Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

real life wrote:

Actually, I'm quite comfortable discussing white dwarf stars.

Why aren't you all of a sudden?

Instead of just asserting 'white dwarf stars are old, this I know, for science tells me so' (and then changing the subject when someone disagrees), what specific evidence have you interpreted to lead you to that conclusion?

Why should I have to re-prove countless aspects of scientific knowledge for which you have doubts. The age of white dwarf stars is an accepted fact in the current body of scientific knowledge. So is the age of chemical elements and so is the age of the oldest start clusters. And so on and so on.

What specific evidence do you have that these bits of scientific knowledge are not valid?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

What specific evidence do you have that these bits of scientific knowledge are not valid?

It's time for one of Shirakawasuna's famous tips on debating creationists: don't let them shift the burden of proof.

In this case, you'd actually have the burden of proof of validity if the question were about how old the universe or various parts of it are. However[/b], the topic of this entire thread (and seat of these questions) is: evidence for creationism.

As such, he's using these inane questions to formulate an implicit argument from ignorance: "if you can't tell me how old the earth is, etc, as per science, my option wins by default". As such, he's shifted the burden of proof an entire level back.

Since you've tried to shift it back on another level, he'd now be quite valid (in this subtopic) of forcing you to explain it. Don't let him! The level of obfuscation is once-removed already and should be revisited!

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What specific evidence do you have that these bits of scientific knowledge are not valid?

It's time for one of Shirakawasuna's famous tips on debating creationists: don't let them shift the burden of proof.

In this case, you'd actually have the burden of proof of validity if the question were about how old the universe or various parts of it are. However[/b], the topic of this entire thread (and seat of these questions) is: evidence for creationism.

Thanks Shira, but I know what I'm doing. I've been giving RL the rope to hang himself with for over three years now.

He's never going to answer the original premise of this thread. He can't. Nobody can. There is no proof (or evidence) for creationism.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Actually, I'm quite comfortable discussing white dwarf stars.

Why aren't you all of a sudden?

Instead of just asserting 'white dwarf stars are old, this I know, for science tells me so' (and then changing the subject when someone disagrees), what specific evidence have you interpreted to lead you to that conclusion?

Why should I have to re-prove countless aspects of scientific knowledge for which you have doubts.

I haven't asked about countless aspects. I asked for THE strongest evidence you had.

You brought up white dwarf stars in response to that post, and then immediately declined to provide anything but assertions.

I just thought that the guy who keeps saying he's got the evidence might share some of it.

I was wrong.

Going back then to the 'singularity':

-- since there is no evidence that such ever existed

-- and since you do not know the composition nor the properties of the 'singularity',

-- and since the 'singularity' is described as not being subject to the physical (natural) laws of the universe

isn't it basically a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe? (It certainly cannot be a 'scientific ' explanation, can it?)

0 Replies

Hey 'real life', what's an argument from ignorance?

Also, where's your evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

Quote:

I just thought that the guy who keeps saying he's got the evidence might share some of it.

Funny, I thought that guy was Real Life.

Joe(or gal, whatever.)Nation

0 Replies

Joe,

I've always candidly stated that creation is a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe.

Why can't you admit that a 'singularity' is a supernatural explanation also?

That is, unless you've got evidence that one ever actually existed. :wink:

(btw I am a guy, not a gal. Just ask my wife and kids, they'll tell you. Laughing

)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Joe,

I've always candidly stated that creation is a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe.

Why can't you admit that a 'singularity' is a supernatural explanation also?

That is, unless you've got evidence that one ever actually existed. :wink:

(btw I am a guy, not a gal. Just ask my wife and kids, they'll tell you. )

Thanks for clearing that up. The guy/gal part, I try not to assume anything.

You asked: Why can't you admit that a 'singularity' is a supernatural explanation also?

Because the supernatural does not exist either with a 'singularity' or without one.

I'm happy you stated that creation is a supernatural explanation of the origin of the universe. I think you are wrong. What's your evidence for something supernatural creating the universe?

Joe(and how many of them were there? Universes and supernaturals)Nation

0 Replies

hi Joe,

The reason I describe the 'singularity' as supernatural is because it fits the definition.

Quote:

Main Entry:
su·per·nat·u·ral Listen to the pronunciation of supernatural
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

What else would you call something that is not subject to the physical (natural) laws of the universe, something you have no evidence ever existed, and something of which you do not know the composition, properties or origin?

It's supernatural.

But I don't seriously expect the self-professed 'scientific' types on A2K to admit this anytime soon. Most of them are too invested in bashing the supernatural to see that they play in the same yard.

Well, it has been fun. Take care , Joe. Have a good holiday.

0 Replies

thats about the fifth time rl has trotted out his prepackaged, albeit truncated definition of supernatural.

His argument for white dwarfs and red giants and age of the universe would be less convincing if he honestly tried more to address the evidence as opposed to saying that there is none. His default position is not arrived at by any conclusive evidence and thats good enough for this guy. He admits that hes a fan of divine intervention even though hes quite short of any facts or data.

What did Sam Clemens say about smug?

"Its a Christian with four aces". Except RL hasnt even a pair.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

hi Joe,

The reason I describe the 'singularity' as supernatural is because it fits the definition.

Quote:
Main Entry:
su·per·nat·u·ral Listen to the pronunciation of supernatural
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

What else would you call something that is not subject to the physical (natural) laws of the universe, something you have no evidence ever existed, and something of which you do not know the composition, properties or origin?

It's supernatural.

There's this new term I liked to use instead of fail: pinnacle of incompetence.

Congratulations! To the list of fallacies implied, add equivocation to the list. "Laws of nature" is not the same as "laws of physics".

Naturally, given your misinterpretation of the definition, any sufficiently strange thing would fit, which is clearly different from the idea of the supernatural in science. Why not check the definition for (1) instead, since it fits that usage more closely? Oh, you mean it wouldn't confirm your biases? OK then, we need to protect that ignorance so please ask me some incredulous questions instead.

By the way, if you take the fourth definition of "religion", it fits the idea of a hobby you really like, like knitting. Let's use that one, eh? How's your knitting errr, I mean Christianity going?

real life wrote:

But I don't seriously expect the self-professed 'scientific' types on A2K to admit this anytime soon. Most of them are too invested in bashing the supernatural to see that they play in the same yard.

And no one should expect you to give substantive responses, given what I've seen in the short time I've been here. You make quite an impression of irrational obstinance Wink

.

Let's do a short comparison: 1) supernatural in the form of untestable, unobservable claims with a bunch of anthropomorphization slopped on top vs. 2) supernatural of a very general (and not excluded by science, due to its generality + lack of irrationality) nature, in which you are including the singularity of the Big Bang (which I'll note is always considered an inference from the model and not directly observed), a model which has been repeatedly confirmed by observation.

For 1) you have faith and apparently a huge pile of fallacies to rationalize away objections.

For 2) we have tentative support qualified by acknowledging that it's also an inference without direct observation.

Just in case the message didn't get through, if a singularity follows any kind of rules whatsoever, it has some of that "laws of nature" going for it.

0 Replies

Ha, Shira, we've talked to him about this before.

According to his definition, the Sun was supernatural until we actually found out about nuclear fusion. The behaviour of quantum particles are supernatural, because they depart from expected behaviour. To a person in the Middle Ages, airplanes would be supernatural.

I should submit this to the Fundie Word Redefnition Project thread at FSTDT, if they still have it. It's classic gold.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You brought up white dwarf stars in response to that post, and then immediately declined to provide anything but assertions.

It's not an assertion to reference accepted scientific facts.

Assertions are unsupported statements. Established scientific facts are by their very nature, as well supported as possible at any given point in history.

If you have a specific challenge to any scientific fact, then you need to specify your challenge. Otherwise you're just wasting our time by rejecting everything out of hand.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Otherwise you're just wasting our time by rejecting everything out of hand.

That, Roswell, is precisely what he's up to. God knows he doesn't want to discuss evidence for creationism.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Otherwise you're just wasting our time by rejecting everything out of hand.

That, Roswell, is precisely what he's up to. God knows he doesn't want to discuss evidence for creationism.

I know RL isn't interested in learning anything, but for the sake of understanding his approach to the argument, I thought it was important to note that RL isn't objecting to anything specific about each building block of scientific knowledge, he's simply rejecting everything out of hand.

This seems to be some form of "argument from denial".

For example, he rejects the BB, then asks for us to list evidence in support of the BB. We provide evidence and he rejects it and asks for evidence to support the evidence, which he rejects again. And on and on it goes until we get down to talking about atomic theory and uncertainty principles and the philosophies of knowledge itself. We've seen this before with his treatment of geological formations and atomic dating techniques.

Ultimately RL rejects scientific knowledge out of hand. RL is in denial of science. Probably because he's in denial of naturalism.

This is consistent with a creationist world view in which magic is the mortar which binds our view of reality. If you believe in magic (the supernatural) in any form, then you inherently surrender your right to claim that you can understand anything.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

If you believe in magic (the supernatural) in any form, then you inherently surrender your right to claim that you can understand anything.

Well, i suppose one could attempt to memorize the magical effects known through scripture, and develop a reliance upon what "god" will or will not do. After all, the religionists are found of constantly telling us what "god" will or will not do, and what "the word of god" as found in scripture does or does not mean, even when patently at odds with what the text states.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
If you believe in magic (the supernatural) in any form, then you inherently surrender your right to claim that you can understand anything.

Well, i suppose one could attempt to memorize the magical effects known through scripture, and develop a reliance upon what "god" will or will not do. After all, the religionists are found of constantly telling us what "god" will or will not do, and what "the word of god" as found in scripture does or does not mean, even when patently at odds with what the text states.

Yet they're the ones that accuse us of hubris.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
hi Joe,

The reason I describe the 'singularity' as supernatural is because it fits the definition.

Quote:
Main Entry:
su·per·nat·u·ral Listen to the pronunciation of supernatural
Pronunciation:
\ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature

2 a: departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature

What else would you call something that is not subject to the physical (natural) laws of the universe, something you have no evidence ever existed, and something of which you do not know the composition, properties or origin?

It's supernatural.

There's this new term I liked to use instead of fail: pinnacle of incompetence.

Congratulations! To the list of fallacies implied, add equivocation to the list. "Laws of nature" is not the same as "laws of physics".

Naturally, given your misinterpretation of the definition, any sufficiently strange thing would fit, which is clearly different from the idea of the supernatural in science. Why not check the definition for (1) instead, since it fits that usage more closely? Oh, you mean it wouldn't confirm your biases? OK then, we need to protect that ignorance so please ask me some incredulous questions instead.

By the way, if you take the fourth definition of "religion", it fits the idea of a hobby you really like, like knitting. Let's use that one, eh? How's your knitting errr, I mean Christianity going?

real life wrote:

But I don't seriously expect the self-professed 'scientific' types on A2K to admit this anytime soon. Most of them are too invested in bashing the supernatural to see that they play in the same yard.

And no one should expect you to give substantive responses, given what I've seen in the short time I've been here. You make quite an impression of irrational obstinance .

Let's do a short comparison: 1) supernatural in the form of untestable, unobservable claims with a bunch of anthropomorphization slopped on top vs. 2) supernatural of a very general (and not excluded by science, due to its generality + lack of irrationality) nature, in which you are including the singularity of the Big Bang (which I'll note is always considered an inference from the model and not directly observed), a model which has been repeatedly confirmed by observation.

For 1) you have faith and apparently a huge pile of fallacies to rationalize away objections.

For 2) we have tentative support qualified by acknowledging that it's also an inference without direct observation.

Just in case the message didn't get through, if a singularity follows any kind of rules whatsoever, it has some of that "laws of nature" going for it.

'Tentative support', eh? Smile

What scientific evidence do you have that a singularity actually existed?

NOT 'coulda existed outside the bounds of the physical laws of the universe'[/u] , NOT 'mighta existed in alternate universes we imagine coulda been'[/u].

Scientific evidence supporting actual existence of a singularity.

There is none.

And when you further admit, as you have, that a singularity was not or may not have been subject to the natural physical laws of our universe, then it is clearly a supernatural (not a natural) explanation of the origin of the universe that you are proposing.

You and FM object to the word 'supernatural' because in some contexts (some subdefinitions) it refers to a deity, but really it is the word that fits this situation. Your objection is like saying the Sun cannot be a 'star' because it doesn't fit each and every definition of 'star'. Smile

Well it's been fun. Take good care. Looking forward to a fun and busy summer. My best wishes for all A2Kers. Cool

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Scientific evidence supporting actual existence of a singularity.

There is none.

The extrapolation of one from the Big Bang model, which has been repeatedly confirmed. Hence tentative support.

real life wrote:

And when you further admit, as you have, that a singularity was not or may not have been subject to the natural physical laws of our universe, then it is clearly a supernatural (not a natural) explanation of the origin of the universe that you are proposing.

My position would be "may not have been" as I don't pretend to know things without warrant (hint hint) and I would add the caveat that in that case it wouldn't necessarily operate on the physical scientific laws we have discovered but could easily operate on determinate physical principles. Perhaps I should put it in a different way: the strange results of the singularity (which is implied from the physical scientific laws and theories we have now) may imply very strange things, but that does not make them unnatural.

And what's this about me proposing something, again? The Big Bang model implies a singularity, neither of which is unnatural. You're playing a game of equivocation with the word 'laws', and that's a fallacy. If you continue to do it without challenging my descriptions, I'll take it as a sign of dishonesty.

real life wrote:

You and FM object to the word 'supernatural' because in some contexts (some subdefinitions) it refers to a deity, but really it is the word that fits this situation.

Then fondness for pretzels is a religion, got it. Having fun with your light hobby of Christianity? The vagueness of dictionary definitions often implies generality which leads to misleading results - you've chosen the least common definition in order to forward some nonsense and you've even had to equivocate in order to do so.

real life wrote:

Your objection is like saying the Sun cannot be a 'star' because it doesn't fit each and every definition of 'star'.

Actually, there are no parallels at all to that situation. Want to try pointing some out? My point has never been about you being technically incorrect, it's been about being misleading.

real life wrote:

Well it's been fun. Take good care. Looking forward to a fun and busy summer. My best wishes for all A2Kers.

Uh... bye?

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Then fondness for pretzels is a religion, got it. Having fun with your light hobby of Christianity? The vagueness of dictionary definitions often implies generality which leads to misleading results - you've chosen the least common definition in order to forward some nonsense and you've even had to equivocate in order to do so.

That's his favourite pastime. Along with displaying his gross hypocrisy in demanding a plethora of evidence from others while continually refusing to provide any for his own lunatic fantasies. You are trying to debate with someone who knows more than anyone about biology, chemistry, geology and physics, at the same time as he constantly proves that he doesn't know a damned thing.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know