Proofs For Creationism - As Requested

[nunz]

The first question in any proof giving for creationism (other than defining what creationism is) has to be:
Has God been disproved
or Is it possible there might be a God or Gods (supreme sentient power able to create all we know).

If solid evidence for there being no god ever can be given then the argument about creationism is null and void. Without a creator there can be no creation.

For this discussion to make any sense a first premise must be agreed on by atheists, agnostics and theists alike. That premise is as follows:

There is no empirical proof that god does not exist. Until we have all knowledge about all things and that knowledge covers all time then there is the possibility a god or creator might exist or have existed. This premise makes no claims about a creator(s) other than the creator might have had enough power to create all we currently know. Whether that creator be god, mortal or alien species matters not.

All that matters for this discussion is that there is no emperical evidence that there never was a creator.

Can we agree on this as a first premise? If not then the scientific discussion which might follow would be null, void and a total waste of time.

I'm just jumping into this thread, but to answer the question above:

NO

We can not agree on that as a premise. If you make something up and then say there is no proof against it, how does that make any sense? Until there is at least a shred of evidence that something exists, the only possible conclusion is that it in fact does not exist.

OK ... lets settle this right now. God is hiding in my left trouser pocket. He told me that if you looked there he would go and hide behind alpha centuri as 'to look on the face of god is to be destroyed' and he loves you too much for that.

Therefore, according to my tesamony (and that of billions of others) god exists. Now ... back to the argument. Your only choices are:
To call me and billlions of others a liar (which makes you sound very paranoid / delusional / in denial)
To admit there is a god (voiding your argument)
To find empirical or physical proof there is no god (and your opinion doesn't count as proof).

Until you can do the last, the argument there is no disproof of god exists and stands. Happy hunting

[captainvegetable]

The first question in any proof giving for creationism (other than defining what creationism is) has to be:
Has God been disproved
or Is it possible there might be a God or Gods (supreme sentient power able to create all we know).

If solid evidence for there being no god ever can be given then the argument about creationism is null and void. Without a creator there can be no creation.

For this discussion to make any sense a first premise must be agreed on by atheists, agnostics and theists alike. That premise is as follows:

There is no empirical proof that god does not exist. Until we have all knowledge about all things and that knowledge covers all time then there is the possibility a god or creator might exist or have existed. This premise makes no claims about a creator(s) other than the creator might have had enough power to create all we currently know. Whether that creator be god, mortal or alien species matters not.

All that matters for this discussion is that there is no emperical evidence that there never was a creator.

Can we agree on this as a first premise? If not then the scientific discussion which might follow would be null, void and a total waste of time.

I'm just jumping into this thread, but to answer the question above:

NO

We can not agree on that as a premise. If you make something up and then say there is no proof against it, how does that make any sense? Until there is at least a shred of evidence that something exists, the only possible conclusion is that it in fact does not exist.

OK ... lets settle this right now. God is hiding in my left trouser pocket. He told me that if you looked there he would go and hide behind alpha centuri as 'to look on the face of god is to be destroyed' and he loves you too much for that.

Therefore, according to my tesamony (and that of billions of others) god exists. Now ... back to the argument. Your only choices are:
To call me and billlions of others a liar (which makes you sound very paranoid / delusional / in denial)
To admit there is a god (voiding your argument)
To find empirical or physical proof there is no god (and your opinion doesn't count as proof).

Until you can do the last, the argument there is no disproof of god exists and stands. Happy hunting

You cannot prove something simply by proving there is no proof it does not exist. So far, this is all you have done. I'll admit that there is no rock solid proof that He does not exist. There's even less proof that he does exist. And no, I'm not willing to take the word of a 2000 year-old book on this one.

[vtmarik]

http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives ... 50406.html

[ClessAlvein]

Please do not confuse "evidence" with "proof" - these are two distinct ideas. This is not about semantics, either - it's about very basic scientific terms. When we say "proof," we refer to a body of evidence sufficient to suggest a thing as true. Every experiment provides evidence, and a large collection of experiments providing evidence for the same thing provides proof.

Again, thought experiments are never considered proof in the scientific sense. Perhaps in a philosophical discussion, but never in science. You are not providing "proofs" for creationism, nor are you providing evidence for it. Evidence comes from testing of a testable hypothesis, and so far all you have presented is an imagined scenario based on a misconception about the functionality of the egg.

Basically, in sum:
1. There is no testable scientific hypothesis in this thread
2. A thought experiment is not science, and certainly not evidence or proof
3. The thought experiment is, as you have admitted, philosophical in nature, and not really related to the sciences of biochemistry and evolutionary biology, making it null as a scientific argument
4. This discussion is fine and well on philosophical grounds, but in the scientific community, it will meet with complete dismissal, as it is not science

I look forward to hearing your points, however, once you've read and digested Colossus' post. Science and religion function in separate realms, so as they never meet, they cannot possibly conflict. Conflict usually arises from people who do not understand one or the other. I'll be interested in reading how you're going to attempt to weave the two together on philosophical grounds.

[Colossus]

I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow. I have a lot of work to do today before I leave, so I can't spend the time read all of the posts of nunz, but I will offer this:

Some of those changes have no effect on the immediate morphology or physiology of the beast the mutant cell is contained within. These neutral - non affective changes are passed on to the offspring. However, theoretically if enough of these dormant / neutral changes build up then there is the potential for one more change or 'adaptation' to trigger them all into action within a single generation.

That is just one theory to explain how the egg can happen in a very quick piece of time or a single generation using simple terms and utilising the latest in modern research on DNA and hereditary.

Your rebuttal of your own argument is based on pure conjecture. My response was based on the assumption that you were looking for arguments that are based on a synthesis of observable data. Both of my responses to your chicken and egg are based on vast amounts of observed data. I have never heard of a single observed example of silent mutations collecting and suddenly being activated by a single mutation in a fashion that aids the organism. The type of mutation you suggest must be either some kind of frameshift mutation or change in the cellular machinery that regulates gene expression on a massive scale. While such changes do occur, I know of no documented examples of such radical changes that did not result in death or at least sterility of the mutant organism. Can you offer an example of this being known to have happened without killing the organism or preventing viable offspring?

It seems to me that you have come up with an imaginary solution to an imaginary problem (irreducible complexity). If this whole conversation is one big argument over unobserved phenomena explained with imaginary scenarios, then it is not within the realm of science, and my contributions are a waste. It essentially becomes a philosophical argument, a 'thought experiment.' Again, outside the realm of the observable.

I would still like to know what kind of background you are coming into this discussion with nunz, in terms of scientific experience or knowledge because I would like to know what knowledge I can assume on your part. You tell us not to make assumptions, but you have not made your perspective clear, as many others involved in this conversation have done.


I am also waiting on the reference by 'Parker', nunz.


Einstein was but one of many of the most revered scientists in history that came to a point late in their careers where they tackled the problem of God. Many of the greatest scientific thinkers came to the conclusion that God must exist (I can put together a list, but don't have time now, if people want me to). I heard about many of these from a professor I had as an undergraduate, who also happened to be a lector at my church at the time. He filled his lectures with stories about great scientists who had made the discoveries we learned about in class, and he would often talk (not in a derisive way, but in an interested way) about 'wacky ideas' these scientists had late in their careers regarding a 'driving force' for life. I was one of the few students who really understood that he was talking about God. I think it is interesting to note that so many of the greatest scientific minds have spent their lives searching for scientific answers to come ultimately to the conclusion that God exists and that He is behind the unexplainable.

[Colossus]

Please do not confuse "evidence" with "proof" - these are two distinct ideas. This is not about semantics, either - it's about very basic scientific terms. When we say "proof," we refer to a body of evidence sufficient to suggest a thing as true. Every experiment provides evidence, and a large collection of experiments providing evidence for the same thing provides proof.

Again, thought experiments are never considered proof in the scientific sense. Perhaps in a philosophical discussion, but never in science. You are not providing "proofs" for creationism, nor are you providing evidence for it. Evidence comes from testing of a testable hypothesis, and so far all you have presented is an imagined scenario based on a misconception about the functionality of the egg.

Basically, in sum:
1. There is no testable scientific hypothesis in this thread
2. A thought experiment is not science, and certainly not evidence or proof
3. The thought experiment is, as you have admitted, philosophical in nature, and not really related to the sciences of biochemistry and evolutionary biology, making it null as a scientific argument
4. This discussion is fine and well on philosophical grounds, but in the scientific community, it will meet with complete dismissal, as it is not science

I look forward to hearing your points, however, once you've read and digested Colossus' post. Science and religion function in separate realms, so as they never meet, they cannot possibly conflict. Conflict usually arises from people who do not understand one or the other. I'll be interested in reading how you're going to attempt to weave the two together on philosophical grounds.

Right on, for the most part. I would argue that while science and religion do not meet (which I agree with wholeheartedly), science and faith combined can make for a wonderful appreciation of the world and of life. This meeting is certainly not expressible in formal terms (i.e. I don't have a theory of God with observables to point to, really), but by learning as much as I can of what science can tell us about the way the world works and combining that knowledge with what my heart tells me about God, I live in constant awe and joy at the beauty of all that is around me. I know this doesn't sound rational or very scientific, but for me it is as real as anything can be.

[ClessAlvein]

Beautifully said

[oOFrostOo]

Right on, for the most part. I would argue that while science and religion do not meet (which I agree with wholeheartedly), science and faith combined can make for a wonderful appreciation of the world and of life. This meeting is certainly not expressible in formal terms (i.e. I don't have a theory of God with observables to point to, really), but by learning as much as I can of what science can tell us about the way the world works and combining that knowledge with what my heart tells me about God, I live in constant awe and joy at the beauty of all that is around me. I know this doesn't sound rational or very scientific, but for me it is as real as anything can be.

That's right

[Guilty_Biscuit]

Definitive proof that there is no God

HERE

Yeah, just a laugh. Thought both sides of the debate needed a chuckle.

[nunz]

nunz, I am curious as to your background and/or formal training in the area of scientific investigation. I've laid my background out there, both in terms of my spiritual stance as well as my scientific qualifications, so everyone knows where I am coming from. I know nothing about you, and I'm curious.

Hi Colossus. I've been a bit quiet recently. The almightly flu (in its evolved or non evolved version ) has laid both me and my family low so had been well under the weather .Anyway, am back now.

Formal training. I have trained in education, psychiatric care, theology and missions, computer science and also social rehabilitation. None of which is really relevant to the discussion except for maybe the psychiatric care which included some genetic epidemiology study.

I was taught to think by reading much, discussing theology with a wide range of religious types, studying diagnosis procedures for psychiatric care and some courses in education and types of learning / thinking. My programming back ground also helps with structured thinking and logic as well.

Theology. Born a presbyterian (episcaplian? in USA terms), confirmed a methodist (Wesleyen), came to faith in a Pentecostal church, worked for the Salvation and Baptists (not southern) as a rehabber, performed youth work with Assembly of God and Apostolic, currently worship in an Anglican (church of England) church. Bible college was non-denominational pentecostal and missions work was with YWAM (which leans to the pente side of things).
I am conservative in my theology, mostly adhering to an evangelical point of view (conservative like baptist or salvation army) but with a charismatic bent in my practice of worship, prayer and missions.

My theological application however can sometimes be liberal (e.g. my first employee was a she who was born a he and who is living in a lesbian relationship), I have many homosexual friends and am able to hold in suspension beliefs about whether Jesus was married, literal 7 days or seven time periods etc. I guess i have seen too much to judge too quickly (I hope) and recognise my own foibles. Also God, in His sense of humour, is likely to throw a few quirky twists into the plot. The best portrayal of God I have seen (in some ways) was Alanis Morriset? playing god in the movie Dogma (what if God was one of us) and the portrayal of God in Bruce Almighty.

Most of my close friends are PHDs in one form of science or another (usually physics, electrical engineering and biology) or are studying theology for the ministry. It makes for an interesting mixture of topics, ideas and conversations.

And I read, lots.

[nunz]

1 - The chicken and egg story were an anology to explain one of the concepts for why evolution cannot work. It is a summary of a hypothesis.
Colossus - you have offered up a method by which eggs can change (slow hardening of shells by proteins exposed to light and air , the more 'adapted ones would survive'. I do not disagree with this statement or idea. However it shows a mechanism for adaptation not evolution.

Evolution brings about a change in species (and the quick argument against my own chicken and egg scenario that I offered - build up of of latent mutations which are suddenly activated en-masse) would cause an evolution. But as you rightly pointed out, the resulting organism would likely be sterile or fail to survive or not be able to breed with anything else. It is a theory which has been postulated by evolutionists but again, one with no evidence.

Coming back to the egg again. You have mentioned simple celled creatures which are able to reproduce sexually and asexually (Mitosis?) as a possible way that an organism could withstand the changes required to allow egg laying but without killing off its ability to breed.

Here is my question / observation: The organisms which are able to breed asexually are only ever simple organisms as far as I am aware. Hermaphrodites (for example) are reasonably common in nature (worms etc) as higher level organisms but that is still a form of sexual reproduction. Therefore the only type of organisms capable of reproducing asexually by cell division or similarly are most likely too simple to be egg bearing / laying? The type of scenario or organism required to survive the transition from a simple egg type (e.g fish eggs, frogs eggs...) where there is less complexity required in the organism (e.g. no egg tooth required, no change in breeding behaviour for incubation etc) are not likely to meet your requirements for being able to reproduce asexually and so sustain the species while the required 'evolution' in the egg is completed over a long period of time.

This means either:
1 - The transition from a simple egg to the full complexity required by a chickens egg would have to happen in one generation (via the build up of latent mutations being triggered in one generation)
2 - The organism that can support two tpyes of reproduction (asexual and sexual) for enough generations for the changes to happen must be also complex enough to move from a very simple egg laying organism to a mre complex egg laying organism.
Option 1 has never been observed and is very very very unlikely to be able to occur. (as you said it would be sterile or unviable)
Option 2 - There is no evidence, that I know of, of an organism that is complex enough to lay viable eggs of the complexity required to be 'chicken like' and yet still retain the ability to reproduce asexually (via mitosis or similar).

Is there any evidence of the changes in an organism, allowing it to go from simple eggs and asexual reproduction, to complex eggs and sexual reproduction? I don't know of any. Without evidence of this progress, the argument against irreducable complexity (in the egg scenario) doesn't exist. If this is the case, I would suggest the lack of evidence of these changes, is itself an evidence of a sudden change or creation.

If there were sudden changes or creation there would be fossil evidence of A (simple asexual creatures) and Z, (sexually repoducing creatures with complex eggs) with little or no fossil evidence in between.
If there was an evolution then there would be evidences of A, Z as well as B to Y and also current creatures still in the process of moving between A and Z who were in a state of producing reasonably complex eggs while maintaining the ability to asexually reproduce.

Any thoughts?

[Balsiefen]

even frogspawn, although looking simple is a very complex form of egg.
an early asexual organism could leave one part of itself, just one cell, which would then grow into the entire organism (like taking a cutting of a plant) This organism would then be classed as egg laying.

[nietzsche]

I'm deleting my posts in this thread because a friend got upset.

May god bless you.. and save the queen.

[MeDeFe]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

[Guiscard]

I pitty you nunz.

Listen to this, there's no god. I could show you point by point, argument by argument, the no existence of god but I won't waste my time.

You can't.

But I'd very much like to see you try...

[flashleg8]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

Godzilla?

Edit: Naw it was those Raptors in Jurassic Park - yeah, they mixed the DNA with a frog or summit.

[vtmarik]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

Godzilla?

Edit: Naw it was those Raptors in Jurassic Park - yeah, they mixed the DNA with a frog or summit.

Yeah, some species of African frog can do that.

[heavycola]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

Godzilla?

Edit: Naw it was those Raptors in Jurassic Park - yeah, they mixed the DNA with a frog or summit.

I'm simply suggesting that, uh, life - will - find a way.

[Colossus]

Here is my question / observation: The organisms which are able to breed asexually are only ever simple organisms as far as I am aware. Hermaphrodites (for example) are reasonably common in nature (worms etc) as higher level organisms but that is still a form of sexual reproduction. Therefore the only type of organisms capable of reproducing asexually by cell division or similarly are most likely too simple to be egg bearing / laying?

see the following story from cnn. more comments later. sorry, I'm working and a colleague need my help, but I didn't want the thread to get too far without getting this in.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05 ... index.html

[mr. incrediball]

I remember a biology class a few years back when I was still at school, we saw a movie about a kind of lizard that didn't need to mate in order to lay eggs and reproduce. I don't remember what they were called, it's been years since I saw it, but I think a lizard can be classified as on par with a chicken with regard to complexity.

Godzilla?

Edit: Naw it was those Raptors in Jurassic Park - yeah, they mixed the DNA with a frog or summit.

Yeah, some species of African frog can do that.

no, they change their sex so that mating is possible.

[civver]

Creationism is another one of religion's attempts to meddle in science.

[mr. incrediball]

Creationism is another one of religion's attempts to meddle in science.

last time i checked creationism came before any other theory in most society.

[MeDeFe]

Here is my question / observation: The organisms which are able to breed asexually are only ever simple organisms as far as I am aware. Hermaphrodites (for example) are reasonably common in nature (worms etc) as higher level organisms but that is still a form of sexual reproduction. Therefore the only type of organisms capable of reproducing asexually by cell division or similarly are most likely too simple to be egg bearing / laying?

see the following story from cnn. more comments later. sorry, I'm working and a colleague need my help, but I didn't want the thread to get too far without getting this in.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05 ... index.html

Yeah, that's what those lizards were doing, too.

[n8freeman]

When it comes down to Creationism v. Evolution, people will believe what they want to believe. There are a lot of things about origins that we just don't know, and are not even close to discovering.

That said, the three biggest questions are:
1. Origin of matter and energy
2. Origin of life
3. Origin of consciousness

So unless God reveals himself or scientists can provide definitive proof of how the universe came about, this argument is a stalemate.

who says their has to be an origin?
why can't matter and energy have existed forever?
can't the universe have existed forever?

so ur questions don't really work too well

(i no this is a really old quote, but i just started reading this thread)

[n8freeman]

Creationism is another one of religion's attempts to meddle in science.

creationism has nothing to do with science
it is pure faith

now inteligent disign is religions pathetic attempt to meddle in science