Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[pitabread]

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

In a nutshell, there is no evidence for creationism insofar as the Genesis account goes because the Earth and Universe do not look like they were created accordingly a literal Genesis interpretation.

There are no dating methods which corroborate a 6000 year old Earth and/or universe, no evidence that lifeforms were independently poofed into existence, no evidence that humans coexisted with all other forms of life at the same time, no evidence of a world-wide Flood ~4500 years ago, no evidence of the type of genetic bottlenecking that would occur if the world's populations were reduced in such an event, and so on.

Thus, creationists are basically stuck with the fact that everything about the Earth and universe doesn't support their interpretation of the religious book. Consequently, all they can really do is keep trying to discredit mainstream science and do so in a manner aimed at the lay public.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well matter doesn't just appear out of nothing.
So if you see something, it must be from God.

Virtual particles say that you are wrong:

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's some fantastical story telling, I'll give you that.

This "global conspiracy" (a.k.a., the Tribulation period) has been taught well before evolution became a public nuisance.

 

[AV1611VET]

In a nutshell, there is no evidence for creationism insofar as the Genesis account goes ...

That's brilliant!

I wish I'da thought of that!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well matter doesn't just appear out of nothing.
So if you see something, it must be from God.

Because you define God such that it doesn't just appear out of nothing, right? Special pleading anyone?

However, the flaw in this argument is that, consistent with the best-tested, and most successful theory of how our reality behaves, matter (and antimatter) does appear out of 'nothing' - when 'nothing' means 'a state without matter or forces, only quantum fields' (which is usually what is meant when physicists talk of 'nothing').

 

[dmmesdale]

If creationism is outside the realms of our science then science can neither prove or disprove it.

Why would creationism be outside the realms if science is a search for truth?

therefor to make an argument for creationism would be to argue against evolution because evolution is in the realms of science.

It is nothing more than a ginned up self-serving classification which relegates the most plausible model to a different category, so they do not have to consider it. Any appeal to intelligent causation in origin of life (pre biotic evolution) is dead on arrival no matter the strength of the arguments relative to its competing model. If only one answer is allowed then all you have is variations of the same model which says nothing about whether the naturalistic models are true of not. Naturalistic models are grossly insufficient given all we know about life.

 

[pitabread]

Any appeal to intelligent causation in origin of life (pre biotic evolution) is dead on arrival no matter the strength of the arguments relative to its competing model.

There is a difference between arguing in favor of intelligent causation and arguing in favor of supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is outside the realm of investigation by science by the simple fact that supernaturalism by definition is not bound by the natural order of the universe.

For example, if I told you that the entire universe was supernaturally created two days ago with the appearance of being billions of years old, there is no way to test such a claim.

 

[dmmesdale]

In a nutshell, there is no evidence for creationism insofar as the Genesis account goes because the Earth and Universe do not look like they were created accordingly a literal Genesis interpretation.

Now you are making a theological argument based on faulty and self-serving interpretations and a whole lot of ignorance. Speaking of evidence, where is your conclusive evidence for all life here from exclusive nonliving sources via accidents? It is not one rule for you guys and another for us. If evidence is the standard, then you are holding a dead hand. If evidence was food, then the adherents of all life from nonlife would die of starvation. Therefore evidence is not the problem in the first place. So don't pretend it is. Enough with the double standards.
What is the Anthropic Principle?
It is well known that our existence in this universe depends on numerous cosmological constants and parameters whose numerical values must fall within a very narrow range of values. If even a single variable were off, even slightly, we would not exist. The extreme improbability that so many variables would align so auspiciously in our favor merely by chance has led some scientists and philosophers to propose instead that it was God who providentially engineered the universe to suit our specific needs. This is the Anthropic Principle: that the universe appears to have been fine-tuned for our existence.

If all these are coincidence and driven by blind forces, then the burden is on you.

There are no dating methods which corroborate a 6000 year old Earth and/or universe,

dating methods are far from exact. It is not a miss is as good as a mile, but a missing by a mile is outstanding shooting!

no evidence that lifeforms were independently poofed into existence,

Something caused the first life to happen and on what reasoned basis do you rule out independent sources a priori? You cannot pull these statements out of your backside without being called on it. Do you even know how to do an investigation?

no evidence that humans coexisted with all other forms of life at the same time, no evidence of a world-wide Flood ~4500 years ago, no evidence of the type of genetic bottlenecking that would occur if the world's populations were reduced in such an event, and so on.

You are just in denial and have argued current population trends better support the Noah account of three breeding couples 4500 yrs ago with two groups. The Israelites and everyone else. The growth rates are nearly identical. Compared to your model of a 10K population (assuming both males and females evolved via blind chance at the same rate) 200 K years ago. The current population trends do not support your model. All that falls on deaf ears. No, the problem is not with the evidence.

Thus, creationists are basically stuck with the fact that everything about the Earth and universe doesn't support their interpretation of the religious book.

Well let me ask you, why believe you over say, Jesus or Moses?

Consequently, all they can really do is keep trying to discredit mainstream science and do so in a manner aimed at the lay public.

Real science does not have anything to do with your faith. You simply drag it out kicking and screaming to add credence to your creation myths.

 

[dmmesdale]

There is a difference between arguing in favor of intelligent causation and arguing in favor of supernaturalism. Supernaturalism is outside the realm of investigation by science by the simple fact that supernaturalism by definition is not bound by the natural order of the universe.

Not if it is a search for truth. You don't get to put on limitations after the fact because you do not like the implications. Science works with inference.

For example, if I told you that the entire universe was supernaturally created two days ago with the appearance of being billions of years old, there is no way to test such a claim.

Wrong. It can be tested by explanatory power with competing models. Besides, and here is the double standards again. Every test for life from nonlife has failed and has been effectively falsified so testing is not your standard in the first place.

 

[xianghua]

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.

here is one of them:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

and there are many more. by the way: basiclaly we have only 2 options. so if we falsified one option (evolution) we left with creation.

 

[pitabread]

basiclaly we have only 2 options. so if we falsified one option (evolution) we left with creation.

That's not how it works. The null hypothesis of evolution is not creation.

 

[xianghua]

We understand it just fine. There is no evidence for creationism because it isn't true.

as prof dawkins said:

"Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

 

[xianghua]

That's not how it works. The null hypothesis of evolution is not creation.

do you have nay other posibility?

 

[pitabread]

do you have nay other posibility?

If you have a particular hypothesis about say, the origin of life via chemical evolution, falsifying that particular hypothesis only falsifies that particular hypothesis. It doesn't necessarily say anything about other competing hypotheses of natural origin.

There have traditionally been multiple competing hypotheses for things like the origin of life even within the realm of purely natural explanations. Heck, even arguing for intelligent causation of life on Earth doesn't explicitly rule out natural causes.

What creationists need to realize is that in order to demonstrate the veracity of your beliefs, you need to do so via positive evidence for whatever ideas you are putting forth. You don't "win" by default by trying to falsify scientific hypotheses.

 

[AV1611VET]

What creationists need to realize is that in order to demonstrate the veracity of your beliefs, you need to do so via positive evidence for whatever ideas you are putting forth.

QV my positive evidence:

Spoiler: Positive Evidence for Creationism:

Ø

 

[dmmesdale]

That's not how it works. The null hypothesis of evolution is not creation.

Why not?

 

[xianghua]

If you have a particular hypothesis about say, the origin of life via chemical evolution, falsifying that particular hypothesis only falsifies that particular hypothesis. It doesn't necessarily say anything about other competing hypotheses of natural origin.

such as?

 

[pitabread]

Now you are making a theological argument based on faulty and self-serving interpretations and a whole lot of ignorance.

No, I'm simply pointing the obvious fact that the Earth and universe does not agree with a literal interpretation of the Genesis creation account. If it did, then there would be no need for creationist organizations to expend so much effort

What is the Anthropic Principle?

I'm well familiar with the Anthropic principle and I consider it a weaksauce argument for a deity or supernatural creationism. For starters, if the universe wasn't capable of supporting life then we wouldn't be here in the first place to argue about it. For seconders, while there are parts of the universe that appear to be able to support life (i.e. Earth), the vast majority of it does not. In fact, the universe seems pretty darned set up to wipe out life on this planet if it gets half the chance. The fact that we are here seems in spite of the way things are set up, not because of it.

dating methods are far from exact. It is not a miss is as good as a mile, but a missing by a mile is outstanding shooting!

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Look, it's simple: if the Earth is only ~6000 years old, why are there no dating methods that point to a 6000 year old Earth? Why instead does everything appear to point to a multi-billion year old Earth?

Heck, even the ICR acknowledges that there is at least hundreds of millions of years worth of radiation to account for in Earth's history (per their RATE project). But rather than admit the obvious reason,. they are now stuck trying to figure out how to shoehorn hundreds of millions of years of radiation into a mere 6000 or so.

The current population trends do not support your model.

Holy cow, are you really bringing up possibly the so-called "population argument" to try to argue for a young Earth. I'm sorry, but I consider that to be one of the single dumbest arguments creationists have come up with. At no point does extrapolating a population backwards give you the age of a planet, especially given that the carrying capacity for human populations has varied significantly throughout our history. Most notably, we've been able to significantly increase our populations due to advances in technology and especially food gathering. In a nutshell, population growth has not been constant throughout our history and it's ridiculous to think otherwise.

I suspect the population argument started in reaction to claims that the Earth's population is too large to have been created by only 8 individuals about ~4500 years ago. I have no idea how it morphed into an argument in favor of a young Earth and Noah's flood. It boggles the mind.

Real science does not have anything to do with your faith.

Your right, science has nothing to do with my 'faith' (or lack thereof). But I don't think you'd understand why.

 

[pitabread]

Why not?

If I have a hypothesis "X is responsible for Y", then the null hypothesis is "X isn't responsible for Y". That's it.

If evolution was falsified tomorrow, all that means is that evolution isn't true. It doesn't magically mean that creationism is suddenly true. If you want creationism to be true, then you have to demonstrate creationism is true on its own merits.

 

[pitabread]

Wrong. It can be tested by explanatory power with competing models. Besides, and here is the double standards again.

Well sure, you could argue that Last Thursdayism is pretty useless in terms of explanatory power. But that has nothing to do with falsifying it from a supernatural perspective. Last Thursdayism is an unfalsifiable premise, hence outside the realm of science.

Much the same way that creationism is. Anytime you can invoke "Goddidit!" to save a hypothesis from falsification, then you're not dealing with science. You can whinge about this all you'd like, but it's the way it is.

Every test for life from nonlife has failed and has been effectively falsified so testing is not your standard in the first place.

This is not true at all.