subjective science

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.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
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.

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'?

Originally posted by @fmf
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'?

Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design. When you were a Christian, were you never aware of evidence for creation?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design.

Can you explain what you mean by this please?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Can you explain what you mean by this please?

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 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.”

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

Originally posted by @divegeester
Can you explain what you mean by this please?

Please don't encourage him sir to reference the clock analogy. (Or i'll be forced to reference Voltaire or Kant).

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Please don't encourage him sir to reference the clock analogy. (Or i'll be forced to reference Voltaire or Kant).

I'm guessing you will be supplying me with subjective references?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
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

You expect me to read an entire article in order to understand what you mean by:

"Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design."

This is what you want me to do?

I think you need to answer FMF's question and explain what you mean by "evidence". An "inference" is not evidence itself.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
When you were a Christian, were you never aware of evidence for creation?

I 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.

I have gone from seeing a creator behind the world I saw around me, to being agnostic about the question of a creator.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Evidence for creation is mostly built around evidence of design.

So 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?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
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?

Are you describing a scientist or are you in fact describing a creationist without knowledge of science? I think the latter.

"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!"

Originally posted by @divegeester
I think you need to answer FMF's question and explain what you mean by "evidence". An "inference" is not evidence itself.

Then you may as well discount the entire fossil record.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Then you may as well discount the entire fossil record.

Are you going on answer FMF's question so we can move the discussion along?

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you going on answer FMF's question so we can move the discussion along?

Give me one example of evidence for evolution that is not made by means of inference and then we can move along with the discussion.