Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

Is all this then subject to whether I/you are the one experiencing…. or whether I/you are the experience itself.

Perhaps the answers may be found in the area of “Awareness” and “Self Awareness”.

I think this plays an important part regarding NDE's or Recovery from Death experiences and what was experienced.... as not all experience the same.

i.e. a bit like in the case of a book and the one reading the book...

Are you..
a. The reader
or
b. The contents of the book being read.

So it seems to depend on what location, you are trying to find the answers from.

I think in order to find the answers, we need to step back, out of what we interpret our universe to be, and redefine what we really are, and not just observe the universe and its contents.

i.e. do we consist of both Components, the one experiencing the species and environment (perhaps the component which may be non-material and non-dimensional) and that being experienced (the biological form we experience through)?

The whole argument appears to depend on whether or not the flesh is “Aware” of anything, or whether it is something else which is aware, i.e. a component of us, which is non-material and most likely non-dimensional, which at this stage, little or next to nothing is known of, or understood.

So first we need to find out more about Awareness and define the component which is “Aware”.

Being “Aware” is a little different than Consciousness, in that response is a part of detecting the presence of Consciousness, yet response may not be a part of detecting “Awareness”.

The problem being in all of this, is that we often rely on the presence of "Response" to verify "Consciousness".

We also need to understand more about “Awareness” itself, before we can go much further to prove or disprove "ID" (where my definition of "ID" is of a collective nature, rather than something independent and isolated).

We are finding out more and more regarding Swarm behaviour, where although response is part of an overall interactive behaviour, there appears to be more to Swarm behaviour than we first expected.
So it depends on our definition of what intelligence is or expect it to be.

Has anyone any thoughts on when and how “Awareness” came into being?
And when "Self Awareness" came about.

Or whether it is “Awareness”, which may have given the motivation behind producing what we experience i.e. both the individual species, and the environment it is in ?

Are we in fact part of which has collectively produced all?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

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?

Yes, they are 'backed up' by the results of scientific observations and experiments. And the observations always come out the same. The laws of science--or rather, of nature--cannot be broken, because these laws are simply descriptions of how matter and energy interact.

The laws of society, on the other hand, are broken all the time. That is because they are not descriptions, but prescriptions--attempts to regulate behaviour that is not always the same, but varies because it is the behaviour not of planets or photons but of human beings.

A law of science is a description. A law of society is a prescription. They are two different things.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

I'm curious to see the outcome of your reporting of people to the mods. On other boards I've frequented in the past, you'd either get another warning or outright banned for falsely reporting people. Your statement that we can only post evidence in favor of creationism or ID is ridiculous. It's your job, as someone who obviously supports that theory (and I use theory in its colloquial sense, not its scientific one) to provide evidence. It's the job of people who don't support that theory to point out where the problems lie. No conversation is one sided, but I digress...

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Theory and law are two entirely different scientific terms. There is no reason to try and confuse them.

This may be the single most correct thing you've said on this topic in the last twenty-four hours.

The Theory of Evolution is just that: a theory.

Ah, but it's a scientific theory, not a theory as used in the colloquial sense. I know this has been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread, but I'll have the honor of trying to explain it again so you can ignore it again.

From the usage notes for "theory" on Wiktionary:

In scientific discourse, the sense “unproven conjecture” is discouraged (with hypothesis or conjecture preferred), due to unintentional ambiguity and intentional equivocation with the sense “well-developed statement or structure”. This is particularly found with reference to the “theory of evolution”, which opponents disparage with “it’s just a theory [conjecture]”, while proponents retort that in this context, theory means instead “well-developed, well-established”.

And a statement on the meaning of a scientific theory from the American Academy for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

The laws I stated are natural laws.

Indeed, and laws are subordinate to scientific theories.

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

Wrong. The theory of evolution has over a century and a half of gathered evidence, constant testing, correct predictions, and peer-review. Your hypothesis of creationism/ID does not. Unless you'd like to provide that evidence or show how creationism is potentially falsifiable in terms of its predictive ability. We've been waiting for that through 25 pages or so now.

But I digress, your input was off topic. We are here to prove creation not disprove evolution. So do not link them together.

When you use the argument that a colloquial theory of creationism is just as valid as the scientific theory of evolution, then a discussion of what constitutes a scientific theory and why evolution is one and creationism is not would seem to be in bounds.

It seems kind of disingenuous that you would spend time earlier in this thread trying to disprove evolution and then change course and say that creationism is just as valid as the theory of evolution. It's like telling someone their car sucks and then, five minutes later, saying that your car is of the same quality. You've just made the case that your car sucks. Or are you saying that evolution is just as valid in your mind as creationism and that you choose to believe in creationism over evolution as a matter of personal choice?

"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.

Except it's not the only logical answer. It's actually about as far from a logical answer as one can get and is therefore completely unscientific because it doesn't carry the weight of proof. Saying "because we don't know how something came to be or how it works, God must have done it" is a logical fallacy.

"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."

Notice that they differentiate between a scientific theory, like evolution, and a deductive theory, like saying "God did it"? Deductive theories make excellent hypotheses, which can then be scientifically tested and found to either support or refute a theory.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


"It's already been prove" isn't a proof.

Who: Who proved it?
What: What was the proof?
Where: Where was this published/demonstrated?
When: When was the proof discovered and when was it published?
Why: Why haven't I heard of this before?
How: How was it proven?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

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

How? Please, demonstrate a causality between the world and any deity creating it.

Also, this is a circular argument.

Your argument goes as follows:

How did the universe come into existence? A supernatural force created it.
Where is the proof that the supernatural force created the universe? The universe it created.


Your premise follows only from its own conclusion.

"The actual creation of this world was a miracle and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon.

The world wasn't 'created'. There is no 'creation of this world'. The world formed due to natural forces. We can demonstrate this.

Can you demonstrate that the world was created without using circular reasoning?

Only a supernatural force such as God can explain the supernatural act of creation.

Well, science isn't talking about the supernatural act of creation. And can you please demonstrate the proof of the statement anyway?

Only a supernatural person such as God can make something out of nothing.

Nobody is claiming that something came from nothing. This has been repeatedly stated.

Only God can breathe life to create life and be the creator of our own souls."

Quick question: Who are you quoting? Where does this quote come from?

And now you're adding dimensions of complexity. Can you please demonstrate the following:
That something had to 'breathe life'.
That life was created rather than developed.
That souls exist.
That they are created.

"How did the “Laws of Nature” come into existence?

All sorts of ideas have been put forth to explain this. For now it's a question mark with a few tentative answers.

Did the "Laws" always exist or did they just come into existence spontaneously?

Well, the former is an interesting notion, but the latter isn't something anyone is putting forth. If anything they would be put into motion by a phenomenon, not just happen spontaneously.

Or is there an intelligent creative power behind the existence of the “Laws”?

Demonstrate the existence of the creative power and we can talk. You can't have something explaining the thing that proves itself.

These questions are beyond the scope of science and can only be discussed in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics (human imagination)."

No, they're quite well handled by proper physics and chemistry and biology.

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

Nope, again not true. We are moving towards explanations of physical laws.

Again: who are you quoting?

"Science has discovered and explained some of these “Laws”, some correctly, some questionable and there are probably, other laws yet to be discovered.

Which explanations are questionable? Oh, you mean the ones we're not sure about yet. Yeah, scientists tend to simply put forth tentative answers when they're in the middle of working on a problem.

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."

Who the hell are you quoting?
Seriously, it's getting frustrated to see all of these unsourced quotes.

Now, whoever you're quoting seems to not realize that 'metaphysicists' are philosophers...and that philosophers never come to concrete conclusions.
And the term is metaphysician, taking a year of metaphysics tells you those sorts of things.

And here's the crazy thing: Science is the child of philosophy. But it's a child that has far surpassed its parent in so many ways.

Another crazy thing, your unidentified source doesn't explain why any of his/her statements are true.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
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?

Yes, scientific laws are descriptions of how things operate. All of those things you've mentioned follow mathematical equations. We know why they operate the way they do.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Gravity is not something you know about. All you know is that it is there, it is not what you are taught in school, about mass of objects, lol.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
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.

Yes, and I've repeatedly explained to you what a theory is. It's a scientific idea supported by a large amount of evidence.

Like germ theory
or cell theory
or circuit theory

All of which I'm assuming you take as fact.

The laws I stated are natural laws.

Yes, and natural laws are base descriptions of how the universe operates.

One of Newton's laws of motion: "An object at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force"

It's a description of what we have observed repeatedly.

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

Now you're back to attacking evolution.

Evolution is a theory because it has proof. Creationism/ID is a hypothesis as it is a speculation lacking evidence.

But I digress, your input was off topic.

We are here to prove creation not disprove evolution.

So do not link them together.

Well, there is a link between our discussion and any theory.

Simply because creationism has not met the muster of being considered a theory. It is at best a hypothesis.

"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.

No, it isn't a scientific answer. The scientific answer would be "We don't know now" because the only other sort of scientific explanation requires evidence.

No evidence = not a scientific explanation.

And again you're using the word 'created'. Nobody said the universe was created. You are. That's an immediate positive assertion.

So far there's plenty of science relating to how the universe came into being.

"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."

Yes, but we discover scientific laws and we have theories describing them.
Gravity is a law....but there's also a theory of gravitation. We're attempting to explain exactly why there is gravity and why it functions.

Deduction...well, it can't be used in science. It's something that is the tool of mathematicians, not scientists. Unless those scientists are determining something in a purely mathematical sense.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
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.

I'm sorry, but that's not how science works.

This is a discussion of proofs. If someone provides a proof, it can be disagreed with. If we aren't

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.

Well, here's the OP...

The topic is 'let's all assume that any proof provided is infallible'.

This is science, your ideas will be challenged. Defend them. If you are unable to defend them, drop them.

reply to post by andy1033

Originally posted by andy1033
Gravity is not something you know about. All you know is that it is there, it is not what you are taught in school, about mass of objects, lol.

You're thinking about the law of gravity, which is just a description of how it operates. There are all sorts of scientific explanations for it, but we haven't fully described it.

We know it has something to do with the curvature of space time by the mass of objects as per Einstein's work.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


You are constantly responding with "is reality real" stuff...as if the world is the matrix from the movies. That's philosophy, NOT science!

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

You are constantly responding with "is reality real" stuff...as if the world is the matrix from the movies. That's philosophy, NOT science!

The title of the thread is: Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

At least he offers up an idea about creationism, which is what we are suppose to be doing here.

His one line, "Are we in fact part of which has collectively produced all?" is extremely thought provoking.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Thought provoking material isn't proof, it's just food for thought. Here's more food for thought: Do I see the same color green as you?

Classic philosophical question that speaks to the nature of perception, but it doesn't answer anything about it.

Here we're trying to answer the question of whether or not there is proof for creationism.

We're yet to get to the point where 'yes' is even a possibility.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

 

You are constantly responding with "is reality real" stuff...as if the world is the matrix from the movies. That's philosophy, NOT science!

The title of the thread is: Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!

At least he offers up an idea about creationism, which is what we are suppose to be doing here.

His one line, "Are we in fact part of which has collectively produced all?" is extremely thought provoking.

I'm not saying it isn't interesting, because it is thought provoking...just like the Matrix movies. But he's talking philosophy, which isn't science...and you can't prove/disprove creationism through philosophy.

I could say maybe we are nothing but a computer game of some purple space turtle. Sure, could be. But we have ZERO EVIDENCE to support that. It therefore can't be proof for/against the space turtle. It's just a random statement that is philosophy and NOT science.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Do you have any thoughts on when and how “Awareness” came into being ?
Or when "Self Awareness" came about and how ?

I ask this because I suspect it ("Awareness" and "Self Awareness") may be at the root of how we look for evidence to support ID, and define ID in its true form, rather from prejudging what ID should be.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


I'm not here to speak for the other user. Still I want to answer my version of the question. I believe humans have a different version of instinct then other animals. I can't pinpoint a year which it started to happen. Yet I believe as humans evolved we changed and adapted to our soundings. Look at us where we live compared to other places in the world. We do what we do out of instinct. We just have different ways of showing it to others.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Self-awareness developed at a certain level of cerebral complexity. We can see various levels of awareness in the animal kingdom, with ourselves seemingly the only species that are actually self-aware.

It's all a matter of brain matter.

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

Do you have any thoughts on when and how “Awareness” came into being ? Or when "Self Awareness" came about and how ?

You are so far off topic it's not even funny.

The topic for this thread is proof of intelligent design.

If you have any proofs of intelligent design to advance, let's have 'em.

And evolution certainly could exist without a consciousness and in fact there is evidence points in that direction. Look at all our copies of DNA contained within cells. Would an intelligent creator have left all that junk behind? No. But DNA and genes exist to replicate. The ones that replicate the most 'win'. Some of the traits that we've developed most ... well would they really be the traits an intelligent creator would have instilled in his creation?

When it gets right down to it ... I think 'I don't know' is a fair response. However, there are far too many creationists with a poor understanding of science and theories in general. IE the false assumption that science says we came from monkeys. Either way it comes down to this ...

Science has created theories that have helped us understand and make progress in our world. That's what evolution is.



I am not a creationist but I understand that junk DNA has recently been found to have a purpose. If there is a designer, we do not have to insist that the designer seems "fair" by our standards. I am not sure that all persons in Intelligent Design have said who the designer was. Some do not even use the word 'creator." Some persons think that is being cagey and some don't.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

How? Please, demonstrate a causality between the world and any deity creating it.

Can we really find causality to this for any scenario? We are not talking just life here we are talking creation of the universe.

Even if we came to the conclusion of deity creation we are then perplexed with just what physically that deity would be.

I think first we need to create life ourselves to actually understand how it could happen in a random act of nature, but we can't, and so we are stuck anyway you look at it.