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

farmerman wrote:

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)

Nope - either way you're wrong fm. Depending on either way you desire to play it out - you are wrong.

How can there be evidence of love for your Mom, when your criteria includes "dispassionate...evidence"? Look up the definition for dispassionate.

Let's try it this way. Using the list of various "types" of evidence produced on this thread, how many do not apply to creationism? [For the sake of clarity; the definition of creationism: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis.]

testable
empirical
natural
compelling
experimental
comparative
anecdotal
documentary
testimonial
replicable
forensic

'Scientific' evidence does not apply as by definition - it has to do with the physical world.

BTW: What upsets you so about my particular belief in the evidence of creationism?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

I thought i'd bump this up, since you must have missed it.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

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.

Once again, Genesis 1:1.

0 Replies

How is that evidence--how is it testable?

What evidence do you have that the passage is reliable? (They could be hosin' ya down, ya know, Bubba?)

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
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.

Once again, Genesis 1:1.

See, told ya.

0 Replies

Actually, testimony is only valid as evidence if it is a) from an expert, or b) from an eye witness. And even if it fulfills one or both of these categories, it is still pretty low on the evidence totem pole.

So, unless the writers of the Bible were experts (if so, they should have put evidence in there to back up their claims) or were there for the beginning of everything (unlikely), then I don't really have any reason to believe or even respect their claims.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

How is that evidence--how is it testable?

What evidence do you have that the passage is reliable? (They could be hosin' ya down, ya know, Bubba?)

Cmon set! Testable: "to require a doctrinal oath of"

You're right though - "they" could be "hosin' me down" - but I doubt it. :wink:

Bubba

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
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.

Once again, Genesis 1:1.

If that's evidence, I can prove that Humpty Dumpty really was a talking egg. Cause it says so in the book

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
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.

Once again, Genesis 1:1.

Truth be told, the rest of genesis after 1:1 kind of disproves the idea of creation. LOL.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Genesis 1:1 is internally conflicting and does not conform to all the physical evidence available to us, so it lacks credulity.

BD My "love of my mothre" is only an issue when its attempt is to convince others(thats how evidence works) of the statement or proposition. SO by presenting forensic evidence which shows conformance of my actions with those that are consistent with someone who "loves his mother" is what my burden of proof is (If it comes to some argument that needs adjudication). WE are talking about a physical state (again I say) , not an emotion. You can, in your fact-free statements make statements that are dead wrong and do not comport withhow rules of evidence work.
Your job (should you wish to accept) is to convince a panel that you have some physical evidence to support your claim. You, on the other hand, merely keep repeating the Genesis 1:1 mantra.
Thus you admit that you have nothing tangible to present or test.
You dont meet any of the criteria that Wilso had in mind when he posted this thread (at least from my forensic interpretation of his questions)

0 Replies

Materialist theory says that emotions are physical states of the (mind/brain/body trinity) apt for producing behaviour.

I can't see how you could prove you love your mother by asserting it with either words or deeds. Actors regularly display plausible signs of love for others who we know they do not love.

I am willing to believe you of course but I'm taking your word for it. You do have an interest in asserting such a thing as it is socially unacceptable to not love one's mother.

What's love anyway? Jesus said it had priority over self preservation.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

WE are talking about a physical state (again I say) , not an emotion. You can, in your fact-free statements make statements that are dead wrong and do not comport withhow rules of evidence work.
Your job (should you wish to accept) is to convince a panel that you have some physical evidence to support your claim. You, on the other hand, merely keep repeating the Genesis 1:1 mantra.
Thus you admit that you have nothing tangible to present or test.
You dont meet any of the criteria that Wilso had in mind when he posted this thread (at least from my forensic interpretation of his questions)

Let me get all of this straight in my head.

By definition, the "physical state" that you're laying claim to, was created by an entity that you do not believe exists as described in a book that you claim is fictitious. Now please help me understand your thinking. If the maker was never present and the book in question is not believable - how could there be a "physical state" of anything?

And why would you ask for physical evidence of a "physical state" that has no scientific basis?

Seems kinda illogical to me. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Materialist theory says that emotions are physical states of the (mind/brain/body trinity) apt for producing behaviour.

I can't see how you could prove you love your mother by asserting it with either words or deeds. Actors regularly display plausible signs of love for others who we know they do not love...

You're exactly right spendius. There is as much (or little) absolute proof that love exists as there is that God exists. It is by faith that anyone loves another, just as it is by faith that God exists.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Let me get all of this straight in my head.

By definition, the "physical state" that you're laying claim to, was created by an entity that you do not believe exists as described in a book that you claim is fictitious. Now please help me understand your thinking. If the maker was never present and the book in question is not believable - how could there be a "physical state" of anything?

And why would you ask for physical evidence of a "physical state" that has no scientific basis?

Seems kinda illogical to me.

Yes, your statement is pretty illogical baddog.

There is no requirement that a supreme being must exist for our physical state to exist. You have shown no requirement that we can't exist without this supreme being. 1. we exist. 2. There is no evidence of that supreme being. While the lack of evidence doesn't rule out a supreme being. It certainly doesn't lead to a logical conclusion that the supreme being had to exist for 1 to occur.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

spendius wrote:
Materialist theory says that emotions are physical states of the (mind/brain/body trinity) apt for producing behaviour.

I can't see how you could prove you love your mother by asserting it with either words or deeds. Actors regularly display plausible signs of love for others who we know they do not love...

You're exactly right spendius. There is as much (or little) absolute proof that love exists as there is that God exists. It is by faith that anyone loves another, just as it is by faith that God exists.

No it's not right, it's ridiculous, and so is this entire comparison to "love" that this conversation has somehow devolved into.

Love exists because each person defines his/her own feelings. Emotions are in internal condition which we assign names to. Names like "love", "hate", "jealousy", whatever. They exist because we say they exist. We are allowed to define them because they come from us. The same is true of your belief in god. If you say you believe, then you do, period. But this does not mean that god itself is real as an external entity.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

'Scientific' evidence does not apply as by definition - it has to do with the physical world.

Creationism describes many physical events. So how does scientific evidence not apply when when we are asking for evidence of any of those physical events?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

(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

Might you say that?

You might say that.

Only it wouldn't be true.

I don't know if the exchange you provided occurred in your mind, or with somebody else, but it wasn't with me.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
'Scientific' evidence does not apply as by definition - it has to do with the physical world.

Creationism describes many physical events. So how does scientific evidence not apply when when we are asking for evidence of any of those physical events?

I don't think I've said 'it doesn't apply'.

Rather I've said 'it may not be attainable'.

Scientific evidence must meet certain standards.

Those standards are often not attainable when investigating one-time historical events (either creation or the evolution of organism X).

You cannot scientifically prove how many earthquakes occurred in California from 500BC to 500AD.

You can try to estimate it, but you'll never have anything approaching 'proof' because of the lack of evidence (hard data).

0 Replies

Materialists simply can't get their heads around the logic of their own position and so they engage in sophistries to avoid facing the issue.

I can understand materialists but I can't understand half-baked ones who want it both ways.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

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

How long?

Are you asking how long is eternity?

That's the question you must face, if your position remains 'Matter was never created' (i.e. it is eternal).

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know