I can perceive the possibility quite well, just as I can perceive the possibility that God exists. But so far, I haven't seen adequate or persuasive evidence to believe either. Which is why I created this thread.

Humans are currently designing organisms.


As far as I know, that's not true. If it doesn't derail this thread too much, could you back that up?

It is logical to assume the at some point we will be able to design very complex, even intelligent organisms.  It is therefore, logical to assume that we may be a product of design. I offer this not as evidence of occurence, only as evidence of possibility.  Evidence is required to evaluate the probability.


(my emphasis) Good, we have some agreement here. :lol:

#13 Yorzhik

Yorzhik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 233 posts
  • Age: 42
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 26 November 2009 - 12:12 AM

Hi guys,

By way of introduction, I'm a rationalist, a student of biology, and I'm very interested in belief, religions and science as phenomena.

View Post

If you were a rationalist you wouldn't care about creation. You'd only care about why grown ups believe in evolution when there is so much evidence it is wrong.

#14 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 01:40 AM

No, I'm not aware of any faith bias because I don't think I have any.
What you're talking about is active belief that there is no God, which is sometimes termed active atheism, or strong atheism. That's not my brand of atheism, because I don't think that's rational and I'm sure you would agree.
My atheism means that I don't hold the belief there is a God or gods. That is not the same as holding the belief that no God definitely exists.

You should look up agnostic

My atheism, while not being equal to rationality, closely ties in with it. For the same reason I don't believe in God, I don't believe in a teapot orbiting the Earth nor do I believe in pink unicorns drinking tea under the antarctic ice. Both claims, like the God claim, cannot be disproven, and both claims need evidence for me to believe them.

There is logical reason to doubt the two claims. The supposition that there is more intelligent life than us is not reasonable to doubt. That possibility allows that there is life so much more intelligent than us that we cannot fathom it. By definition God is such a life form. Therefore, logic does not disqualify God, it supports the possibility.

Wrong, and that is a fact. There are definitely no proofs in science. Ask any scientist.

That is an absolute statement. No proofs=nothing is 100% true all the time. If I heat water to 212f, 100c at 14.7psi, it will boil. Ths will happen every time. Some things are able to be proven. Just because the scale of a topic precludes the probability of proof, does not eliminte the possibility. And yes, many scientists will, have, argue that there are no proofs. They are disingenuos.

Give me one scientific thing that is proven 100% true.

just did. Here is another, slightly larger in scope; mechanical flight.

Yes, I believe so. However, while one theory might seem to have more evidence now than another theory, the theory that will eventually win will be the one with more evidential support, even if it is the one that at a previous time had less support. Frankly, it's probably quite common in science that a theory with little evidence grows to be the theory that eventually wins. After all, all theories must begin from something.

Agreed, compounding of evidence is not the eqaul of truth.

Oh I can perceive the possibility quite well, just as I can perceive the possibility that God exists. But so far, I haven't seen adequate or persuasive evidence to believe either. Which is why I created this thread.

Do you therefore agree that the current form and function of organisms on this planet is possibly the result of design? In the same manner that you agree a designer is responsible for an airplane?

As far as I know, that's not true. If it doesn't derail this thread too much, could you back that up? 

http://www.we-make-m...gner-microb.php
http://www.abc.net.a.../29/1965655.htm
Those sites actually deal with making new microbes, designer microbes. I know from my experience in the Coast Guard that there are already enigneered microbes in service. These are pre-existing microbes which were "encouraged" to eat oil etc.

#15 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 05:20 AM

You should look up agnostic


You're free to call me agnostic, as long as you don't imply that either I have no idea whether a God/gods exists (I think it's vastly more probable he doesn't), or that I live my life as if there could be a God (I live my life as if there isn't). Anyway, I'm sidetracking...

There is logical reason to doubt the two claims.  The supposition that there is more intelligent life than us is not reasonable to doubt.  That possibility allows that there is life so much more intelligent than us that we cannot fathom it.  By definition God is such a life form.  Therefore, logic does not disqualify God, it supports the possibility.

There is also a logical reason to doubt God's existence - no evidence. But I agree there is a reason to expect more intelligent life somewhere, but that life would have evolved naturally. If that's what you call God, then God isn't supernatural, and that's OK by me. But you'd still need just as much evidence to show we were designed by them.

If I heat water to 212f, 100c at 14.7psi, it will boil. Ths will happen every time.

Actually, no. The boiling point of water, according to science, depends also on pressure. And at some pressure/temperature combinations, it doesn't boil at all but simply sublimates (from ice to vapor). In any case, even if you experimented with boiling water a billion times and it worked every time, you wouldn't have proof it works. You would only have enormous amounts of evidence. That applies to ALL science. You can never prove a scientific hypothesis, strong evidence is the best you can ever do even in principle. If you call strong evidence "proof", then you need a new word for actual proof, the sort of thing mathematics deals with but science doesn't.

Here is another, slightly larger in scope; mechanical flight.

What, that mechanical flight works sometimes? Yes it does, but sometimes it doesn't work and people get killed. What's your point, that we have proven mechanical flight works sometimes but sometimes not? That's not a scientific hypothesis. EDIT: It's an unscientific hypothesis because it cannot be falsified - even if you showed a thousand times by experiment that you can't get mechanical flight to work, it doesn't mean it couldn't work.

Do you therefore agree that the current form and function of organisms on this planet is possibly the result of design?  In the same manner that you agree a designer is responsible for an airplane?

Yep, it's possible but extremely improbable if no evidence can be gathered to support it.

Those sites actually deal with making new microbes, designer microbes.  I know from my experience in the Coast Guard that there are already enigneered microbes in service.  These are pre-existing microbes which were "encouraged" to eat oil etc.

That's very interesting, but I thought by designing you meant actually making new organisms from scratch, not just modifying and combining parts that are already there. If that's your definition for designing life, then I guess we've been doing that for thousands of years ever since the domestication of the wolf.

#16 Seth

Seth

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Chicago

Posted 26 November 2009 - 09:11 AM

Interesting stuff, Seth, I appreciate it.

Let me get this straight: you're not applying the same standards to ToE and ID. Firstly, you require natural evidence to believe ToE (and believe me there's plenty of that, but not in this thread) but you don't require any for ID. Despite the fact that you think they deal with the same data.


Don't you, as an evolutionist, require natural "evidence" to believe in ToE? (and believe me there is Zero of that). I wasn't speaking in regards to ID. However, even ID recognizes that it is simply impossible to have complex machinery be the result of some mindless process. All of our experiences show that it takes an intelligent source to do that. Yes the data is the same, what is it in the data that makes you think it just evolved? What is it that you observed and thought, there it is clear evidence that evolution is occurring? Can you think of any specific example or did all the "stories" about evolution just sound convincing to you?

Secondly, if both are explanations concerned with the same data, then both require justification. You justify ID by faith, so would you accept a faith-based justification for ToE, then? If you only accept evidence-based justification for ToE, then why do you not require the same for ID? If the reason for that is faith, then we get back to square one: you shouldn't require evidence for ToE either, since both deal with the same data.

Is that correct, do you think?


You may not realize this but evolution uses just as much, if not more so, faith to believe in it. As far as "justification" I'm not clear as to your meaning.

I realise you may retort by saying that your interpretation of the data is different. (I'm just thinking aloud here.) But an interpretation that is based on your type of faith is biased by definition, because it presupposes a creator. If you agree that it presupposes a creator and all observations are interpreted in terms of that, how do you account for the creator (simply please)? If you don't agree, then you ought to think that the idea of a creator is borne out of the observations, and you'd have to justify your interpretation about the observations leading you to that conclusion.

Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, does not presuppose anything except whatever is required for the scientific method to work. Yes or no?


You are presupposing NO Creator. Now why would you presuppose that? What real evidence did you see that just made evolution the "obvious" conclusion? What was so convincing about it that made you realize a Creator was not necessary? If there is no bias on your part then surely it must be the "evidence" you saw that convinced you. What was it? The evidence I see of a Creator is overwhelming. His creation speaks for itself. The "justification" may be the fact that when you see a car, a television, a computer, a watch, etc. you immediately realize that "some intelligent" source created them. We have no examples of any complex machinery creating itself without an intelligent source, none. If mutations and natural selection were the cause of such complexities then surely you can find evidence that show us this. Not stories, evidence! Not examples like snowflakes forming (how did mutations and natural selection cause that) but real hard observable, testeble and repeatable evidence! If you're presupposing that NO Creator is required then there must be some amazing evidence that makes you come to that position.

The creation and it's complexities I see make it obvious that it was the result of a Creator. Why is it necessary and what real difference does it make as to who created Him? Does it make a difference or is it necessary for you to know where "Matter" came from to believe in ToE?

Moreover, could you give me examples of the data that you're interpreting? You don't have to spell out all observations you're familiar with, just some examples and why you think those observations are best interpreted in terms of ID.

I'm just gonna let pass your assertions that it's obvious and logical there's a creator, for now.



There is simply no escaping that intelligence is required for all the complex organisms we see and observe. If you're going to say that intelligence is NOT required then you need to show how. (And when I speak of intelligence I'm obviously referring to the Supreme being God who is the source of all intelligence).
Evolutionist's are the ones jumping off the logic bandwagon in pursuit of this belief that NO Creator is required, that complex organisms can form without intelligence. As a Creationist logic is on my side because not even an evolutionist would ever conclude that cars and tv's resulted from a factory that people walked away from and forgot about and somehow car's and tv's popped out.

Put it to you this way. What if I told you my car was formed by itself? Of course you'd know that was ridiculous. But based on what? Did you observe my car being made? No. Did you see the designers when they did the drawings? No. Did you even talk to any of the factory workers that showed you how they made it? No. So how do you know that what I said was NOT true? How do you justify that? Your experience in Reality and simple logic tell you this. You would require something a lot more tangible then stories of how snowflakes form and therefore you should believe my story too. Well as a Creationist I'd require more too.

You see, you have faith that my car was the result of an intelligent source. It's no different with a Creationist. I have faith that this Creator that I have not personally seen was the cause of such a complex world because my experience based on reality and logic makes it obvious.

#17 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:08 AM

Don't you, as an evolutionist, require natural "evidence" to believe in ToE?


Yes. And so do you. I apply that same standard to creationism.

However, even ID recognizes that it is simply impossible to have complex machinery be the result of some mindless process.


Show me it's impossible. Why is it impossible? You're making an absolute statement. Wouldn't it be more correct to say that other experiences which say machinery requires design are evidence in favor of design of life, but do not disprove the possibilty that machinery can come about without design? In the same vein, evolutionary theory does not, and does attempt to, disprove the possibility that machinery can be designed. In fact, it is one of those claims that can only be shown true but not false - we can show machinery can be designed, but we can't show it can't be designed.

All of our experiences show that it takes an intelligent source to do that. Yes the data is the same, what is it in the data that makes you think it just evolved? What is it that you observed and thought, there it is clear evidence that evolution is occurring? Can you think of any specific example or did all the "stories" about evolution just sound convincing to you?


Wrong thread. This is about evidence for creationism, which I have stated many times in this thread. Evidence for evolution is a separate matter.

You may not realize this but evolution uses just as much, if not more so, faith to believe in it. As far as "justification" I'm not clear as to your meaning.


By justification I mean good reason to believe a claim. You think faith is a good reason to believe a claim, correct? If so, and if you think believing evolution requires faith, then you should have no problem believing evolution.

You are presupposing NO Creator. Now why would you presuppose that?


There is a difference between NOT presupposing a creator, and presupposing NO creator. I fall into the former category. I don't presuppose anything. It's called an open mind, and that mind is waiting for evidence.

What real evidence did you see that just made evolution the "obvious" conclusion? What was so convincing about it that made you realize a Creator was not necessary? If there is no bias on your part then surely it must be the "evidence" you saw that convinced you. What was it?


Again, this thread does not deal with evidence for evolution. Please don't bring this up again. If you wish to discuss it with me, start a new thread.

The evidence I see of a Creator is overwhelming. His creation speaks for itself. The "justification" may be the fact that when you see a car, a television, a computer, a watch, etc. you immediately realize
that "some intelligent" source created them.


What evidence do you have to support the logic that 1) a car is designed, therefore 2) life is designed?

If mutations and natural selection were the cause of such complexities then surely you can find evidence that show us this. Not stories, evidence! Not examples like snowflakes forming (how did mutations and natural selection cause that) but real hard observable, testeble and repeatable evidence!


Again, not in this thread. This is about evidence for creationism.

Sorry, I have to split this into two, because otherwise quoting won't work. See below.

#18 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 26 November 2009 - 10:24 AM

Continued from above.

If you're presupposing that NO Creator is required


Again, no. I don't presuppose NO creator anymore than I presuppose a creator. I don't presuppose, period.

The creation and it's complexities I see make it obvious that it was the result of a Creator.


Why is it obvious?

Why is it necessary and what real difference does it make as to who created Him? Does it make a difference or is it necessary for you to know where "Matter" came from to believe in ToE?


That's a false comparison. We have evidence matter exists, but we don't have evidence God exists. However, I don't want to take it any further than that, because it's off topic.

There is simply no escaping that intelligence is required for all the complex organisms we see and observe. If you're going to say that intelligence is NOT required then you need to show how. (And when I speak of intelligence I'm obviously referring to the Supreme being God who is the source of all intelligence).


Yes, I think no intelligence is required for the complexity of organisms. And I'm liable to provide evidence for that, but not in this thread. That no intelligence is required, however, does not rule out the possibility that intelligence can create complexity. This is obvious to both of us, since we both know humans design complex machines. What I'm asking for is evidence that an intelligence did create life. After all, we have first-hand evidence that human intelligence can create complex machinery. We can go to a car factory and see how humans do it. But what is the evidence that life was intelligently created, hmm?

Evolutionist's are the ones jumping off the logic bandwagon in pursuit of this belief that NO Creator is required, that complex organisms can form without intelligence. As a Creationist logic is on my side because not even an evolutionist would ever conclude that cars and tv's resulted from a factory that people walked away from and forgot about and somehow car's and tv's popped out.


Are you saying the only thing you have to support the hypothesis that life, like cars, were intelligently created, is logic? Just pure logic and no empirical evidence?

Put it to you this way. What if I told you my car was formed by itself?


That is not analogous to how evolution proposes complex life came about. Put simply, this would be roughly analogous: Your car formed from earlier, simpler type of car, which formed from an earlier, simpler type of vehicle, which formed from an earlier, simpler wheels, which formed from earlier, simpler wheel-like objects et cetera.

Of course you'd know that was ridiculous. But based on what? Did you observe my car being made? No. [...] So how do you know that what I said was NOT true? How do you justify that? Your experience in Reality and simple logic tell you this.


Precisely. I can go to a factory and see how a car is made, and that is sufficient evidence that your car was made by people as well. Of course, I've never been to a car factory, but I've seen it on TV :blink:. What, then, is the evidence that life was made? Have you ever seen life designed?

You would require something a lot more tangible then stories


I do. That's why I created this thread.

You see, you have faith that my car was the result of an intelligent source.


No, I have evidence your car was the result of intelligence. Nothing to do with faith.

I have faith that this Creator that I have not personally seen was the cause of such a complex world because my experience based on reality and logic makes it obvious.


If you take the design of life purely on faith, then the car designer case is not analogous to it. The latter has evidence to support it, while the former is only based on faith. Or do you contest that? Is there evidence to support the assertion that life was designed?

#19 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 47
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Fallon, Nv

Posted 26 November 2009 - 08:14 PM

There is also a logical reason to doubt God's existence - no evidence.

There is evidence but it is denied in science. Not disproven, denied.

But I agree there is a reason to expect more intelligent life somewhere, but that life would have evolved naturally.

Now you are assuming. Evolution is not proved, it has failed many tests. There is an asssumption that it is the origin of life. But you accept it as the only possibility. Not science, faith. When pressed to explain why evolution is so well accepted in combination with the lack of evidence, the most common answer from scientists is, "because I believe it must be". Faith, not fact.

Actually, no. The boiling point of water, according to science, depends also on pressure. And at some pressure/temperature combinations, it doesn't boil at all but simply

You read too fast or ignored that I indicated 14.7 psi (that is a representation of pressure) :blink:
Your argument is why scientists fail the test of honesty. They claim there is no way anything can be proved. It is disingenuous. The claim is to removve themselves from responsibility, to hide from the fact that there are absolutes in life and science. How easy to never lose a debate by simply claiming there is no proof of anything. Rediculous. It is weak willed, simple minded folk that allow such audacity to become acceptable.


. . . magedb/albums/userpics/sublimation1.jpg]sublimates[/url] (from ice to vapor). In any case, even if you experimented with boiling water a billion times and it worked every time, you wouldn't have proof it works. You would only have enormous amounts of evidence. That applies to ALL science. You can never prove a scientific hypothesis, strong evidence is the best you can ever do even in principle. If you call strong evidence "proof", then you need a new word for actual proof, the sort of thing mathematics deals with but science doesn't.

I don't need a lesson ion the properties of water. I operate power plants. I understand more about boiling water and many other fluids than you will have probably taken time to consider.

I also have no problem with the word proof, it is science that has bastardized the application. They could not change the evidence so they changed the vocabulary. Not uncommon in modern America, if you don't like the way something is, change the words around it. Nobody lies now, they just have there own way of looking at it. Nobodoy is wrong, that is just not politically correct. Tolerant means you MUST accept any activity prefered by another human.

What, that mechanical flight works sometimes? Yes it does, but sometimes it doesn't work and people get killed. What's your point, that we have proven mechanical flight works sometimes but sometimes not? That's not a scientific hypothesis.

Flight works and is PROVEN. Machines fail. Completely different arguments.

Yep, it's possible but extremely improbable if no evidence can be gathered to support it.

Each cell requires the signature of the designer? What do you require as evidence?

That's very interesting, but I thought by designing you meant actually making new organisms from scratch, not just modifying and combining parts that are already there. If that's your definition for designing life, then I guess we've been doing that for thousands of years ever since the domestication of the wolf.

View Post

Those are examples only of current application. There are many projects currently in the process of producing methods to originate new "biologicals" from scratch. It is not nearly as difficult to create living organisms as some might contend, with the correct technology. Science has held this view for many years. It is, as far as research has been able to find yet, 100% impossible for life to spontaneously develope in nature. But that is not going to make it into any text book. Why, because nobody can PROVE life cannot spontaneously develope form non-life. Nope, no double standard there :blink:

Happy Thanksgiving, did you gain some weight? See family? Enjoy.

#20 lehtv

lehtv

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Edinburgh

Posted 27 November 2009 - 04:30 AM

EDIT: Oh, sorry for not noticing that psi part. My apologies.

Flight works and is PROVEN.


"Flight works" is just like saying "Life is". Yes, we can see that. It doesn't need proof nor evidence, it's just an observation. It's not a scientific hypothesis.

Larry, if you're so convinced science deals with proof, give me one example of a scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon that is proven. Please learn to make a distinction between an observation and an explanation to account for the observation.

Each cell requires the signature of the designer?


What signature?

What do you require as evidence?


What evidence do you have? Give me the evidence, I'm waiting for it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users