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

Oh, it's not a matter of whether or not i can. (And by the way, rational people don't rely on "belief" when it comes to things like definitions--language only works when people agree on definitions; what people "believe" a word means is meaningless--the consensual definition is what counts. I can understand, though how a bible-thumper would rely upon belief rather than knowledge--it's the only way to swallow all that scriptural horseshit.) There is no reason for me to do so. You stated, clearly stated, in a post which has now been quoted more than once, that you had provided "plenty of evidence," but when asked to link the posts in which this were done, you refused.

Sadly, the inescapable conclusion is that you are a liar.

Or he doesn't know his own definition of evidence; which is a scary thought in and of itself.

Spendi, I understand. Its hard for you, but I'm pulling for you. Still here for you buddy. Feel Better!

now the red herrings are all about us - what next?

So, you're going to add red herring to the list of rhetorical fallacies the use of which is a mystery to you.

No surprises there.

Since when to definitions have to be EQUITABLE. Definitions are what they are. If you are using one definition of 'evidence' and we are using another, then we are not yet speaking the same language.

The definition we are using (as I noted earlier) is scientific evidence, evidence which meets scientific empirical standards.

What definition are you using?

How do you define "scientific evidence" ros? It obviously will meet scientific empirical standards.

A search on Google for "scientific evidence" yielded 13,900,000 results in .25 seconds. Happy reading, y'all.

Come on ROS:
EQUITBLE. Like if you are going to teach evolution you must be EQUITABLE and teach ID. If you are going to teach theoretical physics you must be EQUITABLE and teach creationism.

EQUITABLE: Like if he is going to allow you to have science which is by definition limited in knowledge he gets to use those limits against you. EQUITABLE: Like if he gets to speak of religious knowledge in absolutes and literalities he doesn't have to answer anything that disagrees with his beliefs.

EQUITABLE: Like if you get to use the universally accepted standards of science (like starting with assumptions) he gets to use HIS version of science (like starting with conclusions).

Are you getting it yet?

Not to put words into your mouth but as we have had this discussion of BD vs. RL before: You have generally shown contempt for RL and given wide latitude to BD, generally giving him the benefit of the doubt as to where he is coming from that you haven't shown to RL.

Based on the last five pages or so of the posts here and his posts on his: "Is the Bible Reliable? Science and Scripture";I was wondering if that is still the case?

One other question: do you guys really think you are going to get anywhere with these guys based on the previous history of these 'conversations'? Do you really think you can find ANYTHING that they can't spin to the nonsensical? If so you have a much higher regard for human nature than I do.

None of us are that dull-witted, TCR--but there are many people that read these threads other than us, and to let the bible-thumper yahoos go unanswered is to allow them to foist their perverse superstitions onto the unwary reader. It can be really entertaining, too. As the afternoon wore on, it became more and more evident that BD was no longer able to distinguish this thread from his "reliable scripture" thread, and was becoming badly confused between the two.

Setanta wrote-



I presume that it isn't as cut and dried as ros was making it out to be?

In general, I try to treat each person's post clinically if I think the question is honest. But RL's posts aren't about facts and understanding, they are about presentation and spin. And that's ok, because there's a value to science in learning how to present information in such a way that it promotes understanding rather than obscuring it. Creationists don't understand science, but they to understand language and human nature, and they are exploiting it better than scientists are.

RL has been on the boards for several years now, so we already know he's not honestly trying to learn anything. I haven't been interacting with BD as long, and at first I thought BD might actually be trying to get some real answers, so I tried to provide them. Lately, BD's posts have begun to resemble RL's in that they seem to be more for show than anything else.

Only in your imagination.

The forum has a counter showing how many times each topic has been viewed.

When you take into account---

-- the number of replies

-- and the number of participants on any given thread including their visits to post, check back and read replies, search for older posts to reference, etc

then you'll see that there are relatively few 'other' folks reading these threads.

We're mostly just talking to each other.

If it makes you feel important to imagine that you have a large following online, then by all means, don't let the facts disabuse you of the notion.

This discussion on 'what evidence' was part of an earlier discussion on this thread.

Let me ask you ros, since you cannot scientifically prove most events of every day life, what makes you think that you can scientifically prove something that happened thousands (or millions) of years ago?

Science can find and interpret circumstantial evidence which may tend to support the possibility (or not) of such and such event occurring in the past.

But the likelihood of 'proving' a historical event scientifically is very small, unless you change the definition of 'scientific proof', which is generally what happens.

A double standard is established. Circumstantial evidence is accepted as 'scientific proof' for the establishment, and dissenters are shouted down as those who 'have no scientific proof'.

Science loses credibility when double standards are accepted. And people are smarter than you think. They can see through double talk and posturing by those trying to protect grant money and uphold the status quo.

Now if I'm wrong here's your chance --- prove to me 'scientifically' what you ate for dinner last Tuesday.

Rl say - Quote.... Let me ask you ros, since you cannot scientifically prove most events of every day life, what makes you think that you can scientifically prove something that happened thousands (or millions) of years ago? / unquote.

Why the hell would anyone WANT to use science to do what you suggest.
What happened thousands (or millions) of years ago is of great interest to anybody that has a reasonable amount of "need to know" in them. Where as, anybody that has been brainwashed with the Bible, needs nothing... end of story.

So that's all we'll hear from you?

Promise?

Last Tuesday I ate Japanes food at this great place here in lil' ole' Springfield MO called Haruno (It means "Spring field." Cute, right?).

I had a...
(1) Bowl or rice,
(2) A tempura roll,
(3) A california roll,
(4) Miso Soup, and
(5) Water to drink

In attendance was 8 close friends. All witnessed what I ate, I even shared some. I paid with a credit card.

Three pieces of evidence.

1. My own account of what happened.
2. My friends account of what happened.
3. My credit card statement matched with the ticket the resturant has.

The predicted argument against my evidence:

The credit card proves I purchased the food, but it doesn't prove I ate it. My account can't be trusted because it's me, and the accounts of my friends can't be trusted either because they would lie for me to substanciate my food. It is certainly a possible situation that what actually happened is I bought all the food and ate none of it, but it is not probable.

Take a case for biblical events and claims.

Three pieces of evidence

1. People like RL's personal account.
2. Other people's accounts.
3. The Bible

If you wish to compare the two arguments, you will find many similarities.

Both have accounts from a first hand source. Both have accounts from a secondary source. Both have documentation.

This is where the similarities end. The case for the biblical worldview fails in three major ways.

First, with the case of what I ate last week, I had eight friends there, I can confidently say that all eight will give the same story, and have nothing to dispute. With the the biblcial world view, not everyone's account will illustrate the same picture.

The second is that the biblical world view lacks continuity. Both documentations, the reciept and the bible both outline an event. However the reciept does not say I ordered japanese food from an italian resturant. The information present on my reciept keeps continuity with the real situations. The bible however makes claims which lack any continuity and are in direct conradiction to natural law.

e.g. - light and dark before the sun.

The Third is that the Bible is not unique in it's existance. Several mythologies exist and are well documented. There exist but just one reciept from the resturant. How does the bible have more credibility than these?

You see, I'm not opposed to circumstancial evidence. I just understand that in most claims it's not required. The likelyhood of proving a historical event is NOT impossible, but trying to concider the bible a historical account is impossible. I'm pretty comfortable that I have the high ground when it comes down to the bible versus my dinner reciept.

T
K
O

What's a California roll? Did it come from California?

a very reasonable analogy Deist.
rl. ANother beauty of "circumstantial"evidence is that it must be severally reinforcing sort of a "web" of reinforcement. One piece of evidence never good enough. Several layers, all reinforcing are required, and these, in turn, are each separately reinforced by yet other data.

I think the present argument of the significance of the Chixclub is a perffect example of how further evidence reinforces or causes re-evaluation of an explanation. There is no doubt that the Chixclub occured, we have a crater (after many years of searching) we have "the dusty fallout" , we have a worldwide layer of ash, iridium , and tektites. Weve located tsunaki deposits contemporaneous to the event. We also see a "great dying" of certain species consistent with the occurence of the event. What the latest controversy is revolving sbout is whethere this "great dying" was actually caused by the bolide. Or, as is being revisited by Gerta Keller and some others, perhaps the extinctions were more a consequence of volcanic gases and changes in oxygen levels. The chixclub event is actually traceable in the center of the Deccan basalts. and life (including dinosaurs) were found to have suffered little by the bolide but were more affected by the continuous flow of the very basic lava . Now, there is abundant "cicumstantial evidence" supporting all the findings. We have a clear event, at a known time, another similar cataclysmic event , also at a similar time,then we have a consequence to lifes continuation and development. All based upon circumstantial evidence.
I have no problem with the strength of "circumstantial evidence" especially since its reinforced by many layers of the data web. I think thats where you fail to understand or recognize the strength of all this evidence.

Evolution is not an event, it is an integral part of the biology of this planet, and as such it is far more easily proved than any particular historic event. And like it or not, it meets all the criteria of a scientific theory, and is considered by science to be a fact (for over a hundred years now).

And I think you will agree, what I had for dinner last night doesn't change any of that.