Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[SkyWriting]

Well, something made the font size on the link larger. I've never seen the font size change by itself before, so I figured it was intentional.

Nope. Just simple cut and paste.

Do Black Holes Really Exist? - One Universe at a Time

Well, not that time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's becasue Science is a popularity contest where
we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority
views are wrong.

No, you could not be more wrong. But then you knew that. Even a minority view can be shown to be right, with valid evidence.

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

 

[SkyWriting]

The problem is that there is no scientific evidence for your beliefs.

I guess you don't understand what Faith is.
70 Bible Verses about Faith
My evidence is not open to outside review. See Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, &3

28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him,“Because you have seen
Me, you have believed; blessed are those who
have not seen, and yet have believed.”

 

[Rajni]

Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.

I don't see why it can't be both. Obviously, there's a creator. I don't look at the pyramids and think, "Oh, look what just poofed into existence!" :-D

I also don't assume that the pyramids were built in 6 seconds as opposed to 6 years.

And with God, creation can happen in 6 seconds, 6 hours, 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, 6 hundred years, 6 thousand years, or only on Tuesdays. After lunch, of course!

Whatevs. It's all good! •‿•

 

[Subduction Zone]

I guess you don't understand what Faith is.
70 Bible Verses about Faith
My evidence is not open to outside review. See Answered Prayer - Steps 1, 2, &3

28 Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him,“Because you have seen
Me, you have believed; blessed are those who
have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Actually I do understand what faith is. You are the one that appears to not understand the fallacy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see why it can't be both. Obviously, there's a creator. I don't look at the pyramids and think, "Oh, look what just poofed into existence!" :-D

I also don't assume that the pyramids were built in 6 seconds as opposed to 6 years.

And with God, creation can happen in 6 seconds, 6 hours, 6 days, 6 months, 6 years, 6 hundred years, 6 thousand years, or only on Tuesdays. After lunch, of course!

Whatevs. It's all good! •‿•

But it is not obvious that there is a creator. Why do you think that it is?

 

[Rajni]

But it is not obvious that there is a creator. Why do you think that it is?

Maybe it depends on what one means by 'creator'.

As a theist, I lean more in the direction of it being an actual Entity of some kind, with a name, like "George". Perhaps "first cause" is a better term.

Of course, the question then becomes, what was the cause of the first cause?

Trying to pinpoint that feels like:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe it depends on what one means by 'creator'.

As a theist, I lean more in the direction of it being an actual Entity of some kind, with a name, like "George". Perhaps "first cause" is a better term.

Of course, the question then becomes, what was the cause of the first cause?

Trying to pinpoint that feels like:

Not knowing th eanswer is no reason to say that there had to be a creator.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's becasue Science is a popularity contest where
we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority
views are wrong.

That's not how it works; it's a competition between ideas - in principle, to challenge the current consensus (itself a survivor of harsh critical scrutiny), an idea must show its worth by being demonstrably better than other candidates, and at least as good as (or potentially as good as) the consensus best, judged according to the abductive criteria by a jury of experts and peers.

In practice, science being a human endeavour, it tends to be messier than it could be, and data is often in short supply, so the process may take much longer than is ideal. But the precautionary principle applies, so taking a bit longer is no bad thing; and it's not just a question of maintaining the status quo - there are plenty of people waiting to support a promising idea in the hope of pioneering a new approach and making a name for themselves.

 

[Rajni]

Not knowing th eanswer is no reason to say that there had to be a creator.

Can't rule it out, either. I don't know who built the house on 24th and Elm but I can't just assume there was no builder at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't rule it out, either. I don't know who built the house on 24th and Elm but I can't just assume there was no builder at all.

Bad analogy. Do you know why?

And no one has rule out a deity. But without evidence would believe in galaxy flatulating pixies? One believes in something after evidence has been give for it, not before.

 

[SkyWriting]

That's not how it works; it's a competition between ideas - in principle, to challenge the current consensus (itself a survivor of harsh critical scrutiny), an idea must show its worth by being demonstrably better than other candidates, and at least as good as (or potentially as good as) the consensus best, judged according to the abductive criteria by a jury of experts and peers.

In practice, science being a human endeavour, it tends to be messier than it could be, and data is often in short supply, so the process may take much longer than is ideal. But the precautionary principle applies, so taking a bit longer is no bad thing; and it's not just a question of maintaining the status quo - there are plenty of people waiting to support a promising idea in the hope of pioneering a new approach and making a name for themselves.

That's what I said. It's a popularity contest, for ideas. For example
there is a group for various supporters on who settled North America
first and each group battles against other groups on who was first.
It's like watching sports.

 

[Kylie]

That's what I said. It's a popularity contest, for ideas.
For example there is a group for various supporters on
who settled North America first and each group battles
against other groups on who was first. It's like sports.

You really don't understand science, do you?

It doesn't matter how popular an idea is. If it doesn't actually work, it will be rejected.

 

[SkyWriting]

You really don't understand science, do you?

It doesn't matter how popular an idea is. If it doesn't actually work, it will be rejected.

I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it. Just like here. People are all the same way. There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.

 

[Kylie]

I know how it really works. You may know the book definition but I've been in R&D most of my career. If an idea offends somebody, they ignore it. Just like here. People are all the same way. There are scientists on this forum and that's exactly how they are. Actually, they are the worst. They hold only to what is the most popular and always think they are right. Hardly ever open to different ideas unless it's hugely popular first.

So you are telling me you are a qualified scientist who thinks that science is determined purely by popularity?

Hahahahahahahahaha

Tell me then, how did plate tectonics come to be accepted as correct? When it was proposed, it was ridiculed! Or perhaps Alfred Wegener just paid off the majority of geologists to agree with him?

Please.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's what I said.

Nope - ".. we vote on what is true and what isn't. All minority views are wrong" - there's no voting, and we don't decide what's true and what isn't, and minority views are undecided until they're either falsified or shown to be better than the leading idea.

It's a popularity contest, for ideas.

Only to the extent that the ideas that work best are most popular, which I don't think is always true.

 

[tas8831]

We pay for the privilege of doing research for a diploma.

You may pay for it, but if you lie, cheat or steal, your money is wasted.

 

[Rajni]

Bad analogy. Do you know why?

And no one has rule out a deity. But without evidence would believe in galaxy flatulating pixies? One believes in something after evidence has been give for it, not before.

This just takes it back to everything ultimately pointing to a creator of some kind. For all we know, maybe it is "galaxy flatulating pixies". Speaking for myself, I see evidence of a creator. The nature of that creator is, of course, up for debate (a debate which helps keep online forums in business). But I can't rule out a First Cause.

Again, I'm not going to conclude that the pyramids just poofed into existence from nowhere. •‿•

 

[SkyWriting]

You may pay for it, but if you lie, cheat or steal, your money is wasted.

Right. Forum posts are not the same as dissertations.
I don't always cite my sources here. But I am willing to
when asked.

 

[SkyWriting]

there's no voting, and we don't decide what's true and what isn't, and minority views are undecided until they're either falsified or shown to be better than the leading idea.

You are describing the rules for a popularity contest for ideas.
This new study may explain why peer review in science often fails

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

Fake Paper Exposes Failed Peer Review | The Scientist Magazine