Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

BDV wrote:

reality is a figment of your own imagination created mainly by illusions of the observers own mind, nothing exists but you, ever wonder how you got this far without kicking the bucket? simple its your reality possibly a shared reality, nether the less just an illusion created in empty nothingness .....

_The Mysterious Stranger_ by Mark Twain (same basic theme)

0 Replies

from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6377252

An interesting quote from a string theory opponent:

Quote:

Sure, he says, the ideas of string theorists are provocative. The problem is they are all unproven, and may be untestable with the current technology. By some reckoning, an atom smasher the size of the galaxy would be needed to see strings directly.

"As I like to say, there's at this point as much experimental evidence that quarks are made up of little pink elephants as they are of strings," Krauss says. "So I think that it behooves us to be honest and not claim for our theories more than we produce, because ultimately, that's going to come back and bite us."

And string theory has grown vastly more complicated over the past few decades. Every time a new problem arises, string theorists weave astonishing new and complicated explanations to get around them. For example, the theorists get around one problem by saying there are more universes out there than there are atoms in our universe. Krauss says it's hard to know whether to be amazed that we live in such a bizarre place, or worried that theorists have lost their way.

"To the extent that we even understand string theory, it may imply a massive number of possible different universes with different laws of physics in each universe and there may be no way of distinguishing between them or saying why the laws of physics are the way they are," he says. "And if I can predict anything, then I haven't explained anything. If I have a theory of everything, then in some sense, I have a theory of nothing."

What an old fashioned dud this guy is. What's he trying to do, cramp our style?

An interesting quote from a string theory proponent:

Quote:

The institute director occupies a curious place in the string-theory debate. Gross won a Nobel Prize a few years ago for work in a conventional branch of theoretical physics. But now he's a strong proponent of string theory.

"Even those of us who work in the field aren't really sure what string theory is or what it's going to be," Gross says. "So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

Gross has heard all the criticisms of string theory and he has ready rebuttals.

"One is rather flippant but correct," he says, "and it's that there's nothing else. There's no other game in town."

In other words, a speculative 'theory' with no proof is better than 'no theory at all'.

Wow, he has 'ready rebuttals', so he must be right, (or maybe he is something like a high tech telemarketer.)

0 Replies

Sounds a bit like the discussions that went on in cellular science before the disovery of DNA. Did Watson and Crick ever see a DNA molecule?

Um.

Joe(no.)Nation

0 Replies

oooooo good response, Joe. a great zinger, as they say.

Almost as good as Wolfie telling us what TOE will be.[/u]

well after all, the good string 'theory' prof DID stress the importance of his faith when dabbling in speculation :

Quote:

"Even those of us who work in the field aren't really sure what string theory is or what it's going to be," Gross says. "So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

Yep, the real question (he says) is whether you believe.

and you and wolfie are great examples of strong faith as well (not to forget TKO and others who have shared their faith over what will most certainly be)

I commend you for your faith.

but I thought science was all about evidence.................................isn't a 'theory' supposed to have evidence before it's a 'theory'?

hmmmmmmmm gotta check into that with a scientific type. any around here? nope haven't really talked to any.........................

0 Replies

Science requires that it predict something and then what was predicted occur.

You confuse actual physically seeing something with science, real life.

Science doesn't require that you actually see it before it is science. Ever seen a photon, real life? How about a neutron? Yet science has shown they exist by predicting what they cause other things to do and observing that those other things occur.

All theories start with speculation. Then they are tested. Unlike religion, string theory has to make predictions that can be shown to occur.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Science requires that it predict something and then what was predicted occur.

You confuse actual physically seeing something with science, real life.

RL has been confusing (or more likely obscuring) the distinction of observational evidence versus direct observation of a theory for years now.

To be clear, when science stipulates that something must be observable, it is talking about evidence and tests, not about a theory itself. We do not have to watch a Redwood Tree grow from a seed in order to prove that it did. We do not have to watch continents drift or species evolve, in order to prove scientifically that they did.

0 Replies

It wasn't me that said there's no evidence.

The quote I provided was from Lawrence Krauss, chair of the Physics Dept at Case Western Reserve University....

he said:

Quote:

As I like to say, there's at this point as much experimental evidence that quarks are made up of little pink elephants as they are of strings. So I think that it behooves us to be honest and not claim for our theories more than we produce, because ultimately, that's going to come back and bite us.

0 Replies

So, gaps in our knowledge which scientists are actually searching to fill, means that the scientific explanation is just as much rubbish as your position, where there's nothing but a gap? No knowledge whatsoever? Just a huge gaping gap?

The moment someone here admits they're wrong (which is usually not the Fundamentalists, because they'll never admit to being wrong even when the wrong answer is staring them in the face) you latch onto it as proof that the other guy is wrong.

So what? Doesn't make you right.

The key thing about string theory is that it does make testable predictions. All the other candidates do too... well, except perhaps Causal Dynamical Triangulations; admittedly its proponents haven't made any testable predictions yet.

String theory does, however. And hopefully the Large Hadron Collider in CERN, once it is switched on, will be able to test some of its predictions.

Creationism does not. It makes no testable predictions. You cannot test for anything in Creationism. It is a religious belief, unlike the scientific endeavours of the physicists and especially unlike those of the biologists and the chemists.

Trying to label your opposing views as religious beliefs, when they have nothing in common, is absolutely absurd. You think by discrediting opposing views that you make yours any better? If so, you're a sad, sad little man/woman.

Care to try and debunk Quantum graphity while you're at it? How's about internal relativity?

Why should anyone respect your position when you've got no mathematics backing your position up (unlike string theory) and no empirical evidence? Why should anyone respect your position when it is nothing but a tautology? Why should anyone respect your position as a valid alternative to scientific explanations when you can't even defend it properly with scientific explanations? All you can do is believe in a God of the Gaps, which is one of the most intellectually and theologically bankrupt ideologies in existence.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are both intellectually and theologically bankrupt, as they will result in the erosion of faith. As science progresses, it will shrink the gaps of our knowledge and it will destroy the faith of anyone who believes in a God of the Gaps. Both Creationism and Intelligent Design will be shown for the rubbish ideologies they are. The only thing that is stopping it from happening is wilful ignorance and the erosion of scientific education (in the US at least) by those who wish to muddy the watesr of an otherwise unchallenged and stable scientific theory.

0 Replies

Math has always been the nemesis of the Bible. Math keeps proving that the perfect creation of this universe ain't. Consider J. Kepler, he of elliptical orbits fame, good Christian Bible believer he, he sought and fought the numbers for 27 years trying to get the planetary orbits to be perfectly circular, like those in a perfect creation would be, as the Church Fathers said they would be.

But they wouldn't be.

x2/a2 + y2/b2 = 1

Dats a ellipse, said Johann. Darn.

He did the math. The math predicted the position of the planets. Voila!

I had a teacher who told me that she thought Kepler must have known about ten years into his research that the Church was wrong, but he kept trying until the numbers, the mathematics, became clear. He then declared that we must discover the universe as God had made it not as we believed He should have made it.

Isn't that sweet?

Moving past that, it's time, well actually well past time, that the Creationists tell us when certain things were created:
What year (B.C.E. accepted) was the horse created?
Did that creation coincide with the creation of any other beast?
The Ox?
The Hare?
The Camel?
What year was the creation of humans achieved?
Where?
In what year did Ham descend from the Ark and go to Africa to create the Black Race?

Please provide whatever fossil evidence which shows that particular creatures arose completely unconnected to any other previous creature.

Joe(rock on)Nation

0 Replies

Quote:

"So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

The above statement is based upon an honest fear as to whether string theory will ultimately be proven incorrect. Thats quite a bit different than a Creationists "faith" in an inerrant Biblical record of mythological crap like floods and young earths. The Creationist POV is easily dismissed right now based upon available evidence and RL is merely trying to avert our eyes from this fact. His attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution are the defenses of a slick preacher who doesnt want you to dissect his own beliefs.

I want to continue the drumbeat and request that RL either show his irrefutable evidence or a reasonable portion thereof. That probably aint ever going to happen.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution

We were discussing string theory in relation to the BB, farmerman. No one has tied it to evolution.

The problem you have is that you think only evolution is to be compared with creation.

The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

It is not just a matter of 'evolution vs. creation' , but also 'BB vs. creation' , 'abiogenesis vs. creation' .

You want to narrow the topic to evolution. Ain't gonna happen.

Now, the good prof tells us that , in his view, string 'theory' has no legs.

If you can't handle that, no prob.

But he's got some impressive creds that ought to give him a hearing.

Too bad you don't want to hear what he has to say.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution

We were discussing string theory in relation to the BB, farmerman. No one has tied it to evolution.

So. we are discussing string theory because?

You don't want to deal with the creation of the world as related in the bible?

Neither string theory or the BB are in the bible real life. Why do you bother to keep bringing them up? Oh.. that's right. Because you have provided no evidence of "creationism" as was asked in the first post of this thread.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution

We were discussing string theory in relation to the BB, farmerman. No one has tied it to evolution.

So. we are discussing string theory because?

You don't want to deal with the creation of the world as related in the bible?

Neither string theory or the BB are in the bible real life. Why do you bother to keep bringing them up? Oh.. that's right. Because you have provided no evidence of "creationism" as was asked in the first post of this thread.

We are discussing string 'theory' because YOU brought it up, parados.

We were discussing the BB, and YOU interjected that string 'theory' supported the BB.

As I explained to fm, and have previously explained to you, it is certainly fair game to compare and contrast the BB with creation.

The reason you don't want to is obvious. You've got nowhere to hide when discussing the origin of the universe.

The universe either existed eternally , i.e. it NEVER had a beginning point

or

The universe HAD a beginning point.

Now, since scientific law precludes all the matter/energy of the universe from having been created by natural processes, you have to come up with a supernatural explanation, i.e. the Big Bang.

--- a singularity of unknown composition (i.e. no evidence even available that it ever existed)

--- of unknown origin

--- a singularity not subject to our laws of physics

Since this cannot be defined as naturalism, what else is this but supernaturalism?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution

We were discussing string theory in relation to the BB, farmerman. No one has tied it to evolution.

So. we are discussing string theory because?

You don't want to deal with the creation of the world as related in the bible?

Neither string theory or the BB are in the bible real life. Why do you bother to keep bringing them up? Oh.. that's right. Because you have provided no evidence of "creationism" as was asked in the first post of this thread.

We are discussing string 'theory' because YOU brought it up, parados.

We were discussing the BB, and YOU interjected that string 'theory' supported the BB.

As I explained to fm, and have previously explained to you, it is certainly fair game to compare and contrast the BB with creation.

The reason you don't want to is obvious. You've got nowhere to hide when discussing the origin of the universe.

The universe either existed eternally , i.e. it NEVER had a beginning point

or

The universe HAD a beginning point.

Now, since scientific law precludes all the matter/energy of the universe from having been created by natural processes, you have to come up with a supernatural explanation, i.e. the Big Bang.

--- a singularity of unknown composition (i.e. no evidence even available that it ever existed)

--- of unknown origin

--- a singularity not subject to our laws of physics

Since this cannot be defined as naturalism, what else is this but supernaturalism?

Interesting.. NO mention at all of "creationism" in your entire post.

Nothing new in this world as real life still attempts to NOT talk about creationism.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, since scientific law precludes all the matter/energy of the universe from having been created by natural processes, you have to come up with a supernatural explanation, i.e. the Big Bang.

--- a singularity of unknown composition (i.e. no evidence even available that it ever existed)

--- of unknown origin

--- a singularity not subject to our laws of physics

Since this cannot be defined as naturalism, what else is this but supernaturalism?

There lies real life's lies..

If string theory is physics and string theory explains the Big Bang then your claim that the singularity is NOT subject to the laws of physics then your claim is false real life.

You build your claims on lies then repeat your lies repeatedly. All the time failing to address the ONE issue that is required for this thread. Give us some evidence of creationism. You have provided none. the ONLY thing you have done is make claims about physics which are false.

That leads me to one conclusion. Proponents of creationism bear false witness.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

If string theory is physics .....

Since there's no evidence for it, is it physics?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
The creation encompasses the origin of ALL things: the cosmos, first life, etc.

In your view, did the first "creation" lead naturally to all the other creations (first life), or do you consider the creation of life to be a different creation event?

In other words, was the creation of the universe sufficient to establish a natural world in which everything else evolves naturally, or does the universe require unique creation events within the original creation?

Why are you changing the subject from BB to evolution?

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
"So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

The above statement is based upon an honest fear as to whether string theory will ultimately be proven incorrect. Thats quite a bit different than a Creationists "faith" in an inerrant Biblical record of mythological crap like floods and young earths. The Creationist POV is easily dismissed right now based upon available evidence and RL is merely trying to avert our eyes from this fact. His attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution are the defenses of a slick preacher who doesnt want you to dissect his own beliefs.

I want to continue the drumbeat and request that RL either show his irrefutable evidence or a reasonable portion thereof. That probably aint ever going to happen.

Heres what I said in entirety RL. Dont try to make a bogus point by quote mining as if all I spoke about was evolution. WHat I present as a shortcoming of your debate style has been proven once again that your limited worldview is unable to even accept for analyses, the various concepts that run counter to your inerrant Biblical source crap.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quote:
"So when you're in this kind of speculative, exploratory science, it's important to have faith because you're out on a big limb. So I think it's really a question of whether we believe this is the right direction; and that I do believe rather firmly."

The above statement is based upon an honest fear as to whether string theory will ultimately be proven incorrect. Thats quite a bit different than a Creationists "faith" in an inerrant Biblical record of mythological crap like floods and young earths. The Creationist POV is easily dismissed right now based upon available evidence and RL is merely trying to avert our eyes from this fact. His attempts at conflation of string theory with the processes of evolution are the defenses of a slick preacher who doesnt want you to dissect his own beliefs.

I want to continue the drumbeat and request that RL either show his irrefutable evidence or a reasonable portion thereof. That probably aint ever going to happen.

Heres what I said in entirety RL. Dont try to make a bogus point by quote mining as if all I spoke about was evolution. WHat I present as a shortcoming of your debate style has been proven once again that your limited worldview is unable to even accept for analyses, the various concepts that run counter to your inerrant Biblical source crap.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know