- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity? A scientist that presupposes evolution will look at the same evidence as a scientist that presupposes creation and they will reach different conclusions.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhat does "evidence for creation" mean? Do you have any examples of the kind of evidence you are referring to, or do you have in mind the sort of "evidence for creation" that posters like chaney3 and josephw often talk about, i.e. 'everything around us is evidence'?
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity? A scientist that presupposes evolution will look at the same evidence as a scientist that presupposes creation and they will reach different conclusions.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @fmfEvidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design. When you were a Christian, were you never aware of evidence for creation?
What does "evidence for creation" mean? Do you have any examples of the kind of evidence you are referring to, or do you have in mind the sort of "evidence for creation" that posters like chaney3 and josephw often talk about, i.e. 'everything around us is evidence'?
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerCan you explain what you mean by this please?
Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterFor example in physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning could support design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must match precise criteria is such that a number of agnostic scientists have concluded that, indeed, there is some sort of transcendent purpose behind the cosmic arena. British astrophysicist Fred Hoyle writes, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Can you explain what you mean by this please?
One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.One example of fine tuning is the rate at which the universe expands. This value must be delicately balanced to a precision of one part in 1055. If the universe expanded too quickly, matter would expand too quickly for the formation of stars, planets and galaxies. If the universe expanded too slowly, the universe would quickly collapse before the formation of stars.
This article gives you a brief overview of some of the key elements involved in the design inference.
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterPlease don't encourage him sir to reference the clock analogy. (Or i'll be forced to reference Voltaire or Kant).
Can you explain what you mean by this please?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeI'm guessing you will be supplying me with subjective references?
Please don't encourage him sir to reference the clock analogy. (Or i'll be forced to reference Voltaire or Kant).
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou expect me to read an entire article in order to understand what you mean by:
For example in physics, the concept of cosmic fine tuning could support design inference. The concept of cosmic fine tuning relates to a unique property of our universe whereby the physical constants and laws are observed to be balanced on a “razor’s edge” for permitting the emergence of complex life. The degree to which the constants of physics must matc ...[text shortened]... volved in the design inference.
https://www.gotquestions.org/evidence-intelligent-design.html
"Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design."
This is what you want me to do?
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerI am asking you - a Christian - about what "evidence for creation" you claim to be aware of, not doing a post-mortem on beliefs I happen to have held in decades past and which were faith-based and not much affected by issues of science.
When you were a Christian, were you never aware of evidence for creation?
I have gone from seeing a creator behind the world I saw around me, to being agnostic about the question of a creator.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerSo the apparently inexplicable complexity of things is one kind of "evidence of design", to your way of thinking. And that takes care of most of it. OK, fair enough. Is there anything else? Any other kinds of evidence?
Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAre you describing a scientist or are you in fact describing a creationist without knowledge of science? I think the latter.
Is it true that no scientist who is an atheist will stumble upon evidence for creation and neither will a scientist that believes in creation stumble upon evidence for evolution? The reason being you will only 'find' what you are looking for. So where is the objectivity?
"Seashells are found on the MtEverest, this must be the ultimate proof of the flooding."
"Err, haven't you heard of tectonics?"
"No,and I will not hear about what Satan is whispering in your ears!"
"So what is the reason that seashells is not found all over the world?"
"More whispering of Satan! Go away!"
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterThen you may as well discount the entire fossil record.
I think you need to answer FMF's question and explain what you mean by "evidence". An "inference" is not evidence itself.
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAre you going on answer FMF's question so we can move the discussion along?
Then you may as well discount the entire fossil record.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
18 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterGive me one example of evidence for evolution that is not made by means of inference and then we can move along with the discussion.
Are you going on answer FMF's question so we can move the discussion along?