"Scientific" Evidence for Creation

[MoMo]

There are a lot of North American creationist "scientific" institutions that search for the proof of the existence of the judeo-christian god. I was wondering what type of "scientific" evidence might they be looking for?

 

My second question is, if extra terrestrial life is found and we had 100% positive evidence for that, would that invalidate the major monothestic religons of our time? If so what do you think the repercussions will be on society??

[jackson33]

second ?; probably not. you will find any motivated theory will change its concepts to the accepted truths. when most religions were formed the earth and all things were created in 7 days (not periods, space time measurement, but 24 hour day) the world was flat and they required all things to revolve around the earth. well mankind was here before, the world is round and we are the center of nothing....but all those religions are doing just fine.

 

actually very few think now, that some life will not be found in our solar system. some think rudimentary forms existed here 4 billion years ago and could have on any other planet, even probable did. religion has evolved the blind faith theory, so as Science goes about its way, blind faith take hold.

[Mokele]

I was wondering what type of "scientific" evidence might they be looking for?

 

None at all; the entire "scientific" thing is a ruse deliberately affected in order to slip past the 1982 Edwards v Aguiliard (sp?) ruling that found creationism to be religion and therefore inadmissible in science class. The immediate reaction by creationists was to dress it up in the clothing of 'intelligent design' and start using bigger words, but not to actually do anything differently.

 

Mokele

[carol]

There is no way to have a scientific evidence for creation, IMO. I don't think the conditions can be recreated and there are a lot of things to be considered. Yes, creationists have fashioned the idea of intelligent design. But I think they can only come up with analogies.

The existence of extraterrestrial beings wouldn't disprove the existence of a creator, IMO. And the accounts of creation shouldn't also be taken literally. People who wrote them in the past considered only the things that are based on what they can see and what they believe during their time.

[the tree]

Take it out back.

[jackson33]

There is no way to have a scientific evidence for creation, IMO. I don't think the conditions can be recreated and there are a lot of things to be considered. Yes, creationists have fashioned the idea of intelligent design. But I think they can only come up with analogies.

The existence of extraterrestrial beings wouldn't disprove the existence of a creator, IMO. And the accounts of creation shouldn't also be taken literally. People who wrote them in the past considered only the things that are based on what they can see and what they believe during their time.

 

yes, people that are said to have written religious concepts knew only the world they lived in. however in most cases these writings were said to come from the source or creator. how could this creator, know so little of what is said he created.

 

yes, the idea of image of man is that of most religious Gods. if intelligent life were to visit or be found elsewhere, there is little likely hood they would appear like us or the Gods. w/o questioning a creator, the written words of this divine being are and have been disproved time and again by mans efforts to understand.

 

if the world has to be governed, controlled or regulated by a philosophy, shouldn't this be rooted in logic or at least allowed to evolve with needs and intelligence of the subjects granted this inteligence...

[lucaspa]

There are a lot of North American creationist "scientific" institutions that search for the proof of the existence of the judeo-christian god. I was wondering what type of "scientific" evidence might they be looking for?

 

"god-of-the-gaps". Creationism is a scientific theory. It was disproved/falsified in the period 1800-1859.

 

What modern day creationists do is:

1. Deny the data falsifying the theory.

2. Basically use atheist theology that natural = without God and thus "no natural"/miracle = God as the basis of their search. The idea is that there is no "natural" explanation for certain phenomenon: the human species, irreducible complexity, complex specified information, design, etc.

 

My second question is, if extra terrestrial life is found and we had 100% positive evidence for that, would that invalidate the major monothestic religons of our time? If so what do you think the repercussions will be on society??

 

No. But it would challenge the religion of Fundamentalism -- which is the worship of a literal, inerrant Bible. Fundamentalism would hold that God created only one sentient species.

 

The 3 major monotheisms -- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam -- would simply have it that the material processes God used to create the universe also created other sentient species. Presumably God would have revealed Himself to these species also and provided a path for them to understand and communicate with God.

[lucaspa]

There is no way to have a scientific evidence for creation, IMO. I don't think the conditions can be recreated and there are a lot of things to be considered.

 

Creation itself is a theological statement: God created. Any scientific evidence involves an additional statement(s): how God created.

 

So, if you postulate that God created the universe by the Big Bang, galaxies, stars, and planets by gravity, life by chemistry, and the diversity of life by evolution, then you have LOTS of scientific evidence for creation.

 

The difficulty, of course, is showing that these processes depend on God rather than work on their own.

 

Yes, creationists have fashioned the idea of intelligent design. But I think they can only come up with analogies.

 

Yes, many of their arguments are analogical. Many of the arguments about design are analagies of human deisgn. However, the idea of "intelligent design" is predicated on the idea that ONLY intelligence can produce design. Since natural selection is an unintelligent process to give design, there goes the premise out the window.

[lucaspa]

however in most cases these writings were said to come from the source or creator. how could this creator, know so little of what is said he created.

 

There are 2 different claims about how close to the "source" the writings are:

1. The sacred writings are inspired and for theological purposes (2 Tim. 3:16 as an example)

2. The sacred writings are dictated word for word: Fundamentalism and Islam's claim for the Quran.

 

If you go with 1, then the object is to look at the theological messages of sacred writings. In looking at Genesis, it can be seen that a literal reading of the different creation stories in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 contradict. This is a huge neon sign that the stories are not there for a history, but for theology. And that is their purpose. The theological messages work just as well in modern science as they do in the Babylonian science in which they are set.

 

yes, the idea of image of man is that of most religious Gods. if intelligent life were to visit or be found elsewhere, there is little likely hood they would appear like us or the Gods. w/o questioning a creator,

 

"in our image" in Genesis has been misunderstood to mean a physical image. And, the Judeo-Christian deity is very carefully separated from ANY physical form. So any sentient beings, of course, would not "look" like Yahweh, anymore than we look like Yahweh -- because Yahweh has no form to look like.

 

the written words of this divine being are and have been disproved time and again by mans efforts to understand.

 

You need to be more specific here. I would say that scientific theories based on a literal reading of sacred writings have been disproved. So what? Lots of scientific theories have been disproved. But I do not know of any scientific work that disproves the basic theology of the 3 main monotheisms today. Perhaps you could cite the papers.

 

if the world has to be governed, controlled or regulated by a philosophy, shouldn't this be rooted in logic or at least allowed to evolve with needs and intelligence of the subjects granted this inteligence...

 

1. The philosophy should be rooted in evidence. Theists say they have evidence: personal experience of deity. No governing philosophy should be based on ignoring evidence, should it?

2. And at least Judeo-Christianity has evolved. Christianity is an evolution of Judaism adding the ideas a) that deity is not tribal or partisan but universal, b) strict rules of diet and behavior are not necessary, what is necessary are general guidelines such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Christianity itself has evolved in many ways. Just one is the role the priesthood plays in mediating between humans and God. Both Catholics and Protestants now view that individuals come to God and that ministers/priests serve only as guides and helpers, not necessary intermediaries.

3. As knowledge and maturity of humans has increased, Judeo-Christianity has changed its position on issues (by applying general principles): slavery was OK in Paul's time, Christians decided it was wrong; interpretation of scripture has changed based on extrabiblical knowledge; and repudiation of sexism to name just 3.

[YT2095]

"Scientific" Evidence for Creation

 

there is non, end of chat really

[lucaspa]

"Scientific" Evidence for Creation

 

there is non, end of chat really

 

Sorry, but that isn't true. As I pointed out, when you say "creation" you must also postulate a how. Depending on the "how", there can be quite a bit of scientific evidence!

 

You have another problem. There is evidence for ANY and EVERY scientific theory, if that is what you are looking for. Yes, even evidence "for" young earth creationism.

 

When you say "there is non [sic]", you are unconsciously invoking the inductivism of John Mill. Mill counted "evidence for" when that evidence could not be explained by any other theory. Unfortunately, Quine showed that, for any limited set of data, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain the data! So Mill's criteria doesn't work.

 

This mantra "there is no evidence for creationism" is just bad science. And it hurts science in dealiing with creationists. In science, what counts is evidence against a theory. So, what you should be saying is: "there is data that disproves/refutes/falsifies creationism". And don't confuse "creationism" with "creation". That's another instance of bad science.

[YT2095]

well if you want me to add MORE words where 3 was enough, then I`ll add another word making 4.

 

"There is non Currently".

[Sayonara]

Sorry, but that isn't true. As I pointed out, when you say "creation" you must also postulate a how. Depending on the "how", there can be quite a bit of scientific evidence!

 

And yet creationists claim that they "don't need to explain the how, because they know the who", and who would question divine providence? etc etc.

 

Talking about the absence of science in religious affairs is not scientific discussion. This is a religious discussion.

[lucaspa]

And yet creationists claim that they "don't need to explain the how, because they know the who", and who would question divine providence? etc etc.

 

Please cite your quotation. I didn't say "explain the how", but hypothesizing a how. Those are 2 different things.

 

Creationists say the "how" is instantaneous appearance in present form. When they say "don't need to explain the how", they mean that they don't need to provide a mechanism for that instantaneous appearance. And they are correct. After all, we don't have a "how" or cause for the Big Bang, the Big Bang is how the universe started. We don't have to "explain the how".

 

Talking about the absence of science in religious affairs is not scientific discussion. This is a religious discussion.

 

Not entirely. Because creationism is a scientific theory. There are some statements science can't address. The existence of deity is one of them. Whether the universe is created by a deity is another. All science can say is: If a deity exists and if it created the universe, then these are the material mechanisms it used."

[lucaspa]

well if you want me to add MORE words where 3 was enough, then I`ll add another word making 4.

 

"There is non Currently".

 

Still untrue. The evidence the scientific creationists used in the 18th and early 19th centuries is still there. It hasn't gone away. So what you still end up doing is getting into a contest with creationists on who can make the highest pile of "data for". Or you end up in a fruitless discussion about whether the evidence is "valid".

 

Adding the word hasn't changed that you are still unconsciously using Mill's concept of "evidence", and that concept is fatally flawed. And thus your statement is fatally flawed as science. As I said, it's just bad science.

[Mokele]

Oh, jesus haploid christ, this is retarded!

 

Creationism is a scientific theory. It was disproved/falsified in the period 1800-1859.

 

Wrong. Creationism may have been a theory, but it was never scientific one, since it cannot be tested (since God is *defined* as unknowable) and cannot be falsified (since there's always the 'God of the gaps'). It fails to fulfill these, it's not science, end of story.

 

As I pointed out, when you say "creation" you must also postulate a how. Depending on the "how", there can be quite a bit of scientific evidence!

 

Semantic debate is the lowest form of debate. We all know perfectly well what "creationism" means, thanks the the actions of religious zealots in the US. Other definitions have lapsed into obscurity, and invoking them is effectively the fallacy of equivocation.

 

There is evidence for ANY and EVERY scientific theory, if that is what you are looking for.

 

Bullshit.

 

I believe there's a teacup orbiting between the Earth and Mars. Where's the evidence for it? I believe Godzilla is real. Where's the evidence for it?

 

That assertion is so mind-bogglingly stupid I can barely wrap my head around it.

 

Yes, even evidence "for" young earth creationism.

 

No, there isn't. The only way to claim this is to expand the definition of "evidence" to the point that it's utterly meaningless.

 

When you say "there is non [sic]", you are unconsciously invoking the inductivism of John Mill. Mill counted "evidence for" when that evidence could not be explained by any other theory. Unfortunately, Quine showed that, for any limited set of data, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain the data! So Mill's criteria doesn't work.

 

Philosophy is a waste of time. We outgrew it the moment it gave birth to the scientific method.

 

Nobody's unconsciously invoking any worthless mental masturbation that passes for "philosophy". We're flat-out stating that there is no evidence that supports creationism. None, Nada, zip. None has even been presented. If you want to challenge this, show evidence.

 

If you want to philosophize, use a tissue then flush it like normal people.

 

This mantra "there is no evidence for creationism" is just bad science. And it hurts science in dealiing with creationists. In science, what counts is evidence against a theory. So, what you should be saying is: "there is data that disproves/refutes/falsifies creationism".

 

Wrong. A theory without evidence for it is worthless. Look at string theory.

 

The evidence the scientific creationists used in the 18th and early 19th centuries is still there. It hasn't gone away. So what you still end up doing is getting into a contest with creationists on who can make the highest pile of "data for". Or you end up in a fruitless discussion about whether the evidence is "valid".

 

No, their "evidence" was misinterpretation, mistakes. Why call it anything less. Call bullshit bullshit.

 

 

 

Since this thread has degenerated into more pointless creationist crap, it will be closed. If you want to discuss fake science, use the link to originsdebate. This forum is for real science.

 

Mokele

[Sayonara]

Anybody invoking creationist idiocy in that style on this site again will receive a severe penalty.

 

I don't care how long you have been here, or how well you think you are arguing the case: Enough is enough.