Creation/Evolution Fundamental Assumptions

[chris4243]

I assume God is not a liar nor acts deceptively.

 

[sabercroft]

If I paid attention I would be as dumb as the average so called science brick. I know what you think, and claim. I know it is not supportable. Apparently you haven't yet figured that out. Make it a priority I would suggest.

To be honest, being as "dumb" as the average so-called science brick would be an improvement in orders of magnitude in your case. With that said, your determined wall of ignorance does little to change facts. The creation account as described by the Christian religion has been proven to be false beyond a shadow of doubt, not only among the scientific community, but among Christians who bother to inspect the evidence for themselves as well.

 

[dad]

To be honest, being as "dumb" as the average so-called science brick would be an improvement in orders of magnitude in your case.

That remains to be demonstrated. From all I see so far, no basis in fact exists for all that they hold dear...godlessness, present physical only laws existing in furthest space or time, etc.

The creation account as described by the Christian religion has been proven to be false beyond a shadow of doubt, not only among the scientific community, but among Christians who bother to inspect the evidence for themselves as well.

I understand that pitiful defeated baseless opinion used to hold some sway in debate forums. No more. Guess you have some catchin up to do.

 

[VehementisDominus]

On what basis would you declare God likely? Or not?

The amout of available evidence. Provide evidence that God exists, enough to prove that he exists... (hang on, brace yourself, here's that phrase that you don't like.) beyond reasonable doubt and I will accept that he exists. I'll accept the sacrifice God made to himself, and... well, I still won't worship him (That's a matter for the morality forums, not the science forums.).

So you think the essence of objectivity is 'not believing'? OK.
Hey what's this? Are you Bronzeageaphobic?

he essence of objectivity is "Not blindly believing.". And I'm Blindlybelievingthingsthatcannotbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtaphobic..

So the movie was just a movie. Touching.

The same accuracy of the film to the pottery is the same accuracy of the pottery to the word of mouth account.

Just as the same accuracy of your beliefs to the original Hebrew Bible is the same accuracy of the film to the pottery, and the same accuracy of the original Hebrew Bible is the same accuracy of the pottery to the hear-say that the pottery was based on. Just as the magical beings in 300 didn't actually exist, neither did God.

Well, if you want to sub divide the pagans fine. Funny I never seem to see them here arguing?

Why would they be? I could go onto an Islamic forum and not see many Christians arguing, yet their beliefs are no more or less valid than yours.

So you want to doubt, and will stubbornly continue despite reasonable historic evidence? And..what, you want someone to pound something into that hard headed position?

Provide me with this "reasonable historic evidence" and I'll accept the claims that that evidence supports.

What you're claiming goes beyond that, though, it goes into the realms of the supernatural, yes - the Walls of Jericho may have fallen to the Israelites, and yes the Israelites may've attributed that to God, but that doesn't mean that God existed, it just means that the Israelites believed in God.

Take the war in Iraq, Bush said God was on their side. Does that mean that they won because of God, or that they won because they were better equipped and better trained than Saddam's army?

I'm pretty sure Allah was on the Iraqi side...

Winning a war doesn't prove the existence of the winning side's god - it only proves that the winning army is a better army than the losing army.

Such is an example of why your "historic evidence" is nonsense.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, let's give it a try. What do you think are the fundamental assumptions behind your position - be it in support of evolution or creation?

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[Greg1234]

Well said!

Here's a few other things science can neither deny or verify:

Don't confuse science (observable repeatable testatable data) with materialism (the belief that the the phenomena detected has a future materialistic cause). In methodological earthism today (the belief that the earth is all that exists) it would not be science that cannot verify that the sun is in outer space, but earthism masquerading as science.

Odin.
Invisible pink unicorns.
Cthulu.
Yog Sothoth.
Quetzalcoatl.
Allah.
The flying spaghetti monster.
Ra.
Hades.
Zeus.
The Force.
The Underpant Gnomes.
Sauron.
Khorne.
Nurgle.
Tzeentch.
Slaanesh.
A teapot orbiting Pluto.

I've renamed magnetic fields to Lunbar. It now also takes on every name above and drawing/representation of it in spaghetti form. Congratulations, Ive just refuted magnetic fields. I've renamed pyramid builders to (so much to choose from) Sauron, no Ra, no the underpant Gnomes.

He can assume God exists as much as he likes, but God is no more real than anything mentioned above - at least. Anything you could possibly imagine can be easily added to that list, as well.

You've listed alot of names for the same thing he was referring to as God. To say the least, it doesn't really help your cause. Add more.

Science deals in what can be demonstrably shown to exist, and God can't.

Demonstrably show that God exists, and I'll happily accept that he does - until then, I have absolutely no reason to.

How about you show how purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can assemble a man from bacteria. Then show where ignorant men were sitting when they ignorantly wrote the bible.

 

[Greg1234]

You're right in saying that science cannot know anything about God. God has been deliberately defined to not be testable within the boundaries of science, and is at best a hypothesis.

What science can do, on the other hand, is to prove the Christian account of creation wrong. Very, very wrong. The abundant evidence for that can be easily found almost anywhere if you care to search, and I'm sure I don't need to elucidate further.

Minor adaptations by a program is not evidence against creationism. You dont think you've refuted the creation of your car when you put on your car light do you? You think the dilation of your pupils invalidates child birth?

 

[Resha Caner]

The issue is not what truth is, all Christians know that. ..Jesus. The issue is what man's knowledge (which the bible calls foolishness) can perceive of the truth!

I agree with you, but language can be very important. I think if your thought were worded differently, an atheist might agree with you as well ... and yet you would be thinking different things - talking past each other. So, I'm not sure what to do with this. While I might agree with you, for the sake of the forum I often intentionally limit myself in the language that I use.

Not sure if you allude to the big bang? What is really the causeless cause is not accepting Genesis.

No. For me, God is the causeless cause (as you say later). Nothing caused God to happen; He just is. I think you'll find that many physicists are willing to entertain that the big bang may or may not have a cause. At the same time, I'm not dismissing the big bang. Within the limits of what science can explain, it may be the best that can be done to give the details of the creation.

And therein lies the rub ... as I hinted at earlier. I suspect that at the roots of our assumptions (which is the theme of the thread after all, not the end point of science but its beginning) we have a dilemma of a Godelian type. Still, I think it worth the excercise to dig as deep as we can.

Define 'evolution'?

Ah, yes. I have often noticed that in debates of these types no one seems to be talking about the same thing. "Evolution" is a very emotionally laden word that has a spectrum of meanings. In past debates I've shown how one can go to University A's website and find a definition that seems to be all-encompassing (abiogenesis, macro, micro, and all topics regarding how life changes) and then go to University B and find a very narrow definition (i.e. that evolution is merely a synonym for genetic mutation). I've yet to find a standard, accepted definition. I will say that when I use the word I tend to mean the former, but since I don't accept such, I'm open to letting those who say they believe it provide the definition.

So you are neither here nor there?

No. I have a definite opinion on creation but it is only that. Since this is the science forum, and since all I asked about were assumptions, I didn't want to overburden the thread with too much musing.

It is kinda fuzzy so far, I have to say.

OK. Maybe that's because I was speaking in generalities and trying to be brief. I didn't intend this to be a general discussion of science, but a specific discussion about the assumptions of creation/evolution.

Given a view of creation "as written in Genesis, end of story," there may not be much to say in this thread. But for those who have observed creation and think they see evidence there of an intelligent cause, I'd be interested in delving into the assumptions they make. Likewise for those who hold to evolutionary science.

I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but to get things moving, I'll offer up 2 possibilities:

1) For the creationist it is assumed that events with an intelligent cause can be distinguished from those with random and/or mechanical causes.

2) For the evolutionist, it seems there is an assumption that one can trace a series of past events from latent data.

What do people think of those? Are they assumptions or is there something more fundamental?

(And again, with respect to the witty repartee preceding this post, I'm interested in the beginning (the assumption) - not the end (where the data & logic take you). If that means a discussion of the general methods of science is more appropriate, I guess we can go there.)

 

[VehementisDominus]

Don't confuse science (observable repeatable testatable data) with materialism (the belief that the the phenomena detected has a future materialistic cause). In methodological earthism today (the belief that the earth is all that exists) it would not be science that cannot verify that the sun is in outer space, but earthism masquerading as science.


I've renamed magnetic fields to Lunbar. It now also takes on every name above and drawing/representation of it in spaghetti form. Congratulations, Ive just refuted magnetic fields. I've renamed pyramid builders to (so much to choose from) Sauron, no Ra, no the underpant Gnomes.



You've listed alot of names for the same thing he was referring to as God. To say the least, it doesn't really help your cause. Add more.


How about you show how purely naturalistic unintelligent processes can assemble a man from bacteria. Then show where ignorant men were sitting when they ignorantly wrote the bible.

What are you on about?

Nothing you said makes any sense whatsoever, seriously, what is any of that even supposed to mean? Do you read your posts afterwards and think "Wow... that makes absolutely no sense."?

"the belief that the the phenomena detected has a future materialistic cause"

"it would not be science that cannot verify that the sun is in outer space, but earthism masquerading as science."

"I've renamed magnetic fields to Lunbar. It now also takes on every name above and drawing/representation of it in spaghetti form."

Seriously, nothing you post ever seems to make any kind of sense, you make up terms "methodological earthism"? What are you even trying to say?

 

[dad]

The amout of available evidence. Provide evidence that God exists, enough to prove that he exists... (hang on, brace yourself, here's that phrase that you don't like.) beyond reasonable doubt and I will accept that he exists. I'll accept the sacrifice God made to himself, and... well, I still won't worship him (That's a matter for the morality forums, not the science forums.).

There is no reasonable doubting of scripture, only Last Thursday style lack of logic. The resurrection is evidence God exists, and all the things we saw over time recorded in the record of God.

he essence of objectivity is "Not blindly believing.". And I'm Blindlybelievingthingsthatcannotbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtaphobic..

You merely chose what you blindly believe.

The same accuracy of the film to the pottery is the same accuracy of the pottery to the word of mouth account.

Only without God. Even then, it is not a good comparison. The group of folks writing the scripture pottery took extreme measures for accuracy.

Why would they be? I could go onto an Islamic forum and not see many Christians arguing, yet their beliefs are no more or less valid than yours.

How many argue that creation involved no God?

Provide me with this "reasonable historic evidence" and I'll accept the claims that that evidence supports.

The kingdoms that ruled since the captivity were all foretold. As well as how the Gentile period of rule ends. Medo Persia, Greece, Rome, and the final European led confederacy.

What you're claiming goes beyond that, though, it goes into the realms of the supernatural, yes - the Walls of Jericho may have fallen to the Israelites, and yes the Israelites may've attributed that to God, but that doesn't mean that God existed, it just means that the Israelites believed in God.

So walls fall down go boom just because a few hundred people march? The nation goes into captivity 70 years, then returns as foretold after that by some freak of nature?

Take the war in Iraq, Bush said God was on their side. Does that mean that they won because of God, or that they won because they were better equipped and better trained than Saddam's army?

Take the Pharisees that had Jesus and the apostles killed. They said similar. So? Such is life on earth.

I'm pretty sure Allah was on the Iraqi side...

So he can't fight or win?

Winning a war doesn't prove the existence of the winning side's god - it only proves that the winning army is a better army than the losing army.

Not according to the record. The folks that stole the ark of the covenant went down by the tens of thousands....no other human army was involved. In other cases the enemies slew their little selves in terror. Etc...

 

[Cabal]

Evolution assumes logic.

Creationism assumes logic, and the belief that it can be thrown under the bus when it becomes personally inconvenient.

 

[Research6]

Well said!

Here's a few other things science can neither deny or verify:

Odin.
Invisible pink unicorns.
Cthulu.
Yog Sothoth.
Quetzalcoatl.
Allah.
The flying spaghetti monster.
Ra.
Hades.
Zeus.
The Force.
The Underpant Gnomes.
Sauron.
Khorne.
Nurgle.
Tzeentch.
Slaanesh.
A teapot orbiting Pluto.

While some of those are fictional, some were very real. Zeus, Odin etc were real people or historic personages (e.g. kings) who became deified (exalted to the status of a God and worshipped). This still happens in modern times and is the real origin of Gods or religion. Prince Philip for example is worshipped as a God among natives of the South Pacific Islands, its similar to the cargo cult.

 

[Research6]

In many ways the creation/evolution debate simply tires me ... or bores me. But maybe coming at it from a different angle will produce an interesting conversation.

Many times it seems people struggle to identify the assumptions behind their position - and I think that is understandable. For others, there are so many assumptions that it's hard to find the right thread to pull on to start the discussion.

But, let's give it a try. What do you think are the fundamental assumptions behind your position - be it in support of evolution or creation?

Biblical Creation - assuming that the Bible which details the creation (Gen. 1) is true over about 100,000+ ancient creation myths.

Creationism (in general) - assuming it took place, since it was never observed.

Evolution (macro) - assuming large scale phenotypic change occurs when its not observable in the lifetime to directly observe.

 

[VehementisDominus]

There is no reasonable doubting of scripture, only Last Thursday style lack of logic. The resurrection is evidence God exists, and all the things we saw over time recorded in the record of God.

Ok, I'm getting sick of repeating this over and over again, so read this very carefully, then respond by repeating it in your own words so I know you've read it and you understand it.

The ressurection IS AN EVENT THAT ONLY HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE, therefore YOU CANNOT USE IT TO EXTERNALLY VERIFY THE BIBLE.

It is not evidence.

It's self-contained.

The only example of the ressurection is IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

Stop using it as evidence, because it's not, it's like saying Star Wars happened because it says "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." at the start.

Seriously, I've had to repeat this 7/8 times, now are you even reading it? Do you even understand it?

Are you going to shut up with the whole "Ressurection is proof of God, herp derp." now?

 

[Resha Caner]

Creationism (in general) - assuming it took place, since it was never observed.

Evolution (macro) - assuming large scale phenotypic change occurs when its not observable in the lifetime to directly observe.

Ah, interesting. I wondered if this would happen - if the two basic assumptions would appear very similar. When I listed my 2 assumptions in post #28 I got a bit tangled amongst the ones I could think of.

But I like this ... that the basic assumption might be the same, yet lead the two groups in different directions.

So, what of this idea that we can make conclusions about things we have not observed? Or, as my assumption #2 states, "that one can trace a series of past events from latent data."

 

[Research6]

So, what of this idea that we can make conclusions about things we have not observed? Or, as my assumption #2 states, "that one can trace a series of past events from latent data."

That's what the bulk of science relies on - inference. You don't have to directly observe a mountain form for example to know how it got there naturally, or if there was a huge crater hole you would know something hit there despite no one directly observed it.

However, when it comes to the theory of evolution it's not strickly inference but opens up to interpretation. This is the valid point creationists raise. Evolution is nothing more than an interpretation of prehistory. Other folks look at the same fossil data etc but get to a different interpretation, who's to say who is right and wrong?.

Edit: Just to point out i'm not a creationist.

 

[Resha Caner]

That's what the bulk of science relies on - inference.

Sure. That's well known, and is typically called "the problem of induction," an issue underlying science (or, more appropriately, the quest for knowledge) that was originally raised by Hume.

You don't have to directly observe a mountain form for example to know how it got there naturally, or if there was a huge crater hole you would know something hit there despite no one directly observed it.

Actually, if I wanted to be anal about this, you would need to observe it if you want to "know" it. Once you step away from that absolutist position, it is an argument of shadows and shades of gray.

However, when it comes to the theory of evolution it's not strickly inference but opens up to interpretation. This is the valid point creationists raise. Evolution is nothing more than an interpretation of prehistory. Other folks look at the same fossil data etc but get to a different interpretation, who's to say who is right and wrong?

Yes, but I think the issue is different than the points you've raised. Much of science deals with future events. I observe something happening and make a prediction of what will happen in the future. If it happens, I take that as confirmation.

But I can't make a prediction about what happened in the past and then claim I'm justified because it happened. It's pretty obvious it happened. But because the event is past, the prediction did not control the event as it could a future event.

Edit: Just to point out i'm not a creationist.

Then I'm glad you're open to discussing "the valid point creationists raise." On the other hand, I'm a little sad you're not a creationist (depending on what you think that means).

I would say creationists have the same difficulty with past events.

 

[Greg1234]

Ok, I'm getting sick of repeating this over and over again, so read this very carefully, then respond by repeating it in your own words so I know you've read it and you understand it.

The ressurection IS AN EVENT THAT ONLY HAPPENED IN THE BIBLE, therefore YOU CANNOT USE IT TO EXTERNALLY VERIFY THE BIBLE.

It is not evidence.

It's self-contained.

The only example of the ressurection is IN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

Stop using it as evidence, because it's not, it's like saying Star Wars happened because it says "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." at the start.

Seriously, I've had to repeat this 7/8 times, now are you even reading it? Do you even understand it?

Are you going to shut up with the whole "Ressurection is proof of God, herp derp." now?

There's no reason for him to adopt your belief and doctrine (which relates as fiction) that the recording in the bible is unreliable.

 

[sandwiches]

Ah, interesting. I wondered if this would happen - if the two basic assumptions would appear very similar. When I listed my 2 assumptions in post #28 I got a bit tangled amongst the ones I could think of.

But I like this ... that the basic assumption might be the same, yet lead the two groups in different directions.

So, what of this idea that we can make conclusions about things we have not observed? Or, as my assumption #2 states, "that one can trace a series of past events from latent data."

Except creation and evolution are NOT assuming the same thing. The only thing in common in Research6's post was that neither was observed. That's just a given. However, the reality is that every single thought, idea, or theory no matter what it is relies on one simple assumption: That your senses and reasoning are reliable.

From the simplest action (drinking water from a glass) to the most complex, they assume the above. When you are thirsty, you assume that your sense of thirst is correct and that you need water, you use your senses to find and identify a bottle or water, you use your senses and reasoning to assume that the liquid in the bottle is indeed water after you recognized the label and identified a clear liquid inside, etc.

So, why take it to such fundamental level? Because therein lies the huge distinction between those who believe in evolution and those who believe in Christian creation: Those who believe in evolution trust their senses and reasoning, but realize that they can both be wrong, so they independently verify using other people, machines, and other independent methods of verification. Creationists trust their senses and reasoning to assume that they're interpreting the Bible correctly but reject opposing independent accounts on the assumption that their reasoning and senses cannot be wrong or that their beliefs cannot be independently verified. Ironically, most creationists then claim that they do not "walk by sight" but "by faith," when in reality, they used their senses and reasoning to arrive at their position but they stop short when they encounter contradictory information.

 

[sandwiches]

But I can't make a prediction about what happened in the past and then claim I'm justified because it happened. It's pretty obvious it happened. But because the event is past, the prediction did not control the event as it could a future event.

But you can make a prediction based on what you think has happened and if the prediction is accurate, then that increases confidence in the validity of your inference regarding the past. See tiktaalik a famous example of that. Scientists made a prediction of where they should find the fossils of a long-extinct animal of specific properties and traits based on geology (what's happened to the Earth in the past,) paleontology (what's happened to life in the past,) biology (what happens to life in general,) etc.

Bottom line: Evolution, like all science, is based on inferences from many independent lines of evidence.