Evidence against creation

[Brian37]

Exactly. Finally, someone said it. Creationists never follow through on their assertions, even notwithstanding the beautifully apt lavatorial implications of that phrase.

The scientific method:

Step 1 - Observe some aspect of reality

Step 2 - Devise tentative hypothesis to account for it

Step 3 - Devise experiments to test hypothesis against observation as unambiguously as possible and in as varied situations as possible

Step 4 - Use experimental data to  revise hypothesis

Step 5 - Repeat steps 3 and 4 until hypothesis accounts for and makes predictions about the observation

Step 6 - Publish paper and submit it for peer review

Step 7 - If you are lucky, whatever survives to this point gets to be called a theory

The creationist scientific method:

Step 1 - Observe some aspect of existing scientific theory and/or debate that looks ripe for rebranding under the Jesus banner

Step 2 - Devise scenario, however implausible, to account for it. Don't forget to include as many carefully mined quotes and bible/kerrang verses as you can. Remember you're doing this for Jesus.

Step 3 - Er...

Step 4 - That's about it

Step 5 - Declare victory

That sums up the differences right there.

Science works through testing and falsification and peer review.

Religion merely survives through mere marketing. 

[Esquilax]

---

With all due respect, and you've earned very little, creation isn't a serious enough theory to warrant arguing against.  I just throw it in the bin with all the other crazy-ass theories.

---

Creation isn't a serious theory because it begs the question, "and who or what created the creator".  You can't define your way out of that one.  So if anyone is seriously interested in origins, they just follow the evidence as far back as it leads.  Beyond that, no one yet knows nor has any defensible theory.  You're free to speculate all you want.  But I don't feel any need to argue against your indefensible opinions.

Beginnings only make sense where time is linear in some way such as the cosmic timeline which began 13 billion years ago. If time were two-dimensional, it would be described as a plane which wouldn’t require a beginning or cessation; this is the situation with the Creator. One dimensional time has beginnings and endings; not necessarily so with two-dimensional time.

No. Anything Snowtracks says is wrong.

... Or are we only supposed to take your fiat assertions seriously, Snowy?

[Exian]

I haven't read past the first page, so I apologize if this was brought up.

The largest eye we know of is that of the colossal squid, which measures 11-10 inches in diameter. This wasn't Alexander's animal, but I think it would be safe to say that "the size of a shield" was an exaggeration to express the size of whatever animal he saw. The eye of his creature is probably smaller than 10 inches in diameter, making for a terrible shield.

This question also illustrates the general thinking when dinosaurs are mentioned: they were all huge! Bigger than you could imagine! If dinosaurs did survive until the dawn of man, Alexander could have said "an eye the size of a pea, 'bout the size of a chicken, really", and he could have been talking about a dinosaur.

But, as Esq. said, there are other large animals, and some that meet the requirement of existing in Alexander's time. I'm sure you can think of a few with eyes smaller than 10 inches in diameter (hint: all of them). You'd be hard pressed, however, to find an animal with eyes as big as a useful shield.

[Hatshepsut]

Alexander the Great saw a dinosaur...

An Eye as big as a shield. Greeks were notorious for hyperbole as well as duplicity.

But I've always wondered about Diplodocus.  Especially Robert Bakker's putting critters like this in herds in his The Dinosaur Heresies.  Seems to me a herd of sauropods would strip the vegetation faster than the plants could grow and faster than they could move on to fresh pastures. Aha! My evidence for creation of manna ex nihilo. 'Twas pellets raining down like manna from heaven that fed the sauropods. 

Not so hard to catch absurdities, yet it seems easier to argue against "evidence" for special creation than it is to find evidence that no creation event of any kind has ever taken place.

[Mudhammam]

Not so hard to catch absurdities, yet it seems easier to argue against "evidence" for special creation than it is to find evidence that no creation event of any kind has ever taken place.

It was also very difficult to locate evidence for the luminiferous aether. Eventually physicists and astronomers realized it wasn't necessary. Since Darwin, I think we are kind of in the same position with instantaneous, ad hoc "creation events."

[Pizza]

Well my God has like fifty dimensions.

Pffffff! My God has one thousand dimensions. 

[Hatshepsut]

It was also very difficult to locate evidence for the luminiferous aether. Eventually physicists and astronomers realized it wasn't necessary. Since Darwin, I think we are kind of in the same position with instantaneous, ad hoc "creation events."

Indeed. Because Einstein showed the Lorentz contraction is a direct consequence of Special Relativity. We also have an instantaneous origin event called the Big Bang, even if it can't be accused of having been postulated "ad hoc" (since its underlying physical theory predicts the cosmic microwave background).

I was thinking of the more general problem that it's usually easier to show that something exists than to show that it doesn't exist. Or, if reconstructing the past, easier to show that something happened than to show that it couldn't have happened.

Which renders the thread title odd, given that special creation is attacked via Occam's Razor rather than by trying to find evidence against it.

[Anomalocaris]

Not so hard to catch absurdities, yet it seems easier to argue against "evidence" for special creation than it is to find evidence that no creation event of any kind has ever taken place.

It was also very difficult to locate evidence for the luminiferous aether. Eventually physicists and astronomers realized it wasn't necessary. Since Darwin, I think we are kind of in the same position with instantaneous, ad hoc "creation events."

Actually, in this specific case, Michelson Morley experiment provided direct evidence that luminiferous aether in fact didn't exist, not just that it was hard to detect.    It then became an open question, addressed later, how light can propagate without it.

If one is specific about what one is looking for, and rigorously parsimonious about why one is looking at all, then it is frequently possible to show what one is looking for does not, or can not, exist.    It is only when one is intellectually dishonest about why one is looking and what would preclude the existence of what one is looking for,  as anyone who would be Christian must be about their God, that it becomes seemingly reasonable to accept categoric impossibility of proving a non-existence.

[Mudhammam]

@Chuck

No doubt that was a pivotal turning point but there were various excuses given by those who still wanted it as a solution to certain difficulties until Einstein came along and caused the relativity revolution.

[Surgenator]

It was also very difficult to locate evidence for the luminiferous aether. Eventually physicists and astronomers realized it wasn't necessary. Since Darwin, I think we are kind of in the same position with instantaneous, ad hoc "creation events."

Indeed. Because Einstein showed the Lorentz contraction is a direct consequence of Special Relativity. We also have an instantaneous origin event called the Big Bang, even if it can't be accused of having been postulated "ad hoc" (since its underlying physical theory predicts the cosmic microwave background).

I was thinking of the more general problem that it's usually easier to show that something exists than to show that it doesn't exist. Or, if reconstructing the past, easier to show that something happened than to show that it couldn't have happened.

Which renders the thread title odd, given that special creation is attacked via Occam's Razor rather than by trying to find evidence against it.

The big band does not say the universe had a beginning. It only states the universe used to be small and hot and expanded to what it is today.