Data that confirms creationism

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Satoshi


So everything needs a creator except your hypothetical creator? Special pleading.

"Special Pleading" is a fallacy in which a person applies rules to others while taking himself as exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

God is the beginning and the end. He had no creator, he just IS. He is infinity...in fact, He is logic. True or False, 0 or 1. Nothing else is truly infinite, hence, the exemption.

 

[Josephus]

Jerry Smith:

"Tell me how much order is predicted to exist in a created universe relative to an uncreated one. What measurements of order have been made in our universe to check the predictions of your theory?"

An uncreated universe could not exist. Hence, no order. A created universe would have at least a "Planck" version of order over an uncreated one. Is this so hard to understand?


"Sure, perhaps (?)... What is your evidence that it actually did occur this way? That would be the evidence that would confirm your theory - if your predictions are derived correctly."

I'm glad you finally understand where I'm comming from from this theory. Next time, please bother to read the whole post before replying point by point - otherwise you might find that you and I agree on the very thing you think I'm disagreeing with you about. You might not find your foot in your mouth as often too.

My response to this question would be this: there is only one possible factor of evidence - an historical account of the actual event. If there is other evidence, then tell me what other evidence should we find if indeed God is correct?

Since God is a witness to this, I would certainly consider him innocent in falsifying his record of the event until proven guilty.


Now if you're satisfied with this issue, please say so. If you are really troubled by it, then please, let's continue it. I will guarantee you will not find God as a result of these discussions, but I can certainly give you enough doubt to consider for a moment that perhaps God may in fact be playing a role in these things.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Josephus
Jerry Smith:
I will guarantee you will not find God as a result of these discussions, but I can certainly give you enough doubt to consider for a moment that perhaps God may in fact be playing a role in these things.

Amen. And Happy Birthday!

Jerry, I have pointed out the only thing that makes sense, given certain scientific and logical laws. Would you rather live in doubt with "scientific ignorance", or try and seek the One that can tell you the truth in your heart?

Good luck brother!

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by s0uljah


You too! You know your stuff, thats obvious.

Anyway, I have no problem with evolution. And as far as no explanation of what was before matter/energy, it doesn't make sense to say we just don't know, and stop there. We don't have any scientific explanation, but we have a logical one.

Either existence is real or it isn't. If it is, which I think you will agree is true, then there had to be a "something" in the first place. Given that "something" can't come from nothing, only one explanation fits, that there was a Creator, that is infinite. And He is the only true infinite "thing" in the universe. That is the point where we can stop, no?

If you like to take it beyond the scientific evidence into the realm of philosophy, I will not follow you there to debate it. My real interest lies in what can be known with scientific accuracy, not what seems to make sense from philosophy. Of course, I see no problem with such philosophical speculations, I just do not have a special interest in them.

Thanks, by the way, for your kind words. It is like a breath of fresh air to encounter civility and courtesy in a debate about evolution.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


If you like to take it beyond the scientific evidence into the realm of philosophy, I will not follow you there to debate it. My real interest lies in what can be known with scientific accuracy, not what seems to make sense from philosophy. Of course, I see no problem with such philosophical speculations, I just do not have a special interest in them.

Thanks, by the way, for your kind words. It is like a breath of fresh air to encounter civility and courtesy in a debate about evolution.

Ok, I understand your position. Just remember that mine is based on science and logic as well. But I do understand that you want to see what is real, not just think about it.

Good day!

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by s0uljah
"Special Pleading" is a fallacy in which a person applies rules to others while taking himself as exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

Which is indeed what you did, and continue to do below.

God is the beginning and the end. He had no creator, he just IS. He is infinity...in fact, He is logic. True or False, 0 or 1. Nothing else is truly infinite, hence, the exemption.

Sorry, but just because you repeat your assertion, it doesn't make it any more true. Incidentally, what do you mean by "infinite?" Infinitely small? Infinitely brown? Just saying that something is infinite without mentioning which attribute is infinite is somewhat confusing.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Satoshi


Which is indeed what you did, and continue to do below.



Sorry, but just because you repeat your assertion, it doesn't make it any more true. Incidentally, what do you mean by "infinite?" Infinitely small? Infinitely brown? Just saying that something is infinite without mentioning which attribute is infinite is somewhat confusing.

The logical fallacy you mentioned has a definition, does it not? I listed it, which explained that it is only a fallacy if the exemption is not given. I then gave the exemption, I didn't repeat my assertion.

Maybe you should read your own side's site for logical definitions:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
Jerry Smith:

"Tell me how much order is predicted to exist in a created universe relative to an uncreated one. What measurements of order have been made in our universe to check the predictions of your theory?"

An uncreated universe could not exist. Hence, no order. A created universe would have at least a "Planck" version of order over an uncreated one. Is this so hard to understand?

So your evidence for creation is your bald assertion that the universe could not exist apart from being created by a supernatural entity? Do you have evidence for that assertion?

If an uncreated universe cannot exist (as you suggest) then it makes no sense to predict that it would have less order than a created one. That would be like saying that an empty room has less furniture than a furnished one.

"Sure, perhaps (?)... What is your evidence that it actually did occur this way? That would be the evidence that would confirm your theory - if your predictions are derived correctly."

I'm glad you finally understand where I'm comming from from this theory. Next time, please bother to read the whole post before replying point by point - otherwise you might find that you and I agree on the very thing you think I'm disagreeing with you about. You might not find your foot in your mouth as often too.

All of your posts that I have responded to are ones that I read thoroughly and struggled to make sense out of before replying. So, what was your evidence that God entered time at precisely where the matter/energy ratio was 1/1? If your derivations are correct, then evidence that this occurred, or evidence that something that pertains to your calculations occurred - might be evidence for creation hypothesis. I don't know what exactly I had my foot in my mouth for.. I admit I was baffled by some of your statements (and am not sure that I am any less so now). What was your point that I mistook?

My response to this question would be this: there is only one possible factor of evidence - an historical account of the actual event.

Since creation preceded the existence of humans (and life for that matter), we are not likely to find such a document. If one was uncovered, and verified to be reliable as an account of creation, then it would serve as evidence of creation's hypothesis.

If there is other evidence, then tell me what other evidence should we find if indeed God is correct?

That's what CancerToIniquity is asking. I don't really think there is any, and I don't think the creation hypothesis really makes any specific testable predictions.

Since God is a witness to this, I would certainly consider him innocent in falsifying his record of the event until proven guilty.

I suppose if God provides a record (apart from the record of natural history), we would expect it to be accurate.
We need not extend the same benefit of the doubt to anyone who claims to speak for God, whether it be an anonymous author of part of an Old Testament Book, or an anonymous author of the Koran, the Sutras, the Vedas, or any other ancient religious text.

If you accept the idea that the Bible is the word of God, that would make the basic premise that "God created" a given. It would still be a faith position, not based on evidence. It would not even require one to abandon science, because the Bible doesn't say that man did not have a common ancestor with all other living things, just that God is the one that created man and other living things.

Now if you're satisfied with this issue, please say so. If you are really troubled by it, then please, let's continue it. I will guarantee you will not find God as a result of these discussions, but I can certainly give you enough doubt to consider for a moment that perhaps God may in fact be playing a role in these things.

I have no problem considering for a moment that perhaps God may in fact be playing a role in these things. However, I am kind of skeptically minded, and I will tend to dismiss those considerations unless I can hope to see some evidence to confirm them.

As I mentioned to s0uljah, I have no problem with philosophical ideas of creationism. I only have problems with attacks on science inspired by certain, very specific, unsupportable views of creation.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by s0uljah


The logical fallacy you mentioned has a definition, does it not? I listed it, which explained that it is only a fallacy if the exemption is not given. I then gave the exemption, I didn't repeat my assertion.

Post #59 [s0uljah]: In your last paragraph here, you claim that existence requires a cause. This cause can only be a Creator that is infinite.

Thus, you claim that everything except this Creator needs a cause, except the hypothetical Creator. Thus, you make up a rule (that everything needs a cause), while making the Creator exempt because he is infinite in some undefined way. This vague excuse is indeed inadequete justification as it's merely an assertion. When I called you on this, you then repeated the assertion that the Creator is infinite. I must admit that you added the seemingly contradictory claims that the Creator is also logic, 0 or 1, and true or false, but I don't think that detracts from your repetition of your assertion.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Satoshi


Post #59 [s0uljah]: In your last paragraph here, you claim that existence requires a cause. This cause can only be a Creator that is infinite.

Thus, you claim that everything except this Creator needs a cause, except the hypothetical Creator. Thus, you make up a rule (that everything needs a cause), while making the Creator exempt because he is infinite in some undefined way. This vague excuse is indeed inadequete justification as it's merely an assertion. When I called you on this, you then repeated the assertion that the Creator is infinite. I must admit that you added the seemingly contradictory claims that the Creator is also logic, 0 or 1, and true or false, but I don't think that detracts from your repetition of your assertion.

No offense, but you don't seem to understand "special pleading."

1. I say that God is infinite.
2. Everything else is finite.
3. The infinite created the finite.

Saying God is infinite is the exemption. I'm not saying "Here are the rules, but God doesn't apply," I'm saying God is infinite in the first place, and the rules follow.

If you think this is special pleading, then post your definition please.

 

[Josephus]

"So your evidence for creation is your bald assertion that the universe could not exist apart from being created by a supernatural entity? Do you have evidence for that assertion?"

Yes. The chances of this universe existing for us to exist. Even Stephen Hawking is at a point where he reconizes the need for God to explain the perfection and apparent chances for everything to have gone right for such an impossibly-existing universe comming into existence. The chances I think are like 1 in 10 to the 63 power. And that's just for one factor. There are perhaps at least 75 factors necessary..if you think of all the chances for all these factors to be right and perfect for our existence, then personally, I think, it requires more faith to believe it happened that way, than to believe God is responsible for creation.



"So, what was your evidence that God entered time at precisely where the matter/energy ratio was 1/1?"

It's a theory. To explain a possibility which explains what we observe today: the bible says 3 days passed when God created the earth. With that end result, I work backwards, using all science available to me today to come up with a sound theory.



"Since creation preceded the existence of humans (and life for that matter), we are not likely to find such a document. If one was uncovered, and verified to be reliable as an account of creation, then it would serve as evidence of creation's hypothesis. "

Such a document could be created. Easily. You're not thinking temporaly. God created Adam, and it was most likely that the account we read in Genesis is actually Adam's account of Creation and the beginning of history as God told him who in turn told his family - for then on the whole world would know through "accepted" family history. This oral account was passed down 14 generations, through the bottleneck of Noah, to the time when Moses was born, and it was finally recorded in the Hebrew original from which copies exist today. Though this account could have been recorded much earlier, and quite possibly may have been a book on Noah's ark - but that is just speculation using common sense.


"If you accept the idea that the Bible is the word of God, that would make the basic premise that "God created" a given. It would still be a faith position, not based on evidence."

As I said, mathematically, it makes sense to believe in a God than to accept the impossible chances for the existence of existence. Ultimately it is a faith issue, no matter which side of the fence you are on.



"It would not even require one to abandon science, because the Bible doesn't say that man did not have a common ancestor with all other living things, just that God is the one that created man and other living things."

If you believe that, then you're missing the idea that God destroyed every liviing thing on the world in Noah's time, so where only Noah and his family survived. Noah is a direct descendent of Adam.

"However, I am kind of skeptically minded, and I will tend to dismiss those considerations unless I can hope to see some evidence to confirm them."

Might I suggest a website: http://www.mooreonlife.com It's currently down for maintenance, but when it's back up, I invite you to listen to the Real Audio message answering the 7 common objections and questions about Christianity, God, and Faith.


"As I mentioned to s0uljah, I have no problem with philosophical ideas of creationism. I only have problems with attacks on science inspired by certain, very specific, unsupportable views of creation."

You will be surprised to find then, that you and I are on the same team.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Josephus
Yes. The chances of this universe existing for us to exist. Even Stephen Hawking is at a point where he reconizes the need for God to explain the perfection and apparent chances for everything to have gone right for such an impossibly-existing universe comming into existence. The chances I think are like 1 in 10 to the 63 power. And that's just for one factor. There are perhaps at least 75 factors necessary..if you think of all the chances for all these factors to be right and perfect for our existence, then personally, I think, it requires more faith to believe it happened that way, than to believe God is responsible for creation.

And that is the main point. We have proof, they have blind faith.

"It would not even require one to abandon science, because the Bible doesn't say that man did not have a common ancestor with all other living things, just that God is the one that created man and other living things."

If you believe that, then you're missing the idea that God destroyed every liviing thing on the world in Noah's time, so where only Noah and his family survived. Noah is a direct descendent of Adam.

Noah had animals on the ark though, according to the Bible. Im confused about every living thing dying except for Noah and his family

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
"So your evidence for creation is your bald assertion that the universe could not exist apart from being created by a supernatural entity? Do you have evidence for that assertion?"

Yes. The chances of this universe existing for us to exist. Even Stephen Hawking is at a point where he reconizes the need for God to explain the perfection and apparent chances for everything to have gone right for such an impossibly-existing universe comming into existence. The chances I think are like 1 in 10 to the 63 power. And that's just for one factor. There are perhaps at least 75 factors necessary..if you think of all the chances for all these factors to be right and perfect for our existence, then personally, I think, it requires more faith to believe it happened that way, than to believe God is responsible for creation.

I think that this is poor evidence.

How do you calculate the odds of one particular "factor" bieing what it has to be in order for life as we know it to exist? How do you further calculate how many potential universes can exist apart from our own? If the number of universes is 10^63 then the odds of finding a factor with probability 1 in 10^63 that the factor will occur are close to 100%. On the other hand, how many possible alternatives are there to life as we know it? It may be that virtually every combination of "factors" could produce life of some kind.

Besides all that, looking at last weeks lottery numbers (1743218001), I cannot possibly object that this combination of numbers was just too unlikely and could not be real apart from divine intervention. Each potential combination was equally unlikely. Big numbers have to have a real-world correlation in order to be meaningful.

On the other hand - if you have a belief about how the universe came to be, whether it is a theistic one or a non-theistic one, oodles of faith are required, since there is no good evidence for any hypothesis of original creation of the universe...

"So, what was your evidence that God entered time at precisely where the matter/energy ratio was 1/1?"

It's a theory. To explain a possibility which explains what we observe today: the bible says 3 days passed when God created the earth. With that end result, I work backwards, using all science available to me today to come up with a sound theory.

Starting with the conclusion and looking for data to support it is not sound science.

"Since creation preceded the existence of humans (and life for that matter), we are not likely to find such a document. If one was uncovered, and verified to be reliable as an account of creation, then it would serve as evidence of creation's hypothesis. "

Such a document could be created. Easily. You're not thinking temporaly. God created Adam, and it was most likely that the account we read in Genesis is actually Adam's account of Creation and the beginning of history as God told him who in turn told his family - for then on the whole world would know through "accepted" family history. This oral account was passed down 14 generations, through the bottleneck of Noah, to the time when Moses was born, and it was finally recorded in the Hebrew original from which copies exist today. Though this account could have been recorded much earlier, and quite possibly may have been a book on Noah's ark - but that is just speculation using common sense.

Sure it could have happened that way. No one is arguing that. In order to use the Bible as evidence for creation, you must prove scientifically that this is how it happened. Otherwise, you are using one faith position in support of another. A fine thing from a religious perspective, but it does not scientific.

"If you accept the idea that the Bible is the word of God, that would make the basic premise that "God created" a given. It would still be a faith position, not based on evidence."

As I said, mathematically, it makes sense to believe in a God than to accept the impossible chances for the existence of existence. Ultimately it is a faith issue, no matter which side of the fence you are on.

If you have a position on the ultimate nature of the beginning of the universe, then yes - it is a faith issue.
I don't.

"It would not even require one to abandon science, because the Bible doesn't say that man did not have a common ancestor with all other living things, just that God is the one that created man and other living things."

If you believe that, then you're missing the idea that God destroyed every liviing thing on the world in Noah's time, so where only Noah and his family survived. Noah is a direct descendent of Adam.

Well, I don't actually believe that God dsstroyed every living thing in the world in Noah's time, but if I did, that would not contradict evolution. If Noah was descended from Adam, and Adam, from the same creatures that chimps are descended from, then the story of Noah's flood can survive intact (as a faith position).

"However, I am kind of skeptically minded, and I will tend to dismiss those considerations unless I can hope to see some evidence to confirm them."

Might I suggest a website: http://www.mooreonlife.com It's currently down for maintenance, but when it's back up, I invite you to listen to the Real Audio message answering the 7 common objections and questions about Christianity, God, and Faith.

Thank you.

"As I mentioned to s0uljah, I have no problem with philosophical ideas of creationism. I only have problems with attacks on science inspired by certain, very specific, unsupportable views of creation."

You will be surprised to find then, that you and I are on the same team.

Fantastic!

 

[Jerry Smith]

s0uljah:

And that is the main point. We have proof, they have blind faith.

I would say you have philosophical proof (based on questionable assumptions), and I have ignorance. At least on the point of the origin of the universe.

 

[Josephus]

"I think that this is poor evidence."

Then what will convince you?

It is Psalms that says "A man is a fool if he says in his heart 'there is no God'." Notice it says heart, and not mind. Obviously, the mind has all the evidence it needs.


"It may be that virtually every combination of "factors" could produce life of some kind. "

It MAY be or it MAY NOT be. We can't know. I personally would not stake my eternal soul on such odds and chances.


"If you have a position on the ultimate nature of the beginning of the universe, then yes - it is a faith issue. I don't. "

You don't? Let me ask you this question: why are you pursuing the answers to these questions about evidence? Are you wanting a position?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Josephus
"I think that this is poor evidence."

Then what will convince you?

Very good question. I guess a good start would be a testable prediction from that would and must occur as a consequence of the theory. If such a prediction could be made, and an alternate prediction could not have served just as well in its place if we discovered that it was not the case, and we discover that the prediction is born out by data properly collected from nature - then I would consider the creation theory (or at least that part of it supported by the evidence) as having some evidence for it. Get a few of these together, and several unsuccessful attempts to falsify it (because the data do not falsify, not because the theory is unfalsifiable), then I will start thinking of it as a good theory. Do this for a hundred years straight with several predictions and thousands of observations of the predicted results, and I will be convinced.

It is Psalms that says "A man is a fool if he says in his heart 'there is no God'." Notice it says heart, and not mind. Obviously, the mind has all the evidence it needs.

A person who does not believe in God probably doesn't see anything especially compelling about this Bible verse.

"It may be that virtually every combination of "factors" could produce life of some kind. "

It MAY be or it MAY NOT be. We can't know. I personally would not stake my eternal soul on such odds and chances.

Exactly: when you get beyond the study of the observable universe and its features there can be no certainty for any hypothesis. It is basically a big field of ignorance. Assuming I had an eternal soul, I would not voluntarily stake it on any position held in spite of ignorance. But we can't choose what we believe. We must believe what we are convinced of. Otherwise, we are lying to ourselves.

"If you have a position on the ultimate nature of the beginning of the universe, then yes - it is a faith issue. I don't. "

You don't? Let me ask you this question: why are you pursuing the answers to these questions about evidence? Are you wanting a position?

Not really. I acknowledge ignorance. I think that it is important to discover what can be discovered, and acknowledge ignorance of that which is beyond the realm of scientific inquiry (I guess you see that my epistemology is based entirely in the empirical).. It is because of these priorities that I pursue discussions like this one.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Josephus
Yes. The chances of this universe existing for us to exist. Even Stephen Hawking is at a point where he reconizes the need for God to explain the perfection and apparent chances for everything to have gone right for such an impossibly-existing universe comming into existence. The chances I think are like 1 in 10 to the 63 power. And that's just for one factor. There are perhaps at least 75 factors necessary..if you think of all the chances for all these factors to be right and perfect for our existence, then personally, I think, it requires more faith to believe it happened that way, than to believe God is responsible for creation.

1. Where do those outrageous numbers come from?

2. Why do you assert that Hawking believes in a personal God? Are you saying he's a Christian? Because if not, then his opinion would not support Christian creationism.

As I said, mathematically, it makes sense to believe in a God than to accept the impossible chances for the existence of existence. Ultimately it is a faith issue, no matter which side of the fence you are on.

It takes a HUGE leap of faith from using probabilistic arguments to believe in a creator to suddenly accepting Christian theology.

How do you rationally get from Point A to Point B?

If you believe that, then you're missing the idea that God destroyed every liviing thing on the world in Noah's time, so where only Noah and his family survived. Noah is a direct descendent of Adam.

I disagree completely! I assert that we are all descendents of Epimetheus and Pandora!

There are only two possibilities: we were created or we evolved. So either you believe the godless ideology of evolution, or you accept that we were all divinely created by Hephaestus. All the evidence you have presented against evolution therefore proves the existence of the Greek pantheon.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Oh, and Josephus: Happy Birthday

 

[papakapp]

Cancer to 'un-equality' :

I assume you wanted people to take accounts from the bible and make predictions about real world situations and then check to see if those predictions are correct.


#1)) Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.


After reading this verse I predict that no beneficial mutations will ever be observed. I further predict that mutations will never be observed that add new genetic data; Only mutations that scramble existing data.


***If you ask me to define the word 'kind' I would like to point out that you are brainwashed. You are brainwashed to have a knee jerk reaction every time you hear the word 'kind' in this type of debate and you are incapable of thinking for yourself and incapable of realising that an exact definition of the word kind in not critical to understanding this particular point. It is only dogging the issue.

#2)) Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

After reading this verse I predict that the entire earth would have evidence of water being on top of it. This evidence would be in the form of hydrologic sorting.

***For those of you who believe the layers of the earth are different eras (Cambrian, Meseozoic, Paleozoic, etc...)
where did all the dirt come from to make every layer except the first one? Wouldn't the previous layer get destroyed to come up with the dirt to create the latter layers? I mean think about it, 70% of the oldest layer is still in tact. Are we to assume that all the dirt for the next 6 or however many layers there are came only out of the 30% of the earth that we observe to be disturbed today?

One final thing. I always thought that when somone said "show me evidence for creation" I took it to mean "show me evidence that the bible is factually true"

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
and we discover that the prediction is born out by data properly collected from nature

There goes the reliability of your methodology right down the tubes.

1. How can you know that your data was properly collected? This is much trickier than you think. Most dating techniquest (yes, even isochron) depend upon many assumptions that simply are not verifiable. Therefore your data collection is always suspect no matter how "proper" you were in collecting it.

2. "from nature" eliminates the possibility of the supernatural. But if it is possible we were created supernaturally, then you cannot rule it out in your analysis by limiting your observations to nature. Otherwise you are simply setting yourself up to come to the wrong conclusion.

A person who does not believe in God probably doesn't see anything especially compelling about this Bible verse.

Agreed. But you can work out that little detail with God when you bow before Him.

Assuming I had an eternal soul, I would not voluntarily stake it on any position held in spite of ignorance.

Also agreed. I did not stake my eternal soul on creation vs. evolution. In fact, I believed in evolution for many years after becoming a Christian at the late age of 33 (after being a card-carrying evangelical athiest). I changed my mind about creation vs. evolution long after I dealt with the issues that are really important.

But we can't choose what we believe.

Ah, so you are a Calvanist.