Remix.run Logo
theodorejb 14 hours ago

What evidence would it take for more scientists to recognize that perhaps life didn't evolve through some evolutionary process, but was intentionally created? It seems like few ever consider that their starting presupposition may be wrong.

IAmGraydon 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I know I really shouldn’t take this bait, but…no one has proof either way. That said, we have a massive amount of scientific evidence that shows it could have naturally evolved and zero evidence that something created us. Finding something that we don’t understand doesn’t mean we have evidence of creation. Ancient civilizations believed that rain came from the gods because they were unaware of how weather combines with the phases of matter and creates atmospheric condensation.

That being the state of things at the moment, I lean towards the evidence. Also, this is a scientific oriented discussion forum, so you must expect that many people here are going to disagree with you. Could you be correct? Sure, but we just don’t have reason to believe that at this point.

luqtas 38 minutes ago | parent [-]

yeah but what if the creators of life orchestrate the condensation? /s

the amount of text (considering this is a hardware/software community) i read here defending psychoanalys/acupuncture & the likes as well some opinions on ecology/nutrition makes me pretty agnostic of scientific orientation from users... we are (most of the times) just a bunch of laypersons often only reading titles & conclusions of most papers we read

andrewflnr 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Enough evidence to overcome the enormous pile of evidence that life evolved over billions of years. Often literal piles, in the case of geology, but there's a lot of different kinds of interlocking evidence that suggest a pretty clear picture, even if a few puzzle pieces are still missing.

Unless you're thinking of panspermia, in which case most any hard evidence would do. But that doesn't really sound like your thing.

- a former creationist

photonthug 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

For better or worse the standard of evidence for almost everything is more like “smoking gun” than “I found a bullet”. In some cases this is bad, in others it is good. Just consider all the criminal matters where the crime is only a crime if you can additionally demonstrate intent, which is strange right, since it doesn’t change outcomes / injuries at all. Since sufficiently ancient guns won’t even be smoking anymore this will be problematic for creationists even if they are correct, so I think we’d need a new kind of burning bush.

scrapcode 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I certainly am trending that way as I grow older. As I've recently started to re-dive into Christian theology, the fine-tuning argument seems more and more interesting, and it's pretty difficult to find "good" secular arguments against it.

Terr_ 12 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't know, I think the arthropic principle is still going really strong: It's like this because if it wasn't we would be asking different questions or not around to ask at all.

It's hard to consider something "so improbable that it must have been God" when we look out at a universe so incomprehensibly bigger that the real question becomes why we haven't evidence of it happening more.

cowl 11 minutes ago | parent [-]

Anthropic principle is the most useless of all and it's used to avoid explanation instead of trying to find one. Imagine Newton answering to why objects fall with "because if they did not we would be asking different questions"... what a great advance for humanity /s