An Open Challenge To Creationists

[mikkel_the_dane]

I really don't know why you're so obsessed with linking to the rather banal article about what science doesn't do. I'm not actually making a claim about everything but science and intersubjective evidence is highly relevant to the question at hand.

Yes, you are.

Nonsense. It answers questions about the world using intersubjectively verifiable evidence - and its results work for everybody whether they believe it or not - hence your computer, phone, GPS, and the internet all work for you too.

The world is everything and everything in the world can be answered in the positive using intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

I.e. everybody in everything. Or are you claiming that the world is not everything?

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, you are.

No, I'm not. Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?

The world is everything and everything in the world can be answered in the positive using intersubjectively verifiable evidence.

I.e. everybody in everything. Or are you claiming that the world is not everything?

I'm talking about the "external" intersubjective world, as opposed to subjective things like morality, aesthetics, taste, and so on. Is this really so difficult?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, I'm not. Is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?



I'm talking about the "external" intersubjective world, as opposed to subjective things like morality, aesthetics, taste, and so on. Is this really so difficult?

Yes, but that doesn't quite work the way you believe.
Here is the test:
All of what goes on in the world must be verified as you claim?
Me: No!!! So you are not talking about the world. You are talking about a part of the world. So here is a part of the world that science can't do!
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Can you read and understand that?
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations as in more precise words - science doesn't draw any positive or negative conclusions about supernatural explanations, because science is based on an assumption. That the world is natural, hence methodological naturism. You seem to assume that this assumption is verified. It isn't and it can't be verified. Neither can God BTW

 

[ratiocinator]

All of what goes on in the world must be verified as you claim?

Please stop inaccurately telling me what I'm claiming.

Me: No!!! So you are not talking about the world. You are talking about a part of the world. So here is a part of the world that science can't do!

I know.

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations as in more precise words - science doesn't draw any positive or negative conclusions about supernatural explanations, because science is based on an assumption. That the world is natural, hence methodological naturism. You seem to assume that this assumption is verified. It isn't and it can't be verified. Neither can God BTW

This is slightly misleading because, if a "supernatural explanation" can be expected to leave natural evidence, said evidence can be investigated by science / intersubjective verification. The subject at hand is the history of the world, so we can expect natural evidence unless you go for a supernatural explanation that involves false evidence (a last Thursdayism type of argument).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

This is slightly misleading because, if a "supernatural explanation" can be expected to leave natural evidence, said evidence can be investigated by science / intersubjective verification. (1) The subject at hand is the history of the world, so we can expect natural evidence unless you go for a supernatural explanation that involves false evidence (a last Thursdayism type of argument).(2)

(1)No, not if the supernatural hides.
(2). That is a specific example of more general problem. Here is another:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
Astronomer and scientist William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis.

You assume that the universe is play fair with everybody for verification as you use it.

Here is another version of this problem:
Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real
Here is another:
Descartes and the Evil Demon.

All of the version end here.
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Scroll down a little bit.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Now test these claim using not verification nor falsifiable by Popper, but general skepticism using reductio ad absurdum and you will learn this:
Most humans assume that the world is fair, but that is unknowable and they assume, they know what the world really is,
"We" don't. That is the limit of this game.
To you it makes sense to assume that the world is natural and claim you know. To me it makes sense not to assume I know what the world is and just state what I assume.

I am a general skeptic and I know nothing and I don't even know that. But apparently my assumptions works for me. But never claim an "everybody" for all of the world! How, because everybody else can assume differently and in a limited sense get away with claiming knowledge. You are one of them, but so are most humans with individual subjective differences.
That is how your intersubjective is limited. It subjectively requires the same assumptions in everybody but that is not the case. You are looking at the actual falsification of your verification method.

Whether God or the universe is fair, is the same general problem in epistemology and you can't solve it for everybody. Nor can I. So I just do this and leave your part of the world to you. When "we" then play "everybody", I bite hard as a skeptic, because I check your assumptions and expose them for what they apparently are. Your subjective individual assumptions.

 

[Heyo]

I took "best" for a reductio ad absurdum. There is no one single, universal "best " for all of everything.
Someone: I can do a single, universal best for all of everything.
Me: No, because in some cases I can do it differently.

Creationism is the best explanation, there is based on some assumptions.
Evolution is the best explanation, there is based on some other assumptions.
There is no objective standard for comparing the 2, because all standards rest on some subjective assumptions, including mine.
Any version of "best" is based on subjective assumptions.

You are making lengthy excuses why you can't meet the challenge. How about

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are making lengthy excuses why you can't meet the challenge. How about

Nope!


This is the Evolution Vs Creationism forum and as such "creationism" as used here stands in opposition to evolution, which deals with the process by which the variety life arose on Earth. So this is what I'm looking for; the best case for the contention that all living things were created by god, substantially as they now exist (the account as given in Genesis and argued for), and not gradually evolved.

And this was stated up front to forestall any misunderstanding. So if anyone whines about it I can only assume it's because they can't present a reasonable case as asked for.


.

So Skwim has already done it for me.
Skwinm assumes science.

 

[Salvador]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

Of course, here's overwhelming fossil record evidence as well as genetic evidence of significant enough gene pool changes within a species changing over the course of many generations resulting in organisms having genetic traits different enough from their distant ancestors; so that there'd be no possible sexual reproduction occurring between somebody who were to have distant ancestral genetic traits with anybody living in the current population. There's little doubt all life forms share a common ancestor; so then, evolution is about as debatable as the Earth's ellipsoid shape.

However. our genetic code's Creator has embedded the numeric and semantic message of "037" in our genetic coding; this message of "037" embedded in our genetic code by our genetic code's Creator gets conveyed to me , Vladimir shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov , Natasa Misic, Artem Novozhilov, Eugene Koonin, Chris Davis, Craig Paardekooper who compute with a base 10 numeric system.

This is evident to us by how each codon relates to 3 other particular codons having the same particular type of initial nucleobase and sequential nucleobase subsequently then followed by a different ending nucleobase. Half of these 4 set of codon groups ( whole family codons ) each code for the same particular amino acid. The other half of those 4 set of codon groups ( split codons ) don't code for the same amino acid. So then, in the case of whole family codons, there are 37 amino acid peptide chain nucleons for each relevant nucleobase determinant of how a particular amino acid gets coded. Start codons express 0 at the beginning of 37 Hence, the meaningful numeric and semantic message of 037 gets unambiguously and factually conveyed to us present day Earthling human beings with our genetic code invented by a superior intelligence beyond that of anybody presently bound to Earth.

This informational and artificial characteristic of the WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code demonstrates intelligent design.

This intelligent signal transmitted via our genetic code that has been documented and confirmed by scientists researching the WOW! signal of the terrestrial genetic code is prima facie evidence for an intelligent designer.

The scientists who've discovered this mark of intelligence embedded in our genetic code show that "the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language. Accurate and systematic, these underlying patterns appear as a product of precision logic and nontrivial computing rather than of stochastic processes (the null hypothesis that they are due to chance coupled with presumable evolutionary pathways is rejected with P-value < 10–13). The patterns are profound to the extent that the code mapping itself is uniquely deduced from their algebraic representation. The signal displays readily recognizable hallmarks of artificiality, among which are the symbol of zero, the privileged decimal syntax and semantical symmetries. Besides, extraction of the signal involves logically straightforward but abstract operations, making the patterns essentially irreducible to any natural origin. Plausible ways of embedding the signal into the code and possible interpretation of its content are discussed. Overall, while the code is nearly optimized biologically, its limited capacity is used extremely efficiently to pass non-biological information."

Reference: The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code. Vladimir l. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov.

http://earth-chronicles.ru/Publications_12/35/64182102-1-s2.0-s0019103513000791-main.pdf

The "Wow! signal" of the terrestrial genetic code
Vladimir I. shCherbak, Maxim A. Makukov
(Submitted on 27 Mar 2013 (v1), last revised 12 Jun 2017

Icarus, 2013, 224(1), 228-242
DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2013.02.017

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.906.4671&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The significance of the semantic message "037" embedded in our genetic coding is well-explained in the following journal articles: .

Biosystems Volume 70, Issue 3, August 2003, Pages 187-209 "Arithmetic inside the universal genetic code" Author: Vladimir I. shCherbak
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar...4703000662

NeuroQuantology | December 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 4 | Page 702-715 Masic, Natasa Nested Properties of shCherbak’s PQ 037 and (Biological) Coding/Computing Nested Numeric/Geometric/Arithmetic Propertiesof shCherbak’s Prime Quantum 037 as a Base of (Biological) Coding/Computing
https://www.researchgate.net/public...m_037_as_a_Base_of_Biological_CodingComputing

 

[shmogie]

I amended the OP to show the source of the definition. And even if I had not used a formal definition I would have worded it very similarly.

.

Then, stating clearly that I have no intention of being drawn into your thread any further, but many, if not all, creationists do believe in an organisms abilities to adapt to changing conditions or environments is very significant, much more so, in my opinion, than your definition implies.

So, a single cat like animal could have evolved into the wide varieties of cats that have existed or exist.

Further, creationists believe that all of creation, including living organisms, all of them, including us, are hugely different than originally created, but that is a theological discussion.

I felt your definition was too restrictive. It has been half a century + since I had need to look at the Linnaean classification system, but creationists would place the "type" of animal at the family or order position.

My 2 cents, carry on


.[/QUOTE]

 

[ratiocinator]

(1)No, not if the supernatural hides.

You clearly missed an "if" in my post.

(2). That is a specific example of more general problem. Here is another:

None of what follows actually undermines anything I've said. You seem to be confusing our inability to be absolutely certain (which I don't think anybody claims) with intersubjectively verifiable evidence based conclusions about how the world works and how it got that way. Conclusions that we therefore have good reason to think are probably correct because our models match the evidence. And even if the approach isn't, for some reason, arriving at good models of reality, then they might as well be, because they match, and successfully predict, what seems to be the shared "objective" world which is, in any case, inescapable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You clearly missed an "if" in my post.



None of what follows actually undermines anything I've said. You seem to be confusing our inability to be absolutely certain (which I don't think anybody claims) with intersubjectively verifiable evidence based conclusions about how the world works and how it got that way. Conclusions that we therefore have good reason to think are probably correct because our models match the evidence. And even if the approach isn't, for some reason, arriving at good models of reality, then they might as well be, because they match, and successfully predict, what seems to be the shared "objective" world which is, in any case, inescapable.

No, I don't operate with certainty. I am challenging your notion of intersubjective verification and evidence. I am a skeptic. I don't believe in the intersubjective, if individual subjective works. I don't trust verification, I do reductio ad absurdum. And evidence is in the end a form of rationalism; i.e. your good reason. That is as subjective as it gets.

Edit: Yes, I missed your "if". So if we can trust our reasoning and sense and if the natural world is "real", then yes.

 

[Skwim]

Reading comprehension fail. Nowhere did @Skwim even use the word "science". He even excluded a specific part of science.
And, even though I don't know exactly what Skwim meant by "best case", I'd say you try what you deem to be most convincing and let the jury decide if your approach was the "best".

When I said "your best case" I meant the best case in the respondent's estimation.

.

 

[ratiocinator]

I am challenging your notion of intersubjective verification and evidence. I am a skeptic. I don't believe in the intersubjective, if individual subjective works.

Except, when it comes to the "objective" world that we all (seem to) share, the individual subjective doesn't work (magic, superstition,...) and the intersubjective does (science, technology,...) does work.

And evidence is in the end a form of rationalism; i.e. your good reason. That is as subjective as it gets.

So subjective that you need to use the result of it (technology based on the intersubjective) to communicate to me that you think it's subjective.

Tell me, if you're ill, do you go to a witch doctor or faith healer or somebody who bases their treatments on intersubjectively verifiable evidence? Who would you rather have designing a plane you were going to fly in? Somebody who relied on intersubjective evidence or somebody who went with their own subjectivity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When I said "your best case" I meant the best case in the respondent's estimation.

.

The best case for young earth creationism is that God created the world as is, latter than science says the Big Bang happened. That is the standard for best. God created the world other than science says it happened.
What more that you want? Best to your standard of evolution? That is not the standard of creationism.

Here is the test of how the world works.
You believe as you do.
A creationist believes otherwise.
I believe yet otherwise as neither of the 2 above beliefs.

Now what? Which is best?
We all believe best according to our individual standards of best.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Except, when it comes to the "objective" world that we all (seem to) share, the individual subjective doesn't work (magic, superstition,...) and the intersubjective does (science, technology,...) does work.

...

Yes, seem to. That is the point. Apparently you can trust your reasoning and senses, it seems so at least. But that is not evidence. That is the basis for evidence. That the world is fair and natural. Other people believe differently, namely that God is fair and the world is from God.
That can't be decided using reason, logic and evidence, because there is no objective standard to use.

Now not all religious believe in magic, woo and so on or even souls. I mean I have met a scientist and atheist, which believed in astrology. Go figure.
I am religious, yet a naturalist in a sense and skeptic.
Religion:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

A religion:
Unitarian Universalist Association

And only the subjective ( and not inter-subjective) works for:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

 

[Skwim]

The best case for young earth creationism is that God created the world as is, latter than science says the Big Bang happened. That is the standard for best. God created the world other than science says it happened.

So, are you a creationist or not?


.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, are you a creationist or not?


.

No, but I won't rule it out. I just don't know. I believe differently, but this game of evidence I don't believe in. Neither your version of evidence or what the creationists do. So to me it is a game of beliefs.
It works for you believe as you do. It works for them to believe differently. And yet I can believe different than you and them. That tells me, that we are playing a game of beliefs.

 

[Skwim]

No, but I won't rule it out. I just don't know. I believe differently, but this game of evidence I don't believe in.

Then sorry, but I'm not interested; although, thanks for your reply just the same.

.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then sorry, but I'm not interested; although, thanks for your reply just the same.

.

So you know.
Creationists don't.

And when I point out that it is maybe not that simple, you don't care. Okay. So you are only out to confirm your belief system and not test it. That is the same for creationists, BTW

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, seem to. That is the point.

But it seems so to everyone. You didn't answer my questions about doctors and engineers. In practice, do you trust them (and their intersubjectively verified evidence) with your life or are you true to your "scepticism" and just go with individual subjectivity?

Added: it's also worth pointing out that you seem to be convinced enough that you are actually talking to another person via the infernal contraptions of intersubjectively verified technology (based on intersubjectively verified science) to make it worth replying and (rather ironically) trying to convince them of your claims. Would you make the same effort to communicate by (say) Ouija board?