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

As you have repeatedly tried to show real life there is no naturally occurring closed system for thermodynamics. Closed systems are manufactured structures created by showing input and output of energy from the system itself. Since the universe is natural it isn't closed. Since it isn't closed you can't apply the 2nd law to it without first calculating all input and output of matter and energy. So your arguments about how the universe can't be eternal because of the 2nd law are defeated by your argument that there is no naturally closed system

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
Incorrect.

An eternal universe has the problem of entropy. An eternal God does not.

An eternal universe has no entropy problem, the second law of thermodynamics is not necessarily operative before the Big Bang. And that's an important distinction, as all of this is philosophical.

Then you admit that your speculation about the Big Bang is philosophical, not scientific.

ok

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Then you admit that your speculation about the Big Bang is philosophical, not scientific.

Then you expose your complete lack of understanding concerning science and a damning inability to respond to my points - the ones you invited, I might add. Perhaps even a willing ignorance concerning my points, as it's hard to imagine how you reached that conclusion without deliberate attempts to deceive.

Can you explain yourself?

So, where's your evidence for creationism?

0 Replies

Explain yourself.

If there is no evidence that a 'singularity' ever existed..............

If you do not know the composition, nor the properties of said singularity.........

If you will not apply scientific law (such as the 2nd law) to it.............

How is it scientific?

Your proposed singularity is not a natural (scientific) explanation of origins, it is supernatural.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Explain yourself.

If there is no evidence that a 'singularity' ever existed..............

If you do not know the composition, nor the properties of said singularity.........

If you will not apply scientific law (such as the 2nd law) to it.............

How is it scientific?

Your proposed singularity is not a natural (scientific) explanation of origins, it is supernatural.

Easy RL - you're going to get the L-word thrown your way! Shocked

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

real life wrote:
Then you admit that your speculation about the Big Bang is philosophical, not scientific.

Then you expose your complete lack of understanding concerning science and a damning inability to respond to my points - the ones you invited, I might add. Perhaps even a willing ignorance concerning my points, as it's hard to imagine how you reached that conclusion without deliberate attempts to deceive.

Can you explain yourself?

So, where's your evidence for creationism?

Asking for evidence is, as I have already pointed out, a fool's errand. The evidence is the same for all.

What I have noticed in this discussion is the tendency to view time as linear: Cause and Effect, Cause and Effect, Cause and Effect, Cause and Effect, . . . ad infinitum. This surely is not the case. Nor is what we call space merely three dimensional.

All this should lower our comfort level when we make proclamations we call science.

0 Replies

Actually, the most persistent insistence on a linear view of time, with an endless cause and effect sequence, is coming from religionists, and particularly "real life," who insists in his typically facile manner that unless one can assert the universe if eternal, it must have had a beginning, and ergo, a creation took place. It matters little to him that logic is not on his side in this matter, because his object is not to prove creationism, it is to obscure the discussion as much as possible, and to make it appear that his interlocutors are unable to answer his objections. But simply answering questions proves nothing, neither about the subject of the question, nor the relative ability of persons to articulate a coherent position. A prime example of this is Baddog's silly horseshit about loving one's mother--whether or not anyone can answer his objections to his satisfaction is meaningless, since an emotion is not analogous to a deity, unless one acknowledges that a deity only exists in one's mind.

Those who look to the scientific method do not, in fact, look as the cosmos as three dimensional, they see it as at least four dimensional (time being one of the dimensions), and acknowledge the possibility of an n-dimensional cosmos. Those who look to the scientific method for hypotheses on cosmic origins consider that the "fourth" dimension of time arose at the same time as the three other observable dimensions arose.

**************************************

None of which is any more than another attempt to distract the discussion from the topic.

To date, absolutely no one has provided any proof for creationism within the definition which the author of the thread provided.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

. . ..

**************************************

None of which is any more than another attempt to distract the discussion from the topic.

To date, absolutely no one has provided any proof for creationism within the definition which the author of the thread provided.

Mornin', Set. I just put on the coffee here.

Wilso has started us on this snipe hunt whilst he watches from his home in the outback.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Actually, the most persistent insistence on a linear view of time, with an endless cause and effect sequence, is coming from religionists, and particularly "real life," who insists in his typically facile manner that unless one can assert the universe if eternal, it must have had a beginning, and ergo, a creation took place. It matters little to him that logic is not on his side in this matter, because his object is not to prove creationism, it is to obscure the discussion as much as possible, and to make it appear that his interlocutors are unable to answer his objections.

The actual problem that you have with RL (and now neo) is that of seeing the forest for the trees. RL's position has been consistently correct when considering the bigger picture surrounding the topic of creationism. You don't want to hear it because you have no answer to his questions or assertions so out come the ad homs, non sequiturs and so on. You want a very narrow question answered with extreme (and variable) guidelines that will only favor your position. RL doesn't fall for the trap and it appears to tick you off.

Setanta wrote:

But simply answering questions proves nothing, neither about the subject of the question, nor the relative ability of persons to articulate a coherent position. A prime example of this is Baddog's silly horseshit about loving one's mother--whether or not anyone can answer his objections to his satisfaction is meaningless, since an emotion is not analogous to a deity, unless one acknowledges that a deity only exists in one's mind.

You (and shikira & others) insist on modifying definitions to suit your variable fancies. That tactic has grown stale and will only wash with bobble-head types who don't understand the tactic or do understand it and choose to follow it anyway.

Setanta wrote:

Those who look to the scientific method do not, in fact, look as the cosmos as three dimensional, they see it as at least four dimensional (time being one of the dimensions), and acknowledge the possibility of an n-dimensional cosmos. Those who look to the scientific method for hypotheses on cosmic origins consider that the "fourth" dimension of time arose at the same time as the three other observable dimensions arose.

You were OK until mentioning the "same" time. However given that your definition of "same" will no doubt be unlike the standard and equally variable; your description no doubt works for you.

Setanta wrote:

To date, absolutely no one has provided any proof for creationism within the definition which the author of the thread provided.

Which definition that the author provided. (Hint: There's more than one! :wink:)

Hey I've got an idea: Let's see if you can reply with no ad hom's or non sequiturs. I'll bet not! :wink:

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Explain yourself.

If there is no evidence that a 'singularity' ever existed..............

If you do not know the composition, nor the properties of said singularity.........

If you will not apply scientific law (such as the 2nd law) to it.............

How is it scientific?

Your proposed singularity is not a natural (scientific) explanation of origins, it is supernatural.

You're fitting back in that mold I predicted earlier. When confronted, switch the burden of proof. Change the subject. I believe you were going to give some evidence for creationism...

So far, I've explained the cosmological argument's outcomes. It's an entirely philosophical question and the Big Bang has absolutely no affect on it. None. It is always possibly to consider precursor causes, which is why ex nihilo always appears ridiculous, but infinite recurses (those precursor causes over and over again) are tough for people to generally consider and deal with.

Now, at which point did I give you any indication whatsoever that the Big Bang itself was not scientific? You gave a quote last time but it clearly says nothing of the sort.

As I've offered before, I will go into these tangential subjects when you show any propensity for non-dishonest behavior. I'll explain precisely how the Big Bang is scientific when you start getting around to your evidence for creationism. If incredulous questions concerning the cosmological argument counts as the best you've got, tell me.

Heya, baddog1. I see that you are too fitting the mold I described, how strange... when confronted with specific explanations, you simply repeat the original assertion! Good job, man, good job!

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

The actual problem that you have with RL (and now neo) is that of seeing the forest for the trees. RL's position has been consistently correct when considering the bigger picture surrounding the topic of creationism. You don't want to hear it because you have no answer to his questions or assertions so out come the ad homs, non sequiturs and so on. You want a very narrow question answered with extreme (and variable) guidelines that will only favor your position. RL doesn't fall for the trap and it appears to tick you off.

If you're so confident in your ideas, actually present your own side and defend it. We'll ignore the definition I gave for evidence since you clearly can't get off of it, despite an utter lack of evidence for your assertions as to my inconsistency. Give you own definition of evidence, but make it specific, then give your argument of evidence for creationism.

So far it seems the very best you can do is whine about others. And I don't use that word often - the only thing you do is complain by asserting what others' actions are, assuming motives, pretending that future events have already happened (I'll change my definition of evidence, etc), and play yourself and 'real life' off as the mistreated victims. But what you don't do is actually defend any of these ideas or engage in substantive discussion. I call that whining.

So I'll repeat my challenge, since you two seem to have really big issues with answering direct challenges and questions: define your idea of evidence, make it specific (a vague definition is far worse than my very specific one), then present your argument. If you can't, kindly put all your whining in pink font coloring in the future so I know when you have something substantive to add, if ever.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

...As I've offered before, I will go into these tangential subjects when you show any propensity for non-dishonest behavior...

RL: I warned you about the L-word! Laughing

So predictable.

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

If you're so confident in your ideas, actually present your own side and defend it. We'll ignore the definition I gave for evidence since you clearly can't get off of it, despite an utter lack of evidence for your assertions as to my inconsistency. Give you own definition of evidence, but make it specific, then give your argument of evidence for creationism.

So far it seems the very best you can do is whine about others. And I don't use that word often - the only thing you do is complain by asserting what others' actions are, assuming motives, pretending that future events have already happened (I'll change my definition of evidence, etc), and play yourself and 'real life' off as the mistreated victims. But what you don't do is actually defend any of these ideas or engage in substantive discussion. I call that whining.

So I'll repeat my challenge, since you two seem to have really big issues with answering direct challenges and questions: define your idea of evidence, make it specific (a vague definition is far worse than my very specific one), then present your argument. If you can't, kindly put all your whining in pink font coloring in the future so I know when you have something substantive to add, if ever.

Apparently you haven't read the prior material on this topic. Read the thread and your questions will be answered. Fabricating and/or or modifying definitions to fit an agenda is not something I'm too keen on - that practice must've come into play after my ticket was punched. (Thankfully!)

0 Replies

badddog1, I believe my challenge was for you to present your own ideas, not for you to repeat your original claims and show yet another poor effort to support them (non-existent, really). I've read the last 40+ pages or so and the first 20, this thread is 200 long so I wasn't terribly interested in reading the whole thing nor should it be required for my general questions.

And yes, responding to questions and points by switching topics is dishonest, baddog1. If you catch me doing it, feel free to describe it as such. It's something that anyone can recognize if they're at all aware of the general paths debates usually take.

So... I'm waiting. I've supplied answers to both you and 'real life''s requests, repeatedly. Do you have any views of your own to present? Will you find a way to pity yourself in that statement?

0 Replies

Shirakawasuna wrote:

badddog1, I believe my challenge was for you to present your own ideas, not for you to repeat your original claims and show yet another poor effort to support them (non-existent, really). I've read the last 40+ pages or so and the first 20, this thread is 200 long so I wasn't terribly interested in reading the whole thing nor should it be required for my general questions.

And yes, responding to questions and points by switching topics is dishonest, baddog1. If you catch me doing it, feel free to describe it as such. It's something that anyone can recognize if they're at all aware of the general paths debates usually take.

So... I'm waiting. I've supplied answers to both you and 'real life''s requests, repeatedly. Do you have any views of your own to present? Will you find a way to pity yourself in that statement?

I've presented my 'own ideas' (at least twice) over the past 200 pages. Twice is enough. And BTW: I also presented plenty of evidence [standard def.] supporting the claim of creationism.

Your claim of dishonesty by switching topics is fundamentally questionable; and when considering the actual definition of dishonesty, your claim is absolutely false.

Pursuant to your false claim; once again, my focus was on the definition of the word: "evidence". By your line of thinking, if I proposed 30 different scenarios asking for the evidence of each - I would be "switching topics" 30 different times. That was not my intention or goal. Hence your false claim.

To directly answer your question about creationism - and using YOUR personal definition; there is no current 'evidence' of creationsim that I can present, just as there is no 'evidence' [same definition] of love between two or more people. Neither you or I, or anyone else can have it both ways.

0 Replies

baddog

Quote:

I've presented my 'own ideas' (at least twice) over the past 200 pages. Twice is enough. And BTW: I also presented plenty of evidence [standard def.] supporting the claim of creationism.

Evidence [std definition] is empirical and documented as per the scientific method. As Karl Popper said"evidence can only prove a theory wrong, it cannot prove a theory correct since discovery of evidence that is counter to the theory may only prove the theory wrong"
Thats why a theory is a tentative explanation of a concept. It is supported by all the evidence to date but is not refuted by any other evidence"

EVerything in Creationism and or ID has been shown to be refuted by objective empirical evidence AT LEAST ONCE (and for most, many times over).

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

To directly answer your question about creationism - and using YOUR personal definition; there is no current 'evidence' of creationsim that I can present, just as there is no 'evidence' [same definition] of love between two or more people.

Cool. One down, one to go. Even though you squirm over the definition of "evidence" it's clear in the end that you really do understand what we mean by "evidence" and you have answered the question: There is no evidence for Creationism. Thank you. We'll have to see if RL can be as honest now.

Beyond that, I find it interesting that you draw an analogous comparison between Creationism and an emotion (love).

I had never thought of Creationism as an emotional state before, although I can see how something without any evidence and which relies on pure faith, could be considered an emotion.

I don't think any of us empiricists object to the use of Creationism as an emotional belief. We may disagree with it, but at least that treatment of Creationism is viable within physical reality.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Evidence [std definition] is empirical and documented as per the scientific method...............

Everything in Creationism ... has been shown to be refuted by objective empirical evidence AT LEAST ONCE

rosborne979 wrote:

us empiricists

You guys claiming empirical evidence of a 'singularity'?

I didn't think you were that old. Laughing

0 Replies

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Evidence [std definition] is empirical and documented as per the scientific method

rosborne979 wrote:
us empiricists

You guys claiming empirical evidence of a 'singularity'?

I didn't think you were that old.

The evidence is all around us. You don't have to be old to see the CMBR.

You're getting evidence confused with theory again. Nobody was here to see plate tectonics happen either, but we didn't have to be, the evidence for it is clear. So it becomes an accepted theory (the predominant theory) until something more accurate replaces it. Same with all scientific theories.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

The actual problem that you have with RL (and now neo) is that of seeing the forest for the trees. RL's position has been consistently correct when considering the bigger picture surrounding the topic of creationism. You don't want to hear it because you have no answer to his questions or assertions so out come the ad homs, non sequiturs and so on. You want a very narrow question answered with extreme (and variable) guidelines that will only favor your position. RL doesn't fall for the trap and it appears to tick you off.

This is pure drivel. You make a claim about "real life's" position, but don't refer to specific examples. It is not i who have asked for an answer, it is Wilso. That the question is specific, which is to provide proof of creationism, is not at all the same as a claim that it is "narrow," although there is no reason to object to such a description. It's a simple question asking for a specific answer. The guidelines are not extreme, and they do not vary. I've pointed out to you again and again what criterion of proof Wilson stipulated, and that has not changed. All that has changed is your attempts to redefine the word evidence. There is no trap for "real life" to fall into, there is only the question to be answered. The member "real life" doesn't even make an attempt to answer the question of this thread.

Quote:

You (and shikira & others) insist on modifying definitions to suit your variable fancies. That tactic has grown stale and will only wash with bobble-head types who don't understand the tactic or do understand it and choose to follow it anyway.

This is a lie. I have pointed out again and again what Wilso's criterion for proof is, and have quoted it from his posts, again and a again. I'll accept the bobble-headed types, because we do get the occasional bible-thumper in here of an extraordinarily obtuse nature--but the requirement for proof has not changed.

Quote:

You were OK until mentioning the "same" time. However given that your definition of "same" will no doubt be unlike the standard and equally variable; your description no doubt works for you.

I know of no rational person who alleges that space and time did not arise at the same time, regardless of the provenance of the cosmos. I defy you to provide any example of a rational explanation of cosmic origins which asserts that space and time did not arise at the same time.

Quote:

Which definition that the author provided. (Hint: There's more than one!)

I've quoted Wilso on this matter several times. Your claim is without merit.

Quote:

Hey I've got an idea: Let's see if you can reply with no ad hom's or non sequiturs. I'll bet not!

Given that you obviously do not understand the meaning of argumentum ad hominem, and don't understand how properly how to use the term non sequitur, no matter how i reply, you are likely to level such a baseless charge. It is apparent that those who run around crying "ad hom, ad hom" like Chicken Little do so without knowing the proper application of the term. If i say that you, for example, are wrong to compare love and god because you are a f*cking idiot--that would be the use of argumentum ad hominem. When, however, i point out that your remarks are a non sequitur because love and god are not analogous things, and therefore your attempt to argue from analogy fails, that is not an "ad hom," and you saying that that is a non sequitur doesn't make it true just because you have said so.

When i point out that your logic fails because the two things are not analogous, and if i happen to follow that by referring to you as a moron (which is not what i did), it is still not argumentum ad hominem, because i have given a sound refutation to your silly attempt to argue by analogy. In such a case as that, calling you a moron would simply be an exercise is self-amuse.

Now, see if you can respond without making a hash of the terms which describe logical fallacies and without brainless, childish "emoticons."

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know