Place for Creationists to post their "reasonable tests" for their position

[Subduction Zone]

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.

To be fair I do believe that @KenS is an OEC. Not much of an improvement, but it is a small step in the right direction.

 

[We Never Know]

IMO...

Faith can be tested. A god/supernatural cannot.

If a god exists, it's of supernatural existence and if supernatural does exist, it is out of our realm of knowledge for any testing at this time.

Therefore asking for a test/evidence to show/prove a god is rather pointless unless you know how to test the supernatural(if it exists).

However it is rather comical at times to watch the bickering of people who are sure a god does exists or sure a god doesn't exist and the lengths they will go to trying to convey that they are correct when neither can show either.

 

[MikeDwight]

Major logical fallacy ... Appeal to (irrelevant) Authority.
How about actual scientific education in relevant fields and no membership card for the Nazi party?

Well ya, if I may again shortly say, they're not actually fans of tests , or providing the tests of Evolution. Faith In Evolution is paramount to essential tenants of the Nazi party. Where do Scientists actually come from? What is science in the popular media really, that itself is its own cult following , I got a street gang named E=MC^2 that sort of thing. Where did Einstein come from? Germany! The Germans measured his "Jewish" head for smallness and inability and flunked him for Jewishness, none of his peers understood how he didn't want to be a soldier for Germany, and plus, he worked in a patent office, the teacher probably didn't understand his math operations, and he left Germany, he's a total pig though, I mean divorce in that timeperiod. Scientists don't want to have to worry about Creationism, or al Religion, its not their theory. Scientists are not interested in the Book Burning anywhere.

If you used such measures you are using such as leading figures approve of it, then for 10,000 years you are a creationist , and in the last 30 years you are an evolutionist right, if you are using the intellectual level of arguments presented.

I think the predestination of Human divinity is important to a functioning allied humanbeing. Well, if you ask basic philosophical curious questions on that then family point you at Nitzche and German Nazis, then you are essentially a Nazi talking about questionable Design on humanity.

Ugh, I'll provide this test of Creationism. The Bible agrees God made all of the World in Genesis. Oh wait, is it assumed you are not religious, or not a believer in that creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well ya, if I may again shortly say, they're not actually fans of tests , or providing the tests of Evolution. Faith In Evolution is paramount to essential tenants of the Nazi party. Where do Scientists actually come from? What is science in the popular media really, that itself is its own cult following , I got a street gang named E=MC^2 that sort of thing. Where did Einstein come from? Germany! The Germans measured his "Jewish" head for smallness and inability and flunked him for Jewishness, none of his peers understood how he didn't want to be a soldier for Germany, and plus, he worked in a patent office, the teacher probably didn't understand his math operations, and he left Germany, he's a total pig though, I mean divorce in that timeperiod. Scientists don't want to have to worry about Creationism, or al Religion, its not their theory. Scientists are not interested in the Book Burning anywhere.

The theory of evolution can be and is tested constantly. There is no "Faith in Evolution" since the theory of evolution is supported by endless evidence none is needed. Faith, at least religious faith, exists because there is no reliable evidence for beliefs.

And nice story about Einstein. When did you make that up?

 

[ratiocinator]

To be fair I do believe that @KenS is an OEC.

Yes - I suspected that, my last sentence was more a reference to the title of the thread.

 

[MikeDwight]

From Einstein's biography word for word, plus his boomerang he got as a boy from his family, thanks. Its a parabola! Yes there is you just have a new pointy hat Pope and he gives you some recitations that keep the demons away and you haven't Really touched a beaker in your life, and a new fantastic Nazi rocket or super weapon is going to come along and save Berlin.

What do they test anyway, they find bones and they say we have a series of bones that go from one point to another, Ape, to Man, correct? Anybody? I got this from a cartoon? Is that what we test?

The Bible every single page is going to convince you of every miracle of God, if you take that one, they got another for you, I don't think that's the subject, either.

 

[Kenny]

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.

Who is talking about YEC?

There is no evidence to suggest God couldn't be involved. As you said, there is just a gap.

 

[Kenny]

Yes - I suspected that, my last sentence was more a reference to the title of the thread.

Which was placed by an atheist which really hasn't contributed any substantive thought.

 

[gnostic]

There is no evidence for primordial soup either or any other "how life began" theory so "yes" there is really no debate

No one is asking to present evidences for Abiogenesis, but Abiogenesis are falsifiable hypotheses, that have not been turn into “scientific theory” because they are still undergoing testing.

I have said “hypotheses”, not “hypothesis”, because there are currently several different versions or different models being approached from different angles.

This thread about presenting reasonable tests for creationism, not tests for Abiogenesis or for evolution or for the Big Bang.

You’ve claimed that there are reasonable tests (evidences) for creationism, and stated you will only offer such tests in a new thread. And this reason why this thread was created.

All you have done here, is dodge and quote some snippets of opinions of scientists that don’t have contexts. These opinions don’t amount to any test for anything, let alone for creationism.

If you have reasonable tests or evidences for creationism, then present them.

If you don’t have any such test or evidence, then admit you have none, stop being so evasive, and stop blaming others here for your own indiscretions of your own making.

 

[gnostic]

Faith can be tested. A god/supernatural cannot.

Not really.

Faith is only a conviction of believing something without evidences, and that include faith in any deity, hence religious faith.

But if you were to test such faith, you would discover that religious faiths be false/wrong, unreliable and unfalsifiable.

If a god exists, it's of supernatural existence and if supernatural does exist, it is out of our realm of knowledge for any testing at this time.

And that is just simply an excuse for justifying unsubstantiated belief, by making special rule for being exempt from any scrutiny.

Sorry, We Never Know, but if creationists (as well as any Intelligent Design advocates) are going to claim that their beliefs in creationism (and ID) are “scientifically” justifiable, then they too must follow the requirements of -

(A) Falsifiability,
(B) Scientific Method, and
(C) Peer Review.​

Both creationists and ID adherents continue to make excuses their belief in creationism and ID have “scientific” merits, then they must present some tests or evidences.

Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists (he’s a biochemist) admitted after being cross-examined at the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case, that there have never been any test (hence no evidences) for Intelligent Design and there have been no Peer Review for any papers on ID (including Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity).

He was the principal expert witness for the Defense (Dover’s school board), and his admissions torpedoed Dover’s side as well as his frequent evasiveness, don’t reflect very well for ID or for Discovery Institute.

And judging by some of KenS’s replies, he is clearly advocating for Intelligent Design.

If Behe, as a qualified biochemist, cannot present a falsifiable hypothesis for Intelligent Design, what make you think someone like KenS can, who has no qualifications in biology, let alone in astrophysics, since a number of his contextless quotes (from page 1, post #7) came from astrophysicists.

It funny how KenS talk about how “life” begin, he quoted some astrophysicists, who are not qualified to talk about biology as experts. Only one of them, is a biologist, Carl Woese, and two them are not even scientists or mathematicians (eg Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew).

I don’t give a rat’s a$$ what Jastrow or Flew have to say, but what others have to say, KenS has cut-and-paste, and taken them all out of context. That just show how little integrity KenS have.

 

[We Never Know]

Not really.

Faith is only a conviction of believing something without evidences, and that include faith in any deity, hence religious faith.

But if you were to test such faith, you would discover that religious faiths be false/wrong, unreliable and unfalsifiable.


And that is just simply an excuse for justifying unsubstantiated belief, by making special rule for being exempt from any scrutiny.

Sorry, We Never Know, but if creationists (as well as any Intelligent Design advocates) are going to claim that their beliefs in creationism (and ID) are “scientifically” justifiable, then they too must follow the requirements of -

(A) Falsifiability,
(B) Scientific Method, and
(C) Peer Review.​

Both creationists and ID adherents continue to make excuses their belief in creationism and ID have “scientific” merits, then they must present some tests or evidences.

Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists (he’s a biochemist) admitted after being cross-examined at the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case, that there have never been any test (hence no evidences) for Intelligent Design and there have been no Peer Review for any papers on ID (including Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity).

He was the principal expert witness for the Defense (Dover’s school board), and his admissions torpedoed Dover’s side as well as his frequent evasiveness, don’t reflect very well for ID or for Discovery Institute.

And judging by some of KenS’s replies, he is clearly advocating for Intelligent Design.

If Behe, as a qualified biochemist, cannot present a falsifiable hypothesis for Intelligent Design, what make you think someone like KenS can, who has no qualifications in biology, let alone in astrophysics, since a number of his contextless quotes (from page 1, post #7) came from astrophysicists.

It funny how KenS talk about how “life” begin, he quoted some astrophysicists, who are not qualified to talk about biology as experts. Only one of them, is a biologist, Carl Woese, and two them are not even scientists or mathematicians (eg Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew).

I don’t give a rat’s a$$ what Jastrow or Flew have to say, but what others have to say, KenS has cut-and-paste, and taken them all out of context. That just show how little integrity KenS have.

Faith is simply belief. Belief can be tested.

Supernatural, if it exists is beyond our understanding. If you want to test what is beyond our understand, maybe you should come up with some tests.

I don't believe in a god(s) as there is no evidence for a god(s).

You simply don't get it. There are no tests, no evidence, no anything for anything beyond our realm of knowing and/or understanding. That's what makes both sides of the arguments a joke.

 

[tas8831]

So, still no "more reasonable tests" from Ken?

 

[We Never Know]

Not really.

Faith is only a conviction of believing something without evidences, and that include faith in any deity, hence religious faith.

But if you were to test such faith, you would discover that religious faiths be false/wrong, unreliable and unfalsifiable.


And that is just simply an excuse for justifying unsubstantiated belief, by making special rule for being exempt from any scrutiny.

Sorry, We Never Know, but if creationists (as well as any Intelligent Design advocates) are going to claim that their beliefs in creationism (and ID) are “scientifically” justifiable, then they too must follow the requirements of -

(A) Falsifiability,
(B) Scientific Method, and
(C) Peer Review.​

Both creationists and ID adherents continue to make excuses their belief in creationism and ID have “scientific” merits, then they must present some tests or evidences.

Michael Behe is one of the leading scientists (he’s a biochemist) admitted after being cross-examined at the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case, that there have never been any test (hence no evidences) for Intelligent Design and there have been no Peer Review for any papers on ID (including Behe’s own Irreducible Complexity).

He was the principal expert witness for the Defense (Dover’s school board), and his admissions torpedoed Dover’s side as well as his frequent evasiveness, don’t reflect very well for ID or for Discovery Institute.

And judging by some of KenS’s replies, he is clearly advocating for Intelligent Design.

If Behe, as a qualified biochemist, cannot present a falsifiable hypothesis for Intelligent Design, what make you think someone like KenS can, who has no qualifications in biology, let alone in astrophysics, since a number of his contextless quotes (from page 1, post #7) came from astrophysicists.

It funny how KenS talk about how “life” begin, he quoted some astrophysicists, who are not qualified to talk about biology as experts. Only one of them, is a biologist, Carl Woese, and two them are not even scientists or mathematicians (eg Robert Jastrow and Antony Flew).

I don’t give a rat’s a$$ what Jastrow or Flew have to say, but what others have to say, KenS has cut-and-paste, and taken them all out of context. That just show how little integrity KenS have.

There is evidence of species that are pink.
There is evidence of unicorn like species.
That's on earth. Let's get away from earth.

What test could you do to show that a pink unicorn does or doesn't exist any where in the billions of galaxy's, billions of habitable planets, etc any where in the universe?

 

[gnostic]

Faith is simply belief.

Not quite. You are only half right. They are related, but not exactly the same in their meaning.

Faith is a personal conviction or acceptance of the belief.

It doesn’t matter, if this faith is “religious” in context or not, it is about accepting belief without evidences. Meaning, you have already decided or to accepted to accept the belief internally.

Belief can be tested.

Sure you can.

But if you are only talking about the supernatural, like magic and miracles, or some supernatural beings, eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc, then you either believe in such things or you don’t believe in them...without testing them.

Supernatural, if it exists is beyond our understanding. If you want to test what is beyond our understand, maybe you should come up with some tests.

It would be futile to test them or to find evidences, like in scientific research, since nothing in the supernatural are falsifiable.

For instance, the parapsychology was a field in psychology that were initiated during the 20th century, to study psychic and paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc. They have tried to test these powers, using scientific method. But it was a dismal failure and worse of all, some of these so-called experts were caught cheating, altering the data.

Today, parapsychology is deemed to be nothing more than pseudoscience, just like their research and investigations.

The only places where psychic or paranormal phenomena and parapsychology been accepted are in sci-fi and horror fictions and in the movie or tv businesses.

 

[We Never Know]

Not quite. You are only half right. They are related, but not exactly the same in their meaning.

Faith is a personal conviction or acceptance of the belief.

It doesn’t matter, if this faith is “religious” in context or not, it is about accepting belief without evidences. Meaning, you have already decided or to accepted to accept the belief internally.




Sure you can.

But if you are only talking about the supernatural, like magic and miracles, or some supernatural beings, eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc, then you either believe in such things or you don’t believe in them...without testing them.



It would be futile to test them or to find evidences, like in scientific research, since nothing in the supernatural are falsifiable.

For instance, the parapsychology was a field in psychology that were initiated during the 20th century, to study psychic and paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc. They have tried to test these powers, using scientific method. But it was a dismal failure and worse of all, some of these so-called experts were caught cheating, altering the data.

Today, parapsychology is deemed to be nothing more than pseudoscience, just like their research and investigations.

The only places where psychic or paranormal phenomena and parapsychology been accepted are in sci-fi and horror fictions and in the movie or tv businesses.

"It would be futile to test them or to find evidences, like in scientific research, since nothing in the supernatural are falsifiable."

Exactly on the lines my point and if the supernatural does exist, it's above the understanding of science, out of reach, unknown, etc but it never fails that someone will always say show me scientific evidence for the supernatural(a god).

 

[We Never Know]

Not quite. You are only half right. They are related, but not exactly the same in their meaning.

Faith is a personal conviction or acceptance of the belief.

It doesn’t matter, if this faith is “religious” in context or not, it is about accepting belief without evidences. Meaning, you have already decided or to accepted to accept the belief internally.




Sure you can.

But if you are only talking about the supernatural, like magic and miracles, or some supernatural beings, eg deities, angels, demons, jinns, spirits, ghosts, fairies, etc, then you either believe in such things or you don’t believe in them...without testing them.



It would be futile to test them or to find evidences, like in scientific research, since nothing in the supernatural are falsifiable.

For instance, the parapsychology was a field in psychology that were initiated during the 20th century, to study psychic and paranormal phenomena, like telepathy, clairvoyance, telekinesis, etc. They have tried to test these powers, using scientific method. But it was a dismal failure and worse of all, some of these so-called experts were caught cheating, altering the data.

Today, parapsychology is deemed to be nothing more than pseudoscience, just like their research and investigations.

The only places where psychic or paranormal phenomena and parapsychology been accepted are in sci-fi and horror fictions and in the movie or tv businesses.

IOW, has does one get scientific evidence to either prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural/a god?

It's impossible using current science and asking for "scientific evidence for or against the supernatural" is nothing more than a oxymoron statement.

 

[Wandering Monk]

No one is asking to present evidences for Abiogenesis, but Abiogenesis are falsifiable hypotheses, that have not been turn into “scientific theory” because they are still undergoing testing.

I have said “hypotheses”, not “hypothesis”, because there are currently several different versions or different models being approached from different angles.

This thread about presenting reasonable tests for creationism, not tests for Abiogenesis or for evolution or for the Big Bang.

You’ve claimed that there are reasonable tests (evidences) for creationism, and stated you will only offer such tests in a new thread. And this reason why this thread was created.

All you have done here, is dodge and quote some snippets of opinions of scientists that don’t have contexts. These opinions don’t amount to any test for anything, let alone for creationism.

If you have reasonable tests or evidences for creationism, then present them.

If you don’t have any such test or evidence, then admit you have none, stop being so evasive, and stop blaming others here for your own indiscretions of your own making.

Thanks for keeping Ken's feet to the fire. He keeps trying to divert the conversation.

To other posters here: don't engage Ken when he goes off topic. Keep steering him back to the OP.

 

[We Never Know]

No one is asking to present evidences for Abiogenesis, but Abiogenesis are falsifiable hypotheses, that have not been turn into “scientific theory” because they are still undergoing testing.

I have said “hypotheses”, not “hypothesis”, because there are currently several different versions or different models being approached from different angles.

This thread about presenting reasonable tests for creationism, not tests for Abiogenesis or for evolution or for the Big Bang.

You’ve claimed that there are reasonable tests (evidences) for creationism, and stated you will only offer such tests in a new thread. And this reason why this thread was created.

All you have done here, is dodge and quote some snippets of opinions of scientists that don’t have contexts. These opinions don’t amount to any test for anything, let alone for creationism.

If you have reasonable tests or evidences for creationism, then present them.

If you don’t have any such test or evidence, then admit you have none, stop being so evasive, and stop blaming others here for your own indiscretions of your own making.

"Abiogenesis are falsifiable hypotheses".

Abiogenesis is simply life arising naturally from inorganic or inanimate substances. How is it falsifiable?

 

[gnostic]

What test could you do to show that a pink unicorn does or doesn't exist any where in the billions of galaxy's, billions of habitable planets, etc any where in the universe?

Sorry, but why would you even bother to try to test for anything or any species of creature in some other planets?

The only things you could possibly test life from space are bacteria that may arrive from meteorites, but at this stage of our technology, we cannot observe or detect life in other planets of other star systems.

Consider this, Voyager 1 & 2 set off back in the 1977, and only reached Pluto's orbit 9 years later, but as of today (41 years later) they have respectively travelled 146 AU (0.00146 ly) and 120 AU (0.00120 ly).

If Voyager 1 was hypothetically heading in the direction of the nearest star to the Sun, which is Proxima Centauri (PC), which is about 4.244 light years away, then it wouldn't reach the planets of PC in still another 175 years or more. And that's only if Voyager 1 continued at speed is travelling now (which is highly unlikely).

Do you understand what I am saying here?

I don't know if there are any habitable planet at the Proxima Centurari system, but if hypothetically did have such planet, it still would not be feasible to find life on this planet. And aside from that, Voyager 1 is not equip to detect life on this planet, nor would we know if there would be any power at all to send data back to Earth.

The only way to know for sure and to test life on the other planets, is to actually go to those planets, and space travel is still in its infancy: we currently don't have the technology.

But again, why concern yourself with life on other planets, when you really should know that we can test it?

If you don't understand what I am saying, then you are wasting my time on matter that at this stage, irrelevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which was placed by an atheist which really hasn't contributed any substantive thought.

Why lie about others? That not only does not help your case but is also a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. There is no "lying for Jesus" rider on that law.

Let's stick to the OP. You seemed to indicate in your first post here that you would have a reasonable test for creationism. Now since the leading creation "scientists" appear to be too cowardly to come up with such a test I do have my doubts that you can do so. Just a reminder, a reasonable test would test creationism on its own merits. It would not be tested on the supposed failure or inability of evolution to "prove" itself. That is not the way that scientific tests work.