What Evidence Would it Take For You to Accept Creationism as a Valid Explanation?
Well, fair's fair. Clearly we can't expect our Creationist friends to answer the same question in the explicit fashion we'd all like unless we're prepared to return the favour.
An intellectual jeu, if you will.
I would like a revelation, first of all. If we're being genuinely open-minded I'd be content if it were a revelation from Chango, Olodumaré, Brahma, Baal, Moloch, Zeus or /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa. But we're talking Genesis here, and the specific details of that great and beautiful Book have to be accounted for - that's the rules. So.
I'd like to see physical evidence of the ark of Noah or the Great Tower of Babel, or the grave of Ham. Something like that. Or genetic evidence that explains how mitochondrial DNA, which decays at specific and understood rates, could account for the observable differences between human populations in 6,000 short years. Any two of those.
I'd like an explanation of the processes of fossilisation, underground calcification and ice-cores that accords with what we know about geology, metereology and the observable world.
To account for the vast distances measurable in the universe I'd like an explanation of how light can speed up, and I'd like to see it actually reproduced under laboratory conditions.
Any two or three of these would do it for me.
What about you?
An intellectual jeu, if you will.
I would like a revelation, first of all. If we're being genuinely open-minded I'd be content if it were a revelation from Chango, Olodumaré, Brahma, Baal, Moloch, Zeus or /Kaggen of the /Xam-ka !ei of South Africa. But we're talking Genesis here, and the specific details of that great and beautiful Book have to be accounted for - that's the rules. So.
I'd like to see physical evidence of the ark of Noah or the Great Tower of Babel, or the grave of Ham. Something like that. Or genetic evidence that explains how mitochondrial DNA, which decays at specific and understood rates, could account for the observable differences between human populations in 6,000 short years. Any two of those.
I'd like an explanation of the processes of fossilisation, underground calcification and ice-cores that accords with what we know about geology, metereology and the observable world.
To account for the vast distances measurable in the universe I'd like an explanation of how light can speed up, and I'd like to see it actually reproduced under laboratory conditions.
Any two or three of these would do it for me.
What about you?
Comments
Almost every religion has a flood story.
Genesis only says that "Great Beasts" were created in Eden.
Plus your talking about physical evidence for items that happened upwards of 6000 years ago? We as a society really only have things that can account for 3-4,000 of it after that nobody is really sure.
There have been numerous reports of exactly how valid you can take half-life dating of fossils.
You talk about how mitochondrial DNA evolves and evolution in general and yet there hasn't been any scientifically observed instance of a change of an animal or human.
a day in the eyes of god, is a thousand years in the eyes of men.
Also look at the odds, and what about the explinations from science about how if you put a ball of cosmic ash in nothing, and put a light on it all this other stuff happens? Sure.
Also science is trying hard as it might to solve the problems in our ever present society when the only thing that really helps is religion. Its a wonder why hospitals have chaplains anymore do they? Because when you are dying and the odds of life are beset against you, its the one thing you still have. A soul and the everlasting love of our heavenly father.
What Evidence Would it Take For You to Accept Creationism as a Valid Explanation?
Well . . . first there would need to be G-d:
G-d would need to 'exist' . . . .
like a thing in the road, like tangible quanta
like a dog without a bone . . .
But not to just 'exist', but to proveably exist . .
"prove that thing thing in the road! please"
Then we can begin . . . .
oh, and you'd have to differentiate what creationist version you want to begin to prove: why not go for the Navaho creation story? or the Tlingit?
Those would be fun to 'prove'
Seriously, those things would get me rethinking my position:
- an explanation why breeding can morph a species from wolf to dog to some of the carpet rats we see (breeding is forced evolution).
- an explanation of the necessity to have gills at some point of ontogenesis in humans. Alternatively, if there is no necessity, I'd like to read a theory why they show up and then are resorbed again.
- an explanation why very different taxa have a lot of similarities in their DNA. Bonus points for an explanation why one can build a taxonomic tree from observable traits and one by DNA similarity and those are very similar.
- an explanation why the concept of an eye was realized in at least four different ways. Same for wings. Same for oxygen exanging organs.
- an explanation why it is possible to formulate mathematical principles of evolution based on mutation rate, selection coefficients and generation period and derive meaningful results if mutation/selection is not a valid theory.
- an creationist explanation of industry-melanism in peppered moth. Same for sicle-cell anemia. Same for why bacteria get resistant to antibiotics.
Now, the only thing that would convince me at once:
It follows from basic logic that where there is a creation, there needs to be a creator. Just show me the guy who did it and you got me.
Originally posted by kraig911
couldn't it be said that 'science' is an abstract explanation of the world around us as much as religion?
No. Not really.
Originally posted by Smircle
Now, the only thing that would convince me at once:
It follows from basic logic that where there is a creation, there needs to be a creator. Just show me the guy who did it and you got me.
I'm afraid when it comes to that it will already be too late...
You see creationism is based in faith not a group thinking of an observation believed to be fact.
Science is very good at explaining natural laws, their interactions and so forth. But the one thing they having explained is how you get something from nothing.
They can go back to the early moments of the big bang, but when the current natural laws begin failing, because they hadn't been established yet as the universe was just beginning (we are talking fractions of seconds after the "bang" occured.) the explanation stops as well.
How did we get everything from nothing?
I would love to have that explained.
I would also love to have explained to me, why many of the people who are constantly asking us to worry about the state of our world believe we came from nothing, with no purpose and will revert to purposeless nothing after we die. The assumption of being purposeful and something while we are alive is of course, an illusion. Life is just a faster way for energy to deplete itself.
When science can answer those base questions for me, I'll stop looking at alternatives.
Nick
Originally posted by kraig911
You see creationism is based in faith not a group thinking of an observation believed to be fact.
Then there is no rational discussion possible. Faith-based believe systems cannot be proven nor refused, they are simply no challenge to science.
Creationsm is not science.
Alternatively, as J.C. says (Johnny Cash, that is),
there'll be a golden ladder reachin' down
when the Man comes around
That'd be convincing.
Originally posted by trumptman
Creationism is often confused with intelligent design.
Well, ID is just a souped-up version of creationism with a new, flashy name. Show me the designer and I am convinced.
Originally posted by Smircle
Then there is no rational discussion possible. Faith-based believe systems cannot be proven nor refused, they are simply no challenge to science.
Creationsm is not science.
My point exactly, and there shouldn't be any science to creationism. Why I don't mind big bang being taught in schools and all per say I hate how they forget to really drive it in their heads that theory is not fact. Because in science there is no fact, only observation. They shouldn't be fused together.
It just takes faith tho guys/gals, you shouldn't have to see or anything to know somethen is the way it is. Your mom loved you right? If so then show me what it would take for her to prove it.
Originally posted by trumptman
How did we get everything from nothing?
I would love to have that explained.
...
When science can answer those base questions for me, I'll stop looking at alternatives.
The absence of a provable answer to a question is not a valid reason to accept unproved theories as fact.
I've often wondered what's so wrong with accepting that we just don't and and probably can't know some of these answers.
Originally posted by trumptman
Creationism is often confused with intelligent design. There are plenty of people who believe in intelligent design without having to believe in the Christian god per se.
Science is very good at explaining natural laws, their interactions and so forth. But the one thing they having explained is how you get something from nothing.
They can go back to the early moments of the big bang, but when the current natural laws begin failing, because they hadn't been established yet as the universe was just beginning (we are talking fractions of seconds after the "bang" occured.) the explanation stops as well.
How did we get everything from nothing?
I would love to have that explained.
I would also love to have explained to me, why many of the people who are constantly asking us to worry about the state of our world believe we came from nothing, with no purpose and will revert to purposeless nothing after we die. The assumption of being purposeful and something while we are alive is of course, an illusion. Life is just a faster way for energy to deplete itself.
When science can answer those base questions for me, I'll stop looking at alternatives.
Nick
Why not start, then, from forms of thought that ACTUALLY take those questions seriously.
NOT taking those questions seriously is like resorting to a 'religion' that has a specific set of practices based on a diety and etc.
Forms of thought that DO take those questions seriously: Philosophy: for instance Martin Heidegger's book Introduction To Metaphysics is nothing but the elaboration of the question Why is there Something rather than Nothing? . . . you will note that he does not merely stop taking the thought seriously by saying 'you see, thinking is hard, so I am a Baptist or etc"
He also takes the ntin of Nothing and Nothingness very seriously . . . not just something to try and show peope that they should stop thinking and accept vulgar 'religion' as the answer or that they are inconsstent if they think about nothingness and yet still want the world to be a better place . .
Another form of thought, that is too often misidentified as a 'Religion' is Buddhism: Buddhism is not a Thiesm, there is not G-d in Buddhims, (even forms of Buddhism that have dieties realy only believe that thise dieties are manifestations of energy and of compassion and or the will: meaning, tantamount to psychic embodiements: meaning sections of mind, your mind, your psych) For Buddhism there are four things that are real: change, suffering, compassion and the way towards the release from suffering.
For Buddhism there is no creationsims because what can be said about the world is simply that it is: that it is a phenomena, no beginning or end that is significant.
note that Buddhims takes Nothingness very seriously (Shunyata: a 'full' emptyness) as it is a goal, but bases their ethics on it: Compassion.
Fellowship
Originally posted by kraig911
My point exactly, and there shouldn't be any science to creationism. Why I don't mind big bang being taught in schools and all per say I hate how they forget to really drive it in their heads that theory is not fact. Because in science there is no fact, only observation. They shouldn't be fused together.
It just takes faith tho guys/gals, you shouldn't have to see or anything to know somethen is the way it is. Your mom loved you right? If so then show me what it would take for her to prove it.
If you had a parent that didn't love you than you wouldn't ask such a smug question . . . not all mothers love their children . . . though evolution made it such that it is almost impossible to be otherwise.
My theory is that theism is just a kind of developmental disorder.
I have a 5 year old daughter, and despite hearing only vaguely about God, and never going to church, and despite her parents not believing in God and not teaching her about God, she is 100% a believer. She talks about God all the time. Raining is God crying. (This winter she said God had dandruff.) God created the mountains. God causes summer and winter. Etc. etc. It's crazy. She has very strong beliefs and there's no disagreeing with her about it.
Here's a paper (.pdf file) published in the journal Psychological Science called "Are Children ?Intuitive Theists?? Reasoning about Purpose and Design in Nature." She argues that around age 5, children are "creationists." They believe everything was designed and has a proximal, and human-like, cause. In her words, children have a "promiscuous teleology."
Maybe there's a kind of "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" pattern in human development. Early humans were childlike in their thinking about the world. They never grew out of their natural childish thinking about the world, because they didn't have the tools to understand how things really worked. Over history, we were able to get more sophisticated in our tools and reasoning about the world.
Now, we can see human history in individual human development: In childhood, creationism, and in the teens, scientists.
Originally posted by kraig911
My point exactly, and there shouldn't be any science to creationism.
Then why invent creationism in the first place? If you are not trying to challenge science, all you need is the bible. It's all right there - world was created in six days etc.
It just takes faith tho guys/gals, you shouldn't have to see or anything to know somethen is the way it is. Your mom loved you right? If so then show me what it would take for her to prove it.
You are trying to kid me right?
I could observe my mother loved me because
- she was there as a person (ie. I knew I had a mother, could touch her, talk to her)
- she consoled me, hugged me, fed me.
- she believed in me and told me so.
Not pure faith. Experience.