Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Repeatedly.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


I'm sorry! What has already been proven?
I don't see what has been proven here.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Fantastic! Can you, in your own words, summarize that proof for those of us that seem to have missed it? Great. Many thanks.

Originally posted by Romantic_Rebel
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

I'm sorry! What has already been proven?
I don't see what has been proven here.

Look around you, the world is the best evidence and proof that God created the universe.

"The actual creation of this world was a miracle and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon. Only a supernatural force such as God can explain the supernatural act of creation. Only a supernatural person such as God can make something out of nothing. Only God can breathe life to create life and be the creator of our own souls."

"How did the “Laws of Nature” come into existence? Did the "Laws" always exist or did they just come into existence spontaneously? Or is there an intelligent creative power behind the existence of the “Laws”? These questions are beyond the scope of science and can only be discussed in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics (human imagination)."

"Scientists can only; discover, investigate and theorize on the physical laws of nature."

"Science has discovered and explained some of these “Laws”, some correctly, some questionable and there are probably, other laws yet to be discovered. Science is limited to discovering and explaining the “Laws of Nature”, they have no power to discover their origin. This is the domain of the philosophers and metaphysicists."

(novan)

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


So your entire "proof" of creationism still boils down to a "god of the gaps" argument?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Let me get this straight, you claim that the proof is in the world around us. However, the proof lies in aspects that cannot be measured in any way. So, the proof is something that is impossible to prove it even exists. That sounds like pretty crummy proof to me.

reply to post by iterationzero


nope

reply to post by Xcalibur254



and...nope

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by iterationzero

 

nope

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing...typical god of the gaps.

Every single thing you posted are random quotes and statements that aren't backed up in any way. You claiming the world around us is proof is equal to me looking at 2+2 and claiming "the answer is 5, and if you want proof, just look around you".

That's NOT scientific proof, those are random statements.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by iterationzero

 

nope

Actually, that's exactly what you're doing...typical god of the gaps.

Every single thing you posted are random quotes and statements that aren't backed up in any way. You claiming the world around us is proof is equal to me looking at 2+2 and claiming "the answer is 5, and if you want proof, just look around you".

That's NOT scientific proof, those are random statements.

So...the laws of inertia, gravity, energy, mass, etc. - aren't laws? Are they random quotes and not backed up in anyway?

Aren't those considered the laws of nature?

Aren't they backed up by science?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Of course...and evolution has enough backup too to call it a scientific theory. They have scientific backup, and the theories/laws have been peer reviewed hundreds of times.

Your "god" alternative doesn't have any proof, at least you didn't post any yet, and won't allow a peer review. Saying "god is the only explanation" whenever science doesn't have the answer yet isn't proof...it's wish belief.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
reply to post by iterationzero

 

nope

Wow... what a thoughtful, informative, and well thought out post.

Since you're refusing to put yourself on the line and post something other than someone else's words, I guess that's all I have to work with.

"The actual creation of this world was a miracle and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon. Only a supernatural force such as God can explain the supernatural act of creation. Only a supernatural person such as God can make something out of nothing. Only God can breathe life to create life and be the creator of our own souls."

After the thesis statement, the author makes an assertion that "act of creation" (which you'll note is undefined) must be ascribed to a supernatural cause, and then proceeds to provide no evidence to support that assertion. I'm going to operate under the assumption that the author of the quote, who you've left up to the imagination since you don't give a source, is talking about the creation of the universe itself. Science refutes that origin of the universe is supernatural via cosmology and, more specifically, the Big Bang theory. There is evidence to support the Big Bang theory. Where is the author's evidence that it must be supernatural?

"How did the “Laws of Nature” come into existence? Did the "Laws" always exist or did they just come into existence spontaneously? Or is there an intelligent creative power behind the existence of the “Laws”? These questions are beyond the scope of science and can only be discussed in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics (human imagination)."

Three questions are asked regarding the "Laws of Nature" (which you'll note is undefined). I'm going to operate under the assumption that the author of the quote, who you've left up to the imagination since you don't give a source, is talking about scientific laws e.g. the laws of thermodynamics. Scientific laws are human constructs used to describe some fundamental principle of science, so it may be better to ask how did these fundamental principles come into existence. They naturally derive from the universe itself. If you'd like to claim that those fundamental principles derive from an "intelligent creative power" because the universe derives from that power, then feel free to prove that the universe was created at any point. The author immediately take the discussion away from science and places it into "philosophy and metaphysics", which is a really convenient way of saying that there's no proof, or that the author doesn't really know. When you don't know something and you claim that, because you don't have another explanation, God must have done it, that's called a "god of the gaps" argument. And it doesn't constitute proof of anything other than a lack of knowledge.

"Scientists can only; discover, investigate and theorize on the physical laws of nature."

Something I can agree with. But I like the introduction of the weasel word "only". Because, somehow, those things and the model of reality they provide are trivial. Again, this doesn't constitute proof of creation.

"Science has discovered and explained some of these “Laws”, some correctly, some questionable and there are probably, other laws yet to be discovered. Science is limited to discovering and explaining the “Laws of Nature”, they have no power to discover their origin. This is the domain of the philosophers and metaphysicists."

First, I'd like to see the author's list of which fundamental principles of nature have been explained correctly and which are questionable. But I guess we'll never know if they have one, since you didn't source anything. And, finally, we come back to the same "god of the gaps" argument. "The body of scientific knowledge is limited, so God must have done it." Again, zero evidence here.

Your cut-and-paste posts and lack of willingness to follow up on these points, which have been raised by you and hammered back down again repeatedly, is a clear indicator as to how much thought you've actually given to this subject.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

Of course...and evolution has enough backup too to call it a scientific theory. They have scientific backup, and the theories/laws have been peer reviewed hundreds of times.

Your "god" alternative doesn't have any proof, at least you didn't post any yet, and won't allow a peer review. Saying "god is the only explanation" whenever science doesn't have the answer yet isn't proof...it's wish belief.

edit on 4-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Theory and law are two entirely different scientific terms. There is no reason to try and confuse them. The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory.

The laws I stated are natural laws.

So your theory of evolution is no more correct than my theory of creation or I.D.

But I digress, your input was off topic.

We are here to prove creation not disprove evolution.

So do not link them together.

"Saying "god is the only explanation" whenever science doesn't have the answer yet isn't proof" - no it is not - but it is the only logical answer we have at this time - and therefore provides the most scientific answer to how everything was created.

"A scientific theory is a type of inductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory."

ya it's the same as humans built everything.

no proof.

ID and creationists and evolution and the other theories are all the same.

something started the whole process. is physics god?

we are smart enough to figure out it is not just a roll the dice.


we'll never know the truth in 20 billion years.

reply to post by iterationzero


Refer to my response to MrXYZ

Originally posted by fooks
ya it's the same as humans built everything.

no proof.

ID and creationists and evolution and the other theories are all the same.

something started the whole process. is physics god?

we are smart enough to figure out it is not just a roll the dice.


we'll never know the truth in 20 billion years.

Agreed - they are all theories.

Agreed - something did start the whole process - who knows for sure - but I call it - God - it's the only logical conclusion I can make at this time with the information we currently have.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

Of course...and evolution has enough backup too to call it a scientific theory. They have scientific backup, and the theories/laws have been peer reviewed hundreds of times.

Your "god" alternative doesn't have any proof, at least you didn't post any yet, and won't allow a peer review. Saying "god is the only explanation" whenever science doesn't have the answer yet isn't proof...it's wish belief.

edit on 4-11-2010 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

BTW: May I remind all of you - we are here to quote - "Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!"

You are not here to try and disprove it.

So please only post your thoughts and ideas that help prove creationism/Intelligent Design.

This is direct orders from the O.P. and the rules of ATS to stay on topic.

I will report anyone who violates the ATS rule to stay on topic to the SuperModerator.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


I'm not disproving creationism...I'm debunking your wanna-be proof which is based on faulty "logic". That is well within the topic of this thread


And no, in absence of any scientific answer, the "magic" answer (god) isn't the only "logical conclusion". It's nothing but you falling into the god of the gaps trap. As for you claiming that creationism has just as much proof as evolution, that's total hogwash. You're welcome to prove me wrong by posting any proof for creationism, just one.

You're right in saying evolution isn't the subject, but you yourself just brought it up comparing it to creationism in terms of amount of proof. That's laughable...all it shows is that you never really bothered looking up the substantial amount of proof we have for evolution. I also don't think you understand the definition of a scientific theory, it's the highest category you can achieve in non-mathematical sciences. You need a ton of proof to be categorized as theory, undergo dozens (hundreds in the case of evolution) of peer reviews, and there can't be anything contradicting the theory. Evolution fulfills all of that...creationism doesn't even fulfill one of those prerequisites. It's not even a theory

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

I'm not disproving creationism...I'm debunking your wanna-be proof which is based on faulty "logic". That is well within the topic of this thread

But thanks for reminding us of the topic, we're looking forward to your proof

I'll forward any of your responses to the mod and see what she has to say about that.

And I am still waiting for your response.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Response to what? Given that none of your last posts had a question mark, I'm really unsure what you asked

And you can alert mods all you want, I really don't see how I violated the terms. You made some random statements trying to prove creationism, they didn't have any backup or evidence as support. I highlighted that fact. How is that a violation of the terms?

So now you're asking to be allowed to post your wanna-be proof, but we aren't allowed to criticize it because the objective is not to "disprove creationism"? Are you serious? All I said was that a lack of knowledge doesn't automatically make the god theory the "most scientific explanation". If it were, whenever we don't have an answer, I could claim "unicorns did it".

I don't think you fully understand what "god of the gaps" means. Here's a definition and explanation:

The phrase "god of the gaps" is used to describe the attempts by some people to justify the rationality of theism by relying upon "gaps" in scientific knowledge. In other words, because science cannot explain some event or object, then it is reasonable to believe that a god is responsible for the event or object.

Obviously, this "god of the gaps" argument is simply a variation of the informal fallacy argumentum ad ignorantium, or argument from ignorance. The mere fact that we do cannot explain something is not a valid justification to rely upon something else, even more mysterious, as an "explanation." Such a tactic is also risky here because, as science progresses the "gaps" in scientific explanation grow smaller. The theist who uses this to rationalize their beliefs may find that, at some point, there simply isn't enough room for their god anymore.

Source

If you read this thoroughly, you have to realize that it is EXACTLY what you're doing.