Scientific Evidence of Creationism

[Guyver]

Here is my take on this Yeti, take it for what it's worth. I do believe the universe is vast enough to have a being we could percieve as a god. That being said, I do not believe, nor do I think it is rational to believe that a being such as that, would care one wit, about anything listed in the bible as important. To a being that advanced, that omnipotent, to care if anyone commits adultery, or covets thy neighbors wife is crazy. In addition if the universe is so vast and so amazing it didn't happen in a short amount of time, nor did our existance happen in a short amount of time. The universe itself tends towards more and higher forms of complexity and we are the result. That some on this planet cling to a two thousand year old book written by men who did not have even half the understanding that a modern person has of the workings of this world will always leave me scratching my head....

Half the understanding? Most of the modern world eats fat-filled fast food at McDonalds and watches 6 - 10 hours of television each day.

[Tiggs]

On large scales the universe is, as far as we can tell, homogeneous. Because of uncertainty when the expansion of the universe began there were tiny imperfections in it. Around 400,000 years after the big bang, matter and radiation became decoupled. At this point radiation could stream freely from the dense state of mater. Prior to decoupling the inhomogeneities (imperfections) were very tiny and likely only existed at the quantum level. Radiation prevented these imperfections from rapid collapse. After decoupling radiation no longer "shields" our universe from these small imperfections and they begin to collapse, denser regions became more dense. What we get is essentially a snap shot of the universe's initial uncertainty, blown to cosmic scales.

One also needs to account for 13+ billion years of gravitational evolution, which certainly plays a role in the local group level clustering we see in the universe today.

Exactly - Quantum uncertainty is the explanation that Science gives for Clumpiness within the early Universe.

Let's take a long hard look at Quantum uncertainty, and it's consequences.

Currently, the majority of Physicists believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct. Within this interpretation, in order for a collapse of the wavefunction to occur, there must be an observer.

Moreover, within the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is the requirement for a Cosmic Auditor - even though the role of each individual Quanta is uncertain, as a whole, the results obey those found within Newtonian Physics - such as Radioactive decay, for example. A cosmic auditor is also required to give us the results we find within the Bell inequality test - the test used to prove that the uncertainty principle within Quantum Mechanics exists.

The Quantum uncertainty principle is, far and away, the best Scientific proof of an Intelligent Designer. During the Big Bang, in order for clumpiness to exist, an Observer must have been present. The Cosmic Auditor and the Intelligent Designer are one.

[BlindMessiah]

Actually, a thread I started a while ago with a poll, indicates that MOST people, especially atheists, seem to think ID and creationism ARE the same.

To clarify this point. Most atheists believe the ID movement and the creationist movement, is the same thing. Creationism and ID are obviously different concepts. As C&D said, creationism is a religious concept and ID is a philosophical concept. However the creationist movement, and the ID movement which sprung up after the death of the creationist movement, have one agenda, get religion in schools, and evolution out.

[+Sherapy]

To clarify this point. Most atheists believe the ID movement and the creationist movement, is the same thing. Creationism and ID are obviously different concepts. As C&D said, creationism is a religious concept and ID is a philosophical concept. However the creationist movement, and the ID movement which sprung up after the death of the creationist movement, have one agenda, get religion in schools, and evolution out.

Lets be very clear ID is a theodicy created by theologists.....which is a subset of religion......I would not call this philososphy the discipline....theologians create counter arguments and this is what ID is....it is a counter to evolutiion.........there are a few reasons but in this context the last thing religion wants to inspire is athiests and religion feels that sceince renders god extinct and of no use as science can offer explianations for the natural world....one has to keep in mind Id serves a huge function for religion in the realm of the beleiver you just have to get one to agree to validate a claim.....its called faith.....that is the crux of religion "faith' because it requires no evidence only agreement.....

some of the cleverest arguments in history are theodicys, because you can't prove them.... this IMO is ingenius when you are seeking a lifetime commitment to a cause..........It has been said by many that religion is the greatest hoax man has ever played on himself....

[Wombat]

Half the understanding? Most of the modern world eats fat-filled fast food at McDonalds and watches 6 - 10 hours of television each day.

Are you seriously denying the fact that we have a far, far better understanding of our world than any bronze age person?

[SQLserver]

Creationism; the belief that God made everything.

OK PEOPLE- NO. THIS IS NOT CREATIONISM. SORRY, BUT CALL YOURSELF A THEIST, OR SOMETHING ELSE. CREATIONISM IS:

Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.

AKA- Creationism is the OPPOSITE of Evolution and Science.

In my mind my Creation post stands. We are the scientific evidence of creationism; as is the planet, as is the universe.

OK:

YetiHunter- WHY CAN I NOT JUST SAY

We are the scientific Evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Look- Yeti- YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN ONE PART OF LIFE THAT COULDN'T COME ABOUT WITHOUT A CREATOR.

Just saying 'lol look how amazing Creation is god made it!' DOES NOT OFFER EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR AGAINST IT.

Yeti-

1. Logically, Life and the universe provides EQUAL evidence for Evolution as it does for a God UNTIL someone can give us something that could never have happened via Evolution.

2. You claim that you still believe that life provides more Evidence for Creationism then Evolution. However, you have yet to show us an ACTUAL example. Until then, you are scientifically wrong.

3. The Opposite of Logically is Illogically- So the opposite of sentence 1 is your claim, stated in sentence 2 which is therefore illogical.

4. You say this is still logical in your mind. So, therefore, if you think that something illogical is logical, you are thinking ILLOGICALLY.

QED.

As far as the workings of science, the theory of evolution, and every other obervation or theory they're moot in a sense as far as the argument is concerned. At least in my viewpoint.

So. In a post entitled the 'Scientific Evidence of Creationism' all observations and scientific theories are Moot?

Science and faith may or may not be mutually exclusive, I don't know, but they definitely shouldn't be combined in my opinion.

Look- RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE IN SCIENCE. Let me draw a bloody venn diagram for you.

WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, CREATIONISM IS ATTACKING SCIENCE, AND DEALS WITH SCIENCE.

Creationism isn't a 'lol you can chooose what to believe!' NO. It's a: It contradicts with scientific FACTS and OBSERVATIONS.

Whether you like it or not, in a thread about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE we are going to be dealing with SCIENCE.

don't need science to validate my faith, and science doesn't need my faith to validate it's methods.

Sigh. That's great but:

IF SCIENCE CONTRADICTS YOUR BELIEFS THEN YOU HAVE GOT A SCIENCE PROBLEM, NOT A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM.

I still believe that people were made and not evolved, but that's my opinion.

Well, that's part of the problem. We are talking about FACTS, and you are talking about Opinion.

There's still plenty of stuff to argue, like for example the age of the earth, the solar system, and evolutionary forces in general. But, I'll talk about that later.

Oh Good. If Evolution is 100% Logically and Scientifically Sound, then those are 105%.

And I loooove the Creationist arguments for these. They are often the funniest.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[BlindMessiah]

Lets be very clear ID is a theodicy created by theologists.....which is a subset of religion......I would not call this philososphy the discipline....theologians create counter arguments and this is what ID is....it is a counter to evolutiion.........there are a few reasons but in this context the last thing religion wants to inspire is athiests and religion feels that sceince renders god extinct and of no use as science can offer explianations for the natural world....one has to keep in mind Id serves a huge function for religion in the realm of the beleiver you just have to get one to agree to validate a claim.....its called faith.....that is the crux of religion "faith' because it requires no evidence only agreement.....

some of the cleverest arguments in history are theodicys, because you can't prove them.... this IMO is ingenius when you are seeking a lifetime commitment to a cause..........It has been said by many that religion is the greatest hoax man has ever played on himself....

What you have described is the ID movement. A rewording of creationism to counter evolution while sounding more "scientific." ID in reality is more of a deistic approach to life. I have a friend for example who believes God created the universe, created early life, and then ditched us. This is a philosophical belief, not a religious one.

[+Sherapy]

Are you seriously denying the fact that we have a far, far better understanding of our world than any bronze age person?

perhaps yeti is saying that with all that we understand 'now' so litttle is applyed...... for as much as we tout in the US get an education few really get the type of education that turly helps with living a life with others, alot of what is taught in school for instant is useless information......... most get careers to pay the bills...i see what he is saying and I see what you are saying also....

[Wombat]

Exactly - Quantum uncertainty is the explanation that Science gives for Clumpiness within the early Universe.

Let's take a long hard look at Quantum uncertainty, and it's consequences.

Currently, the majority of Physicists believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct. Within this interpretation, in order for a collapse of the wavefunction to occur, there must be an observer.

Moreover, within the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is the requirement for a Cosmic Auditor - even though the role of each individual Quanta is uncertain, as a whole, the results obey those found within Newtonian Physics - such as Radioactive decay, for example. A cosmic auditor is also required to give us the results we find within the Bell inequality test - the test used to prove that the uncertainty principle within Quantum Mechanics exists.

The Quantum uncertainty principle is, far and away, the best Scientific proof of an Intelligent Designer. During the Big Bang, in order for clumpiness to exist, an Observer must have been present. The Cosmic Auditor and the Intelligent Designer are one.

Apparently you don't know what the observer means, as you seem to imply that the observer is a conciousness or something. The observer is just the method used to measure something, for example a photon used to fire at an electron. I suggest you read the wikipedia entry on the uncertainty principle.

It proves nothing about the existance of god.

Edited May 2, 2008 by Wombat

[Wombat]

perhaps yeti is saying that with all that we understand 'now' so litttle is applyed...... for as much as we tout in the US get an education few really get the type of education that turly helps with living a life with others, alot of what is taught in school for instant is useless information......... most get careers to pay the bills...i see what he is saying and I see what you are saying also....

So little of it is applied? You must be kidding...

[SQLserver]

Half the understanding? Most of the modern world eats fat-filled fast food at McDonalds and watches 6 - 10 hours of television each day.

NOT, NOT most of the Modern world. Most of America. And we've got a lot of brilliant people too- rare, but brilliant none the less.

I can't honestly believe you made that statement. Do you think that THE WORLD'S TOP SCIENTISTS ARE as dumb as a TV-watching, Junk food eating, Crackpot like, oh, say Youtube's VenomFangX?

Sigh- Irish, if you are listening, here is another case of the Expert Syndrome.(My Expert Syndrome, that is). Some random Guy thinks that the World's brilliant, passionate, top scientists and thinkers are sitting at home watching TV and junk food, and that he's outsmarting them again.

I'm ready to vomit every time I hear Intellectual being used as an insult. What we have here is indeed a War on Science: a war on passion, curiosity, intellectualism, and brilliance. It is really quite sad. Our kids are being classified as 'Nerds' if they are smart in America.

Ah well. The way things are looking, America's doomed anyways.

I personally don't care; There's the rest of the world.

The thing I REALLY am worried about is the anti-intellectualism, ChristoFascist American nonsense spreading to the rest of the world.

It would be like the Dark Ages 2.0.

SQLserver

[BlindMessiah]

Sql, seriously, chill out. No need for size seven font.

Shouting doesn't help anything... or further your argument.

[SQLserver]

alot of what is taught in school for instant is useless information.........

No offense Sheri, but I'm also sick of this position.

OK. So many American schools aren't teaching the Scientific Method, Creativity, etc., and teaching 'useless facts and science and grammar and historical dates'.

Listen: It may seem to you that these things are 'useless', but these are wonderful, great things to learn.

The problem is the anti-intellectualism in America; If kids allowed each other to find these things fascinating, then they would.

I'd like to say that while there is still a good deal of anti-intellectualism in America, we still have many brilliant people. I've personally worked in the public School districts here in PA(Computer Lit. and Computer Science), and I've seen many bright and brilliant students ready to come out of schools and become Experts, what a society really needs. Here at least, there is a slight problem. We have a gifted program, and 'levels' of brightness which students are grouped into.

The Bright students get a WONDERFUL education.

the Scientific Method IS taught. Students can CHOOSE more classes in Middle school and High School. Students design their own experiments. They analyze Historical documents, write papers, and write creative writing. They learn basic computer programming. Heck, most take woodshop, which in Middle School focuses on Solution design and creation, solving real world problems, building, etc. The brightest take Algebra I in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th, Algebra II in 9th, Pre-Calc. in 10th, Calc. in 11th, and AP Statistics in 12th. However, many very bright students who excel in such can work a grade level ahead. There are numerous electives and options in high school that deal with so many things. We even have good Evolution and Age of the Earth standards; Nobody is allowed to say: 'lol against my religion!' If they do, they fail. Simple. Students are taught about Natural Selection, what a Scientific Theory actually means, and how many dating methods and the age of the Earth work.(Not to mention a long unit on Evidence of Evolution)

Anyway- that's what the gifted and brightest students get. And as they are often grouped together, they don't experience anti-intellectualism' as much.(IE- they won't get beat up for being a 'nerd', as those who would beat them up barely know them) They are the ones going on, and innovating and thinking.

The teachers are ENTHUSIASTIC about these students. They get the best.

However, the average or below average students get only a semi-decent Education, but often are restricted, not allowed to do as much, do not do as many experiments or creative things, or have as much fun learning. This is the problem; 'low-level' students are being held back just because they performed badly on a few tests. They are demotivated by impassionate teachers and such.

Anyway, that's how it is here. However, we have some pretty good schools here compared to the rest of the country.

-SQLserver

Sql, seriously, chill out. No need for size seven font.

I had something important to say. I wanted to make sure that YetiHunter didn't miss it.

[Tiggs]

Apparently you don't know what the observer means, as you seem to imply that the observer is a conciousness or something. The observer is just the method used to measure something, for example a photon. I suggest you read the wikipedia entry on the uncertainty principle.

It proves nothing about the existance of god.

Interesting. You're suggesting that the person who has a link to Schrodinger's Cat in his forum signature for the past couple of years doesn't understand what the uncertainty principle is. That's quite possibly the worst attempt at a Ad Hominem attack I've ever seen.

You're espousing something called the objective collapse theory - a theory that would require a extension to standard quantum mechanics to explain the mechanism of collapse, a theory that without which, is considered so weak that it's not even considered to be an interpretation.

Perhaps then, you'd like to enlighten both myself and the Physics community with your starting revelation as to the mechanism of this self-collapsing measurement. I'm fairly sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for you, if you can.

Alternatively, I suggest you re-read your wikipedia link - "There is no objective reality underneath determining the outcome. Not only is there a veil hiding the clockwork, but the clockwork is different depending on how you lift the veil".

[Wombat]

Interesting. You're suggesting that the person who has a link to Schrodinger's Cat in his forum signature for the past couple of years doesn't understand what the uncertainty principle is. That's quite possibly the worst attempt at a Ad Hominem attack I've ever seen.

You're espousing something called the objective collapse theory - a theory that would require a extension to standard quantum mechanics to explain the mechanism of collapse, a theory that without which, is considered so weak that it's not even considered to be an interpretation.

Perhaps then, you'd like to enlighten both myself and the Physics community with your starting revelation as to the mechanism of this self-collapsing measurement. I'm fairly sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for you, if you can.

Alternatively, I suggest you re-read your wikipedia link - "There is no objective reality underneath determining the outcome. Not only is there a veil hiding the clockwork, but the clockwork is different depending on how you lift the veil".

I stand corrected, and I probably won't comment on that for now.

[darkmoonlady]

Half the understanding? Most of the modern world eats fat-filled fast food at McDonalds and watches 6 - 10 hours of television each day.

Thats kind of lame Yeti. I'm sure that there were stupid people who ate bad food in biblical times, doesn't change my overall point. In fact your point doesn't make much of an impact on what I said. ANYONE two thousand years ago didn't know half of what we as average folk know now. I'm not talking wisdom just facts, about the world around us and even the universe around us. That is why going along with what a two thousand year old book has to say about a creation story, has no relevance to what we know now. It only has relevance because some small minority of chrisitans try over and over again to MAKE it have some relevance.

It's strange that the christian creation story has taken on such a warped significance to its believers. As creation stories go it isn't all that original or well written, thats why its in the bible twice, even they couldn't get the story straight.

[Guyver]

Thats kind of lame Yeti. I'm sure that there were stupid people who ate bad food in biblical times, doesn't change my overall point. In fact your point doesn't make much of an impact on what I said. ANYONE two thousand years ago didn't know half of what we as average folk know now. I'm not talking wisdom just facts, about the world around us and even the universe around us. That is why going along with what a two thousand year old book has to say about a creation story, has no relevance to what we know now. It only has relevance because some small minority of chrisitans try over and over again to MAKE it have some relevance.

It's strange that the christian creation story has taken on such a warped significance to its believers. As creation stories go it isn't all that original or well written, thats why its in the bible twice, even they couldn't get the story straight.

You know, Tiggs is a pretty solid poster - he said (in another thread recently) 70% of Americans are unsure if the Earth revolves around the sun.

So, there are the haves, and the have nots as always.

[Tiggs]

You know, Tiggs is a pretty solid poster - he said (in another thread recently) 70% of Americans are unsure if the Earth revolves around the sun.

So, there are the haves, and the have nots as always.

Ummm - not entirely - what I said was:

Forget the world. Let's talk about the United States - a so called educated country where only 79% of it's population believes that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The lack of education in basic Science, worldwide, is truely stunning.

The figures are from a recently published Gallop poll - The figures were 79% believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, 18% thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and 3% were unsure.

[Guyver]

Well - I guess I really screwed that one up! Thanks for fixing it. Still, the point is that America is so cutting edge in so many areas of science, and technology and it is also simultaneously so filled with stupid people. Not to be mean, just saying.....

[darkmoonlady]

You know, Tiggs is a pretty solid poster - he said (in another thread recently) 70% of Americans are unsure if the Earth revolves around the sun.

So, there are the haves, and the have nots as always.

So honestly you are trying to say that people two thousand years ago had equal knowledge of people now? Seriously?

I find that hard to believe.

[Guyver]

So honestly you are trying to say that people two thousand years ago had equal knowledge of people now? Seriously?

I find that hard to believe.

No, I'm not really saying that. You probably get more info even watching 6-10 hours of tv every day. Hey, what do you mean about the bible's creation story? Where is it given twice?

[Nik Xues]

man is no smarter now

hes just more aware.

smart people will pick up on all this stuff normally. look at pyramid builders.

[Guyver]

I noticed that nobody commented on this from earlier. http://www.icr.org/article/165/

Server posted a link or some info to a study showing that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. Which corresponds to the currently accepted age of the earth. Do you find that at all interesting? The sun is forming, the earth is forming, the solar system is all coming together at the same time - not a problem. My question is, how long did life really have to evolve on earth? 4.5 billion years? No, it would have taken a long time for the sun to coalesce. Then, don't forget about the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. I'm just saying alot of time evolution is given alot more time to happen then what is real.

[+Sherapy]

No offense Sheri, but I'm also sick of this position.

OK. So many American schools aren't teaching the Scientific Method, Creativity, etc., and teaching 'useless facts and science and grammar and historical dates'.

Listen: It may seem to you that these things are 'useless', but these are wonderful, great things to learn.

The problem is the anti-intellectualism in America; If kids allowed each other to find these things fascinating, then they would.

I'd like to say that while there is still a good deal of anti-intellectualism in America, we still have many brilliant people. I've personally worked in the public School districts here in PA(Computer Lit. and Computer Science), and I've seen many bright and brilliant students ready to come out of schools and become Experts, what a society really needs. Here at least, there is a slight problem. We have a gifted program, and 'levels' of brightness which students are grouped into.

The Bright students get a WONDERFUL education.

the Scientific Method IS taught. Students can CHOOSE more classes in Middle school and High School. Students design their own experiments. They analyze Historical documents, write papers, and write creative writing. They learn basic computer programming. Heck, most take woodshop, which in Middle School focuses on Solution design and creation, solving real world problems, building, etc. The brightest take Algebra I in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th, Algebra II in 9th, Pre-Calc. in 10th, Calc. in 11th, and AP Statistics in 12th. However, many very bright students who excel in such can work a grade level ahead. There are numerous electives and options in high school that deal with so many things. We even have good Evolution and Age of the Earth standards; Nobody is allowed to say: 'lol against my religion!' If they do, they fail. Simple. Students are taught about Natural Selection, what a Scientific Theory actually means, and how many dating methods and the age of the Earth work.(Not to mention a long unit on Evidence of Evolution)

Anyway- that's what the gifted and brightest students get. And as they are often grouped together, they don't experience anti-intellectualism' as much.(IE- they won't get beat up for being a 'nerd', as those who would beat them up barely know them) They are the ones going on, and innovating and thinking.

The teachers are ENTHUSIASTIC about these students. They get the best.

However, the average or below average students get only a semi-decent Education, but often are restricted, not allowed to do as much, do not do as many experiments or creative things, or have as much fun learning. This is the problem; 'low-level' students are being held back just because they performed badly on a few tests. They are demotivated by impassionate teachers and such.

Anyway, that's how it is here. However, we have some pretty good schools here compared to the rest of the country.

-SQLserver

I had something important to say. I wanted to make sure that YetiHunter didn't miss it.

no offense taken, i also am in the educational arena and in california where i am at we have one of the poorest educational public systems...I do not dispute that there are brilliant people and minds in our culture, but i stand with yeti that not enough of this brillaince is applied or respected by the majority , take gobal warming , or the gas situation, or the voting process and it goes on and on..... or the fact that very few states have stepped up to the going green plate to be the diffenrce very few in fact........California is tied up in court with the oil companys blocking ethonal which could make a huge diffenence here, everywhere really........I am saying that we have a obesity issue so huge in the US that kids will not be out living their parents and little is done by many to address it,alot is done to deny it though.....

i don't think yeti was trying to insult anyone and I dont find his comments lame , they are fair and valid......

i do not disagree with your observations either server and I see you care and its nice to see...to be honest....I am glad you have good schools i wish for all our kids we did also....so we work towards it not by denying it is an issue but by addressing it and In all fairness i think that is what yeti was doing....thankyou for your very thoughtful post ....

Edited May 2, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[Tiggs]

I noticed that nobody commented on this from earlier. http://www.icr.org/article/165/

Server posted a link or some info to a study showing that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. Which corresponds to the currently accepted age of the earth. Do you find that at all interesting? The sun is forming, the earth is forming, the solar system is all coming together at the same time - not a problem. My question is, how long did life really have to evolve on earth? 4.5 billion years? No, it would have taken a long time for the sun to coalesce. Then, don't forget about the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. I'm just saying alot of time evolution is given alot more time to happen then what is real.

I think that's down to rounding, mostly, Yeti. When you're talking about processes in Billions of years, each 0.01 is 10 Million years long.

Wikipedia states the age of the Sun as 4.57 Billion years and the age of the Earth as 4.54 Billion years, leaving a gap of 30 Million Years or so between them.