A Question to Evolutionists

[Wiccan_Child]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?
The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

EDIT: because there's some confusion, I'll clarify. The question is posed to evolutionists (those people who believe in the theory of common descent) about what would convince them of Creationism (the idea that, instead of evolving from a common ancestor, life was created by a deity). If you're still confused, just ask yourself what would convince you to become a YEC.

 

[jpcedotal]

Is this a trick question?

 

[Thistlethorn]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Design?

No, not unless the designer was positively (empirically) identified as God.

Fine-tuning?

Fine-tuning has already been debunked. If it had been true, it would have caused me to believe that one or several religions might be correct to a degree. It's not true, though.

Evangelical aliens?

This would really drive me towards whatever religion they shared with humans, yes.

The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Yes, that would really clinch it for me.

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

No, it's just another lie.

 

[ragarth]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Design?

Depending on the design it would either debunk evolution, abiogenesis, or both. Design in and of itself does not prove a god created life, unless the question of "how?" excludes other possibilities.

Fine-tuning?

Same answer as above.

Evangelical aliens?

Now we're getting somewhere. If we encounter an alien civilization that possesses a religion that we possess, and it's origins can be shown to not have any correlation with human culture, then the probability of two identical religions developing amongst two distinct species is stupidly small. Given this, this would indeed be major proof that this religion has something unique going for it.

The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Yes, if Joe appeared infront of me, said "I created the universe" and then either explained or showed me a rational method of how, I would accept Joe as the creator of the universe.

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

If they would present a logical argument then I would say we cannot, but my experience has been most defences for creationism are built upon a firmament of logical fallacy and bad proof.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is this a trick question?

No. We often ask Creationists for evidence of their claims, and I'm wondering what evidence would suffice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No, not unless the designer was positively (empirically) identified as God.

What empirical evidence would convince you that the designer was God?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Design?

Depending on the design it would either debunk evolution, abiogenesis, or both. Design in and of itself does not prove a god created life, unless the question of "how?" excludes other possibilities.

What kind of 'design' would you have to see to convince you, though? When do you go from, "Oh, we'll figure it out some day", to, "Wow, I guess it really was God"?

 

[Thistlethorn]

What empirical evidence would convince you that the designer was God?

Any empirical evidence, such as a discernible signature on our DNA, a message in Pi (love Sagan's Cosmos), or a message in space using celestial bodies to form words. None of these can have any chance of happening by chance either. We also have to remove the possibility of extra-terrestrial interference.

 

[70x7]

opcorn:

 

[marlowe007]

Fine-tuning has already been debunked. If it had been true, it would have caused me to believe that one or several religions might be correct to a degree. It's not true, though.

Why dismiss so easily the statement that our universe is finely-tuned for life? Many prominent physicists such as Martin Rees consider it valid, even if they're personally skeptical about a fine-tuner...

YouTube - What We Still Don't Know? Part -3

 

[Thistlethorn]

Why dismiss so easily the statement that our universe is finely-tuned for life? Many prominent physicists such as Martin Rees consider it valid, even if they're personally skeptical about a fine-tuner...

I don't dismiss it easily. I dismiss it because it has been debunked, and is now considered a PRATT. I'll raise your youtube clip with one of my own:

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 10).

 

[ragarth]

What kind of 'design' would you have to see to convince you, though? When do you go from, "Oh, we'll figure it out some day", to, "Wow, I guess it really was God"?

My criteria for design pointing to an omnipotent, universal overlord would be that the method by which the design takes place would point positively towards said omnipotent, universal overlord.

One scenario that would show this is if a natural phenomena were proven to have operated in an unnatural way sometime in the past without influence from external sources, like gamma rays from our star having been emitted by it directionally and with sufficient resolution to have precisely manipulated early molecules to generate life.

If such a thing were found to be, it would be statistically impossible and technically infeasible, but supported by empirical evidence. I would then probably believe in an omnipotent, universal overlord until such time as a better explanation was provided.

 

[CoderHead]

I think God manifesting Himself directly in front of me and at least a dozen other people would be convincing enough. If it were only me, nobody - not even Christians - would believe me anyway.

 

[marlowe007]

I don't dismiss it easily. I dismiss it because it has been debunked, and is now considered a PRATT. I'll raise your youtube clip with one of my own:

YouTube - Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 10).

This Thunderf00t character makes much of Strobel's lack of credentials, but where's his PhD? Anyway, using his logic, the founding father of the neo-Darwinian synthesis was not qualified because he was neither degreed in biology or mathematics.

So, for those who acknowledge fine-tuning, the two alternatives are: 1) the multiverse, which is about as speculative as God, and 2) the anthropic principle, which Lee Smolin argues should not be considered science at all because it lacks the basic requirement of falsifiability.

 

[Thistlethorn]

This Thunderf00t character makes much of Strobel's lack of credentials,

That's a mis characterization of what the video says. Fine tuning is quite thoroughly debunked as a concept.

but where's his PhD?

Feel free to ask him. He's just a youtube message away.

Anyway, using his logic, the founding father of the neo-Darwinian synthesis was not qualified because he was neither degreed in biology or mathematics.

What "founding father" are you talking about here? The reason I ask is that science doesn't make as big a deal about authority figures as religion does.

So, for those who acknowledge fine-tuning,

There's nothing to acknowledge. This universe is about as fine tuned to accommodate life on earth as my house is fine tuned to accommodate a dust particle under my bed.

the two alternatives are: 1) the multiverse, which is about as speculative as God, and 2) the anthropic principle, which Lee Smolin argues should not be considered science at all because it lacks the basic requirement of falsifiability.

Don't know where you get these two options. I suppose you have to acknowledge the debunked concept of fine tuning to understand this.

 

[AV1611VET]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?
The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

For the record, I'd like to see TEs answer this as well.

But it's your thread ---

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This Thunderf00t character makes much of Strobel's lack of credentials, but where's his PhD? Anyway, using his logic, the founding father of the neo-Darwinian synthesis was not qualified because he was neither degreed in biology or mathematics.

So, for those who acknowledge fine-tuning, the two alternatives are: 1) the multiverse, which is about as speculative as God, and 2) the anthropic principle, which Lee Smolin argues should not be considered science at all because it lacks the basic requirement of falsifiability.

Of course it's falsifiable. It rests upon the assumption that there are a very large number of planets covering pretty much every possible combination of environmental factors. If it turns out that Earth is monumentally unique in the universe (say, it's the only rocky planet, and all others are gas giants), then that disproves the anthropic principle.

The only thing you need to do to falsify it is to test one or more of its premises. Since you can, it is indeed falsifiable. Maybe not by today's techniques, but it's nonetheless scientifically valid.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My criteria for design pointing to an omnipotent, universal overlord would be that the method by which the design takes place would point positively towards said omnipotent, universal overlord.

One scenario that would show this is if a natural phenomena were proven to have operated in an unnatural way sometime in the past without influence from external sources, like gamma rays from our star having been emitted by it directionally and with sufficient resolution to have precisely manipulated early molecules to generate life.

If such a thing were found to be, it would be statistically impossible and technically infeasible, but supported by empirical evidence. I would then probably believe in an omnipotent, universal overlord until such time as a better explanation was provided.

So would you say that ancient peoples were justified in attributing, say, lightning, to divine intervention? After all, they had no way of coming even close to the true (and, unsurprisingly, mundane) explanation.

 

[Super_Rational]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism (that is, a god or gods created the universe)?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

This is a kind of tricky question as so many possibilities can indeed be explained naturally. And if it is natural, then of course explaining it by saying "goddidit" is unnecessary. But since god is supposedly all-knowing & all-powerful, then I'm sure it wouldn't have a problem coming up with something. But then I'm sure some would cry about it being a "violation of our free will."

I guess it would have to be something so mind-blowing that people all over the world would experience it simultaneously which leaves absolutely no one with an alternative explanation. Sounds like a lot, but again it shouldn't be a problem, right? Right now, the best christians have are universe-related arguments like fine-tuning & the origin of the universe. But we have pretty darn good explanations already. So what's god waiting for? And free will...that's just an excuse to explain why god is the hide & seek champion of all time.

 

[keith99]

The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Yes, if Joe appeared infront of me, said "I created the universe" and then either explained or showed me a rational method of how, I would accept Joe as the creator of the universe.

Would you change your mind a second time if he then vanishes after saying 'Beam me up Scottie'?

That is one huge problem, how can one tell the difference between an advanced enough culture and God? A talking bush in hte desert is pretty easy with today's technology.

I think the second part you gave, an expaination of how is more useful, but it is very possible that any such explaination (either true or an advanced alien con or joke) would be pretty much beyond our understanding.

I'll go with a different part of the newspapermans list. Why?

If a God were to tell us why he created our universe it would likely give some testable points. This is an area where any of the non-vague creationist claims fail.

Even along these lines the why might not be useful at all. After all if the why is because all 4th graders have to create a universe for class leaves a explaination for any problems, imperfection in 4th graders.