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

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Scientists use, you know, evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past, however there is still the philosophical problem of causality, etc. God is not a replacement for those predictive models, nor is God anything other than a replacement of ignorance here.

Source? Proof of assertion?

You say the reason I should do so is because you have evidence and I don't.

I think it is fair to compare and contrast these two views, pointing out that BOTH are essentially supernatural explanations of the origin of the universe.

You do not think it fair, because it embarrasses you to admit that your view is just as faith-based as mine.

You have continually claimed to have an evidence-based POV, although you can't seem to present any evidence for the singularity of BB lore.

I know my POV is a supernatural one , and I'm quite comfortable with the consistency of my view.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Where does the universe come from? God? Might as well just say, "I don't know."

Source? Proof of assertion?

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Actually, you have merely attempted to shift the burden of proof and taken their ideas to the unnecessary extreme.

No, actually RL has shown that there are other considerations to the posed issue. It just so happens that the narrow-minded on this thread cry foul about those considerations they do not care for.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

There is nothing about the Big Bang that explains *absolute* origins. It is an accurate model that predicts what happens immediately after the 'singularity' which is implied from the math. That's it. There is no faith there, only simple induction and making *accurate* predictions about the universe.

Predictions w/o faith? Think about that statement for a moment. Rolling Eyes

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Since it seems extremely common for creationists to twist around words,...

Hypocritical.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Finally, again you need evidence for your position, 'real life'.

Please provide your definition for 'evidence'.

Without deviating from the topic too much, what's the general gist of this place? Just a little of everything?

Which assertion? I hope I don't have to actually give a source or proof of assertion for the idea that scientists use evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past. That's... silly.

You want a source for why God isn't a replacement for those predictive models? My proof would have to be essentially that of proving a negative,

but I have *never* seen a situation where God explains anything other than as a placeholder for ignorance.

Of course, God *could* be a replacement for those models, but that would be stupid. I don't include stupid replacements in my assertion because I don't recommend them and no one else should want them. Given my explanation of how God is used (as the God of the Gaps), it's equivalent to throwing up your hands, refusing to look at the evidence, or ignoring the evidence and sticking to your ignorance.

Predictions w/o faith? Think about that statement for a moment. Rolling Eyes

I thought about it, it still makes sense unless we are again bastardizing terms to mock others (like 'real life' does with the word 'creation' and 'supernatural'). The type of faith based entirely on ignorance (don't know where the universe came from, therefore God) is the most common, while the mere idea that what one extrapolates from evidence has a good chance of being right is reasonable induction, not faith.

Please provide your definition for 'evidence'.

Logical proof or empirical facts which validly lead to the conclusion (through either deduction or induction based on clear elimination of confounding alternative hypotheses).

Dictionary definitions of evidence tend to be vague and almost circular ('evidence is proof for a proposition', etc), but everyone knows what we're talking about when we request it, or when creationists proclaim to have it for their positions and point to dinosaur + human "tracks" or the impossibility of evolution or cosmological origins and use arguments from ignorance based on empirical claims.

So, can you do anything besides throw misguided pot shots?

The double helix of DNA is a mathematical structure. That so much can be explained by math to me says there was some sort of design involved.

If anything, it indicates the opposite since we know various atomic structures form naturally.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Which assertion? I hope I don't have to actually give a source or proof of assertion for the idea that scientists use evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past. That's... silly.

Why would you hope that you don't have to provide a source? Isn't that requirement repeated over & over on this very thread? And the Bible clearly uses evidence (standardized definition, not a custom, variable definition of 'evidence') and predictive modeling to test what happened in the past [and future]!

rosborne979 wrote:

If anything, it indicates the opposite since we know various atomic structures form naturally.

Why do they form "naturally"?

Why are there forces?

Which came first? The math or the objects we used to create our math?

Because nature fits nicely into math doesn't mean the math existed before nature did. Humans have a tendency to find patterns even when there are none.

baddog1 wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Which assertion? I hope I don't have to actually give a source or proof of assertion for the idea that scientists use evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past. That's... silly.

Why would you hope that you don't have to provide a source? Isn't that requirement repeated over & over on this very thread? And the Bible clearly uses evidence (standardized definition, not a custom, variable definition of 'evidence') and predictive modeling to test what happened in the past [and future]!

Sure.. and astrology uses predictive modeling too. That's why my horoscope is always so accurate, vague but accurate if I just adjust the meaning a little bit.

Sometimes math predicts things that we never could have conceived. That is where design comes in. The Theory of Relativity is one. It has been proven through the use of satellite instruments that gravity bends time and space. Nobody could have predicted that without math. Nobody would have even thought of it. It came to Einstein only after he examined his own proofs.

parados wrote:

baddog1 wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Which assertion? I hope I don't have to actually give a source or proof of assertion for the idea that scientists use evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past. That's... silly.

Why would you hope that you don't have to provide a source? Isn't that requirement repeated over & over on this very thread? And the Bible clearly uses evidence (standardized definition, not a custom, variable definition of 'evidence') and predictive modeling to test what happened in the past [and future]!

Sure.. and astrology uses predictive modeling too. That's why my horoscope is always so accurate, vague but accurate if I just adjust the meaning a little bit.

Yep. That's what happens when custom, variable definitions are utilized. :wink:

Hello peoples. I hear you have a creationist problem. Don't worry, I'm from the internet.

real life wrote:

What you are asking is for me to exchange belief in ONE entity of unknown composition, unknown origin, unknown properties (God) that caused the universe (time/space , all matter/energy, scientific laws) to come into being.........

..........for belief in ANOTHER entity of unknown composition, unknown origin, unknown properties (a singularity) that caused the universe (time/space , all matter/energy, scientific laws) to come into being.

That's patently false, given what I've read. The most reasonable answer to what 'started' the universe is: "I don't know". Scientists use, you know, evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distant past, however there is still the philosophical problem of causality, etc. God is not a replacement for those predictive models, nor is God anything other than a replacement of ignorance here. Where does the universe come from? God? Might as well just say, "I don't know."

It seems what is requested of you is evidence for creationism. You're not doing very well on that task.

real life wrote:

[various accusations]
You do not think it fair, because it embarrasses you to admit that your view is just as faith-based as mine.

Actually, you have merely attempted to shift the burden of proof and taken their ideas to the unnecessary extreme. There is nothing about the Big Bang that explains *absolute* origins. It is an accurate model that predicts what happens immediately after the 'singularity' which is implied from the math. That's it. There is no faith there, only simple induction and making *accurate* predictions about the universe. Since it seems extremely common for creationists to twist around words, remember that this *does not* mean the singularity is absolutely necessary nor if it were would it answer the ultimate question.

As for everyone else, String Theory is awesome and you can ... (insert bad words here).

String Theory is part of theoretical physics and as such is the 'creative' part of science. We have observations (lots of them) and want to see what underlying laws are. String theory is an attempt to have a single explanation for what we see at the quantum level, the macro level, and cosmological level. What it does not have right now is supported predictions, but that's where the Large Hadron Collider comes in. There are, in fact, predictions to be made concerning String Theory when it comes to the LHC. If those predictions are supported, String Theory just started to be scientific. Depending on how powerful those predictions are, it may eventually replace all kinds of other theories.

If it is not supported by the findings, String Theory will likely continue (as theoretical physics), as there are many ST models and not all of them necessarily imply what the LHC should find. In case 'real life' (ironic nick?) wants to jump on that, I've clearly delineated what is supported science and what is the more theoretical (small t) part of doing science.

For an analogy, Einstein's ideas were entirely theoretical (small t) before the implications of his ideas were tested. That doesn't mean special relativity wasn't part of doing science - these kinds of things are the powerhouse of science - but it does mean that they were unsupported by empirical tests and as such not considered validated. Note also that creationism is a far cry from theoretical physics, comparing the two is like comparing a set of broken roller skates to experimental rocket technology.

Finally, again you need evidence for your position, 'real life'.

Why would you hope that you don't have to provide a source? Isn't that requirement repeated over & over on this very thread? And the Bible clearly uses evidence (standardized definition, not a custom, variable definition of 'evidence') and predictive modeling to test what happened in the past [and future]!

Shirakawasuna wrote:

You want a source for why God isn't a replacement for those predictive models? My proof would have to be essentially that of proving a negative,

WRONG! Not even a decent attempt at wriggling away from the issue of proving your assertion. Either prove it, or don't assert - isn't that correct?

Shirakawasuna wrote:

but I have *never* seen a situation where God explains anything other than as a placeholder for ignorance.

Of course you haven't. When you create & recreate your own definitions and standards - you can believe/disbelieve, prove/disprove anything you want.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Of course, God *could* be a replacement for those models, but that would be stupid. I don't include stupid replacements in my assertion because I don't recommend them and no one else should want them. Given my explanation of how God is used (as the God of the Gaps), it's equivalent to throwing up your hands, refusing to look at the evidence, or ignoring the evidence and sticking to your ignorance.

Now you're being lead by your emotions. "Stupid", "my explanation of how God..." Cmon; where's the logic? BTW: Do you use a variable definition for 'logic' as well as 'evidence'?

"Bastardizing terms"? Cmon. This entire thread proves that most follow predictions based on faith (and do not follow other predictions due to a lack of faith.)

If those like you gave consideration to issues that you do not have faith in - then you would view the possibility of creationism differently. At least admit that much.

baddog1 wrote:

Please provide your definition for 'evidence'.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Logical proof or empirical facts which validly lead to the conclusion (through either deduction or induction based on clear elimination of confounding alternative hypotheses).

Dictionary definitions of evidence tend to be vague and almost circular ('evidence is proof for a proposition', etc), but everyone knows what we're talking about when we request it, or when creationists proclaim to have it for their positions and point to dinosaur + human "tracks" or the impossibility of evolution or cosmological origins and use arguments from ignorance based on empirical claims.

I'm very familiar with the customized, variable, circular definition(s) of 'evidence'. BTW: Given your particular definition of evidence; please prove that your Mom loves you. That you love your Mom...

Shirakawasuna wrote:

So, can you do anything besides throw misguided pot shots?

There you go with the emotional stuff again. How about starting at the beginning of this thread (the 1st post) and list all of those throwing "misguided pot shots".