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

I don't know who is worse, "real life" or Baddog.

No, "real life," i asked the question, and pointed out that if that were your case, it would be idiocy. You can dispense with the charge of idiocy by simply responding to the question in the negative. That, however, does not dispose of your having made your statements from authority about the nature of "god," without having ever provided any evidence either that there is a "god," or what the nature of that "god" is. Which leads us back to your continued failure to provide any evidence for creationism.

And that leads us to Baddog, who writes:

We present a case - and you, and/or et al - alter your perception of evidence. Pretty soon the room for anything to fit into the 'evidence' window is about this >< big.

I'd be interested to know what "case" Baddog has presented for creationism. As for the "bar" for evidence, Wilso's criterion is testable evidence. There has been no moving of that "bar."

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

farmerman wrote:
...Lets get back to the real tap dance that RL, baddog, et al are trying to choreograph by never providing any evidence for their worldviews.

You've got the "tapdance" moniker correct fm. RL, myself, et al present 'evidence' (yes including "any") then you, and/or et al begin the tap dance of moving the bar for 'evidence'. We present a case - and you, and/or et al - alter your perception of evidence. Pretty soon the room for anything to fit into the 'evidence' window is about this >< big.

Oh yeah - I too chuckled at this:
Quote:
"If the Flying spaghetti monster created everything---he could not possibly be made of spaghetti"

I thought it was rather obvious, but I guess we should specify that what Wilso is asking for is "Scientific Evidence", ie evidence which is measurable on a scientific basis.

I really don't know what other type of "evidence" could possibly exist, but I suppose it's possible to misconstrue the meaning of "evidence" sufficiently to allow it to include "opinion", if you work hard enough. Smile

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

The very preposterous statement that something composed of matter having mass, can only be brought avbout by something that resides in the "sprit world" is not too bright a statement.

Then, perhaps you would like to tell us how matter actually IS created.......... Cool

Since this would involve a violation of the law of conservation, I'll understand if it takes you a while to come up with something.

If, on the other hand, you chose to state that matter was never created (i.e. it has eternally existed), then you can explain why the law of entropy hasn't taken the expected toll in the eternity you propose.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

The very preposterous statement that something composed of matter having mass, can only be brought avbout by something that resides in the "sprit world" is not too bright a statement.

It ain't as dumb as that one is.

0 Replies

matter begets matter, it merely changes atomic weights. Thats why the hypothesis of The Big Bang, in isolation , is difficult to envision. There had to be matter existing prior. Read some of PAul Steinhardts theoretical work. I believe that he will be on his way to a Nobel Prize.

BADDOG, you havent ever presented any snip of forensic evidence for your cases. You confuse evidence with "testimony". Testimony, in your case is hearsay since you have nothing of a reproducable nature that you can present.Your arguments with science are laughable because without the basic physical constants and mathematical laws under which our physical world is governed, you wouldnt be posting on this thread, nor would you be driving a car or watching TV. Medical science would be free of any of its high-tech diagnostic tools that you accept as fact but never question their basics operating laws(Beers LAw, radiodecay, laws of magnetic susceptibility, surface chemistry etc)

Cant have it both ways BD, either you accept the prinicples and underpinnings of technology or you dont. You cannot be selective when these same laws and constants apply to deep earth time or the neat tricks that electrophoresis can pull.

I still accuse you and RL of doing the ole "Biblebelt Shuffle".

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

real life wrote:
farmerman wrote:
The very preposterous statement that something composed of matter having mass, can only be brought avbout by something that resides in the "sprit world" is not too bright a statement.

Then, perhaps you would like to tell us how matter actually IS created..........

Since this would involve a violation of the law of conservation, I'll understand if it takes you a while to come up with something.

If, on the other hand, you chose to state that matter was never created (i.e. it has eternally existed), then you can explain why the law of entropy hasn't taken the expected toll in the eternity you propose.

matter begets matter, it merely changes atomic weights. Thats why the hypothesis of The Big Bang, in isolation , is difficult to envision. There had to be matter existing prior. Read some of PAul Steinhardts theoretical work. I believe that he will be on his way to a Nobel Prize.

It's all very well to say 'read this guy's work', but why do YOU think that 'eternal matter' is supportable?

If matter has existed since eternity past, entropy would have long since taken it's toll.

On the other hand, if matter was created at SOME point (no matter how far back you push the date) then you run into the problem of conservation, which you clearly recognize and acknowledge.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

matter begets matter, it merely changes atomic weights. Thats why the hypothesis of The Big Bang, in isolation , is difficult to envision. There had to be matter existing prior. Read some of PAul Steinhardts theoretical work. I believe that he will be on his way to a Nobel Prize.

BADDOG, you havent ever presented any snip of forensic evidence for your cases. You confuse evidence with "testimony". Testimony, in your case is hearsay since you have nothing of a reproducable nature that you can present.Your arguments with science are laughable because without the basic physical constants and mathematical laws under which our physical world is governed, you wouldnt be posting on this thread, nor would you be driving a car or watching TV. Medical science would be free of any of its high-tech diagnostic tools that you accept as fact but never question their basics operating laws(Beers LAw, radiodecay, laws of magnetic susceptibility, surface chemistry etc)

Cant have it both ways BD, either you accept the prinicples and underpinnings of technology or you dont. You cannot be selective when these same laws and constants apply to deep earth time or the neat tricks that electrophoresis can pull.

I still accuse you and RL of doing the ole "Biblebelt Shuffle".

You sure know how to make me laugh fm. "Biblebelt Shuffle" - now that's funny!

Let's review:

The original poster said: "Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position."

The originator of this post even provided his definition: "evidenced, evidencing, evidences
1. To indicate clearly;exemplify or prove."

Here are further examples of various 'types' of evidence discussed on this thread:

testable
empirical
natural
compelling
experimental
comparative
anecdotal
documentary
testimonial
replicable
forensic
"...which can somehow be re-examined using another method"
"...that supports the previous evidence"
"...the same type of evidence that is required for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory"

and now:

"testimony"

I've maintained that creationism is evident because the Bible "clearly indicates" it to be so.

And I'm the one shuffling? :wink:

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

I've maintained that creationism is evident because the Bible "clearly indicates" it to be so.

I'm sure you believe this, but based on what evidence is avalible, you cannot blame others for not believing as you. Faith is fine sir, but it's no means of evidence.

The bible isn't a authoritative source for the world.
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...I'm sure you believe this, but based on what evidence is avalible, you cannot blame others for not believing as you. Faith is fine sir, but it's no means of evidence.

The bible isn't a authoritative source for the world.
K
O

As indicated by many - evidence is a subjective topic. To be clear; you're correct, I do not blame anyone for believing or not believing as I do. Everyone has to find their own way.

However to claim that 'there is no evidence of creationism' is false.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

However to claim that 'there is no evidence of creationism' is false.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to point out that evidence to us. How about putting your money where your mouth is, for a change?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
However to claim that 'there is no evidence of creationism' is false.

Then it should be a simple matter for you to point out that evidence to us. How about putting your money where your mouth is, for a change?

Hi set.

I'd probably make more interest with my money in my mouth than where it is now, so your idea has some merit!

As to your former assertion - specifically what evidence are you referring to when you say "that evidence"?

0 Replies

You have written that, and i quote: . . . to claim that 'there is no evidence of creationism' is false. Therefore, if it is false that there is no evidence, it follows that there is at least some evidence. Since you deny that there is no evidence, you must have knowledge of at least a scrap of evidence. So i am asking you to tell us what that evidence is. Otherwise, you would certainly not be in a position to state that it is false that there is no evidence.

Did you follow along, or should i try to put that in even simpler terms?

0 Replies

RL

Quote:

If matter has existed since eternity past, entropy would have long since taken it's toll.

How long? how does "entropy" sffect the elemental state? Isnt entropy merely the loss of order and approaching disorder?

Reading STeinhardt approaches a scientific "comfort zone" for me. Im an applied scientist , not a theoretical one. I cannot , after almost 27 years of working with mineralogical thermodynamics, and earth processes, picture a state where matter is "created". Im all ears, I will sit at your knee and listen to a simple or detailed explanation. Personally I think youre just parroting some source that you accept without question. We differ in that respect. Id drop my "evolution" and "Deep time" viewpoints if the preponderance of evidence supported some other view. It doesnt.
There is no discontinuity in thermo principles by engaging in experiments that predict and define the reasons for the changes of "state" that planetary components undergo. Silicates can easily
change crystalline order as a consequence of entropic increase. They dont, however, disappear up the great cosmic cloaca.

I know, I must be boring you by suggesting that you read scientific literature that supports a point that is counter to yours, but since you havent EVER presented any evidence , I feel that maybe you could benefit from some visits to what all the rest of us have been reading. I hope that youd take me up on my offerings rather than dismissing them as unimportant and irrelevant. Remember,They are only unimportant to the mind already cemented in its position. Ive read the Bible several time s and , if this is where you derive your viewpoints, Im sure missing something thats written in invisible ink. CAn you point out the "science" or any of the "evidence " that the Biblical information is based upon?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

You have written that, and i quote: . . . to claim that 'there is no evidence of creationism' is false. Therefore, if it is false that there is no evidence, it follows that there is at least some evidence. Since you deny that there is no evidence, you must have knowledge of at least a scrap of evidence. So i am asking you to tell us what that evidence is. Otherwise, you would certainly not be in a position to state that it is false that there is no evidence.

Did you follow along, or should i try to put that in even simpler terms?

He is using the term "clearly evident" to describe evidence....he'll then make the claim that the bible says that creation is "clearly evident".

The bible is his evidence. Which of course is not any more evident than the hindu books claims in reincarnation. Or any other religion's claims.

What he's basically saying is that the evidence in favor of the bible is equal to that of all other religions. I wonder if he truly believes that.

0 Replies

RL, a basic and foundation text on entropic increase and thermodynamics of mineral melts is the old classic text by Turner and Verhoogen(this book is about 50 years old but still a valid introductory text on thermodynamics for geochemitry).
Its called Igneous and Metamorphic Petrology pub Mcgraw Hill

0 Replies

BD, I distinguished evidence from testimony. You are providing testimony, which is different from evidence. In a court, testimony is usually backed up by forensic evidence because, well, mostly because people LIE. Im not accusing you of lying, I just think that you believe your worldview without even understanding why.

If I made you laugh, its because youre being a fool and not understanding the basic points being made all around you.
Ill reinforce what set just asked of you,"wheres the evidence that you rely upon"?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

BD, I distinguished evidence from testimony. You are providing testimony, which is different from evidence. In a court, testimony is usually backed up by forensic evidence because, well, mostly because people LIE. Im not accusing you of lying, I just think that you believe your worldview without even understanding why.

If I made you laugh, its because youre being a fool and not understanding the basic points being made all around you.
Ill reinforce what set just asked of you,"wheres the evidence that you rely upon"?

fm: You can take up the meaning of 'evidence' with willie, for I quoted his definition - several times now.

Your belief about my worldview and understanding why is inaccurate. I clearly understand my beliefs, why I believe them, and the points being made around me, just as I assume that you do. I have all of the 'evidence' that I need for creationism. By proclaiming me as a fool for having a different mindset than you seems - well; foolish.

You say that you distinguished evidence from testimony. Given the situation at hand and our opposing views, I can see how you concluded what you did. I disagree, on this subject.

If we utilize your position on evidence vs testimony - you can provide no evidence that you love your Mom and/or that she loves you. You could testify to it, but you could provide no evidence (using your definition of evidence). Continuing on then in using your mindset; without evidence, there is no proof of love between your Mom & you. Then it moves to 'your Mom cannot love you and vice versa', for you have no evidence.

0 Replies

Youre wrong there BD. If I had to bring up real evidence to support my "testimony" that I do love my Mom, I could present solid forensic evidence based upon history of my relationship with her, this could be evidenced by artifacts, and other forensic files such as photos for the court, etc. You still dont get it, THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE MUST INCLUDE DISPASSIONATE TESTABLE EVIDENCE. Your twisting of the word to mean it in an extremely limited sense would have your own testimony declkared hearsay or be considered inadequate by your own counsel.
Within our context evidence is clearly dispassionate repeatable falsifiable, physical proof of concept (or in your case , a belief).

1You dont have any and your continuing the two-step

2 Now that youve backed yourself into a corner,Youre trying to redefine evidence by turning our attention in terms of proof of an emotion, when the whole discussion is clearly based upon
"evidence" of state of being, a physical condition.(Might I say that this very argument has been tried by RL in the past)
"The moon is made of gabbro (before moon landing)

RL, No it isnt and you cant prove it

Me-Yes I can because I can see a space probe spectrograph that it shows gabbroic rocks

RL-Thats not proof no more than I can prove that we love our children

Yep, the same tired ole argument is a Creationist favorite, its the ST Louis Switcheroo, to be used only in case the Creationists claim that they are providing evidence is not being accepted by the audience.

Sorta like yours Very Happy

0 Replies

Perhaps we should ask them (RL and BD) if they have any evidence which WE would consider to be valid evidence based on OUR definition of evidence.

(Since our definition of evidence has already been made quite clear (scientific evidence), there should be no question what we are asking for. And I bet Wilso would agree that scientific evidence is the type he was originally looking for)

0 Replies

Baddog, you have stated that it is false that there is no evidence for creationism. Please provide the evidence which you inferentially assert exists, or admit that you have none.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know