My Knowledge Challenge

[Tiberius]

For the purposes of this thread, I know nothing of either creationism (in any form) or the scientific explanation for why things are as they are (which includes but is not limited to evolution).

Convince me that what you believe is correct, be it evolution, creationism, whatever. I will believe anything, provided that you back up your statements with at least two pieces of independent evidence that are valid (so no hearsay, etc. It's gotta be falsifiable, in other words, there must be some hypothetical way to show that it is wrong). I also reserve the right to dismiss a statement that fits the above criteria in order to accept another statement that has a greater amount of supporting evidence.

Go for it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well that's all the religions thrown out of the window.

You're trying to pit the natural against the supernatural which is not possible, the natural is what we all live with and the supernatural is what some would like to live with if only they knew what it was and where to find it.

Actually the 'natural' state of the universe is death, or, 'dead' matter. Only on earth is there life. So what many believe to be 'natural' is really 'super'natural when viewed against the entire known universe.

Sadly though science uses the sheer size of the universe to declare that by reason of 'odds' there must be other life out there, the same way they declare that because the earth has existed for so long that life forms here must have slowly 'evolved'. However they never publish those 'odds', which by any reasonable account would be so far-fetched as to be beyond laughable.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

For the purposes of this thread, I know nothing of either creationism (in any form) or the scientific explanation for why things are as they are (which includes but is not limited to evolution).

Convince me that what you believe is correct, be it evolution, creationism, whatever. I will believe anything, provided that you back up your statements with at least two pieces of independent evidence that are valid (so no hearsay, etc. It's gotta be falsifiable, in other words, there must be some hypothetical way to show that it is wrong). I also reserve the right to dismiss a statement that fits the above criteria in order to accept another statement that has a greater amount of supporting evidence.

Go for it.

I would rest my arguement for creation soley on the (aforementioned) odds. The chances of special creation are 100 per cent. The odds of evolution are so small that they really cannot be expressed in any reasonable way.

 

[DrkSdBls]

I would rest my arguement for creation soley on the (aforementioned) odds. The chances of special creation are 100 per cent. The odds of evolution are so small that they really cannot be expressed in any reasonable way.

Odds, Probability, by it's very meaning, is proof of nothing. You can flip a coin a thousand times and it could land on heads 999 times but all it needs to do is land on tails once to prove that it's possible, for the first 999 flips were 100% heads until a tails comes up. But once you concede that, indeed, Tails is a "Possible" outcome, you made your entire Argument Moot for You have Admitted that Evolution, regardless of how small a chance there is, is a possible outcome, so a unless you have Evidence to support Special Creation, You've Debated yourself into a corner.

Given that Special Creation is 100% possible still does not mean it's proven correct and so the odds are meaningless. Special Creation is "Possible" while Evolution is "Probable" with Evidence that, to put it lightly, Points in it's direction and not to Special Creation.

 

[Tiberius]

I would rest my arguement for creation soley on the (aforementioned) odds. The chances of special creation are 100 per cent. The odds of evolution are so small that they really cannot be expressed in any reasonable way.

Would you care to support these claims? Like I said, I want at least two pieces of verifiable evidence.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Odds, Probability, by it's very meaning, is proof of nothing. You can flip a coin a thousand times and it could land on heads 999 times but all it needs to do is land on tails once to prove that it's possible, for the first 999 flips were 100% heads until a tails comes up. But once you concede that, indeed, Tails is a "Possible" outcome, you made your entire Argument Moot for You have Admitted that Evolution, regardless of how small a chance there is, is a possible outcome, so a unless you have Evidence to support Special Creation, You've Debated yourself into a corner.

Given that Special Creation is 100% possible still does not mean it's proven correct and so the odds are meaningless. Special Creation is "Possible" while Evolution is "Probable" with Evidence that, to put it lightly, Points in it's direction and not to Special Creation.

Both points of view claim 'something from nothing'. The next step is deciding whether an intelligent force purposefully developed the stuff that came from nothing, or not. It may be a question of 'chaos vs order'. There is no 'order' in evolution, by the very nature of the theory (and the admission of science).

 

[Jazer]

Convince me that what you believe is correct

In Grade School in our Math class they showed us how to check our solution to make sure that it is correct. There are ways to do that with the Bible. For example, God gave Moses His whole plan of salvation. So I always look to see what Moses has to say about something. That may not help some people though because Moses wrote in what they call shaddows and types. So when Moses says something like: Psalms 90:4 "For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night." For some people that is just to difficult for them to understand. I assume what your looking for is plain language that can be verified with something independent. I use science all the time to verify that the Bible is accurate and true. They have used archaeology for hundreds of years to show that the Bible is true and accurate. There are many many many ways to check the Bible to verify the accuracy we find in the Bible.

 

[Jazer]

Both points of view claim 'something from nothing'.

I do not know how you get something from nothing. The universe is expanding or contracting: The Big Bang or the Big Crunch, but there has always been something there. It is really a question of our limits in regard to what is known and what is unknown. All of evolution is based on change and you always have to have something to change.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I do not know how you get something from nothing. The universe is expanding or contracting: The Big Bang or the Big Crunch, but there has always been something there. It is really a question of our limits in regard to what is known and what is unknown. All of evolution is based on change and you always have to have something to change.

But what about Gen 1:1, which describes the 'beginning' of the created universe? Did God create the heavens and the earth out of stuff that already existed, or did he bring the material universe into being by the word of his power? In for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Would you care to support these claims? Like I said, I want at least two pieces of verifiable evidence.

This question is more philosophical than scientific. If I'm not mistaken the birth of philosophy was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Reasoning replaced proof, as absolute proof was not possible. It is only recently that this reasoning has led away from the spiritual toward the material.

 

[Jazer]

But what about Gen 1:1, which describes the 'beginning' of the created universe? Did God create the heavens and the earth out of stuff that already existed, or did he bring the material universe into being by the word of his power? In for a penny, in for a pound.

There is no reason to believe there was nothing here before. The Hebrew word created is used when someone cuts down a tree to make a house or furniture. From science we know that how ever long it took God to create mankind we find Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden (Middle East) 6,000 years ago. For God the beginning is the first fruit, when a tree begins to produce food. For us the beginning is when the seed begins to grow a sprout.

Now maybe a good time to start to sprout our seeds. It looks like it is going to be an early spring. I tend to plant early then I cover the plants at night to hold the heat in. One year we had tomatoes around a month sooner then anyone else in our area.

1:1 In the beginning God created * the heaven and the earth.

AV - create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1,
done 1, make fat 1; 54

1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

 

[Davian]

I would rest my arguement for creation soley on the (aforementioned) odds. The chances of special creation are 100 per cent.

"Creation" implies the need for a "creator" - a deity, one would presume. Where has it been established that deities are even possible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There is no reason to believe there was nothing here before.

What about Hebrews 11:3?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+11:3&version=KJV
"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."

In other words there is a point where the material universe at the sub-sub-sub atomic level interfaces with the spiritual, the word-power of God, the actual force that 'upholds all things'. Isn't 'string theory' a convoluted attempt to explain this phenomenon?

 

[DrkSdBls]

Both points of view claim 'something from nothing'.

Correction. Evolution only Claims there is change in pre-existing life. Only Special Creation claim Something from Nothing.

The next step is deciding whether an intelligent force purposefully developed the stuff that came from nothing, or not. It may be a question of 'chaos vs order'. There is no 'order' in evolution, by the very nature of the theory (and the admission of science).

No, the next step..... Which, in the Case of special creation, is actually the First step, is for you to provide some evidence for Special Creation before we can "decide" anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

This thread is the atheist's version of my apple challenge.

If I didn't have that apple challenge, I would be tempted to QV people to this thread whenever they start barking for evidence of creatio ex nihilo.

 

[Tiberius]

This question is more philosophical than scientific. If I'm not mistaken the birth of philosophy was an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Reasoning replaced proof, as absolute proof was not possible. It is only recently that this reasoning has led away from the spiritual toward the material.

I fail to see how asking for evidence is philosophical, not scientific.

This thread is the atheist's version of my apple challenge.

If I didn't have that apple challenge, I would be tempted to QV people to this thread whenever they start barking for evidence of creatio ex nihilo.

Once again you get it wrong, AV. This thread is not to show that creation from nothing leaves no evidence (and couldn't God make it leave evidence if he so wanted?) but to show that there is no good reason to believe something that has no evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

... there is no good reason to believe something that has no evidence.

Spoken like a true scientist?

 

[Tiberius]

You think that it's bad advice?

If not for verifiable evidence, how should we decide what to believe?

 

[cupid dave]

I do not know how you get something from nothing. The universe is expanding or contracting: The Big Bang or the Big Crunch, but there has always been something there. It is really a question of our limits in regard to what is known and what is unknown. All of evolution is based on change and you always have to have something to change.

Cosmic Evolution had a beginning when pre-existing pure Enery converted into Matter with a Big Bang that hurled elemental particles out in an ever growing expansion of the newly appeared Space required to contain such matter.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,...

...in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.

 

[Huram Abi]

This diagram is incorrectly enumerated.


It shows 9 stages, not 7.