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

cjhsa wrote:

The double helix of DNA is a mathematical structure. That so much can be explained by math to me says there was some sort of design involved.

Uh, if you're serious, you're wrong.

First, DNA (as a hydrogen-bonded double helix) is *modeled* by math, quite accurately. That's one of the main ways math is used in science: to model (the other is statistical analysis). Now, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "mathematical structure", but DNA is real stuff, actual biochemistry, and we can do nifty things with it. It's just as mathematical as anything in (bio)chemistry.

The other flaw is in the reasoning, so far as I can tell. On what grounds do you propose that being able to describe something with math implies design? If that were the case, you could prove design using anything, no matter how silly. Salt in water? Designed.

cjhsa wrote:

Why are there forces?

I personally don't know, although we can describe what forces do. You have an implicit argument from ignorance brewing, but I'll wait until you actually make it.

String Theory would explain where forces come from, if validated by observation. Not only would it explain a lot and is it available for near-immediate testing, but it's based on sound models and has been worked on by a lot of theoretical physicists (who take account for all kinds of observations). Sometimes physics is too detailed and 'far away' for anyone to care, but *if* true, String Theory would be very exciting, just like Einstein's theories.

cjhsa wrote:

Sometimes math predicts things that we never could have conceived. That is where design comes in. The Theory of Relativity is one. It has been proven through the use of satellite instruments that gravity bends time and space. Nobody could have predicted that without math. Nobody would have even thought of it. It came to Einstein only after he examined his own proofs.

And there's nothing about math that is inherently theistic or shows teleology merely because something can be described by it. Pure non sequitur. The entire reason these things are discovered is because geniuses like Einstein and nongeniuses account for observations, subtle ones - they do not jump out at magic nor are they implied from every day life. If Einstein had come up with his ideas with no knowledge of physics or math, now *that* would be amazing.

baddog1 wrote:

Yep. That's what happens when custom, variable definitions are utilized.

You forgot to notice how wrong you were, though. My definition is pretty darn clear and non-circular. It's scads better than any creationist attempts I've seen at defining evidence, let alone anything related to baraminology.

baddog1 wrote:

And of course because Al was open to that possibility.

Open to the possibility of looking at his math? Yes, yes he was! Oh, you mean the creationist schtick? No, not so much. I don't go around waving Einstein in people's faces for mocking what most consider 'religion' (he had his own definitions, too!), which most definitely included creationism, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't act like he was on 'your side'.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your view of the BB is somewhat out of sync with the dogmatic presentations given by some of our BBers here on A2K.

btw welcome aboard.

Man! Stop attacking me with your verbose verbiage! I can't answer all that at once!

I haven't seen them being dogmatic, but of course you also didn't actually reply to 50% of my response. Here's the important part:

Shirakawasuna wrote:

It seems what is requested of you is evidence for creationism. You're not doing very well on that task.

Well, I guess that and the abuses of science and reason.

And thanks for the welcome!

0 Replies

Good stuff there SHirakawasuna... (new guy).

Ceej, The DNA model is a crystal that was described mathematically AFTER it was patterned by xray diffraction. Its easy to describe a path of orbit, a crystal, or a pattern of the leaves on a tree. BUT FIRST we need the specimen, its not a game of "model the unknown"
The DNA model was described by Bragg after Franklin first showed that it was a helix. Its structure was similar in order to the mineral Boulangerite, whose math symmetry was also described after powder diffraction.

The "symmetry of a slinky" is a biaxial transformed "c" axis with another "c" axis that corresponds to the "strands of the sugar" .

When Rosalind Franklin first discovered it she had her work glommed by Crick from a seminar (thats what history states) , but she was robbed of a posthumous Nobel because she was kind of a bitch besides being no longer alive. (so history says)

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
Your view of the BB is somewhat out of sync with the dogmatic presentations given by some of our BBers here on A2K.

I haven't seen them being dogmatic

Stick around a while. Cool

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

baddog1 wrote:
Please provide your definition for 'evidence'.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

Logical proof or empirical facts which validly lead to the conclusion (through either deduction or induction based on clear elimination of confounding alternative hypotheses).

Quote:
BTW: Given your particular definition of evidence; please prove that your Mom loves you. That you love your Mom...

You want evidence that my mom loves me? Well, this is the internet, but if it were terribly important I could first prove that I am who I say I am, prove that my mom exists, introduce everyone, then you could hang out with me for a bit and see that our proclamations of having a good relationship and loving one another are accurate. Since I know you're just going to reference your "God" and pretend this kind of evidence is ineffable, you'll need to start at the "exists" part before the love part.

Of course, accepting that my mom exists is fairly trivial, unless you think I'm even more awesome than Jesus and don't even need a birth, let alone a virgin one.

The issue of whether you and/or your Mom exists is a non sequitur. My inquiry was about the possible love between you & your Mom; not about either of your existences. If your Mom had passed on 10 years ago; are you suggesting that your love for her would have ended with her passing?

Then you imply that by 'hanging out' with the two of you and watching you interact - that I would somehow conclude that you love each other. Referencing your personal definition of evidence; Logical proof or empirical facts which validly lead to the conclusion (through either deduction or induction based on clear elimination of confounding alternative hypotheses): What logical proof(s) and/or empirical fact(s) are present in your description of love between your Mom and you? Your Mom could have any number of psychological disorders that may lead you to believe that she 'feels' one way toward you, when in fact she may hate you - or be indifferent toward you; or be using you for future potential earnings - and so on. Have you clearly eliminated these alternative hypotheses?

Of course you haven't. You have provided no more evidence that your Mom loves you than evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

1. You gave no reply to my evidenced accusation that 'real life' is forwarding a God of the gaps argument.

RL handles himself quite nicely and will reply to this if he chooses.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

2. There was no response to my explanation of how I know that the creationist God provided in these instances is one of the gaps in general, only a laughably inaccurate accusation of being "emotional".

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

3. No response to my first "Source? Proof of assertion?" and accompanying sentence.

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

Shirakawasuna wrote:

4. No response to my request that you show how one of my responses was "hypocritical". Not that I expected that, of course, as it'd require *gasp* evidence, and I know how poisonous that can be.

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

0 Replies

The existence of an emotion which we call in the English language "love" is a non sequitur with regard to the question of whether or not you can probe the existence of your imaginary friend.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The existence of an emotion which we call in the English language "love" is a non sequitur with regard to the question of whether or not you can probe the existence of your imaginary friend.

The only way it could be a non sequitur is with a pre-conceived notion (fact) of what state of matter you consider my 'imaginary friend" to be. (And only if your notion differs from an emotion). What state of matter do you assert my 'imaginary friend' to be and how do you come to this conclusion?

0 Replies

There is absolutely nothing in what i wrote which implies, infers or begs the question, or even has any regard for the question of in what state of matter your imaginary friend may reside (if, in fact, he/she/it does actually exist--and i am gratified to see that you have come far enough to acknowledge that it is your imaginary friend).

Unless you now assert that emotions exist in a state of matter (in which case you assume the burden of proof that this is the case), it fails as a corollary to any putative deity. However, my remarks are not predicated upon dubious assertions by you or by anyone else as to "states of matter." For one to reason by analogy, the things or ideas to be compared must be analogous. An emotion is not analogous to a deity, unless you are prepared to claim that a deity is no more than a concept in one's mind (as an emotion is), in which case i once again congratulate you on showing a plain, serviceable and praiseworthy common sense which you have not hitherto displayed.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is absolutely nothing in what i wrote which implies, infers or begs the question, or even has any regard for the question of in what state of matter your imaginary friend may reside (if, in fact, he/she/it does actually exist--and i am gratified to see that you have come far enough to acknowledge that it is your imaginary friend).

LOL!

Now you're running in circles. An "imaginary friend" clearly implies that something exists. Otherwise there would be no conversation about it/him/her, etc.

Setanta wrote:

Unless you now assert that emotions exist in a state of matter (in which case you assume the burden of proof that this is the case), it fails as a corollary to any putative deity.

Nope. Made no such claim.

Setanta wrote:

However, my remarks are not predicated upon dubious assertions by you or by anyone else as to "states of matter." For one to reason by analogy, the things or ideas to be compared must be analogous. An emotion is not analogous to a deity, unless you are prepared to claim that a deity is no more than a concept in one's mind (as an emotion is), in which case i once again congratulate you on showing a plain, serviceable and praiseworthy common sense which you have not hitherto displayed.

Nope again. You're attempting to move the focus of my stated position so that it fits your argument. (Imagine that! Rolling Eyes

)

Once again: The focus of MY position is/was 'evidence' and the poster responded. I allowed the use of the poster's personal definition of 'evidence' in this case. Using the poster's definition of 'evidence'; the poster has not provided adequate 'evidence' of love between his/her mother and self; however requests others to provide the same brand of 'evidence' for God.

Now of course the poster could always defer to the (scientific?) option of screaming for yet another definition for 'evidence' when it comes to 'non-emotional' issues. In fact; perhaps a different definition of 'evidence' should be created for each word in the English language, to also be adjusted for different days, various lunar cycles, wind directions, barometric pressures, leap/non leap years, before breakfast, after lunch but before dinner, work shifts, intake level of Red-Bull, Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull, running of the bulls, etc. :wink:

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The existence of an emotion which we call in the English language "love" is a non sequitur with regard to the question of whether or not you can probe the existence of your imaginary friend.

I agree, this "prove you love your mom" argument is the stupidest red herring I've ever seen.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

Setanta wrote:
There is absolutely nothing in what i wrote which implies, infers or begs the question, or even has any regard for the question of in what state of matter your imaginary friend may reside (if, in fact, he/she/it does actually exist--and i am gratified to see that you have come far enough to acknowledge that it is your imaginary friend).

LOL! Now you're running in circles. An "imaginary friend" clearly implies that something exists. Otherwise there would be no conversation about it/him/her, etc.

It exists in your head, just like your love for your mother. Nobody is arguing THAT point.

0 Replies

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

baddog1 wrote:

Now you're running in circles. An "imaginary friend" clearly implies that something exists. Otherwise there would be no conversation about it/him/her, etc.

Yes, it implies that your imagination exists--nothing else.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
Unless you now assert that emotions exist in a state of matter (in which case you assume the burden of proof that this is the case), it fails as a corollary to any putative deity.

Nope. Made no such claim.

In that case, your objection to what i wrote is meaningless.

Quote:

Setanta wrote:
However, my remarks are not predicated upon dubious assertions by you or by anyone else as to "states of matter." For one to reason by analogy, the things or ideas to be compared must be analogous. An emotion is not analogous to a deity, unless you are prepared to claim that a deity is no more than a concept in one's mind (as an emotion is), in which case i once again congratulate you on showing a plain, serviceable and praiseworthy common sense which you have not hitherto displayed.

Nope again. You're attempting to move the focus of my stated position so that it fits your argument.

Your attempts a logic are pathetic. I am pointing out that you attempted to argue by analogy, and that emotions and deities are not analogous. It doesn't matter what you think your stated position is, an attempt to compare emotion to a deity is a non sequitur, because they are not analogous--no matter what you intended.

Quote:

Once again: The focus of MY position is/was 'evidence' and the poster responded. I allowed the use of the poster's personal definition of 'evidence' in this case. Using the poster's definition of 'evidence'; the poster has not provided adequate 'evidence' of love between his/her mother and self; however requests others to provide the same brand of 'evidence' for God.

Now of course the poster could always defer to the (scientific?) option of screaming for yet another definition for 'evidence' when it comes to 'non-emotional' issues. In fact; perhaps a different definition of 'evidence' should be created for each word in the English language, to also be adjusted for different days, various lunar cycles, wind directions, barometric pressures, leap/non leap years, before breakfast, after lunch but before dinner, work shifts, intake level of Red-Bull, Schlitz Malt Liquor Bull, running of the bulls, etc.

What you "allow" for a definition of evidence is not germane to the fact that your pathetic appeal to the difficulty or impossibility of proving that one loves one's mother as comparable to the difficulty or impossibility of proving the existence of a deity fails because they are not analogous. Therefore, even if one alleged evidence for either love or god, the cases would not be the same, since the ideas are not the same. And therefore, that member is not asking for the same type of evidence.

As for what passes muster for evidence in Wilso's thread, we have Wilso's initial post:

Wilso wrote:

Ok losers, freaks and weirdo's. Post your EVIDENCE. Not gaps in scientific knowledge. But provable, testable evidence of your position.

(Charming epistolary style, no?) He later restated the type of evidence needed:

Wilso wrote:

You can type until your fingers bleed for all I care. But since the question was asked, I've indicated the type of evidence I expect. I'm looking for the same type of evidence that is required for a scientific hypothesis to become a scientific theory.

So, added to the problem you have in being unable to determine if two cases are analogous (the evidence of your posts is that you cannot), you have the problem that no one has, and no is going to fall for your game of quibbling about a definition of evidence, your own personal version of asking what is is.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

The issue of whether you and/or your Mom exists is a non sequitur.

Not really. Do you deny that love between family members is contingent upon them actually existing? It's an assumption we take for granted because it would be stupid to love something nonexistent, but it's fairly important to the thrust of your challenge.

baddog1 wrote:

My inquiry was about the possible love between you & your Mom; not about either of your existences. If your Mom had passed on 10 years ago; are you suggesting that your love for her would have ended with her passing?

Really? Well then maybe you should've written that instead of

baddog1 wrote:

BTW: Given your particular definition of evidence; please prove that your Mom loves you. That you love your Mom...

If you're asking about my feelings, we haven't yet determined an objective-ish way to determine that, but instead empathize with others as we know what caring is from personal experience, know the behaviors, and tend to believe people when they tell us such a mundane thing, giving them at least the benefit of the doubt. Some of those people are likely lying, too :/.

The existence of my mother makes this question more straightforward and mundane, the evidence easier: I say I love my mother, she says she loves me, we both take care of each other, etc. Even if she is dead, the fact that she certainly existed is still definite and the word is still the same, a form of caring for someone.

Caring for a nonexistent entity which you ironically will only allude to (despite the fact that you probably believe in whatever it is quite strongly) does not compare in terms of evidencing, one does not take each bit of evidence without its context.

As for eliminating alternative hypotheses, I have no eliminated those which are untestable. That would be stupid and are most definitely the inventions you're seeking to make (oh, she has a special psychotic disorder that makes her not love you, but she says she does and it's perfect mimicry and stuff).

baddog1 wrote:

Of course you haven't. You have provided no more evidence that your Mom loves you than evidence of the flying spaghetti monster's existence.

Of course I have. You don't seem to be thinking this through very well - love, as we know it, has manifestations in one's actions. Caring, declarations of said feelings, how one in general acts, communicated intentions, etc. Those are all nice testable things to go out and find. The FSM doesn't, nor does whatever concept you're likely trying to push with all this sophistry.

baddog1 wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
1. You gave no reply to my evidenced accusation that 'real life' is forwarding a God of the gaps argument.

RL handles himself quite nicely and will reply to this if he chooses.

It seems I had assumed your demand for 'proof of assertion' wasn't for the idea that scientists use evidence and predictive models to test what happened in the distance past, because like I've said that implies astounding ignorance on youru part. As a result, I thought your original demand for 'proof of assertion' related to God being an actual explanation and got all confuddled with providing evidence for my claim, including the quotes of 'real life' to establish that he thought the opposite of my stipulations. So I was wrong on that count.

baddog1 wrote:

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

It's like a rollercoaster of unending silliness. You brought up an incredulous objection, I explained myself, and got no response. Should I do the petty thing and assume you agree with me now but don't want to admit it?

baddog1 wrote:

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

I believe in your first response to me you wrote, "Hypocritical." Think about it Wink

.

baddog1 wrote:

Restate (specifically) what it is that you desire to know in this regard.

If you'd like to be treated like a petulant child because you act like one, I will gladly allow your wish to be fulfilled. I certainly don't need to explain this one.

0 Replies

So... what happened to giving evidence for creationism, again?

So far I've gotten some incredulous nonsense from baddog1 and nothing from 'real life'.

Not a good record, so far.

0 Replies

The situation is unlikely to improve . . . however, when it comes to comic relief, you can't beat the bobble-thumpers . . .

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

evidence for creationism?

Would you agree that matter/energy are not eternally existent, (i.e. matter/energy had a beginning point) ?

0 Replies

with that side step, RL again attempts to evade the question. Ive gotta be done with this thread, its getting like a car wreck. RL and his eeelk are entirely fact and evidence free and they cannot admit or explain their lack of same. They will continually attempt to switch the topic rather than have an honest exchange.

WEve asked RL for evidence for his "Flood" and he tries to turn it around by stating that "marine deposits on mountaintops is good enough for him" . Then he states further along that we similarly have no evidence, or whatever we do have is merely "circumstantial".

His argument modus is rather disengenuous and , in many cases , he knows that hes dead wrong. SO, where else can this go but to waste our limited time?

It was kinda fun for a while. Now its just tedium .

0 Replies

farmerman,

How is a discussion of the origin of the universe 'evading' the issue of creation?

How ridiculous.

OTOH, you whine that you 'want evidence of the Flood'. How is that related to creation? It's not.

It is you who derails the thread by attempting to discuss the Flood, rather than discuss origins.

You simply use it as an excuse to avoid discussion of a topic with which you are uncomfortable.

The issue of creation is all about the origin of ALL things, (the cosmos, first life, Man, etc ).

What is hard to understand about that?

So, back to the beginning:

Either matter/energy are/were 'eternally existent' ..........

.............or matter/energy had a beginning point.

Which is it?

0 Replies

That matter and energy in this cosmos have had a starting point would not constitute evidence for a creation by your anthropomorphic imaginary friend.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Shirakawasuna wrote:
evidence for creationism?

Would you agree that matter/energy are not eternally existent, (i.e. matter/energy had a beginning point) ?

Call me crazy, but that looks nothing like evidence for creationism. In fact, it looks kinda like a question, what with the question mark at the end.

Before you get me on the defensive, how about you list your evidence for creationism and support it with your rationale? I will gladly express more of my views when I get any indication that you're going to follow up with discussion.

Oh, and don't make a meta-discussion out of this. If you have some evidence, it's not a terrible crime to just list it. You can resist the urge to get annoyed that I haven't answered your question.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know