Evolution is a farce: Evidence

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jaffo

No, in order for the evidence to be valid, we need a control to compare it against. By saying all of creation is evidence of god, we are leaving no room for a control group to compare that evidence to, to validate it. It is a useless statement and tells us nothing. Like I said you are perfectly ok to believe as such, but at the end of the day it IS the god of the gaps argument.

Right. So...um...what is the control against which you set The Big Bang Theory? Do you have another universe I am unaware of? Do you now start to see the problem with your logic on this particular issue?

a reply to: jaffo

"One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all" is an empty statement. It's not even an argument. It's not evidence for anything, it has no predictive or explanatory power, it's merely a projection of your own faith. It might go down a storm with teh flock but don't pretend it's anything other than a feel good cliché of no substance.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: jaffo

"One can easily argue that existence is the evidence for God and that all arguments to the contrary are hand waving which have to ignore the single largest piece of evidence of them all" is an empty statement. It's not even an argument. It's not evidence for anything, it has no predictive or explanatory power, it's merely a projection of your own faith. It might go down a storm with teh flock but don't pretend it's anything other than a feel good cliché of no substance.

Your entire response is hand waving. And again, I am not at all saying I believe in creationism. I'm just a fan of a level playing field. Can you address my Big Bang question? After all, there is no control to set that theory against, leaving it just as valid or invalid as a God theory.

a reply to: jaffo

How exactly is it "hand waving"? The burden of proof is on you. How exactly is existence evidence for your personal god? Which one? How many gods? What is the falsifiable methodology you used to come to this conclusion? What is your null hypothesis? If you don't answer these questions it is YOU that is hand waving.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: jaffo

How exactly is it "hand waving"? The burden of proof is on you. How exactly is existence evidence for your personal god? Which one? How many gods? What is the falsifiable methodology you chose to come to this conclusion? What is your null hypothesis? If you don't answer these questions it is YOU that is hand waving.

You are wandering and flailing about while you move the goal posts and create arguments I have not made. Relax. Attack this from a logic point, not emotion. Again, if you MUST have a control, then where is the control you utilize to test the Big Bang Theory? That was YOUR standard. Please show it to me.

a reply to: jaffo

Just stick to the topic at hand. Can you answer the questions or not? This isn't going to turn into another creationist hit and run where you get to make baseless statements and then refuse to back them up with substance.

a reply to: jaffo

No, there is a big difference, scientists don't use "everything" to prove the big bang. There are very SPECIFIC things that scientists use to trace back time to the big bang. Namely the cosmic microwave background and the cosmic neutrino background. This is a far cry from just saying that everything is evidence of god.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: jaffo

Just stick to the topic at hand. Can you answer the questions or not? This isn't going to turn into another creationist hit and run where you get to make baseless statements and then refuse to back them up with substance.

Nope. You said it is invalid to say the universe was created because there is no control against which to test the theory. If you are incapable of providing a control against which you test the Big Bang Theory, then you have no leg to stand on. Can you provide said control?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jaffo

No, there is a big difference, scientists don't use "everything" to prove the big bang. There are very SPECIFIC things that scientists use to trace back time to the big bang. Namely the cosmic microwave background and the cosmic neutrino background. This is a far cry from just saying that everything is evidence of god.

So you admit that there is no control and all that you use to support the BB Theory is the visual evidence, eh? Gee, just like those who believe the universe was created use the same visual evidence to support the idea of divine creation...

a reply to: jaffo

Just as I thought, you can't answer the questions as your assertion is baseless. Good night.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: jaffo

Just as I thought, you can't answer the questions as your assertion is baseless. Good night.

So you have no evidence to meet your own standard, eh? Thank you and good night indeed.

a reply to: jaffo

The Creationists use back ground (microwave) radiation, and increasingly red shifted moving galaxies, and an abundance of light elements vs heavier elements as evidence for divine creation? Where is that in a holy text?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: jaffo

The Creationists use back ground (microwave) radiation, and increasingly red shifted moving galaxies, and an abundance of light elements vs heavier elements as evidence for divine creation? Where is that in a holy text?

Ah, so you want to move the goalposts even further, eh? Well, let me ask you: Have you read the entire Old Testament in its original languages? No? Well then you really can't tell me what they say and don't say, can you? Also, failure to include every detail in the text as to creation would not serve to invalidate the entirety of the theory. After all, my Algebra text did not contain chemistry in it. That does not mean that chemistry does not exist.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: jaffo

No, there is a big difference, scientists don't use "everything" to prove the big bang. There are very SPECIFIC things that scientists use to trace back time to the big bang. Namely the cosmic microwave background and the cosmic neutrino background. This is a far cry from just saying that everything is evidence of god.

So you admit that there is no control and all that you use to support the BB Theory is the visual evidence, eh? Gee, just like those who believe the universe was created use the same visual evidence to support the idea of divine creation...

You are trying to put words in my mouth here. If you cannot see the separation of what I am saying, then you are either clearly biased or arguing for the sake of argument. The Big Bang's controls are time itself and universe expansion rates. It is a simple process of retracing time and how the universe has expanded since the BB happened. You may be aware that time is ALWAYS the independent variable in science.

Meanwhile, using your argument, show me a universe that isn't created by god to compare against this universe to prove that it is created.

Just when you thought the thread was dying down another person who does not understand science pops up lol.
Mayne new folk read the whole thread eh saves the good educated people here from repeating themselves for the twelfth time.

a reply to: GetHyped

Jaffo has a very strong argument, which I didn't use previously because to me it was self evident. "The proof of the pudding is in the pie" The burden of proof is absolutely on you, and to date you haven't come up with a particularly strong argument.

Just stick to the topic at hand. Can you answer the questions or not? This isn't going to turn into another creationist hit and run where you get to make baseless statements and then refuse to back them up with substance.

Please don't start that again, the topic at hand is multifaceted, and your attempt force your detractors into argument using PROOF from your camp is not playing on a level field.

a reply to: kennyb72

What was the methodology used to come to the conclusion? What is the null hypothesis? Which god? How many gods? How was this determined?

It's a vapid statement that appeals to the true believers, nothing more. That you find it compelling is no surprise.

a reply to: jaffo

You make the claim, you provide the evidence. You have nothing, hence your daft "I know you are but what am I?" comments and evasive answers.

And to absolutely no one's surprise, yet another scientifically illiterate creationist is making yet more unscientific claims then ducking out when having to back them up with substance.

Lather, rinse and repeat.

originally posted by: jaffo
You are wandering and flailing about while you move the goal posts and create arguments I have not made. Relax. Attack this from a logic point, not emotion. Again, if you MUST have a control, then where is the control you utilize to test the Big Bang Theory? That was YOUR standard. Please show it to me.

I don't think you fully understand the scientific method. When you say something as simplistic as "existence is evidence for creation", you need to back it up. Existence itself is not evidence for anything other than the fact that we exist. To determine whether something is created there must be criteria to determine this in the first place, and there is not because it has never been observed. The big bang theory relies on mathematics and physical evidence so that we can tell that it happened. The criteria (or control) is the radiation and the redshift (evidence of the initial "bang" and the movement of the universe since).

Plus you forget that a mini big bang has been duplicated via the Hadron collider:

www.bbc.co.uk...

Has creation been duplicated by any experiment ever?

There is simply no way to tell whether we were created or not, and if we were it still has nothing to do with evolution. We can't tell what caused the big bang. It could have been god, but thus far it's impossible to tell one way or another. Claiming existence is evidence of god is like saying existence is evidence nuclear fusion. It's not.

And before somebody brings up human creation as evidence. Divine creation is much different, plus there's the fact that hardly anything natural in the universe looks anything remotely close to the things humans create.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: GetHyped
Jaffo has a very strong argument, which I didn't use previously because to me it was self evident. "The proof of the pudding is in the pie" The burden of proof is absolutely on you, and to date you haven't come up with a particularly strong argument.

You are still here?

Please explain how "existence is evidence of god" is a valid verifiable statement that proves anything about creation? Very strong argument indeed. LOL. If somebody says that creation is real, then the burden of proof is definitely on the one who suggests that, not the person who says it's BS. Remember creation is a different topic from evolution.

Please don't start that again, the topic at hand is multifaceted, and your attempt force your detractors into argument using PROOF from your camp is not playing on a level field.

False. It is typical of creationists to ignore / deny evidence and just dismiss counterpoints without even addressing them. You are a prime culprit in this thread as well. A level playing field means that both sides back up their arguments and address the other side's counterpoints. It's that simple. When you ignore the opposition's argument, you are being intellectually dishonest.

And by the way creation vs evolution is the only farce here. They are FAR from being on an equal playing field because one of them is backed up by mountains of evidence while the other is believed out of blind faith. Evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive and debunking one doesn't validate the other, just like proving one doesn't debunk the other.