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

spendius wrote:

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.

I've never met any other kind.

Materialism is self contradictory , and forces one to try to have one's cake and eat it too.

Evolution is filled with selective application, as I've discussed with many posters.

And so we are told that similar morphology indicates common descent. Except when it doesn't.

And thus you have things like 'Convergent Evolution'.

http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/Evolution/EVpage14.html

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.

I say then for the actors that while they may be able to express a state which is similar to that of someone in love, the state is not steady...

d(state)/dt =! 0;

Between cut shots a actor can return to a normal state. The plot of there actions and sysmptoms may change, but there actual emotional makeup remains the same regaurdless.

T
K
O

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?

ros & parados:

Your claims are without merit, and are illogical. You are shifting the focus from creationism to the physical world, seemingly so that 'scientific evidence' will fit in. If you're looking for scientific proof of the physical world - we are in agreement 100%. But the physical world is not the focus of this topic.

As to your claim that creationism describes many physical events, you cannot prove this using the same criteria being demanded for proof of God (& therefore creationism).

0 Replies

The creation myth is about the phsyical world.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

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

You didn't. BD did.

real life wrote:

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.

So you admit that you cannot offer any evidence of creation which meets scientific standards.

By the way, nobody asked you to prove earthquakes in 500BC. All that was asked was evidence for creationism. ANY evidence. Not a shred of which either you or BD has been able to offer.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

ros & parados:

Your claims are without merit, and are illogical. You are shifting the focus from creationism to the physical world, seemingly so that 'scientific evidence' will fit in. If you're looking for scientific proof of the physical world - we are in agreement 100%. But the physical world is not the focus of this topic.

What the heck do you think creationism is all about?

baddog1 wrote:

As to your claim that creationism describes many physical events, you cannot prove this using the same criteria being demanded for proof of God (& therefore creationism).

It sounds like you're just agreeing with us that there is no [scientific] evidence for creationism (despite the obvious fact that creationism describes events in the physical world). If that's the case, then I guess it's 'discussion over'.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
ros & parados:

Your claims are without merit, and are illogical. You are shifting the focus from creationism to the physical world, seemingly so that 'scientific evidence' will fit in. If you're looking for scientific proof of the physical world - we are in agreement 100%. But the physical world is not the focus of this topic.

What the heck do you think creationism is all about?

That's exactly my point! Creationism is about creation of the physical world, not creation of the physical world. If you don't see the difference, let me know.

rosborne979 wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
As to your claim that creationism describes many physical events, you cannot prove this using the same criteria being demanded for proof of God (& therefore creationism).

It sounds like you're just agreeing with us that there is no [scientific] evidence for creationism (despite the obvious fact that creationism describes events in the physical world). If that's the case, then I guess it's 'discussion over'.

It was actually discussion over way back when someone inferred that it's ludicrous to ask for natural evidence of the supernatural - or something to that effect. A lack of current scientific evidence in no way proves that creationism is false though. And you're still not distinguishing between creation and existence. I have no idea why - but you're not getting that reality.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

All that was asked was evidence for creationism.

The fact that this awesome thing we see is there in front of us impinging on our senses to a greater or lesser extent is proof that it has been ---well what? Created, happened?

Most people, and I suspect you ros to be included if you were questioned closely enough, have great difficulty with "happened". Forms of creationism are thus inevitable and the only matter to consider then is which "story" gets us out of the horrors of the past, and the horrors of the present where Christianity is not a force, and into our limousines for a trip to a theme park or onto our couches to watch the ball game with iced beers for refreshment.

Perhaps your whole position is based upon not having been critically questioned.

Diest wrote-

Quote:

I say then for the actors that while they may be able to express a state which is similar to that of someone in love, the state is not steady...

As I said- we believe fm loves his mother on his word. Without our belief we could say he was acting a part in order to be admired. Not everyone loves their mother. Especially when she's whacking away at one's bare arse with a slipper for dropping a spider down a visiting auntie's blouse for a laugh.

You don't know your Proust.

0 Replies

And we can evaluate FM's claim by comparing his actions to the actions of what some who loves their mother does. If their is continuity, and incongruency is minimal, we can accept this as proof.

The claim for the physical world being created has to evaluated against what would be present as evidence of a universe being created. Even by this standard, all forms of ID lack continuity and are extremely incongruent.

The bible's version is especially counter intuitive as well.
K
O

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

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

Translation: You have no evidence, only a reference to hearsay, but you aren't honest enough to admit it.

0 Replies

BADDOG

Quote:

That's exactly my point! Creationism is about creation of the physical world, not creation of the physical world. If you don't see the difference, let me know

aND PRECISELY WHO's on first, not who's ON FIRST/

I think we have enough of this claptrap to reach the conclusion that the Creationist mountain of evidence doesnt exist. It consists of a strict belief in a single book. NO MATTER what the physical evidence discloses. The fact that Creationism CONFLICTS with all the physical evidence is of no concern to BD and RL.

Pity how Evangelical Christianity forces people torespond to the physical world.
.

0 Replies

In The Silmarillion, Tolkien tells the story of Ilúvatar (the "Father of All") who creates the Ainur, and then bids them sing, and the polyphonic song creates a vision of Arda (the Earth), which vision Ilúvatar then made "real." This is what as known as mythopoeic cosmogony, which is all that Genesis is. There is no more reason to believe Genesis than to believe The Silmarillion--other than that Tolkien was sufficiently honest as to acknowledge that he dealt in fiction. The hucksters of the Bobble have been making money hand over fist from the credulous faithful for thousands of years, however, and have never been willing to tell them that they've been pissing down their collective leg while telling them that it's raining.

0 Replies

Diest wrote-

Quote:

And we can evaluate FM's claim by comparing his actions to the actions of what some who loves their mother does. If their is continuity, and incongruency is minimal, we can accept this as proof.

Refuse to see the point then. It's your loss.

Setanta wrote-

Quote:

There is no more reason to believe Genesis than to believe The Silmarillion--other than that Tolkien was sufficiently honest as to acknowledge that he dealt in fiction. The hucksters of the Bobble have been making money hand over fist from the credulous faithful for thousands of years, however, and have never been willing to tell them that they've been pissing down their collective leg while telling them that it's raining

That was explained just above. What you really ought to do Setanta is go off and debate with people who are still at your primitive level of development on these matters. I'll bet you have been mantraing that last sentence for at least forty years and I daresay you welcome every opportunity to get it off your chest once again.

This thread has reached more refined areas than you have self-evidently so far managed to avoid entering.

What exactly do you think the credulous faithful might have done instead?

Not get born is about the only thing I can suggest as an alternative.

Explain how we could have got here from there without what you so gratuitously attack. You talk as if you have the inside track on social and psychological dynamics down the ages. That's an ego problem.

If only we could have had a dynasty of Setantas for 000s of years we could still be sat in caves.

0 Replies

Silmarillion never got a chance to develop a good theology and , even more, a good marketing plan to sell all the artifacts and products associated.

Do you hear that annoying buzz in the background?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

BADDOG
Quote:
That's exactly my point! Creationism is about creation of the physical world, not creation of the physical world. If you don't see the difference, let me know

aND PRECISELY WHO's on first, not who's ON FIRST/

I think we have enough of this claptrap to reach the conclusion that the Creationist mountain of evidence doesnt exist. It consists of a strict belief in a single book. NO MATTER what the physical evidence discloses. The fact that Creationism CONFLICTS with all the physical evidence is of no concern to BD and RL.

Pity how Evangelical Christianity forces people torespond to the physical world.
.

Thanks once again for a chuckle fm. Today seems like a Monday and I appreciate the funny incentive.

Let's try something. Perhaps others will include themselves as well.

Provide a clear example(s) of evidence that you feel would be necessary to prove creationism. In other words - open your minds and share with us the proof that you would need to say: "Hey, maybe there is something to this creationism stuff"!

0 Replies

Somebody recognises the brilliant debating tactics of fm and Setanta and offers them $250,000 a year each, plus expenses, to front up a nationwide campaign for Creationism.

That's all the proof they would need.

0 Replies

wELL, FOR ONE EXAMPLE, why not provide some piece of data that shows that all things were created at once , or within the "Creation" period. Or, show that the age of the earth is what you think it is (RL says less than 10000 years based upon no data)

I think that if you had the evidence youd be out there trying to have it splayed out all over the place. I assume your "dodge the questions" ploy is another way of telling us that what Genesis 1:1 says is as far as youre going.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

wELL, FOR ONE EXAMPLE, why not provide some piece of data that shows that all things were created at once , or within the "Creation" period. Or, show that the age of the earth is what you think it is (RL says less than 10000 years based upon no data)

You're being vague - hopefully not on purpose. When you say "some piece of data" please be specific in your expectation.

farmerman wrote:

I think that if you had the evidence youd be out there trying to have it splayed out all over the place. I assume your "dodge the questions" ploy is another way of telling us that what Genesis 1:1 says is as far as youre going.

Your assumption is inaccurate, I am dodging no question and this is no ploy. The evidence that I need for proof of God & creationism is different than yours. You can either accept that fact or not, makes no difference to me. Since you & others do not care for my answers and examples of evidence (albeit - accurate to general standards of education); I chose to ask for the examples that you need in this matter. Please provide one or more specific answer(s) that would satisfy your criteria for proof/evidence et al for creationism.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

That's exactly my point! Creationism is about creation of the physical world, not creation of the physical world. If you don't see the difference, let me know.

Ok, I don't see the difference.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Silmarillion never got a chance to develop a good theology and , even more, a good marketing plan to sell all the artifacts and products associated.

Do you hear that annoying buzz in the background?

I am teaching myself to ignore it once again.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know