Claims vs. Beliefs

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Indeed, the fossil record demonstrates the fact of macroevolution on it's own.

No it doesn’t demonstrate that macro evolution is a fact,

It most certainly does, you may want to deny known scientific facts, but this doesn't change the fact that they are accepted as true by a global scientific consensus, based on overwhelming objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

There was enough room, have you considered the information that you’re plugging into your equation might be faulty? You’re assuming you have the correct information.

Another extremely dubious and unevidenced assertions, though it isn't really relevant, since the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that there has never been a global flood. The genetic diversity we currently observe could not have come from a single breeding pair, or even a dozen, in humans it would require a population in the hundreds of thousands, which also exposes Adam and Eve creation myth again as hokum. The best you can claim is that a deity with limitless intelligence to create a message and limitless power to communicate, can do not better than errant allegory.

I realise you won't accept any facts that you perceive challenge your beliefs, as you too emotionally invested in them, but these are facts, nonetheless.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[ElishaElijah]

It most certainly does, you may want to deny known scientific facts, but this doesn't change the fact that they are accepted as true by a global scientific consensus, based on overwhelming objective evidence.

What exactly was said about the fossil record as fact? Something like you posted before about evolution, that bacteria evolved into a different bacteria, which means what?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Another extremely dubious and unevidenced assertions, though it isn't really relevant, since the geological record demonstrates unequivocally that there has never been a global flood. The genetic diversity we currently observe could not have come from a single breeding pair, or even a dozen, in humans it would require a population in the hundreds of thousands, which also exposes Adam and Eve creation myth again as hokum. The best you can claim is that a deity with limitless intelligence to create a message and limitless power to communicate, can do not better than errant allegory.

I realise you won't accept any facts that you perceive challenge your beliefs, as you too emotionally invested in them, but these are facts, nonetheless.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

So you’re saying in your opinion that the Ark story was impossible?

 

[Sheldon]

What exactly was said about the fossil record as fact?

It's in the post you responded to, here:

Sheldon said: ↑
Indeed, the fossil record demonstrates the fact of macroevolution on it's own.

"Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct."

<LINK>

 

[Sheldon]

So you’re saying in your opinion that the Ark story was impossible?

No, it's nothing to do with my opinion, it is a geological fact that there has never been a global flood.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No, it's nothing to do with my opinion, it is a geological fact that there has never been a global flood.

So is the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark impossible?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So is the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark impossible?

It depends on how you're interpreting the biblical account and what you expect of a god.

If your god is omnipotent, then it could flood the entire earth and erase all traces and restore the civilizations that existed as if the flood never happened.

But is there evidence of a global flood? No. Is there evidence against a flood? Yes. It is impossible, barring magic, for the biblical account of the flood to be true.

 

[Sheldon]

So is the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark impossible?

It is a geological fact that no global flood ever occurred. There is of course no objective evidence for the flood myth, which is likely plagiarised from an earlier flood myth, and there is some evidence to support this idea. The myth itself is both wildly implausible, as well as unevidenced of course. It is also a fact the the genetic diversity in many species could not have been derived from a single breeding pair, including humans, which geneticists have calculated could not have fallen below 1 to 2 hundred thousand breeding pairs, in order to produce the genetic diversity present in modern humans.

 

[Sheldon]

It depends on how you're interpreting the biblical account and what you expect of a god.

If your god is omnipotent, then it could flood the entire earth and erase all traces and restore the civilizations that existed as if the flood never happened.

But is there evidence of a global flood? No. Is there evidence against a flood? Yes. It is impossible, barring magic, for the biblical account of the flood to be true.

Very well put.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Thank-you, so the Biblical narrative of the flood and Noah’s Ark is possible.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Thank-you, so the Biblical narrative of the flood and Noah’s Ark is possible.

If you can demonstrate that it is actually possible then yes. Until then, I would say it is not possible based on the evidence. Possibility needs to be demonstrated.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe that a deity exists is not a claim, not by any stretch of the imagination.

This thread is over 40 pages long because there are two different definitions of claim being used, one standard, and one anomalous or idiosyncratic (yours). This all goes away when it is accepted that the standard definition of a claim is anything which expresses belief, and that your definition includes the explicit or implicit that one can prove it or wants to try. Really. This all goes away when you acknowledge that others understand the word claim differently than you do and you begin to acknowledge that in your replies. "Yes, what I stated is a claim according to the commonest definition of the word, but I don't use the word that way. To me, it's not a claim unless one is saying he can defend the comment, and I feel no burden to support my beliefs." Instead, we have 40 pages of "I'm making no claim." "Yes you are." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." "No I'm not." "Yes you are." "No I'm not."

No, just because I believe a deity exists I am not making a claim that a deity exists.

Let's practice on this one. How about, "I believe that a deity exists, but I don't intend to defend that position" and avoid the word claim altogether, since it is a point of contention the way you use the word? Nobody would argue with that. But as soon as you insert your anomalous usage of claim into the discussion, the thread returns to that pointless disagreement based only in semantics.

I believe that Baha'u'llah was a Messenger of God is not an assertion that it is true.

It is to others. It is the assertion that you believe it's true. You have no control over that. That will always be the case. As long as you continue to hold this position, which doesn't help you at all, the thread will spin in circles generating nothing of value to anybody, and no progress beyond this stumbling point will be possible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is your strongest supported example of the objective evidence that we evolved? And evolved from what?

Why don't you know? Aren't you arguing against the theory?

A couple of my favorites are human chromosome 2 and ring species.

how can today’s science be trusted with such certainty?

Test it, like you do anything else that you learn to trust or distrust to discover what's reliable and what is not. Do you trust the science and engineering that went into the manned moon missions? Probably not, but if not, why? It worked.

Answer to both is yes I’m qualified

Not if you don't know the science you are arguing against. You're arguing against evolution without a clear definition of what it is or what supports the theory.

So in talking about evolution the only claim you are making is that things may or may not change over time?

You wanted a single sentence definition of biological evolution. He gave you the simplest one possible, "all living things evolve slowly over time."

That sentence can be amplified until it is awkwardly long: "Biological evolution is the change in living populations over time and across generations due to genetic variation in offspring subjected to natural selection such that the most fecund forms eventually dominate a population."

And it can be made more obtuse by adding such things as the mechanisms of genetic variation and concepts such as scarce resources, as well as references to last common ancestors, differential survival rates, the commonalities running throughout the tree of life, heritability, gene pools allele frequencies, punctuated equilibrium, niches, and more.

I have access to the Creator of the species you’re talking about.

I don't think too many will believe you based only on your word.

What’s the fraud part?

Creationist sites are dishonest.

I saw these in your link: "All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. " And this: "What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed." Also, "evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent." And, "Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly." These are all incorrect.

These sites are not reliable sources of information, and that is not by accident. Their agenda is not to teach the science (educate) but to promote their religion (indoctrinate). The latter allows for deception. It's really a poor place to go for honest discussion.

 

[F1fan]

What exactly was said about the fossil record as fact? Something like you posted before about evolution, that bacteria evolved into a different bacteria, which means what?

The fossil record is a pattern that experts recognize and use as a tool. Since you are not well informed on how this works here is an illustration. Look at this series of numbers and do you see a pattern:

6 9 10 12 15 18 19 22 24 25 27 28 30 32 35 37 38 39 40 42 44 45 47 49 50 51 53 55 56 58 59 60

Is there a progression? Can you see it?

Now if there were thousands of lines of numbers like this, would it inform you that there is a pattern that is consistent?

There are hundreds of thousands of lines of fossils that show similar patterns of change and progress. These changes are consistent with time as calculated by the geologic strata fossils are found.

 

[F1fan]

Thank-you, so the Biblical narrative of the flood and Noah’s Ark is possible.

Noah's Ark is possible as a local flood where some people escaped the waters on a raft. As we know, legends are often highly embellished stories based on true events. A global flood? Not possible (the Hindus were completely oblivious of it). A local flood that was embellished? Likely.

 

[F1fan]

It is a geological fact that no global flood ever occurred. There is of course no objective evidence for the flood myth, which is likely plagiarised from an earlier flood myth, and there is some evidence to support this idea. The myth itself is both wildly implausible, as well as unevidenced of course. It is also a fact the the genetic diversity in many species could not have been derived from a single breeding pair, including humans, which geneticists have calculated could not have fallen below 1 to 2 hundred thousand breeding pairs, in order to produce the genetic diversity present in modern humans.

Right, the mapping of genetic strains in humans and other animals demonstrates NO genetic bottleneck back 3500 years ago. The Noah's Flood would mean a bottleneck, and it's not there. This is a fatal blow to interpreting this absurd myth literally.

Of course, science goes over the head of creationists.

 

[F1fan]

Of course I believe the story of Noah’s Ark and it’s not a myth like you assume.

Facts and science have made Noah's Ark impossible. It is you assuming the myth is true and literal. Even Jews don't interpret it literally. Not all Christians interpret it literally. So who told you this story is true at face value, and why did you take their word for it?

What else did you take their word for that is likely wrong?

It’s seems that people may be using faulty information and calculations when they make the “myth” statements thinking there wasn’t enough room in the Ark for all the animals God brought to the Ark to save and repopulate the earth after the Flood.

Science has the ability to calculate a broad range of options and none work.

Some years ago there was a creationist who was an engineer and he was determined to figure out what Gopher wood was, and that an Ark of 300 meters, or about 900 feet, could be made of wood and float.

Well he did tests on all types of wood, even woods not available in the Middle East. What he found was that wood could not be used to make a boat that size. Even in modern times no ship could be built of wood that size and float. A ship would in no way survive turbulent flood waters. So the only option is a small boat, but then you are limited in the number of animals, and then you face the problem of diversity of organisms today. So that's a dead end.

The guy ended up closing his website because he actually proved an Ark couldn't be built and float.

Do you still want to believe?

 

[Trailblazer]

It is to others. It is the assertion that you believe it's true.

I have conceded to that and I don't care if people call what I say a claim. I have already said that several times. The first question is: Now that I have conceded to making a claim where do we go from here? The second question: Why does it matters so much that I admit I am making a claim? If it does not mean I have to prove anything why does it matter?

You have no control over that. That will always be the case.

I have no control over what others think about what I say nor do I want to control others.
Everyone is responsible for their own thinking process.

 

[ppp]

I have conceded to that and I don't care if people call what I say a claim. I have already said that several times. The first question is: Now that I have conceded to making a claim where do we go from here? The second question: Why does it matters so much that I admit I am making a claim? If it does not mean I have to prove anything why does it matter?

Mostly because you use it to dodge accountability and shirk responsibility for yourself and your claims. But, as you will most likely continue that practice, you are probably right in that it doesn't matter.