• 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!

What would refute creationism?

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Ok lets start with point

My hypothesis is that life was caused by an intelligent designer.


Why aren't you accepting this statement as a hypothesis ? Why do you think the statement fails to be a hypothesis ? , you could argue that the statement is wrong, but it would still be a hypothesis.

should we move to point 2 ?
As I and others have told you already. That is not a hypothesis, that is a claim. You may be looking at the titles of some hypotheses and think that is all that there is to it. They are much more complex than that.

So forget the word "hypotheses" for a while. Let's see if you can come u with a model that explains what we observe but assuming there was an intelligent designer.

By the way, that is not the best phrasing to use either since there is ample evidence for an incompetent designer.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
The point of an analogy is to explain a point. … is my point clear?

No, the use of analogy isn't an explanation at all.

I know that creationists like to use analogies, and not having to explain what is the Intelligent DESIGNER.

Analogy is where you try to compare one thing with something else. These two things are often unrelated to each other, the sameness is only superficially similar.

In Intelligent Design, it supposed to be alternative to Abiogenesis and to Evolution, where some agents, eg the Designer, supposedly designed and created life. The Designer isn’t much than the Creator God.

But like the Creator or God, there are no evidence that such entity (Designer) exist beyond imagination & personal belief.

Intelligent Design adherents, like yourself tends to use analogies of human activities (eg the Watchmaker making watches, programmer making codes for software, car designer designing car, etc), these analogies served as distraction, so iD adherents can avoid explaining what this DESIGNER really is.

How do Designer make “life”?

The analogies of non-living objects, like watches, cars, computer codes, mousetrap, etc, none of these living organisms, so analogies are irrelevant comparisons with life or with living organisms.

Now, you are trying to use another irrelevant analogy that have nothing to do any living organism: the analogy of how writers write words and sentences, using ink and pen.

The written letters, words & sentences, are not living organisms, so the comparisons are nothing more than using false equivalence and circular reasoning.

All analogies are, when used by creationists, are only to use distract others, so they don’t have to explain how life were formed by the so-called Designer.

This is why Intelligent Design isn’t a hypothesis, because it avoid having to explain and test their unfalsifiable ID concepts.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
All that arguing against Creationism is going to do, is erode your belief in the Bible and ultimately erode your reasoning to keep the Biblical Laws. without which, you won't be in the Kingdom of Yahweh.
If belief in the Bible is important to you, you should stick to your believes.
Macroevolution has never been observed. How can you say it is testable? It amazes me. Why spend so much time arguing against Creationism, when you don't have a leg to stand on yourself.
E.g. the previous statement should have been prefaced with "the Bible says" or "I believe". You'd still be wrong in your belief but the statement wouldn't be a statement of fact that is subject to criticism or falsification.
But best would of cause be you wouldn't interfere with discussion of science as that is not part of your belief system.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
Let's start off with the false claim about macroevolution never being observed.

Hi Subduction Zone. Good morning. As far as I am aware, macroevolution has not been observed. If you are intending to use speciation as your evidence, I should point out that all we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). Further, you cannot use evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. They are different processes. Lots and lots of microevolution will never produce macroevolution.
 

Messianic Israelite

Active Member
If belief in the Bible is important to you, you should stick to your believes.

E.g. the previous statement should have been prefaced with "the Bible says" or "I believe". You'd still be wrong in your belief but the statement wouldn't be a statement of fact that is subject to criticism or falsification.
But best would of cause be you wouldn't interfere with discussion of science as that is not part of your belief system.

Hi Heyo. Good morning. Sticking to my beliefs includes opposing the theory of evolution as it is not Biblical. I believe in science. Just my belief system reasons that us travelling on a ball of rock and magma, hurling through the vacuum of space at 67,000 miles per hour and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour is less to do with mere chance and more to do with design.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
As I and others have told you already. That is not a hypothesis, that is a claim.r.
That is because hypothesis are claims.


If you have your own personal and unique definition for hypothesis , please share it, so that I can fulfill your request
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, the use of analogy isn't an explanation at all.

I know that creationists like to use analogies, and not having to explain what is the Intelligent DESIGNER.

Analogy is where you try to compare one thing with something else. These two things are often unrelated to each other, the sameness is only superficially similar.

In Intelligent Design, it supposed to be alternative to Abiogenesis and to Evolution, where some agents, eg the Designer, supposedly designed and created life. The Designer isn’t much than the Creator God.

But like the Creator or God, there are no evidence that such entity (Designer) exist beyond imagination & personal belief.

Intelligent Design adherents, like yourself tends to use analogies of human activities (eg the Watchmaker making watches, programmer making codes for software, car designer designing car, etc), these analogies served as distraction, so iD adherents can avoid explaining what this DESIGNER really is.

How do Designer make “life”?

The analogies of non-living objects, like watches, cars, computer codes, mousetrap, etc, none of these living organisms, so analogies are irrelevant comparisons with life or with living organisms.

Now, you are trying to use another irrelevant analogy that have nothing to do any living organism: the analogy of how writers write words and sentences, using ink and pen.

The written letters, words & sentences, are not living organisms, so the comparisons are nothing more than using false equivalence and circular reasoning.

All analogies are, when used by creationists, are only to use distract others, so they don’t have to explain how life were formed by the so-called Designer.

This is why Intelligent Design isn’t a hypothesis, because it avoid having to explain and test their unfalsifiable ID concepts.
Again those or very interesting points, but are irrelevant to my original point


My point is that the building blocks (aminoacids)of life don't naturally arrange in to self replicating molecules (cells) ..... in the same (and this is the analogy) way ink doest naturally arrange in to meaninfull words and sentences .


You can ignore the analogy, if you wish, the question is do you afirm that the point is wrong ? Why?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
That is because hypothesis are claims.


If you have your own personal and unique definition for hypothesis , please share it, so that I can fulfill your request

No, there are only one definition of hypothesis that matters in science, and it is the science definition that applied to the requirements of Scientific Method, and not the ignorant one that you provided.

Before anyone can start the formulation of the hypothesis, that must already have some initial or preliminary observations of the natural & physical phenomena.

With those observations, it should provide some information (data) about the phenomena, that the person can study, evaluate and analyze phenomena. Only then can a person have information to understand the phenomena and begin to write proposed models of the phenomena, as to what it is, and how does it work, hence the model should include -

(A) the (proposed) explanations & the (proposed) logic (logical model, like mathematical equations),

(B) the (proposed) predictions,

(C) and more importantly, include proposed methodology to TEST A & B.​

What C means is to “test” the hypothesis. And the only to objectively “test” it, is to either find evidence or to set up experiments, that will either -
  1. “refute” the hypothesis, because the model is “improbable”,
  2. or, “verify” the hypothesis because the model is “probable”.

You cannot simply make up some claims in the hypothesis. Like I said at the start, you have to begin with preliminary observations, which should provide some data to proceed to understand the natural phenomena.

To give you a real life example.

Charles Darwin didn’t simply invent some nonexistent stories. It all began with studies of geology and studies of organisms of both plants and animals during his voyage upon HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, mainly in South America and the Galapagos, and to less extent the Pacific islands, Australia and South Africa.

His travel journals and notes and samples that he brought back to England, were parts of his research that he would later attempt to explain in On Origin Of Species (1859) and later works. He continued to research before On Origin publication, as well as consulting with other geologists, zoologists and botanists.

And what most creationists tends to forget, Darwin wasn’t the only one working on the hypothesis of Evolution through Natural Selection.

Alfred Russel Wallace was writing a similar hypothesis, and he too, like Darwin, did some fieldworks at the Amazon rainforest and at the Malay Archipelago.

Both naturalists had some things to research on - the preliminary observations - before they began writing their respective works on Natural Selection.

Hypothesis is a proposed set of explanations that needed to be both testable (Falsifiability) and tested (more observations, eg evidence, experiments, which would fulfill the requirements of Scientific Method).

When you say “hypothesis are claims”, it only revealed you have no idea what a hypothesis is.

Creationists make up claims all the time, but their claims don’t qualify as being a hypothesis, because a hypothesis needs explanations that are “falsifiable”, meaning the hypothesis must “testable”.

And creationism isn’t “falsifiable”, because you cannot test the supernatural, like God, angels, creation of Adam, the nonexistent “global” Flood, miracles, resurrection, etc. The failure to test any of these, only demonstrate the concepts of creationism are merely claims.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Hi Heyo. Good morning. Sticking to my beliefs includes opposing the theory of evolution as it is not Biblical.
Well, then stick in the game but beware of the rules. Claims, believes and Bible quotes won't get you any points here, evidence, logical arguments and quotes from referred, peer reviewed papers will.

Here are some examples of speciation in real time:
Speciation in real time - Understanding Evolution
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
No, there are only one definition of hypothesis that matters in science, and it is the science definition that applied to the requirements of Scientific Method, and not the ignorant one that you provided.

Before anyone can start the formulation of the hypothesis, that must already have some initial or preliminary observations of the natural & physical phenomena.

With those observations, it should provide some information (data) about the phenomena, that the person can study, evaluate and analyze phenomena. Only then can a person have information to understand the phenomena and begin to write proposed models of the phenomena, as to what it is, and how does it work, hence the model should include -

(A) the (proposed) explanations & the (proposed) logic (logical model, like mathematical equations),

(B) the (proposed) predictions,

(C) and more importantly, include proposed methodology to TEST A & B.​

What C means is to “test” the hypothesis. And the only to objectively “test” it, is to either find evidence or to set up experiments, that will either -
  1. “refute” the hypothesis, because the model is “improbable”,
  2. or, “verify” the hypothesis because the model is “probable”.

You cannot simply make up some claims in the hypothesis. Like I said at the start, you have to begin with preliminary observations, which should provide some data to proceed to understand the natural phenomena.

To give you a real life example.

Charles Darwin didn’t simply invent some nonexistent stories. It all began with studies of geology and studies of organisms of both plants and animals during his voyage upon HMS Beagle from 1831 to 1836, mainly in South America and the Galapagos, and to less extent the Pacific islands, Australia and South Africa.

His travel journals and notes and samples that he brought back to England, were parts of his research that he would later attempt to explain in On Origin Of Species (1859) and later works. He continued to research before On Origin publication, as well as consulting with other geologists, zoologists and botanists.

And what most creationists tends to forget, Darwin wasn’t the only one working on the hypothesis of Evolution through Natural Selection.

Alfred Russel Wallace was writing a similar hypothesis, and he too, like Darwin, did some fieldworks at the Amazon rainforest and at the Malay Archipelago.

Both naturalists had some things to research on - the preliminary observations - before they began writing their respective works on Natural Selection.

Hypothesis is a proposed set of explanations that needed to be both testable (Falsifiability) and tested (more observations, eg evidence, experiments, which would fulfill the requirements of Scientific Method).

When you say “hypothesis are claims”, it only revealed you have no idea what a hypothesis is.

Creationists make up claims all the time, but their claims don’t qualify as being a hypothesis, because a hypothesis needs explanations that are “falsifiable”, meaning the hypothesis must “testable”.

And creationism isn’t “falsifiable”, because you cannot test the supernatural, like God, angels, creation of Adam, the nonexistent “global” Flood, miracles, resurrection, etc. The failure to test any of these, only demonstrate the concepts of creationism are merely claims.

there is something called
"Observations"

Something else called "hypothesis" (the claim)

And something else called "test"


What you seem to wongly believe is that hypothesis means all tree
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That is because hypothesis are claims.


If you have your own personal and unique definition for hypothesis , please share it, so that I can fulfill your request
But they are not. They are testable claims that explain observations. You cannot only have part of the answer and try to claim that they are the same thing. Your claims are still have no explanation. They do not make predictions beyond the claim itself. And that means that they are not testable..

You are unwilling to enter into this in the way of an honest interlocutor. One has to honestly say "I could be wrong about God, this is how we would test what I believe". You are instead trying to make excuses for your beliefs. Everyone has seen through the thin veil that you have used.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Subduction Zone. Good morning. As far as I am aware, macroevolution has not been observed. If you are intending to use speciation as your evidence, I should point out that all we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others). Further, you cannot use evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. They are different processes. Lots and lots of microevolution will never produce macroevolution.
Speciation is macroevolution. That is what the term refers to. Look it up. The person that invented the term defined it in that way.

And evolution beyond that can be observed in the fossil record. It can be observed in our genomes. It can be observed in many different ways. The problem is that you have a faulty definition of "observed".

And creationists have never ever been able to come up with a proper definition of "kind". In fact there is no "kinds' in biology. Or evolution. There is no "change of kind' that is a creationist strawman. Man never stopped being an ape. He never stopped being a monkey for that matter. You can work all the way back and at no point was there a "change of kind".


And you should probably bring your claims to another thread. This one is formed to try to help creationists find some evidence for their beliefs, Unfortunately no creationist can even come up with a proper model yet. That means due to creationists there is no reliable evidence for creationism.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hi Heyo. Good morning. Sticking to my beliefs includes opposing the theory of evolution as it is not Biblical. I believe in science. Just my belief system reasons that us travelling on a ball of rock and magma, hurling through the vacuum of space at 67,000 miles per hour and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour is less to do with mere chance and more to do with design.

You should try to understand the difference between beliefs and knowledge. You may believe that we are moving relative to other objects through space, many of us know it since we understand the evidence that supports that idea. Knowledge consists largely of ideas that have been properly tested and confirmed. That is why I know that we are the product of evolution. You may not believe it, but that only appears to be due to a lack of education in the matter. Once again this thread is on how to properly test ideas so that one can have knowledge and not mere belief.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
I succeded in providing a hypothesis and explain what would falsify it….agree?

You are literally responding to a post where it is explained why that is not the case. :rolleyes:

As far as I underststood my burden is to
1 explain what I mean by SC (apparently my definition was not good enough)

To start with, yes.

2 explain how can I test if something is SC

Yes.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The only point that I made is that words and sentences indicate an intelligent designer, because there is nothing in the known laws of nature that “forces” ink to produce words and sentences

That is not the reason why we know words and sentences are designed by intelligent agents.
If it were, then the conclusion of them coming from an intelligent agents would be nothing but an argument from ignorance.

Think it through.

Do you agree with this point?

No.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Hi Subduction Zone. Good evening. Curious. Macroevolution has never been observed. How can you say it is testable?

First of all, it is a misconception that macroevolution hasn't been observed.
Speciation is macro evolution and speciation most definitely has been observed.
But I'm guessing you are talking about macro on the scale of say the common ancestor of humans and chimps to humans and chimps, which is a process that took some 7 million years to unfold.

Yes, a process that took 7 million years, hasn't been observed. :rolleyes:

However, that does not mean that we can't test it....
The idea that humans and chimps share ancestors makes LOADS of testable predictions. Predictions that can be tested TODAY. Predictions about anatomy, fossils, geographic distribution, genetics, ... even psychology.

Consider a murder that took place with nobody around to see it and out of side of camera's. All you have are a body, a knife stuck in the body's chest and a couple of clues at the crime scene (a footprint, perhaps a hair, some skin cells under the finger nails of the victim, etc).

You can't observe this murder. It already occured. So you have to piece together what happened based on the circumstantial evidence. That will be your hypothesis. It will be testable.

You pinpoint a suspect. You make predictions about DNA matching the cells under fingernails, the fingerprints on the knife matching the suspect's, the suspect not having a proper alibi, perhaps the suspect's phone records puts him / her at the scene, etc.

Just to show you: one does NOT necessarily require "observation" of events of the past, to figure out what happened in testable ways.

If that were the case, then NO CRIME that took place behind closed doors could ever be solved.
I'm sure you wouldn't even think about saying such a thing. I'm sure you realize that it's very much possible to piece together what happened merely from the evidence, without observing the actual crime itself. Right?

It amazes me. Why spend so much time arguing against Creationism, when you don't have a leg to stand on yourself. All that arguing against Creationism is going to do, is erode your belief in the Bible and ultimately erode your reasoning to keep the Biblical Laws. without which, you won't be in the Kingdom of Yahweh.

Preaching.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Hi Subduction Zone. Good morning. As far as I am aware, macroevolution has not been observed. If you are intending to use speciation as your evidence, I should point out that all we have ever observed is what evolutionists themselves call “subspeciation” (variation within kind), never “transspeciation” (change from one kind to others).

:rolleyes:

Speciation is ALWAYS a vertical process.
Speciation is when a species (over time, gradually) produces a subspecies.

If "transspeciation" were to happen, evolution theory would be falsified.

The reason we don't observe such, is because - ironically - evolution theory is very accurate.

Further, you cannot use evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. They are different processes

They are not. The creationists who have told you this, were either lying or ignorant.

. Lots and lots of microevolution will never produce macroevolution.

False.

Just like accumulating lots of micro-distances will inevitably produce macro-distances.

How do you NOT travel a mile by taking steps of 1 inch at a time?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Hi Heyo. Good morning. Sticking to my beliefs includes opposing the theory of evolution as it is not Biblical. I believe in science.

Clearly that is not true, as you clearly reject the very core of biology, genetics, bio-chemistry, paleontology, comparative anatomy,....

And depending on how old you believe the earth is, perhaps we should also add to that plenty of physics, chemistry, archeology and geology.

Just my belief system reasons that us travelling on a ball of rock and magma, hurling through the vacuum of space at 67,000 miles per hour and spinning at 1,000 miles per hour is less to do with mere chance and more to do with design.

That is your belief yes.
A religious belief.

Science explains perfectly adequately how such comes about without any need for any undemonstrable "designers".

Should we add cosmology, astronomy and astro-physics to the mix of sciences you reject?
 
Top