do you have a better empirical and verifiable theory?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position
- Thread starter tas8831
- Start date
do you have a better empirical and verifiable theory?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Major logical fallacy ... Appeal to (irrelevant) Authority.
How about actual scientific education in relevant fields and no membership card for the Nazi party?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well that was a waste of time.I think your "rewording" is wrong. It's more like a twisting of statements to create a "fake news" perspective.
So let me first lay down a foundation:
As everybody know, how the earth began is a matter of perspective. Scientist look at the same thing but coming up with different viewpoints.
Below you will find 7 theories of the origin of life which is part of the perspective of creation.
7 Theories on the Origin of Life
At this point there really isn't a "test" (as you suggested) to find out how it all began since the "test" would have to recreate and procreate life and, thus, you created a false narrative. Fake news.
So, my point, which was stated in another thread or the same one, is simply point why I believe in Creationism by quoting people of renown and are expert in their fields. Will there be counter point? Of course! If there are 7 theories, every scientist will try to defend there point. Do they prove Creationism wrong? Obviously not, for if they did there would be only 1 theory.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature�s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."
Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, Physics of Christianity.
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God the design argument of Paley updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument."
Edward Milne (British cosmologist): "As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]."
Barry Parker (cosmologist): "Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed."
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."
Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): "It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life."
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan."
Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) "I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science."
Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) "Life in Universe - rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique."
Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "From the perspective of the latest physical theories, Christianity is not a mere religion, but an experimentally testable science."
So what "testable" evidence can you provide to refute creationism?
You do not seem to understand. It is up to creationists to find a reasonable test for their beliefs. If they cannot do that they cannot claim to have reliable evidence for their beliefs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
since there is no evidence for creationism there really is no debate. There are only repeated corrections.
Yes... everything is a fallacy but everyone wants us to quote where we get the information from.
So... when is Authority accepted Authority?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
When the Authority is an actual expert in the field under consideration. You are just name dropping. A brain surgeon might know a little about heart bypass surgery ... but likely just enough to be dangerous.
There is no evidence for primordial soup either or any other "how life began" theory so "yes" there is really no debate
Then the cosmologists quotes are valid "possibilities". I am sure there are other possibilities.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Have you ever checked out Campbells?
Anything more specific other than Campbells?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No, they are stating their beliefs about without evidence or argumentation. Carl Woese is as close as you get and he is ambivalent at best. You asked for "testable" evidence to refute creationism and I gave it to you ... deal with it.
Sure, and if my grandmother had two attached wheels it is possible that she is a bicycle ... but the fact is that she lacks two attached wheels.
Last edited:
Anything other than that?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
The existence of an unknown does not make anybody's favourite myth or just-so story any more believable.
Abiogenesis happened - and there is plenty of evidence of when it happened and under what general conditions. Anybody who wants to propose a particular solution, be it a scientific hypothesis, an invisible Elf called Eric, or their favourite deity, it is up to them to give a good reason to take their idea seriously.
Until there is evidence for one or other specific proposal, the mystery itself is not evidence of anything (except the limits of current theories).
Well.... duh!!! That is what I have been saying from the beginning... there are NO testable evidence for any theory on how it came about.
Well, it would be like counting the astronomers who do not believe the moon is made of cheese. I am positive it is much easier to count the ones who do.
So, how many scientists believe life arose independently on this planets more than once, in your opinion?
But we do not really need to be scientists to see the obvious.
What about you? Do you believe that? Do you believe life started many times independently a few thousands years ago?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
Thank you! One person who finally said it right.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Are you sure about that? Tell me, do you know how hypotheses are tested?
By the way there is no theory of how life began yet. There are separate hypotheses for separate parts that are supported by evidence but there is no overarching theory of abiogenesis. Major questions still have not been answered.
But it is nice of you to admit by your actions that there is no evidence for creationism. And since creationism is opposed to evolution, which does not rely on abiogenesis, you have in effect conceded the evolution/creationism debate. But what the heck, your side lost that over 100 years ago.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Only because you use improper terminology.
By the way, why are you not addressing the topic of the OP?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I don't think you understood his post.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Not sure you really grasped what I was saying. There is no evidence for any god's involvement - there is just a gap in our understanding, which is no justification for inserting a goddidit.
Given the total lack of any evidence for any gods in general, that doesn't leave you with any evidence at all for any claims of god(s). Additionally, literal, YEC has been repeatedly falsified.