Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[pshun2404]

A necessary form of being outside of space, outside of time, everywhere responsible for all that materially exists...wow!

 

[tas8831]

pshun2404 - I have asked you any number of things that went ignored, so please forgive me if I do not respond to your every utterance.

Tas I asked you..."
IF the Universe (Space-Time plus Matter-Energy) had a beginning, then when space-time and matter-energy began to be, it's source was non-material, without spacial location, and timeless.

So you assume and assert.

Demonstrating a non-material existence outside of time as the source for the Universe (hence nature which is all the forms, inter-active forces, and inter-dependent functions of the Universe).

Non-sequitur.

Why assume this when the source could be a pre-existing material source? Expansion-collapse-expansion-collapse.

Now when this beginning occurred it was replete with the laws and principles of chemistry and physics, and included gravity and the strong and weak forces, and so on, necessary to and that govern all matter-energy used in the formation of planets and stars (which all form the same way everywhere we can detect). This may imply a sort of "consciousness" as many physicists are beginning to implicate.

There is that "many" thing again - last time you made a similar claim, you ended up retracting it completely because you could not name even 1.

So name some of these "many physicists.'

A timeless non-material unlimited (no-spacial PLACE in something greater) form of being that is responsible for bringing all this about???? What would you call it? The ancients called it God.

I would call it wishful thinking, since this is all premised on a BIG IF.


IF the universe really was created by some out-of-time ethereal being, I am still 100% unconvinced that such a being is the 0ne described in any ancient set of tales, for to me it defies logic and all reason that such a being would behave as any of the deities depicted in ancient tales.

And why only 1 being? Why not many?


Anyway, there, answered.




Now please explain how it is that both you and another person from yahoo answers 10 years ago just happened to pick the same handful of SAME GENES and include the same descriptions for those genes, with only the Yahoo answers poster providing a source.

 

[pshun2404]

I did answer that. You were just not satisfied with the answer. Either we both saw this in the same place or that was also me...hope this helped! Since the information cannot be "cited" at this point 100s of 1000s of studies later, I will be sure to never use this example again...thanks for pointing it out.

 

[pshun2404]

IF the Universe (Space-Time plus Matter-Energy) had a beginning, then when space-time and matter-energy began to be, it's source was non-material, without spacial location, and timeless.

So you assume and assert.

Since space and time are qualities of his universe and the universe came into existence at some point, prior to its becoming space and time did not exist. The universe thus did not become IN some space nor did it become at some point in time since both are part of the product.

Demonstrating a non-material existence outside of time as the source for the Universe (hence nature which is all the forms, inter-active forces, and inter-dependent functions of the Universe).

Non-sequitur. Why assume this when the source could be a pre-existing material source? Expansion-collapse-expansion-collapse

I actually was a proponent of the oscillating universe theory for a long time...it is a variety of Hindu philosophy, but note in the first statement the IF/THEN proposal. IF the Universe DID have a beginning (which the physics is implicating), THEN “a non-material existence outside of time as the source for the Universe” IS demonstrated and thus not a non-sequitur.

There is that "many" thing again - last time you made a similar claim, you ended up retracting it completely because you could not name even 1. So name some of these "many physicists.'

Here are some (more than a few)..

Max Plank; John A. Wheeler; Robert Rickenbach; Martin Rees; Paul Davies; Frederick Hoyle; Eugene Wigner; Erwin Schroedinger; R.C. Henry; Karla Galdemez; Archibald Wheeler; Gregory Matloff

They all believe the material universe is the result of a non-material reality in some form or another.

Yes all this is predicated on a big IF which appears to be becoming more and more likely.

 

[Astrophile]

Vacuum energy IS an all pervading energy that exists IN space (as do quantum fluctuations) so no one can...this that I was speaking of existed already when space-time and all matter-energy BEGAN to exist, so again these things are part of the post big bang phenomena (the after effect). The question you answered (which was to Tas) referred to the limitless timeless non-material source from whence all of Nature (including these phenomena) came forth.

So far as I understand it, the 'limitless timeless non-material source from whence all of nature came forth' is the energy of the vacuum.

All this is extreme science, and one needs to have studied relativity and quantum theory at a very high level to understand it. According to A.V. Filippenko and J.M. Pasachoff, in The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 'In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition' - https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing . On pages 144-145 of The Grand design, Stephen Hawking says 'Since the uncertainty principle does not allow the values of both the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty. It can have a state of minimum energy, called the vacuum, but that state is subject to what are called quantum jitters - or vacuum fluctuations, particles and fields quivering in and out of existence.' Perhaps this means that in the vacuum, space and time are also quivering in and out of existence, so that space and time, as well as mass-energy, came into existence as a consequence of a vacuum fluctuation.

Even if you interpret this 'limitless timeless non-material source from whence all of nature came forth' as God, it seems to me to be a sort of impersonal deist god, not the personal god of Judaism and Christianity.

 

[pshun2404]

So far as I understand it, the 'limitless timeless non-material source from whence all of nature came forth' is the energy of the vacuum.

All this is extreme science, and one needs to have studied relativity and quantum theory at a very high level to understand it. According to A.V. Filippenko and J.M. Pasachoff, in The Cosmos: Astronomy in the New Millennium, 'In the inflationary theory, matter, antimatter and photons were produced by the energy of the false vacuum, which was released following the phase transition' - https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing . On pages 144-145 of The Grand design, Stephen Hawking says 'Since the uncertainty principle does not allow the values of both the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty. It can have a state of minimum energy, called the vacuum, but that state is subject to what are called quantum jitters - or vacuum fluctuations, particles and fields quivering in and out of existence.' Perhaps this means that in the vacuum, space and time are also quivering in and out of existence, so that space and time, as well as mass-energy, came into existence as a consequence of a vacuum fluctuation.

Even if you interpret this 'limitless timeless non-material source from whence all of nature came forth' as God, it seems to me to be a sort of impersonal deist god, not the personal god of Judaism and Christianity.

Personal or impersonal matters not to this discussion. The "energy of the vacuum" is a product, and part of the extant universe (which had a beginning), so apparently you do not get it....The matter energy that is within space time (which are all part of the Universe) could not have preceded their own becoming or else their becoming already occurred. What you are stuck on is a form of the steady state theory (matter and energy are eternal) which is a different issue. Is this what you believe?

 

[Gene2memE]

Re-read the title of this thread...physics is pointing to a limitless, timeless, non-material source that brought forth the Universe (space and time) or that the Universe came from

Cool.

Which theory, hypothesis or set of academic papers in physics would I look up if I wanted to verify that "a limitless, timeless, non-material source that brought forth the Universe"? What academic source would I go to to look up more information.

If what you say is true, then actual physicists are surely writing and researching these things and postulating about sources of the universe that are "non-material, without spacial location, and timeless".

Surely a proper reference or two isn't too much to ask.

 

[pshun2404]

"limitless, timeless, non-material" are my words, but when physics implies to physicists that there was a big bang moment and that consciousness is primary to matter this changes the padadigm. It is not si much specific experiments as their conclusions. No one can accuse these people of being creationists but here are some of those conclusions and references to explore for your edification in this matter and as TAS pointed out it rests on a big IF/THEN premise...

After Max Planck said “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness” physicists started to think outside the box...so you may find the following interesting.

Physicist Sir James Jeans wrote: “The stream of knowledge is heading toward a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. Get over it, and accept the inarguable conclusion. The universe is immaterial-mental and spiritual.” Cited by R.C. Henry, Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, in “The Mental Universe” ; Nature 436:29,2005)


“It will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the scientific conclusion that the content of the consciousness is the ultimate universal reality” Eugene Wigner

“Consciousness cannot be accounted for in physical terms. For consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else.” Schroedinger, Erwin. 1984. “General Scientific and Popular Papers,” in Collected Papers, Vol. 4. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences

“Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality “ (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect):
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality

If interested see also:

George Wald, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15

The Universe: Past and Present Reflections, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle

Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, Simon and Schuster, 1984 N.Y. Astrophysicist Paul Davies

“Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984, Physiologist George Wald

The Symbiotic Universe, William Morrow & Co, 1989, astrophysicist George Greenstein

Information, physics, quantum: The search for links, 1990, Physicist John Archibald Wheeler

A new paradigm is on the scientific horizon, prepare to embrace it when it comes!

 

[Gene2memE]

A new paradigm is on the scientific horizon, prepare to embrace it when it comes!

A new paradigm .... yeah, right.

The most recent of those quote mines and papers appears to be from 1990. For something to be new, it needs to not be old enough to have completed its doctorate at university.

The most substantial of them are from the 1930s and 1940s - and Planck and Schrodinger, at least, freely admit they were speaking philosophically, rather than from any basis in hard science, when discussing consciousness. Not sure about Jeans though, as I've not read much by him and very little on him.

Where's the actual research that backs up your claim? Most of what you've alluded to seems to actually argue AGAINST your assertion. I have The Symbotic Universe on my bookshelf (now unpacked, yay!). Greenstein is an atheist and he flat out rejects the notion of a divine or supernatural creator or God.

From Page 189 (1998, first edition): "We cannot explain by reference to God the fitness of the cosmos for life. I'll go further: We cannot explain ANYTHING in this way. It is no more than a confession of ignorance to give a religious answer to a question pertaining to matters of fact"

From Page 197: "I cannot accept the notion that it was God Himself who so carefully crafted the cosmos in order that it might being forth life. I reject the supernatural."

When you're done ripping off webpages of mind/consciousness quote mines (hello Uncommon Descent folks) and want to actually talk like an d adult and back up your assertions, drop me a private message.

 

[pshun2404]

I doubt any of them are theists, that was one of the points...and strange that one would call these quote mining. I wonder, if they supported your view, if you would still categorize them as such?

For something to be new, it needs to not be old enough to have completed its doctorate at university.

You have a problem with Nobel Laureates if they interpret the evidence different from you? I feel sad for you. And why is only "new" being allowed (some would say ten years, others allow the last 20, and the rest have open minds seeing all that science has done as good and all the views as possible).

And how old is too old anyway...so many atheists I speak with will go back as far as necessary to make their point (and that is supposed to be okay)....so imagine if we should not consider any older than 8 years ago where science would be? You would have to reject the work of all your favorites...that is so infantile and absurd I cannot even fathom being so dwarfed in my opinion. There goes Darwin and Einstein, and let’s not forget we cannot consider McClintock or Crick, or even Venter or Collins for that matter...hell throw it all out...using any of them to make a point is obviously twisting one’s spin, right? It is far too old to be considered good science...and of yeah do not forget what is accepted can only be items published in particular peer reviewed journals that hold your view...might as well fully stack the deck against original thought or insight...

 

[Motherofkittens]

I doubt any of them are theists, that was one of the points...and strange that one would call these quote mining. I wonder, if they supported your view, if you would still categorize them as such?

For something to be new, it needs to not be old enough to have completed its doctorate at university.

You have a problem with Nobel Laureates if they interpret the evidence different from you? I feel sad for you. And why is only "new" being allowed (some would say ten years, others allow the last 20, and the rest have open minds seeing all that science has done as good and all the views as possible).

And how old is too old anyway...so many atheists I speak with will go back as far as necessary to make their point (and that is supposed to be okay)....so imagine if we should not consider any older than 8 years ago where science would be? You would have to reject the work of all your favorites...that is so infantile and absurd I cannot even fathom being so dwarfed in my opinion. There goes Darwin and Einstein, and let’s not forget we cannot consider McClintock or Crick, or even Venter or Collins for that matter...hell throw it all out...using any of them to make a point is obviously twisting one’s spin, right? It is far too old to be considered good science...and of yeah do not forget what is accepted can only be items published in particular peer reviewed journals that hold your view...might as well fully stack the deck against original thought or insight...

You are the one that said this was a "new paradigm ". They are just pointing out it is certainly not new.

In science new information is constantly being updated and we are learning more and more, so one should preferably use the newest research that is out there (as that is likely to be the one that fits best with reality). However if there is only "older" research or the newest research still fits best with what the "older" research says, then of course it is fine to use it.

 

[pshun2404]

I did not say this IS a NEW paradigm but

a) that IF true, will change the present paradigm (strict materialist reductionism), and afterward...
b) that it is introducing a new one...it is on the horizon....

The study of consciousness and the realization that it is non-material is just a baby for most scientists.

But it does seem relative as a possible indicator of a creator or intelligence within and behind what we perceive as reality, another is the evidence of empirical experience. By the way I love Kittens...

"In science new information is constantly being updated and we are learning more and more, so one should preferably use the newest research that is out there (as that is likely to be the one that fits best with reality). However if there is only "older" research or the newest research still fits best with what the "older" research says, then of course it is fine to use it."

I 100% agree so long as one separates the data from the story told to explain it in light of one's world view, but IMO that is not what the other poster was implying anyway as I have bumped into this so often and when taken to its logical conclusion such a position is against real progress and enlightenment. It closes the minds to alternate possibilities.

 

[Motherofkittens]

I did not say THIS was a new paradigm but

a) that IF true will change the present paradigm, and after
b) that it is introducing a new one...it is on the horizon....

The study of consciousness and the realization that it is non-material is just a baby for most scientists.

But it does seem relative as a possible indicator of a creator or intelligence within and behind what we perceive as reality, another is the evidence of empirical experience. By the way I love Kittens...

Ah. I misunderstood. Sorry.

I would be really excited if it were true. Aliens and/or advanced beings? Awesome! I want to know EVERYTHING. But I highly doubt any religion on earth has it right. And evolution would still be a fact, just perhaps, only perhaps, even if everything you think is true is indeed true, could be directly or indirectly caused "with a purpose". Which most Christians already think.

Not trying to go off topic but.. the kitty in my avatar Yuri, was born a guinea pig. I have two more huge cats named Jackie and Charlie and my newest baby is a rabbit named Hitchens (yes, after Christopher, although I disagree with him on many things), but I usually just call her "Hitch".

 

[pshun2404]

Ah. I misunderstood. Sorry.

I would be really excited if it were true. Aliens and/or advanced beings? Awesome! I want to know EVERYTHING. But I highly doubt any religion on earth has it right. And evolution would still be a fact, just perhaps, only perhaps, even if everything you think is true is indeed true, could be directly or indirectly caused "with a purpose". Which most Christians already think.

Not trying to go off topic but.. the kitty in my avatar Yuri, was born a guinea pig. I have two more huge cats named Jackie and Charlie and my newest baby is a rabbit named Hitchens (yes, after Christopher, although I disagree with him on many things), but I usually just call her "Hitch".

Without a doubt I believe in evolution as the process of change (whether an approach intended by a God or not)...I am NOT a Christian that does not believe in evolution just not everything all evolutionists accept as true (I also accept that there must be a creator, but do not believe everything all creationists accept as true).

 

[HiEv]

I asked you for what would count as evidence that would convince you of the validity of the theory of evolution, and you totally ignored the question. Care to actually answer the question?

God is truth. I can experience this truth. This truth indwells within me.

This isn't an answer to my question, so I guess your answer is no, you don't care to actually answer the question.

Great. Thanks.

(snipping out irrelevant and off-topic claims)

God tells me that evolution is a product of unbelief and pride.
A straightout refusal to accept and believe that the Word of God is true.
Absolutely.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
By design for a purpose without any need for evolution whatsoever.

Well, as I pointed out earlier, you're in the minority among Christians worldwide in that belief. I showed you actual clergy who believe that God tells them something else entirely.

So why does your personal belief about what you think God says to you, trump what all of those members of clergy think that God says to them? Is it at all possible you're wrong?

Why would I want to put any faith into false science and supposition?

"Faith" means believing things for no good reason, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. I'm not asking you to believe something for no good reason, I'm asking you to believe something because of lots of good reasons, not the least of which is that it's the best objective scientific explanation we have for all of the data we find all around us pointing to the most probable natural conclusion: evolution through natural selection.

The Bible cannot count as objective evidence for creationism, because books are not objective sources of information about reality. One cannot study the data to determine if it is true, merely by looking at the book itself. No, in order to determine objectively what is most likely to be true, you have to look at the world outside that book, and draw your conclusions from the data that we find there.

If we got rid of all of the writings and knowledge of both religion and evolution, we could still get back to the conclusion that things most likely evolved from a common ancestor through natural selection. We could not do the same for creationism. That's because creationism isn't founded upon objective data about the real world, it's founded purely in religious dogma.

This is why the theory of evolution isn't "false science" or "supposition". Unlike creationism, it's demonstrable and verifiable, and has repeatedly been verified to be true, thus is scientific.

So why would I want to believe something which isn't based on objective data and doesn't make objective, scientific, testable, and well verified claims, when I have something that does?

How about some evidence at the real world level.

OK then, what evidence of evolution "at the real world level" would you find convincing? (Please make sure what you're asking for is something that the theory of evolution actually says we should find. Creationists far too frequently ask for things which would actually be evidence against evolution.)

Those who blindly uphold evolution and its insufficiencies of explanation insist, no demand, that the only evidence acceptable to people of "science" is material empirical evidence.

They harden their hearts to faith

That's because one could believe literally anything by faith. And if you could believe anything, even untrue things, by faith, then faith is not a reliable path to truth.

On the other hand, empirical objective evidence produced through the scientific method and objective observation has repeatedly demonstrated that it's the most reliable path to discovering how the world around us really works.

So, yeah, I prefer a method of proven reliability over a method of proven unreliability. Cuff me officer.

In any case, if your "evidence" for creationism comes down to blind faith in one book written by dozens of individuals who operated without the scientific method thousands of years ago, where some of the chapters are known to be forgeries, I'm going to have to say that your evidence isn't particularly convincing.

 

[Waggles]

@HiEv
Your reply is proof that ignorance of truth is the basis on which those with faith
in evolution stand upon.
There is no "empirical objective evidence produced through the scientific method and
objective observation" when it comes to Darwinism and evolution.

The really big problem for those who put their faith into false science and false theories
about life and human existence is that the very God [Jesus] who created life and us
is returning to judge all of humankind.
No amount of denial or unbelief can thwart this momentous and terrifying event.
Jesus is the truth about everything, evolution ain't.

If you do not want to learn of God and receive God dwelling within you then you will
never ever understand the truth of God nor experience God in this world.
Like all those clergy, who without the indwelling Holy Spirit, are dead wrong.
Knowledge is not just limited to what you define it to be.

 

[pitabread]

There is no "empirical objective evidence produced through the scientific method and
objective observation" when it comes to Darwinism and evolution.

Of course there is. I generally find though that people who deny it are either simply ignorant of what exists in terms of evidence and/or don't have enough of an understanding of the theory of evolution and the scientific method to understand what the evidence looks like.

For example, I see creationists deny independent phylogenetic tree reconstruction as evidence for common ancestry, yet at the same time demonstrate zero understanding of what phylogenetic trees are or how they are constructed. It points to a significant disconnect.

The really big problem for those who put their faith into false science and false theories
about life and human existence is that the very God [Jesus] who created life and us
is returning to judge all of humankind.

Oh look, it's the typical threat of judgement again. How boring.

 

[HiEv]

@HiEv
Your reply is proof that ignorance of truth is the basis on which those with faith
in evolution stand upon.
There is no "empirical objective evidence produced through the scientific method and
objective observation" when it comes to Darwinism and evolution.

If anything is an example of ignorance, it would be your assumption that evidence for evolution does not exist.

You do understand that just because you haven't seen something which you would categorize as evidence, that that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, right?

I've seen first hand that evolution works. I'm a computer programmer, and I've used genetic algorithms to evolve solutions to complex problems. I've literally used functional examples of evolution to solve problems. I've also studied biology and evolution, so I can see how genetics could work in the same way.

That being said, I noticed you've utterly failed to answer the question I put to you earlier. So I'm going to repeat it for you, "louder" this time:

What evidence of evolution "at the real world level" would you find convincing? (Please make sure what you're asking for is something that the theory of evolution actually says we should find. Creationists far too frequently ask for things which would actually be evidence against evolution.)

You can keep on repeating "evidence doesn't exist" until you're blue in the face, but until I know what you think that evidence would look like, I can neither provide you with evidence that would satisfy you nor explain why what you think would be evidence for evolution isn't actually anything evolution claims.

So please, instead of merely making another battery of assertions, answer this question so I can demonstrate the examples of that which you insist does not exist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Your reply is proof that ignorance of truth is the basis on which those with faith
in evolution stand upon.

Actually, I read the bible before I had much of an education in regards to evolution. My support of the theory actually has nothing to do with the fact that I am an atheist at all. I know this is directed at a different poster, but I felt like replying to it anyway, because of the generalization you made

There is no "empirical objective evidence produced through the scientific method and
objective observation" when it comes to Darwinism and evolution.

I'm doing an evolution experiment myself, which is interactive feel free to participate if you want, because I am tired of people saying that, and I am tired of people being dismissive of the much easier and faster experiments involving bacteria.

The really big problem for those who put their faith into false science and false theories
about life and human existence is that the very God [Jesus] who created life and us
is returning to judge all of humankind.

I hope you're right, even if it does damn me to the lake of fire. I'd rather eternal hell over the end of existence any day. That's my personal opinion, as most atheists actually would disagree with that, but whatever.

No amount of denial or unbelief can thwart this momentous and terrifying event.
Jesus is the truth about everything, evolution ain't.

No denial going on here, I've been a seeker for 9 years. Also, it would be incredibly stupid to think denying something would suddenly not make it true; if that were the case, I'd try my very best to be in denial about death.

If you do not want to learn of God and receive God dwelling within you then you will
never ever understand the truth of God nor experience God in this world.

Sigh, I hate this assertion, for the obvious reasons of the fact that it's a mental trap you've willingly put yourself in. If you are wrong about that, there's no way for any non-believer to be able to display it to you, because no two people have exactly the same interpretation of the bible. Anyone with this personal view has no reason to debate non-believers ever. Mentioning it doesn't support your position, and it makes it very clear you don't actually care to hear ours.

Like all those clergy, who without the indwelling Holy Spirit, are dead wrong.
Knowledge is not just limited to what you define it to be.

The actual definitions of knowledge limit it to what is actually already known, though no one is denying that there is more out there we don't know yet (and probably plenty that's unknowable).

 

[pshun2404]

"What evidence of evolution "at the real world level" would you find convincing? (Please make sure what you're asking for is something that the theory of evolution actually says we should find.?).?.?"

I see all sorts of examples of many evolutionary processes and principles at work but some are just hypothesis based interpretations of data that can be viewed in other ways. So in answer to your question, for starters, try fish transforming into amphibians, or amphibians transforming into reptiles, and we can move on from there. And please no "historical narratives" (which are imposed) as Mayr calls them, just actual "observable" data.

*parenthesis mine