Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[gaara4158]

Well how about chance? Another poster said something about not entropy but chance. SO how about

Matter + Energy + Chance = Life...Is that a fair statement for your position?

No, I would never take such a simplified position. No one takes that position. Life is made of matter, uses energy, and originated by processes we haven’t quite figured out yet, but come closer to understanding every day. Nowhere have I stated that matter mixed with energy will necessarily by chance produce life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, but the martyrdom itself is not evidence of the truth of the belief. The Christian and the Hindu are both martyrs, irrespective of the truth of their beliefs.

God exists.

And I'm SURE both you and I agree with this.

And since He does exist ... unless He is totally inactive ... would you not expect evidence of His existence?

Aren't we His children by adoption?

Do children ... adopted or otherwise ... do things that point to their parents?

Like talking about them by name? saying they do this and that?

Don't some children build edifices to their parents? write literature? celebrate their birthdays? etc.?

 

[gaara4158]

So in other words...you don't even know what you believe?
How about 5 sentences from you that summarizes your beliefs on the origin of life?

I know what I believe. I believe I don’t know. I understand the mystery of abiogenesis hasn’t been cracked yet. This thread isn’t about what we know about abiogenesis. It’s about why, if creationism is true, there isn’t any evidence for it. Most arguments from creationists are actually just arguments against evolution, not evidence for creationism. What do you have to say about that?

 

[AV1611VET]

Most arguments from creationists are actually just arguments against evolution, not evidence for creationism. What do you have to say about that?

Expecting evidence for creationism is like trying to be your own pallbearer.

 

[Divide]

I have not checked every one of your posts, but the only one I could find was directed at Speedwell. You said this:

"Ok. I tell ya' what. How about if you give me 5 sentences, to summarize what is it your position, if it is not one which includes God, as a designer/creator. Fair enough?"

I don't wish to invest even more time trawling through the thread to determine what position you are refering to. Would you just restate your request clearly, concisely and comprehensively, then I can respond.

Well it seems to me that the thread is about evolution since it seems to be asserted in the original topic that there is no evidence to support creation. (There sure is). Not only that, but a bunch of evolutionists came out of the woodwork to yell at me for posting in the thread. It wasn't all about Ron Wyatt. There's so many labels and titles under the different people's name, Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, and others that it's hard to tell what they believe other than they don't seem to believe in God is their common thread. So I suppose I've been kind of lumping them all together as atheists/evolutionists.

Now I understand that, that may not be fair, so I began asking for 5 sentences which summarize their respective beliefs, so that I can try to address them properly. Not a lot of response to that I notice...crickets, lol. So it seems not many are secure enough in their beliefs to summarize it to someone who says they have proof that the earth was created by a designer and that God is real. Their egos will let them armchair quarterback me...but that's about it.

I can be demanded to prove this prove that, but not them, lol. He he he...Funny.

 

[Divide]

I know what I believe. I believe I don’t know. I understand the mystery of abiogenesis hasn’t been cracked yet. This thread isn’t about what we know about abiogenesis. It’s about why, if creationism is true, there isn’t any evidence for it. Most arguments from creationists are actually just arguments against evolution, not evidence for creationism. What do you have to say about that?

I have to say that I do have some proofs that directly point to there had to be intelligent design behind the creation of the earth. Your post here is an honest sounding post. So...I can deal with that and give you plenty of stuff that is verifiable and factual. Which is what you like. I found my notes!!

 

[Divide]

Expecting evidence for creationism is like trying to be your own pallbearer.

The evidence is there Brother.

 

[Divide]

No, I would never take such a simplified position. No one takes that position. Life is made of matter, uses energy, and originated by processes we haven’t quite figured out yet, but come closer to understanding every day. Nowhere have I stated that matter mixed with energy will necessarily by chance produce life.

Ok, fair enough. I'll approach this from a different direction then. Give me a few to put something together as a good starting point. Then you can verify to your hearts content.
I may not have links for everything, but google is your friend. The facts can be checked.

 

[AV1611VET]

The evidence is there Brother.

Yes ... in the sense that we're living on it.

And in that light, a fish can't tell if he's wet.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well it seems to me that the thread is about evolution since it seems to be asserted in the original topic that there is no evidence to support creation. (There sure is). Not only that, but a bunch of evolutionists came out of the woodwork to yell at me for posting in the thread. It wasn't all about Ron Wyatt. There's so many labels and titles under the different people's name, Atheist, Agnostic, Humanist, and others that it's hard to tell what they believe other than they don't seem to believe in God is their common thread. So I suppose I've been kind of lumping them all together as atheists/evolutionists.

Now I understand that, that may not be fair, so I began asking for 5 sentences which summarize their respective beliefs, so that I can try to address them properly. Not a lot of response to that I notice...crickets, lol. So it seems not many are secure enough in their beliefs to summarize it to someone who says they have proof that the earth was created by a designer and that God is real. Their egos will let them armchair quarterback me...but that's about it.

I can be demanded to prove this prove that, but not them, lol. He he he...Funny.

Apparently you understand the meaning of the word "comprehensively", but not "clearly", or "concisely". I already understood that you wanted a statement of "their beliefs", but you have not clearly, concisely and comprehensively defined their beliefs about what. Some of the possibilities, beliefs about:

• The existence of God
• The existence of the Christian God
• The origin of the universe
• The origin of life
• The origin of humans
• Evolution

So what do you want a statement of belief about? And this time, please, without the waffle.

 

[gaara4158]

Ok, fair enough. I'll approach this from a different direction then. Give me a few to put something together as a good starting point. Then you can verify to your hearts content.
I may not have links for everything, but google is your friend. The facts can be checked.

I wait with bated breath.

 

[gaara4158]

Expecting evidence for creationism is like trying to be your own pallbearer.

Finally we agree on something! Like introducing your imaginary friend to someone. It only works if they’re playing along with your nonsense.

 

[Divide]

Apparently you understand the meaning of the word "comprehensively", but not "clearly", or "concisely". I already understood that you wanted a statement of "their beliefs", but you have not clearly, concisely and comprehensively defined their beliefs about what. Some of the possibilities, beliefs about:

• The existence of God
• The existence of the Christian God
• The origin of the universe
• The origin of life
• The origin of humans
• Evolution

So what do you want a statement of belief about? And this time, please, without the waffle.

Yes, you've captured my intended sentiment exactly. Everything in your list sort of ties in together, and that is what I'm asking for.

 

[Divide]

I wait with bated breath.

Ok. Sorry I didn't get back on last night. Things came up. (I'm caring for my terminally ill dad).
So here's some stuff for you:

Just some, I'll try not to give too much at once at be overwhelming. You prolly will want a little time to verify these scientific facts.

The earth screams designer in it's delicate balance of ratios of...many things. For the earth to have happened by "chance" is absurd. In constructing a mathematical model of what we believe we know about the universe, there are hundreds of delicate ratios that, if altered the slightest, would render life impossible. Some as little as 10 to the 55th power!

For instance,
Earth's distance from the Sun. If closer, it would be too warm to maintain a stable water cycle.
If further, it would be too cold to have a water cycle.

Surface Gravity: Stronger, and the atmosphere would be too much ammonia & methane.
Weaker, then the atmosphere would lose too much water.

Thickness of the Earth's crust:
If thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
If thinner, Volcanic & tectonic activity would be too great.

Earth's Rotation period (24 hour days):
If longer, then diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If shorter, then atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

Axial Tilt of the Earth:
If greater, surface temps would be too great.
If less, surface temps would be too great.

The Albedo of the Earth. (Reflectivity):
If greater, then a runaway ice age would develop.
If less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

Earth's Magnetic Field:
If stronger, then electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
If weaker, then we'd have inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

The Electromagnetic Coupling of Earth:
If it was weaker, then molecules for life cease to exist.
If it was stronger, then molecules for life cease to exist.

The strong force coupling:
If slightly weaker, then multi-proton nuclei would not hold together! (Hydrogen would be the only element)
If slightly stonger, then nuclear particles would tend to bond together more frequently and more firmly, Hydrogen would then be rare in the universe, and the supply of various life-essential elements heavier than iron would be insufficient.

The Weak Force Coupling:
Stronger, then no Helium and no heavy elements.
Weaker, All Helium and an over-abundance of heavy elements.

The Ratio of Electron/Proton Mass:
Larger, and molecules would not form making life impossible.
Smaller, and molecules would not form, making life impossible.

Enough for now. All these delicate ratios and life would be impossible. And I'm supposed to believe that all this came about by chance? Har-de-har-har. I haven't begin to discuss our atmosphere and it's makeup of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and all that. If the mixture wasn't as finely balanced as it is...guess what? No life.

So you see, there's plenty of evidence of intelligent design and a creator. I have more. In now way have I finished or even come close. There's just the kind of evidence that you guys like. Verifiable concrete facts. You didn't like my spiritual evidence? Fine we'll go scientific on you Brothers and Sisters....

Let me know when you're ready for more....(Don't ask me to confirm and prove this stuff to you. (I could lie to you!) I did my homework. Now do yours. Google is your friend.)


A creationist.

 

[AV1611VET]

(I'm caring for my terminally ill dad).

 

[tas8831]

Ok. Sorry I didn't get back on last night. Things came up. (I'm caring for my terminally ill dad).
So here's some stuff for you:

Just some, I'll try not to give too much at once at be overwhelming. You prolly will want a little time to verify these scientific facts.

The earth screams designer in it's delicate balance of ratios of...many things. For the earth to have happened by "chance" is absurd. In constructing a mathematical model of what we believe we know about the universe, there are hundreds of delicate ratios that, if altered the slightest, would render life impossible. Some as little as 10 to the 55th power!

For instance,
Earth's distance from the Sun. If closer, it would be too warm to maintain a stable water cycle.
If further, it would be too cold to have a water cycle.

Surface Gravity: Stronger, and the atmosphere would be too much ammonia & methane.
Weaker, then the atmosphere would lose too much water.

Thickness of the Earth's crust:
If thicker, too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust.
If thinner, Volcanic & tectonic activity would be too great.

Earth's Rotation period (24 hour days):
If longer, then diurnal temperature differences would be too great.
If shorter, then atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.

Axial Tilt of the Earth:
If greater, surface temps would be too great.
If less, surface temps would be too great.

The Albedo of the Earth. (Reflectivity):
If greater, then a runaway ice age would develop.
If less, then a runaway greenhouse effect would develop.

Earth's Magnetic Field:
If stronger, then electromagnetic storms would be too severe.
If weaker, then we'd have inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation.

The Electromagnetic Coupling of Earth:
If it was weaker, then molecules for life cease to exist.
If it was stronger, then molecules for life cease to exist.

The strong force coupling:
If slightly weaker, then multi-proton nuclei would not hold together! (Hydrogen would be the only element)
If slightly stonger, then nuclear particles would tend to bond together more frequently and more firmly, Hydrogen would then be rare in the universe, and the supply of various life-essential elements heavier than iron would be insufficient.

The Weak Force Coupling:
Stronger, then no Helium and no heavy elements.
Weaker, All Helium and an over-abundance of heavy elements.

The Ratio of Electron/Proton Mass:
Larger, and molecules would not form making life impossible.
Smaller, and molecules would not form, making life impossible.

Enough for now. All these delicate ratios and life would be impossible. And I'm supposed to believe that all this came about by chance? Har-de-har-har. I haven't begin to discuss our atmosphere and it's makeup of oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen and all that. If the mixture wasn't as finely balanced as it is...guess what? No life.

So you see, there's plenty of evidence of intelligent design and a creator. I have more. In now way have I finished or even come close. There's just the kind of evidence that you guys like. Verifiable concrete facts. You didn't like my spiritual evidence? Fine we'll go scientific on you Brothers and Sisters....

Let me know when you're ready for more....(Don't ask me to confirm and prove this stuff to you. (I could lie to you!) I did my homework. Now do yours. Google is your friend.)


A creationist.

Odd that you decided not to mention:

supernovae eruptions:
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements

number of stars in parent star birth aggregate:
if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula
if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed
star formation history in parent star vicinity
if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

birth date of the star-planetary system:
if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form
if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet

They were on the same site that you copy-pasted without attribution your litany from.
But it was nice how you altered a few words here and there to make it look original.

So, we have another one!


And regarding all that amazing plagiarized mumbo-jumbo -

The mud puddle in my driveway this morning is so happy that the depression in my driveway is just the perfect size and shape to contain it! Glory be!

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, you've captured my intended sentiment exactly. Everything in your list sort of ties in together, and that is what I'm asking for.

In five sentences? Seven decades of spiritual contemplation and six decades of scientific study in five sentences? I admire your perception of my writing skills.

It is difficult to argue against the God of Spinoza, but a God with intellect, intent and singular consciousness is less likely, while any of the gods described by religion are social constructs that facilitate "political" control and provide a foundation for those uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I accept the Big Bang theory as (currently) the most plausible explanation for the origin of the present expression of the universe, without stipulating what preceded, or what may follow, and yet maintaining an aversion to the theory on grounds of philosophical ugliness.

The origin of life is problematic, since we are working with a sample size of one, but progress to date strongly suggests a solution will be forthcoming, though I would not be surprised if it turned out that pan spermia was involved (and maybe even an alien intervention along the way, demonstrating the realism of intelligent design over the deceit of Intelligent Design).

That said, the diversity of life is best explained by evolution from a common ancestor, by natural selection and other mechanisms, some only hinted at by current research, yet all in all fully adequate to account "even" for humans.

 

[Divide]

Odd that you decided not to mention:

supernovae eruptions:
if too close: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation
if too far: not enough heavy element ashes would exist for the formation of rocky planets
if too infrequent: not enough heavy element ashes present for the formation of rocky planets
if too frequent: life on the planet would be exterminated
if too soon: heavy element ashes would be too dispersed for the formation of rocky planets at an early enough time in cosmic history
if too late: life on the planet would be exterminated by radiation

white dwarf binaries:
if too few: insufficient flourine would be produced for life chemistry to proceed
if too many: planetary orbits disrupted by stellar density; life on planet would be exterminated
if too soon: not enough heavy elements would be made for efficient flourine production
if too late: flourine would be made too late for incorporation in protoplanet
proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements for life would be absorbed
if closer: nebula would be blown apart
timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not absorb enough heavy elements

number of stars in parent star birth aggregate:
if too few: insufficient input of certain heavy elements into the solar nebula
if too many: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed
star formation history in parent star vicinity
if too much too soon: planetary orbits will be too radically disturbed

birth date of the star-planetary system:
if too early: quantity of heavy elements will be too low for large rocky planets to form
if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratio of potassium-40, uranium-235 & 238, and thorium-232 to iron will be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet

They were on the same site that you copy-pasted without attribution your litany from.
But it was nice how you altered a few words here and there to make it look original.

So, we have another one!


And regarding all that amazing plagiarized mumbo-jumbo -

The mud puddle in my driveway this morning is so happy that the depression in my driveway is just the perfect size and shape to contain it! Glory be!

No, that wasn't copy pasted from a website. That was from my notes. That you know of these facts speaks a lot. And backs me up to their validity. Thank you.

Yeah, this info is out there. Factual. Verifiable, tested, and so forth.

Besides, what would it matter if it was copy/pasted? Facts are facts. The evidence is in. Mumbo Jumbo huh? Lol. Here's your facts buddy. Lol. Now go armchair quarterback me again

 

[Speedwell]

No, that wasn't copy pasted from a website. That was from my notes. That you know of these facts speaks a lot. And backs me up to their validity. Thank you.

Yeah, this info is out there. Factual. Verifiable, tested, and so forth.

Besides, what would it matter if it was copy/pasted? Facts are facts. The evidence is in. Mumbo Jumbo huh? Lol. Here's your facts buddy. Lol. Now go armchair quarterback me again

Here's another one: Your legs. If they were any shorter your feet wouldn't touch the ground; if they were any longer you would have to walk around with your knees bent all the time.

 

[Divide]

In five sentences? Seven decades of spiritual contemplation and six decades of scientific study in five sentences? I admire your perception of my writing skills.

It is difficult to argue against the God of Spinoza, but a God with intellect, intent and singular consciousness is less likely, while any of the gods described by religion are social constructs that facilitate "political" control and provide a foundation for those uncomfortable with uncertainty.

I accept the Big Bang theory as (currently) the most plausible explanation for the origin of the present expression of the universe, without stipulating what preceded, or what may follow, and yet maintaining an aversion to the theory on grounds of philosophical ugliness.

The origin of life is problematic, since we are working with a sample size of one, but progress to date strongly suggests a solution will be forthcoming, though I would not be surprised if it turned out that pan spermia was involved (and maybe even an alien intervention along the way, demonstrating the realism of intelligent design over the deceit of Intelligent Design).

That said, the diversity of life is best explained by evolution from a common ancestor, by natural selection and other mechanisms, some only hinted at by current research, yet all in all fully adequate to account "even" for humans.

In other words, you don't give a crap about facts. You're comfortable in your world belief system. That's fine if that is your choice...but further participation by you and your snarky remarks would only serve to derail the topic and conversation between those who wish to actually discuss it. So...get some popcorn and sit back and watch the fun.