Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

originally posted by: MrConspiracy
We orbit around the barycentre.

Exactly, and this shows that the earth DOES INDEED revolve around the sun. Just because it doesn't orbit a central point on the sun does not mean the earth isn't going around it or that it's not in orbit. I've heard this argument before it's all semantics. The earth orbits the sun. But like all other bodies with gravity the sun moves because the gravity from the other planets tug on it as well. That doesn't mean the planets don't orbit it or revolve around it. It's a pretty bad argument actually because they all physically do go around the sun, whether it's a central point or not.

Also, am I wrong in suggesting we find tools/artefacts that defy what we originally believed? Pushing things like tool making 100,000s of years back. And it's happening all the time. The more we research, the more we find out. And naturally these findings supersede what we originally believed.

Well duh, but it doesn't overthrow entire scientific theories, it updates minor details. "The oldest known tool" is a very different statement than "the oldest tool in existence". It's exactly like I explained in the previous post. Evolution as a process is 100% proven and verified. It happens. Do we know the exact dates for every single transition ever? Of course not. That's where the theory part comes in. You gave an example of a minor detail changing because new evidence has been found. This is how theories update themselves. When you date the oldest known fossil of something found at 180,000 years we can safely say the oldest known fossil is 180,000 years. From there the date can only go back further. This happens sometimes because science is purely about the data. You act like it's constantly happening and science is wrong all the time.

I also find your tone quite offensive. Saying my comments are "laughable" isn't really fair when, in reality, you said I "think everything will be wrong in 150 years" But i didn't... I said in 150 years we could have a very different understanding of things.

This is what you said:

"150 years from now we could quite easily have a VERY different understanding of ... well, EVERYTHING. (based on science!) "

Yes I find that laughable that you think we could have a very different understanding of EVERYTHING and that you put (based on science!) at the end as another jab at it, when you have no basis in science for that view in the least. It's a self defeating argument. Yeah of course we could have a different understanding, but a VERY different understanding of EVERYTHING? Come on, you are just preaching here and you still haven't listed a single scientific theory that was wrong.

a reply to: Barcs

Even the sun orbits around the barycentre. It's just within the area of the sun. Again, whatever.

People who want me to provide col hard evidence of "creationism" are crazy. You know I can't show to you data to prove intelligent design. I'm still waiting on cold hard evidence that we changed species (but lets not venture off in to macro vs micro)

In terms of theories being superseded over time... I'll do a bit of looking for you. It was merely a general topic that science is forever finding new information which supersedes and disproves our current beliefs. You asking me for specific examples doesn't cover up the fact that what I'm saying is true. And that YES in 150 years... Everything could have changed.

Why couldn't it? We might not even be here in 150 years (as a civilisation) so, that's a big change right there. I don't know why it was so laughable. Maybe is I had used the word ANYTHING rather than EVERYTHING I could have saved you what seems to be laughter at someone else.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also this:

Laws of the universe.

As intelligent person, I assume you don't think that laws such as the four fundamental forces didn't just came on their own volition? I hope not. Otherwise, you will be relying on blind faith.

Blind faith is attributing a cause without compelling evidence, and I mean compelling. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Basically says two phenomena are initially assumed unconnected unless otherwise proven. The "ground zero" of any scientific theory. First, you have to establish a verifiable connection before you examine the nature of that connection. You appear to have skipped this step.

Talk about compelling evidence. What's the evidence that life arose spontaneously then evolved into an intelligent being?

this thread is not about abiogenesis or evolution.

the topic is: "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us."

if you sincerely desire an educated answer to your questions, there are plenty of threads readily available via the ATS search engine that will inform you. after all, this is hardly the first time the subject has been dragged out at length. it is up to you to educate yourself. your refusal to do so is neither our responsibility nor our sin.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TheChrome
Here is what needs to happen: Turn the tables. You evolutionists prove there is evolution! You can't! You blindly follow false dots that cannot be connected! So in your wisdom and supreme intellect, prove one fossil that connects organisms from different eras! ONE! that all I ask.

The theory of gravity tries to explain the proven verified fact that mass pulls objects toward it. Much like the theory of modern evolutionary synthesis tries to explain the fact that genetic mutations and natural selection change species over time. Common decent has so much evidence in favor of it at this point that denial is silly.

I have to correct you. It is the Law of gravity. Laws can be proven. A theory, has not reached Law status yet, and thus is subject to debate, AKA evolution which is a theory and not a Law.

a reply to: TheChrome

And in one fell swoop, you're revealed how scientifically illiterate you truly are:

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).



THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).




Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.

science.kennesaw.edu...

Back on topic: Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

a reply to: TheChrome

No it is theory.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


Or what Gethyped said lol.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheChrome

And in one fell swoop, you're revealed how scientifically illiterate you truly are:

LAW

1) An empirical generalization; a statement of a biological principle that appears to be without exception at the time it is made, and has become consolidated by repeated successful testing; rule (Lincoln et al., 1990)

2) A theoretical principle deduced from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by a statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present (Oxford English Dictionary as quoted in Futuyma, 1979).

3) A set of observed regularities expressed in a concise verbal or mathematical statement. (Krimsley, 1995).



THEORY

1) The grandest synthesis of a large and important body of information about some related group of natural phenomena (Moore, 1984)

2) A body of knowledge and explanatory concepts that seek to increase our understanding ("explain") a major phenomenon of nature (Moore, 1984).

3) A scientifically accepted general principle supported by a substantial body of evidence offered to provide an explanation of observed facts and as a basis for future discussion or investigation (Lincoln et al., 1990).

4) 1. The abstract principles of a science as distinguished from basic or applied science. 2. A reasonable explanation or assumption advanced to explain a natural phenomenon but lacking confirming proof (Steen, 1971). [NB: I don't like this one but I include it to show you that even in "Science dictionaries" there is variation in definitions which leads to confusion].

5) A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles or causes of something known or observed. (Oxford English Dictionary, 1961; [emphasis added]).

6) An explanation for an observation or series of observations that is substantiated by a considerable body of evidence (Krimsley, 1995).




Given my above arguments for how similar these two words are, it is nonetheless true that "law" and "theory" are different words that can or do have different connotations. So, what's the difference? Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a law describes what nature does under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A theory explains how nature works. Others delineate law and theory based on mathematics -- Laws are often times mathematically defined (once again, a description of how nature behaves) whereas theories are often non-mathematical. Looking at things this was helps to explain, in part, why physics and chemistry have lots of "laws" whereas biology has few laws (and more theories). In biology, it is very difficult to describe all the complexities of life with "simple" (relatively speaking!) mathematical terms.

Regardless of which definitions one uses to distinguish between a law and a theory, scientists would agree that a theory is NOT a "transitory law, a law in waiting". There is NO hierarchy being implied by scientists who use these words. That is, a law is neither "better than" nor "above" a theory. From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science. Furthermore, notice that with any of the above definitions of law, neither scientists nor nature "conform" to the law. In science, a law is not something that is dictated to scientists or nature; it is not something that a scientist or nature has to do under threat of some penalty if they don't conform.

science.kennesaw.edu...

Back on topic: Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us.

Before you make those assertions you need to do your research.

Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions.

en.wikipedia.org...

Falsifiable:

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is an inherent possibility to prove it to be false.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: TzarChasm

Then there's also this:

Laws of the universe.

As intelligent person, I assume you don't think that laws such as the four fundamental forces didn't just came on their own volition? I hope not. Otherwise, you will be relying on blind faith.

Blind faith is attributing a cause without compelling evidence, and I mean compelling. Ever heard of the null hypothesis? Basically says two phenomena are initially assumed unconnected unless otherwise proven. The "ground zero" of any scientific theory. First, you have to establish a verifiable connection before you examine the nature of that connection. You appear to have skipped this step.

Talk about compelling evidence. What's the evidence that life arose spontaneously then evolved into an intelligent being?

this thread is not about abiogenesis or evolution.

the topic is: "Is There Evidence for Creationism? Show it to us."

if you sincerely desire an educated answer to your questions, there are plenty of threads readily available via the ATS search engine that will inform you. after all, this is hardly the first time the subject has been dragged out at length. it is up to you to educate yourself. your refusal to do so is neither our responsibility nor our sin.

Just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. SO like I said - life can only come from PRE-EXISTING life is an argument for the the evidence of Creation. In fact it destroys the very foundation (if even had one) the evolution model.

That FACT you can't dispute and refute!

to use your own word ....checkmate.

a reply to: edmc^2

Just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. SO like I said - life can only come from PRE-EXISTING life is an argument for the the evidence of Creation. In fact it destroys the very foundation (if even had one) the evolution model.

then please explain to us who created your hypothetical creator.

and please, please dont try the special pleading fallacy by which your hypothetical creator is magically exempt from the rule that necessitates its existence. because that would be all kinds of predictable.

That FACT you can't dispute and refute!

to use your own word ....checkmate.

then answer my question above. AND show your work.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: TheChrome

No it is theory.

www.thefreedictionary.com...


Or what Gethyped said lol.

No! It's a law.

physics.about.com...physics.about.com...

en.wikipedia.org...'s_law_of_universal_gravitation

Not that gravity has much to do with the creation vs evolution TOPIC, but:
Is Gravity a Theory or a Law?

The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?
Actually, we should be talking about both.

To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about WHY it happens. That is what theories are for.

See?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

but doesnt "why" imply a cognitive process? laws describe things that happen because their nature dictates a certain response to a certain stimuli. every time. thats why its a LAW. there is no consideration or deliberation, only action and reaction.

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's what I just said. Because we know something "will" happen (it's very cloudy and I can see rain headed our way - or, if I drop this rock, it will fall on my foot), doesn't tell us why it will happen. We know it will, but not necessarily WHY it will.

That's the point.
The theory behind the law....

X + Y = Z
Law.

The answer is always Z....
But, what are X and Y? Could be any number of things.


The answer can not be "because x and y always add up to z".
Know what I mean? That does not define what X and Y are. You can't just say "because z is the answer when x and y are added". You need to know what X and Y are.

If I drop this rock, it WILL fall on my foot. But WHY will it fall on my foot?
Because rocks fall when you drop them from right above your foot.
Circular logic. Invalid.

a reply to: TheChrome

Evolution makes falsifiable predictions (genetics being the obvious slam dunk). That you are to scientifically illiterate and dogmatically trapped to know/see this is no fault but your own.

However, this is not a thread about evolution.

Care to state what falsifiable predictions creationism makes?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

a meteorologist could answer all of those questions for you. until you get to "but why do particles behave that way?" because thats how physics works. full stop. but there are those who insist on cramming a cognitive process in there somewhere. particles at some point are "thinking", or the forces acting on them are like strings connected to some sort of cosmic consciousness.

a reply to: TzarChasm

a meteorologist could answer all of those questions for you. until you get to "but why do particles behave that way?" because thats how physics works.

Right! If my little kid says, "What will happen if I drop this rock that I'm holding here above my foot?"
I can say, "It will hit you in the foot."
And if he says, "WHY will it hit me in the foot?"
I can't (with clear conscience) just tell him "Because you're holding it right above your foot." That's not a REAL answer.

It's a description of what WILL happen, but it doesn't answer WHY in terms of how it all works.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2

Just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. SO like I said - life can only come from PRE-EXISTING life is an argument for the the evidence of Creation. In fact it destroys the very foundation (if even had one) the evolution model.

then please explain to us who created your hypothetical creator.

and please, please dont try the special pleading fallacy by which your hypothetical creator is magically exempt from the rule that necessitates its existence. because that would be all kinds of predictable.

That FACT you can't dispute and refute!

to use your own word ....checkmate.

then answer my question above. AND show your work.

Problem with evolutionist is their inability to see beyond the material. Hence you have no understanding (as said before) of the concept of INFINITY.

But, I'll give it try for your sake.

If someone says something is INFINITE, therefore it has no BEGINNING and has no END. To say otherwise is to believe in fairy tales. I'm sure you don't believe in fairy tales. So what is it gonna be then?

Does INFINITY had a creator? Of course not. Therefore since God had no Beginning and no End, He is then INFINITE.

Just like Space-Time is infinite, no beginning and no end, God is eternal.

“Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.” (1Ti 1:17)

Now here's a simple question for you? Are you denying of the existence of INFINITY?

If so are we then living in a finite space, having solid boundaries? Where even nothing doesn't exist?

Your conundrum sir/madam?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: TheChrome

Evolution makes falsifiable predictions (genetics being the obvious slam dunk). That you are to scientifically illiterate and dogmatically trapped to know/see this is no fault but your own.

However, this is not a thread about evolution.

Care to state what falsifiable predictions creationism makes?

Scientifically illiterate? I am an Engineer. What do you do? Work at McDonald's?

a reply to: edmc^2

Problem with evolutionist is their inability to see beyond the material. Hence you have no understanding (as said before) of the concept of INFINITY.

and you are once again leaning HEAVILY on the most anti-falsifiable concepts you know of. unfortunately, that which cannot be proven false also cannot be proven true.

equally unfortunately, you have again avoided my question.

But, I'll give it try for your sake.

If someone says something is INFINITE, therefore it has no BEGINNING and has no END. To say otherwise is to believe in fairy tales. I'm sure you don't believe in fairy tales. So what is it gonna be then?

Now here's a simple question for you? Are denying of the existence of INFINITY?

at this time, "infinity" is a purely theoretical concept. let me be clearer on that: infinity is an IDEA, nothing more. using one figment of imagination to defend another figment of imagination....hehe.

a reply to: TheChrome

Yes, you are scientifically illiterate, as evidenced by your consistent misunderstandings of easily graspable scientific concepts.

Care to state what falsifiable predictions creationism makes?