A Question to Evolutionists

[Pete Harcoff]

To convince me of a supernatural being, it would take the physical manifestation of the being in a manner that left no room for doubt.

 

[ragarth]

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.

I think the why is less testable than the how. People can do things 'just cause' and we have no reason to assume such a trait is not possible in any intelligent entity. No, questions of motivation and purpose are far harder to test than questions of methodology.

As per your question as to whether I would cease to think Joe a god if he beamed up, well that depends. First off, I define truth as existing in two types, a perceptual and an absolute truth. The absolute truth is what is *really* there, but we can never actually know an absolute truth. What we know are perceptual truths, we perceive something as being true because it's the best fit for the knowledge we have. Science seeks to make our perceptual truths conform to the absolute truths as closely as our level of knowledge allows, but I don't think we can ever actually know if our perceptual truths equal the absolute truths. Given this, yes, I would believe Joe is god till he does something to show me otherwise. Is my being okay with changing my mind a bad thing? No it's not, I put more weight in the opinion of someone willing to change their mind than someone who is unwilling to do so- the former is constantly testing their views and so you know that they conform more closely to reality whereas the latter is not and so is not interested in conforming to reality. In this way, the true nature of Joe is an absolute, but I can only guess at what joe is by what I perceive, so if all I have are joe's words and proof he's given me, then I perceive him as a god. If Luke comes along and gives me new proof that joe is not a god, then the truth is no longer that Joe is a god.

That said, the question of 'how' establishes a basis for what the nature of god may be, and (if there is a god) the answer would probably be something drastically different than what is in the bible. I read an interesting idea once, that the reason the universe seems fine-tuned for life is because a universe with life in it is 'fitter' or more capable of generating new universes like itself than a universe incapable of supporting intelligent life. Basically, if intelligent life is capable of generating new universes, then universes with life would be generated more frequently than universes without life, therefore making life-bearing universes more common to generate more universes, etc. Since we don't know the extent of control we might have over a universe we make, it's possible we might have that oh-so-desirable external view and manipulative power, giving us effective omnipotence and omniscience in regard to that universe. If we create a universe, and am omnipotent and omniscient over its denizens, what difference is there between us and a god?

 

[ragarth]

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.

If we treat ideas as tools, then yes, because they used the best tools they had at the time to answer complex questions. If they didn't have the gumption to at least attempt an answer (no matter how wrong it was), we wouldn't have the answers we have today.

 

[metherion]

Well, I accept evolution, so I'll answer. And also just to tickle AV's fancy lol.

Well, first off, I believe a God did create the universe. So ha. But I always figgered that as creation, not creation-ISM. Every time I hear the -ism on the end I always go to thinking YEC or OEC according to a literalistic interpretation of the Bible, and I think we all know the type of stuff that would convince us of that...
No light from stars more than 6k light years away, the earth being older than the rest of the universe, evidence of the huge genetic bottleneck in every species alive today from Noah's Flood as well as the physical evidence left behind, etc etc etc.

Oh! And one most people don't think of. According to Genesis the Garden of Eden was somewhere in what we would call the Fertile Crescent today, and we have enough people on the ground and satellite surveillance that they SHOULD have run into the angel with the flaming sword guarding it from someone by now, right?

Metherion

 

[atomweaver]

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?

My personal bar is set even lower than conviction; even before being fully convinced by Creationism, I'd begin to take it more seriously on the day that somebody did something mundanely useful with it...

 

[lawtonfogle]

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 mathematics of evolution to be shown to be false? About as much evidence as it would require to show that 1+1 != 2. To show it should not be applied to biology... proof that the earth is not as old as it is. I guess I am a partial creationist in that I accept that the earth could have been created 6k years ago, but it would have been created billions of years old, and in such a way that empirically it is billions of years old and all life on it would seem to have evolved. I accept this as possible, but I need proof before I will see it as probable.

 

[lawtonfogle]

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.

Um... what message do you want in Pi? It can be proven that there is such a message located in Pi (when you translate the numbers to binary and then ASCII). In fact, any finite message can be found in Pi. In fact, there is a segment of Pi, which if I put it into binary, and then put that segment on a computer, would be a movie of Jesus riding dinosaurs. In fact, every possible movie ever imagined, or any definition you want, can be found in Pi. When something is random and infinite, that just kinda happens.

Get a scientist who works with the pi calculating computers to search for the string "7315820411193944776851764682694730695309940380708726062". I assure you, you will find that string after enough time, and once you do, you will know the truth.

(cover it to binary, then to ascii).

EDIT: Sorry, had the wrong number in there.

EDIT 2: Also see if you can find '118676907282758983190399652518081422638'

 

[AV1611VET]

To convince me of a supernatural being, it would take the physical manifestation of the being in a manner that left no room for doubt.

1

 

[lawtonfogle]

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

One could argue we are the fine tuners. For us to exist, the universe must be fine tuned to life... now the question is if there are other tunings which can also support life?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Um... what message do you want in Pi? It can be proven that there is such a message located in Pi (when you translate the numbers to binary and then ASCII). In fact, any finite message can be found in Pi. In fact, there is a segment of Pi, which if I put it into binary, and then put that segment on a computer, would be a movie of Jesus riding dinosaurs. In fact, every possible movie ever imagined, or any definition you want, can be found in Pi. When something is random and infinite, that just kinda happens.

Get a scientist who works with the pi calculating computers to search for the string "7315820411193944776851764682694730695309940380708726062". I assure you, you will find that string after enough time, and once you do, you will know the truth.

(cover it to binary, then to ascii).

EDIT: Sorry, had the wrong number in there.

EDIT 2: Also see if you can find '118676907282758983190399652518081422638'

The message in Pi bit is an homage to Carl Sagan, and his novel "Contact". I am aware that Pi, being a number with an infinite amount of decimals, can contain any "message" you could conceive. My point was: If a message was discovered in mathematics, that could NOT have come about by chance, it would convince me to lend more credence to a divine creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

My point was: If a message was discovered in mathematics, that could NOT have come about by chance, it would convince me to lend more credence to a divine creator.

I disagree.

For those who think like you do --- and I don't --- but for those who do, there is a rather newly-discovered method of validating the Scriptures called Equidistant Letter Sequencing, q.v.

I don't subscribe to it, myself; but if you mean what you're saying here, Thistlethorn, then ELS is just for you.

ETA: There's also what's called Theomantics, but we won't go there ---

 

[Wiccan_Child]

1

AV, I would appreciate you not hijacking this thread. It is for Evolutionists to give their criteria for what would convince them of Creationism, not for you to satisfy those criteria.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For the mathematics of evolution to be shown to be false?

No, for Creationism to be shown true. Subtle difference .

About as much evidence as it would require to show that 1+1 != 2. To show it should not be applied to biology... proof that the earth is not as old as it is. I guess I am a partial creationist in that I accept that the earth could have been created 6k years ago, but it would have been created billions of years old, and in such a way that empirically it is billions of years old and all life on it would seem to have evolved. I accept this as possible, but I need proof before I will see it as probable.

If the Earth were shown to be 6000 years old, would that convince you of Creationism? Or would that just refute the theory of common descent?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I disagree.

For those who think like you do --- and I don't --- but for those who do, there is a rather newly-discovered method of validating the Scriptures called Equidistant Letter Sequencing, q.v.

I don't subscribe to it, myself; but if you mean what you're saying here, Thistlethorn, then ELS is just for you.

ETA: There's also what's called Theomantics, but we won't go there ---

Actually, Bible Codes don't count: they're little more than searching through the digits of pi to find the code you want. True, there isn't an infinite number of combinations, but the number is still staggaringly high, enough to allow anything to be brought up.

The clincher is that the same techniques have found 'prophecies' in things like Moby Dick.

Anyway, I'm hijacking my own thread.

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, for Creationism to be shown true. Subtle difference .

Yeah yeah yeah...

If the Earth were shown to be 6000 years old, would that convince you of Creationism? Or would that just refute the theory of common descent?

I really think it would depend upon how the earth was shown to be 6000 years old. If some aliens proved they created the earth 6k years ago, that would be different. I would think some form of creationism would have to have happened, would it have been what we describe as God or not, I don't know.

 

[lawtonfogle]

The message in Pi bit is an homage to Carl Sagan, and his novel "Contact". I am aware that Pi, being a number with an infinite amount of decimals, can contain any "message" you could conceive. My point was: If a message was discovered in mathematics, that could NOT have come about by chance, it would convince me to lend more credence to a divine creator.

Hmm... I believe we could start a war over what is meant by chance. Pi appears to be random, but depending upon how you define it, it is or is not random.

I guess if we found a non-repeating number that could be prove to not have certain combination of numbers, that may count for something, but I am not sure that is not contradictory already.

 

[Thistlethorn]

I disagree.

You disagree about what would convince ME? How very arrogant.

 

[Thistlethorn]

Hmm... I believe we could start a war over what is meant by chance. Pi appears to be random, but depending upon how you define it, it is or is not random.

I guess if we found a non-repeating number that could be prove to not have certain combination of numbers, that may count for something, but I am not sure that is not contradictory already.

Yeah, well, I think you understand what I mean anyway.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah yeah yeah...


I really think it would depend upon how the earth was shown to be 6000 years old. If some aliens proved they created the earth 6k years ago, that would be different. I would think some form of creationism would have to have happened, would it have been what we describe as God or not, I don't know.

Hmm, that makes sense. So proving the Earth is 6000 years old doesn't show that there's a God. Sorry, YECs .

 

[AV1611VET]

You disagree about what would convince ME? How very arrogant.

And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And now, with respect to the OP:

/thread