"One Fact to Refute Creationism"

[Prestor John]

This is hilarious because everyone claims that my beliefs are wrong, but have not been able to provide a single example for why that is, even though I've been begging them to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is hilarious because everyone claims that my beliefs are wrong, but have not been able to provide a single example for why that is, even though I've been begging them to.

You proved it yourself when even the link that you provided did not support your claims about Hawking.

 

[Audie]

Ok. So, since you made a claim in the internet, using one of these so called "computers," how about you support the claim?



I'm starting to guess where this is going. You are making an extremely long winded attempt at insulting my intelligence instead of answering to the charge of my message, the one where i ask you to provide support for your statement.



Yup. Ain't it nice.



Yeah, sure.



Done.



Done.



Done.



Done.



Done.



Done.



Done. What do i do now?



Not really. My post was about you supporting a false claim you made. And you point me to Wikipedia. Okay. Where in that Wikipedia article does it support your statement?

Spoiler: Having read the article, i can tell you where: Nowhere.



You know what's even more hilarious? Actually i'll let you think about it.

A side-joke is that he may even think that is how to search for quotes!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, that is assumed in evolutionary theory. All species evolved from prior species. The idea that man evolved from ancestral apes is also well supported by the fossil and genetic data. That we, like the other apes, evolved from non-primate ancestors is supported by comparative anatomy studies, comparative physiology studies, comparative embryology studies, and comparative biochemistry. Evolutionary theory predicts the presence of this connectedness - these nested hierarchies. It is a necessary consequence of universal descent from a single ancient ancestral population.

Yes, exactly as I said. Huge assumptions.

About the same magnitude of assumption as assuming that there will be a sunrise in the morning. Assumption doesn't mean guess in this context. It's not a provisional hypothetical, as in "... assuming she's not lying."

I believe you have come to these conclusions simply because you never considered the possibility of Intelligent Design.

Of course I've considered the idea. I used to believe it. But that was when I believed things by faith. Later, that changed. Now, I need reasons to believe, and I have no reason to believe in a creator.

Nothing that has been discovered denies the idea of a Supreme Creator or a Creation event.

True, but irrelevant to the rational skeptic.

As I just indicated, I need a reason to believe, not a reason to disbelieve. Absent both, my position is agnostic, and my choices are the same as somebody who actively disbelieves. I don't say that there is no God or that there was no creation event, but am otherwise indistinguishable from those who do.

Slavery was prevalent in the world inhabited by the ancient Israelites. I would be surprised if He did not give instruction on the practice.

I would be surprised that a good god that commanded man to not wear blended fabrics never got around to condemning owning people. Why isn't slavery an abomination to the god of the Christian Bible?

I do not believe this "in spite" of any evidence because I have not yet seen anything that should convince anyone that those creatures were our ancestors.

And you likely never will unless you lose your faith. Nobody can convince a man to believe that which he has a stake in not believing.

There is no duty to offer evidence or argument - no burden of proof - to those that make their decisions by faith instead. Proving is a cooperative enterprise, and only occurs when a compelling argument is considered by a mind that is qualified to evaluate it and willing to be convinced by it.

 

[sayak83]

That is a great question, but a little misleading.

Convincing me doesn't prove anything.

You did not answer the question.

You are well read enough to know that science never deals with proof. Proof exists only in the realm of mathematics and nowhere else. Science only tells us which falsifiable proposition is best supported by the available evidence.

 

[Thief]

Possibly. In simple terms, evolution is the process by which changes in a population arise. Now, whether or not god started it off or not is irrelevant.

.

hmmmmm.......God is not relevant.....

maybe you should ask Him if He is relevant

 

[sayak83]

hmmmmm.......God is not relevant.....

maybe you should ask Him if He is relevant

Asked Him. Said He does not care either way.

 

[Shad]

Hawkings views are found in the book The Grand Design. He mentions God/gods a lot. However I think the following is as specific a point I could find related to what has been said in the comments.

Chapter 1 opening. (Although the whole book covers the concept of God and how it has been used as an answer to many questions which scientific ideas have replaced)

"We will describe how M-theory may offer answers to the question of creation. According to M-
theory, ours is not the only universe. Instead, M-theory predicts that a great many universes were
created out of nothing. Their creation does not require the intervention of some supernatural being
or god."

 

[Darkstorn]

Well, to be fair, the only reason Stephen Hawking is even mentioned to begin with is because someone tried to misrepresent his views in order to support a point.

 

[Audie]

Well, to be fair, the only reason Stephen Hawking is even mentioned to begin with is because someone tried to misrepresent his views in order to support a point.

See, it was like this. I said that science does not do proof; the response was-
Why, then, do so many claim that those things discovered refute the idea of a Supreme Creator or the Creation event?

which is of course, not a point at all, but first, a demonstration that he does not understand that science does not and cannot do proof. Second,
the "as if" part-as if what some (hypothetical, but stupid if they exist) people say would alter the basic fact that
science-does-not-do-proof.

THEN, he tries to back up his claim about refuting
supreme creator by another false claim, this time about
Dr. Hawking.

Of course he cannot produce a non existent quote.

Where does "to be fair" come into this?

 

[Thief]

Asked Him. Said He does not care either way.

but doesn't that make YOU?.....irrelevant

 

[Prestor John]

I'm not asking you to know everything.

Wouldn't I need to know not only all that has been discovered, but also what has not yet been discovered in order to determine what could be "missing"?

I am asking what you think is missing between the evidence you have seen so far and what would convince you.

I never claimed that anything was "missing", only that the evidences that people use to support the theory are not convincing to me.

Any one of these evidences could be explained from a Creationist perspective.

That might eliminate a hit-or-miss discussion by focusing on your specific needs.

All I did was share my opinion on the topic. That's it.

I never had any intention of explaining all my beliefs concerning this topic. That would be a huge waste of time.

However, when various forum members became bothered and challenged my beliefs I told them to offer up what they considered to be the most convincing evidence that supports the theories and I would address those evidences.

That would be the best use of our time since I never claimed to have any evidence to support my beliefs.

What is convincing to others may not be convincing to you. What is needed for *you* to be convinced.

I honestly don't know.

I have yet to see any scientific evidence conflict with my beliefs, so I don't know what would be required to convince me.

It's a joke. If that is what would be required, I'll say that your requirements are way too stringent.

Of course it was a joke. Why can't I joke back?

 

[Darkstorn]

So, how about that Hawking quote?

 

[Prestor John]

And you are right. The scientific community, which is familiar with the evidence, has been convinced of the truth of the claim that we are descended from these hominoids. that claim has been tested in a number of different ways and has held up to scrutiny. By scientific standards, it is a reliable conclusion.

My only contention is that the evidence is not as conclusive as many would have us believe and that they could be explained from a Creationist perspective.

 

[Polymath257]

Wouldn't I need to know not only all that has been discovered, but also what has not yet been discovered in order to determine what could be "missing"?

I never claimed that anything was "missing", only that the evidences that people use to support the theory are not convincing to me.

Any one of these evidences could be explained from a Creationist perspective.

All I did was share my opinion on the topic. That's it.

I never had any intention of explaining all my beliefs concerning this topic. That would be a huge waste of time.

However, when various forum members became bothered and challenged my beliefs I told them to offer up what they considered to be the most convincing evidence that supports the theories and I would address those evidences.

That would be the best use of our time since I never claimed to have any evidence to support my beliefs.

I honestly don't know.

OK, this is what I was aksing for. What is missing *for you* to be convinced?

I have yet to see any scientific evidence conflict with my beliefs, so I don't know what would be required to convince me.

OK, so what would it take to convince you that the hominoids from 1 million years ago are ancestors of modern humans? Is there *any* way to know ancestry from that time period in your opinion?

Of course it was a joke. Why can't I joke back?

Fair enough.

 

[Polymath257]

My only contention is that the evidence is not as conclusive as many would have us believe and that they could be explained from a Creationist perspective.

That depends heavily on *which* creationist perspective. Those that think the Earth is less than 20,000 years old can be shown to be wrong.

Those that think modern humans existed 10 million years ago can also be shown wrong.

Ancestry is a bit more challenging, but with knowledge of some biology, it can be demonstrated.

 

[Prestor John]

Making false claims about Stephen Hawking?

The link I supplied you shared two quotes by Hawking which I will now copy and paste here:

"In 2011, when narrating the first episode of the American television series Curiosity on the Discovery Channel, Hawking declared:

We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.[311][312]

In September 2014 he joined Starmus Festival as keynote speaker and declared himself an atheist.[313] In an interview with El Mundo, he commented:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.[314]"

Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia

 

[Darkstorn]

The link I supplied you shared two quotes by Hawking which I will now copy and paste here:

"In 2011, when narrating the first episode of the American television series Curiosity on the Discovery Channel, Hawking declared:

We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.[311][312]

In September 2014 he joined Starmus Festival as keynote speaker and declared himself an atheist.[313] In an interview with El Mundo, he commented:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.[314]"

Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia

"It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God." <- That is your claim.

Nothing you say there supports your claim. Explain this, please.

 

[Audie]

The link I supplied you shared two quotes by Hawking which I will now copy and paste here:

"In 2011, when narrating the first episode of the American television series Curiosity on the Discovery Channel, Hawking declared:

We are each free to believe what we want and it is my view that the simplest explanation is there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization. There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe, and for that, I am extremely grateful.[311][312]

In September 2014 he joined Starmus Festival as keynote speaker and declared himself an atheist.[313] In an interview with El Mundo, he commented:

Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'we would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn't. I'm an atheist.[314]"

Stephen Hawking - Wikipedia

The below is a complete falsehood:


"It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God."

 

[Audie]

"It is a well-known fact that Stephen Hawking has repeatedly claimed that science has proven that there is no God." <- That is your claim.

Nothing you say there supports your claim. Explain this, please.

Lyin' for Jesus?