Scientists claim that they prove gravity exists by revealing evidence of the effects it has on objects..
Therefore gravity is not found or proved really, all we have is an effect, a force of nature brought on by the weight and non weight of objects and the size of and distance of and so forth..
Evolution is claimed to be proved in similar fashion by revealing differences in the fossils scientists find and claim to be related..
Therefore even evolution is not really found either, all we have is a claim because no other alternative for our origins are accepted by the academic world of science..
Now if we look at the two theories listed above you'll see that "anything" can be claimed in that fashion, therefore why cant a "Creator" be claimed to exist by its effects claimed to exist on the physical world..
If we refuse to accept Creation because we need physical proof of God then we must also need physical proof of evolution and gravity in order to accept that they are real too.. [Emphasis added]
48 comments
The non-existence of a Creator is demonstrated by the fact it has no effect on reality. We can detect neutrinos whose interaction is so slight they can pass through four light-years of lead with less than a fifty-fifty chance of interacting. For those who don't know what a light year is, its an immense distance, so much bigger than the whole world that it makes planet earth look like a comma compared to a continent.
Oh, yeah, 'just a theory'...
Sometimes the phrase "evolution is only a theory" will be heard. This phrase rests on the common use of "theory" to mean what scientists call a "hypothesis," i.e., is something that is possible but not proven. Science, however, uses " theory" in a much different sense, namely as a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or observation. This sets it at a significantly higher level of reasoning than "wild and unproven guess", which is what is implied when this argument is mentioned. Note that creationists (well, at least some) don't say that gravity is "only a theory." And if anyone says you can't directly observe evolution, send them to professor Lenski.
For those that do, i guess this is what they think...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intelligent_falling
Creationist and Intelligent design proponents often like to describe the theory of evolution as just a theory. This relies on equivocating the common usage of the term theory (meaning "idea" or "guess") with the scientific meaning. Theories are the single highest level of scientific achievement and nothing is just a theory - that would be like saying Bill Gates is just a multibillionaire. Additionally, one might say that the notion of evolution is "just a theory" in the same way that Cell Theory and the Theory of Gravitation (fundamental principles of biology and physics, respectively) are "just theories."
Here's the thing about why Creationism is crap, and its true motivation: this isn't merely about a creator, since evolution is compatible with a supernatural entity creating everything - fundies care about a lawmaker, because without the all-powerful lawmaker, then fundies can't boast about how they're "moral" and not going to hell while others are.
While we don't know everything about gravity or evolution we know enough to utilize their properties and understand their effects.
There is nothing that gives religion the right to claim equal time or consideration as it has never proved anything it claims and produces nothing but recycled fables. There is no Controversy when the creationist side provides no evidence and asserts it doesn't even have to but simply demands it's special status of supreme bullshit counters all else.
You have NOTHING.
Scientific theories make precise predictions.
General relativity correctly predicts the perihelion precession of Mercury, the deflection of light by the sun, the PoundRebka experiment, etc.
Evolution correctly predicts the existence of Tiktaalik, on what strata fossils will be found, that fossils of human ancestors will be found in Africa, etc.
What precise predictions does the existence of God make?
According to Prof. Stephen Hawking the universe itself was created by Gravity.
He knows infinitely more than you fundies do.
I mean, who do you lot have to wheel out to possibly contradict him, eh? Michael Behe?!
Good luck with that.
an appeal to consensus.
why haven't you surprised me in the slightest. nothing/ nothing can exist that isn't materialism.
And so, we are back at Abiogenesis. and you are just as f++++d/
Therefore gravity is not found or proved really, all we have is an effect, a force of nature brought on by the weight and non weight of objects and the size of and distance of and so forth..
And by predicting the specifics of that effect and comparing them to the measured actual effect scientist confirm or falsify their “claims”. How can you do this with your god?
"Now if we look at the two theories listed above you'll see that "anything" can be claimed in that fashion"
Crocoduck... if anything like that actually existed then it would show that the ToE was incredibly wrong somewhere. And this is why you don't try to understand science based on what people vomit out on fucking Yahoo Answers... (that's how you spell "fucked" by the way PG)
By God you're right! Hold on, let me just get a billion dollar grant, two labs, and... oh wait. Here's a sixth grade text book. Yeah, that should be all you need.
When things fall down to the Earth, we CALL that gravity. When things change over time, or when we have evidence of something or rather that has changed over time, we CALL that evolution. It's kind of when something flashes at us in the wavelength rage of 650 nanometers, we CALL that red. The mechanics of them aren't fully understood, and we're trying all the time to figure it out, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Nothing like that works for religion.
I love the responses from the other believers.
"Read the New Testament!" Yes, ignore the Old where god is a massive twat and follow the New where Jesus is a hypocrite.
"Look inside yourself for proof." No thanks, I'll leave that to my surgeons.
"A bead changed color and a clock fell off the wall! Miracles!" No.
Now if we look at the two theories listed above you'll see that "anything" can be claimed in that fashion, therefore why cant a "Creator" be claimed to exist by its effects claimed to exist on the physical world..
See, it would be ridiculously easy to show the effects of the creator on the physical world. A christian prays and a lead brick turns into gold or an amputated arm regrows. A muslim prays - nothing. Same with the jew, hindu, magician casting spells, etc. If only a christian prayer were able to have some miraculous effect that would be, if not outright proof of a creator, then at least they were the only religion supported by some type of supernatural power. And if you read your Bible, it tells you that this happens. When they went up to the high place, the priests of YHWH were able to perform miracles, but the priests of Baal were not.
Meanwhile, back in reality-land, people can pray over a pile of lead bricks all day long, and the same thing happens regardless of their religion - absolutely nothing. You can; however, recruit a few scientists and give them a few billion dollars to build a particle accelerator and an isotope separator, and they can convert the lead bricks to gold.
*Shudders.* To be honest, that response doesn't get to me as much as the flood of comments at the source like "Look around you and inside yourself, there's the evidence!" At least this person is sorta trying to come up with something, instead of bullshitting their way around the question with, with, that. Ugh.
"we must also need physical proof of [...] gravity in order to accept that they are real too"
Go to the nearest window in the 20th floor, jump and then tell us gravity isn't real.
1) Evolution has been demonstrated in a lab. Abiogenesis is a separate thing. You want to claim that god created the first living things? Fine, there's nothing to say otherwise.
2) Creationism has never been shown to have a whit of evidence. Again, if you want to say that god created the first living thing and thereafter, evolution happened, that's fine.
3) Gravity is so well documented that it's considered one of the few scientific laws.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
