Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Audacity wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Focus is the problem?

Seems to be.

Perhaps you're barking up the wrong tree, asking the wrong people?

Nah, any kind of creationist would do, including yourself.

Evidently not. In addition to not understanding "Science" as something non-dogmatic, you don't seem to understand what Creationism is.

For the purposes of my request I spelled out what I meant by "creationism" in the second post.

In the first post RickD asked
........Define "creationism". I ask only because when people mention creationism, they usually are referring to young earth creationism.

I answered:
........The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species.

My expectation was:

........a) If this is what you believe then please respond.

........b) If this is not what you believe then don't bother responding.

So, I assumed that anyone who responded was in group "a," believing that no species evolved from any other species.

If you were in group "b" but responded anyway then I lay any misunderstanding that may have occurred on you---I am not about to ferret out the nuanced beliefs of all the various forms of creationism. Unfortunately, this turned out to be the case, leading to all kinds of irrelevancies and misunderstandings. My mistake in believing that people would read beyond my OP all the way to the second post.

In any case, I agree with RickD that the thread here is dead. Thanks to all for participating, even if it wasn't always productive.

Audacity



.

Rick, can I say that I don't understand the challenge of the OP in the first place. We were asked to define creationism without referring to evolution, but per the follow up to the OP, the definition of "creationism" is "The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species." That strikes me as self-contradictory. I'm being asked to show why I believe that God created life without using evolution, but I'm not allowed to say that God didn't use evolution. :-/

Moreover, any argument would necessarily have to run in one of two forms, and only one of two forms:

First

• 1. The Bible says that God created everything as is;
  2. The Bible is true
  3. Therefore, God created everything as is

So that's a valid argument. I expect our OP would disagree and make some silly claim about referring to the Bible as evidence. The OP would be making an argument like this, either implicitly or explicitly:

• 1. The Bible syas God created everything as is;
  2'. But everything was not created as is;
  3'. Therefore, the Bible is not true.

So the second premise is nothing more than a statement of the consensus on evolution being true. But going back to the OP, we're not allowed to talk about evolution, so, once again, the OP doesn't make any sense. We're being asked to spell a word without using the alphabet. If we aren't allowed to use the Bible because evolution disproves the Bible, then it seems we have to be allowed to talk about evolution!

Andyway, the second form of the argument for evolution is this:

• Maj. Current biological complexity ("life") was either created as is or else it evolved over time until it reached its present state;
  Min. Current biological complexity ("life") could not have evolved over time until it reached its present state;
  :. Therefore, current biological complexity ("life") was created as is

So this approach attempts to rely on unaided reason to demonstrate that everything came into existence as is (that it was created, which is to say, that creationism is true). But the very form of this argument is disjunctive, and you can't have a disjunctive argument without disproving one of the disjuncts. But since to disprove one of the disjuncts is to disprove evolution, we must necessarily talk about evolution.

I suppose, in theory, you could attempt to prove one of the disjuncts, which would necessarily eliminate the other. But the only way to prove that God created biological complexity as is would be to appeal to Scripture, which is the previous argument. That's why I said these are the only two forms of the argument that there are.

So, again, I just don't understand what the OP is asking for.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, can I say that I don't understand the challenge of the OP in the first place. We were asked to define creationism without referring to evolution,

NOT to define it, but to make your case for its truth.

but per the follow up to the OP, the definition of "creationism" is "The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species." That strikes me as self-contradictory. I'm being asked to show why I believe that God created life without using evolution, but I'm not allowed to say that God didn't use evolution. :-/

No, you're not being asked any such thing. FORGET ABOUT EVOLUTION.
If you believe that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species, then that's all you have to address. Forget any alternatives, such as evolution, exist, and simply stick to your belief and make your case for it. Now, if you have to bring evolution or its principles into your case then you've failed, pure and simple.


.

Audacity wrote: NOT to define it, but to make your case for its truth.

Yes, that is what I meant. Mistyped.

but per the follow up to the OP, the definition of "creationism" is "The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species." That strikes me as self-contradictory. I'm being asked to show why I believe that God created life without using evolution, but I'm not allowed to say that God didn't use evolution. :-/

No, you're not being asked any such thing. If you believe that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species, then that's all you have to address. Forget any alternatives, such as evolution, exist, and simply stick to your belief and make your case for it. Now, if you have to bring evolution or its principles into your case then you've failed, pure and simple.

You missed my point that time. Suppose someone believes that God did not use evolution. As far as I'm reading you, when you say to make our case for whatever version of non-evolutionary creationism we hold to, you want us to offer some sort of reasonable defense as to why we (ought to) believe it. But then you say "forget any alternatives." How is someone supposed to explain why they believe something if the only way logically possible to offer such an explanation is to show that the disjunctive is impossible.

That's what I was getting at in my overall posts. There are two, and only two, ways to answer your question. The positive case can only be made by appeal to Scripture. The negative case can only be made my showing the evolutionary disjunctive fails. Therefore, unless you are prepared to accept the witness of Scripture, your question by nature unanswerable. Let me give you a practical example as to why. Suppose I say something like,

"One prediction of creationism would be that we would have all the phyla of life coming into existence fully formed. We see that in the Cambrian explosion. Therefore, we have reason to believe creationism."

Now you would have two responses to that. First, you would object to the phrase "fully formed," since what that means is, "without any intermediary forms preceding them." But that phrase is just another way to talk about evolution. This is sufficient, though, to show that it is impossible to defend the position while forgetting the alternatives.

But your second response would be to give a scientific (which is to say, an evolutionary) explanation of the Cambrian Explosion. Now, if we have to forget evolution (or any other alternatives), what are we to say in response? And if we know that you are going to raise the scientific explanation as a plausible alternative, then why not include that in our original argument. After all, the argument would actually be something like:

1. Creationism predicts that all phyla should appear fully formed "suddenly" in the fossil record;
2. The Cambrian Explosion is the sudden appearance of all fully formed phyla in the fossil record;
3. If there is only two logical possible explanations for a piece of data, and one is shown to be unable to explain the data, then the remaining ought to be accepted as true;
4. The only other possible explanation for the Cambrian Explosion is evolution
5. But evolution cannot explain the Cambrian Explosion
6. Therefore, Creationism is both confirmed in terms of prediction and ought to be held as true, given that it is the only remaining explanation of the data

So that would be the kind of argument someone might make. But the entire second half of that is with reference to evolution. I don't even know how you would go about providing any argument in favor of creationism without using some form similar to this.

That's why I said I don't know what you're asking for.

Jac3510 wrote:Rick, can I say that I don't understand the challenge of the OP in the first place. We were asked to define creationism without referring to evolution, but per the follow up to the OP, the definition of "creationism" is "The religious contention that all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species." That strikes me as self-contradictory. I'm being asked to show why I believe that God created life without using evolution, but I'm not allowed to say that God didn't use evolution. :-/

I noticed that too, it's like entrapment. That is, Audacity has the audacity to say:

Make a case for Creationism without alluding to "evolution"? But oh, by the way, by "creationism" I mean "all species of life were put on earth as is: no species evolved from any other species."

Sounds to me like Audacity is committing a similar mistake that he is actually trying to show "Creationists" make in making a case for "Creationism". That is, he is defining the opposing side to him (Creationism) by Evolution. Then he asks others to build a case for this strange definition of Creationism without alluding to the Evolution he defines it by.

Impossible and absurd! But that is what happens when the game is rigged, when rules are defined in such a restrictive manner intended to draw out a desired response to justify one's narrow view. Audacity is now a little miffed , but it's not for the fault of anyone's lack of response.

The fact people responded, myself included, shows we were up for some back and forward discussion -- but because Audacity was just going for an "Ah ha! gotchya!" moment, he didn't seem much interested in such an exchange. Sorry Audacity, but that's what I see happened here.

Plus, he didn't want to discuss what he doesn't want to address/face.

Making a case for creation -- God created the light first as of Genesis 1:3 and that was recorded happening on the 1st day. The days consisted of an evening and a morning.

How many animals were on the ark? Enough to repopulate the earth after the land dried. How many Kinds did God create in the 1st place -- those things that fly, those on the earth and those in the water. The only animal mentioned by name were cattle. How many species exist Now -- well -- that's Also an approximation. There are various definitions of species, kinds. For instance 'cats' include cougars, jaguars, mountain lions, etc, and then domestic cats.

Someone had estimated 8. something millions or billions Of -- estimates made by Who?

The point IS -- God created and didn't need 'evolution' to help the process. Nothing has taken millions of years to develop into anything else. Nothing started out in the water and then gradually developed lungs -- either lungs work or they don't. They don't gradually develop as the need arrises. Any more than the heart - over time - developed more chambers - as needed. A heart either is complete and works or it doesn't.

The problem comes from a supposed need to meet 'science' half-way. Science being the TofE. Creationists are Not popular people. To go strictly Bible is Not popular. And there are Always going to be unanswered questions.

When a person Really stops to think about it -- except for the Fact that this world Is here and everything in it. There really is No reason for all of it TO exist. Except that it got put here by Something, Someone. And the 'Something' doesn't make sense unless it's intelligent and then it becomes a Someone. And it certainly didn't get here 'by chance'.

Noah's ark was as big as it Needed to be -- God's building instructions to Noah.

Kurieuo wrote: I noticed that too, it's like entrapment.
The fact people responded, myself included, shows we were up for some back and forward discussion -- but because Audacity was just going for an "Ah ha! gotchya!" moment, he didn't seem much interested in such an exchange. Sorry Audacity, but that's what I see happened here.

Philip wrote:Plus, he didn't want to discuss what he doesn't want to address/face.

Hopefully we are all beginning to see a pattern here by now....

So -- is there still a discussion going on?

Ik Audacity is BANNED but i fell under this group when i was like a little kid for awhile.
So I thought that God literally created all the species of animal including the various prehistoric ones over millions of years. It was like, God would make a very similar species to eventually replace or otherwise complement the older similar species. At the time it made sense but when I started learning about the myriads of species out there, including very similar ones, and not realizing that species is an arbitrary term, made me lean away from this idea.
Another interesting idea I had when I was 8 was that with the first Homo animals like Habilis God made them out of dirt. I couldn't accept the idea they came from non Homo primates since they were technically considered human (though Habilis is probably an Australiopith).Then when Homo Sapiens or rather H. sapien sapiens came God made them out of dirt too since I thought Adam and Eve were of that species and I literally took the idea that they were made from dust like most people around me at the time believed-including my parents.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ik Audacity is BANNED but i fell under this group when i was like a little kid for awhile.
So I thought that God literally created all the species of animal including the various prehistoric ones over millions of years. It was like, God would make a very similar species to eventually replace or otherwise complement the older similar species. At the time it made sense but when I started learning about the myriads of species out there, including very similar ones, and not realizing that species is an arbitrary term, made me lean away from this idea.
Another interesting idea I had when I was 8 was that with the first Homo animals like Habilis God made them out of dirt. I couldn't accept the idea they came from non Homo primates since they were technically considered human (though Habilis is probably an Australiopith).Then when Homo Sapiens or rather H. sapien sapiens came God made them out of dirt too since I thought Adam and Eve were of that species and I literally took the idea that they were made from dust like most people around me at the time believed-including my parents.

How about star dust? Star Dust is constantly falling to the earth.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:Ik Audacity is BANNED but i fell under this group when i was like a little kid for awhile.
So I thought that God literally created all the species of animal including the various prehistoric ones over millions of years. It was like, God would make a very similar species to eventually replace or otherwise complement the older similar species. At the time it made sense but when I started learning about the myriads of species out there, including very similar ones, and not realizing that species is an arbitrary term, made me lean away from this idea.
Another interesting idea I had when I was 8 was that with the first Homo animals like Habilis God made them out of dirt. I couldn't accept the idea they came from non Homo primates since they were technically considered human (though Habilis is probably an Australiopith).Then when Homo Sapiens or rather H. sapien sapiens came God made them out of dirt too since I thought Adam and Eve were of that species and I literally took the idea that they were made from dust like most people around me at the time believed-including my parents.

How about star dust? Star Dust is constantly falling to the earth.

Didn't think about it at the time. At least not like I thought about the above.
I knew asteroid dust always falls to earth, Magic School Bus told me that.

I have an idea...
All living things contain carbon, right?
Could, then, carbon be the "dirt" that we were all created from?

Storyteller wrote:I have an idea...
All living things contain carbon, right?
Could, then, carbon be the "dirt" that we were all created from?

Storyteller wrote:I have an idea...
All living things contain carbon, right?
Could, then, carbon be the "dirt" that we were all created from?

Maybe it should be from carbon to carbon, rather than dust to dust. Carbon is the building block of life, so evidently we are all carbon-based.