Evolution and Creationism: because ...

[Sapiens]

Alright, there is a mutation that has a survival benefit. Now how is that relevant in disputing my claim, that a Creator created all life 5776 years ago?

There is no need for me to do so, Good try at shifting the burden, but it is yours. Please supply some evidence that 5776 years is anything other than a random number pulled out of a musty book.

 

[Shad]

Exactly, you are brighter than I thought. One could say God created the universe yesterday at 3 PM with a bunch of created memories in our minds and no amount of evidence could prove that wrong.

Brain in a vat defense... really? This very argument can be used against you. Maybe I am a brain in a vat owned by an alien named Steve so none of you are real. Maybe this is really a Sims game.

 

[Brian Schuh]

There is no need for me to do so, Good try at shifting the burden, but it is yours. Please supply some evidence that 5776 years is anything other than a random number pulled out of a musty book.

5776 years is the Hebrew year count. The Talmud says only a fool would doubt the Hebrew year count. Some believe that there is a small line of people who have counted the years from the beginning. But count me a fool, because I doubt the Hebrew year count. But I'll say this, nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet.

 

[Shad]

That's the whole point, I don't know because I did not observe it. A mark of intelligence is to admit he doesn't know. Much "science" claims to know things about history that runs counter to actual history, that isn't intelligent.

Not really. Since there are numerous things you can never observe nor even have the knowledge to understand that you are perfectly fine with. Such as modern medicine. You, like most people, trust experts (doctors) and can get second opinions. Or do you question your doctor because you have not observed say influenza enter your body.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Brain in a vat defense... really? This very argument can be used against you. Maybe I am a brain in a vat owned by an alien named Steve so none of you are real. Maybe this is really a Sims game.

A philosopher once said that he was only a brain inside of a jar being stimulated to perceive, but he was able to prove he existed. Because "I think, therefore I am."

 

[Shad]

5776 years is the Hebrew year count. The Talmud says only a fool would doubt the Hebrew year count. Some believe that there is a small line of people who have counted the years from the beginning. But count me a fool, because I doubt the Hebrew year count. But I'll say this, nobody has been able to prove it wrong yet.

Argument from ignorance and shifting burden of proof. Beside geology, paleontology, etc have all produced evidence showing the year count is a flawed idea

 

[savagewind]

Right, the first man created 5776 years ago. What happened prior to the first man is written in cryptic language and can't be understood by vast majority of people. Adam could have counted his birthdays beginning the Hebrew year count. Some believe a small group has counted the years from the beginning.

I do not know much about it but Hebrew did not exist with Adam. I am pretty sure of that.

 

[Shad]

A philosopher once said that he was only a brain inside of a jar being stimulated to perceive, but he was able to prove he existed. Because "I think, therefore I am."

Yet this does nothing to resolve the issue. Even if you are thinking does not mean you are not a brain in a vat. The same man, René Descartes, came up with both ideas.... You either accept reality as an axiom or you are arguing with people in a world in which neither really exists.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Not really. Since there are numerous things you can never observe nor even have the knowledge to understand that you are perfectly fine with. Such as modern medicine. You, like most people, trust experts (doctors) and can get second opinions. Or do you question your doctor because you have not observed say influenza enter your body.

I do not know much about it but Hebrew did not exist with Adam. I am pretty sure of that.

The Hebrew year count has nothing to do with the Hebrew language, it is just a number.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Yet this does nothing to resolve the issue. Even if you are thinking does not mean you are not a brain in a vat. The same man, René Descartes, came up with both ideas.... You either accept reality as an axiom or you are arguing with people in a world in which neither really exists.

The bottom line is that perception is reality.

 

[Shad]

The Hebrew year count has nothing to do with the Hebrew language, it is just a number.

A number based on a primitive text treated as literal. Which has been refuted, regarding your assumed creation of humans date, to be wrong again and again.

A year count in a language has everything to do with the language.

 

[Shad]

The bottom line is that perception is reality.

Perceptions can be fooled, limited, damaged due to injury and can be pure delusion at times. Hence why more than perception is used when it comes to developing ideas and gaining knowledge.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Perceptions can be fooled, limited, damaged due to injury and can be pure delusion at times. Hence why more than perception is used when it comes to developing ideas and gaining knowledge.

Right, although perception is reality, there is an objective Reality, who we call God. Our own perception is just a world view, and we can never completely understand reality objectively, that would be to know God.

 

[Shad]

Right, although perception is reality, there is an objective Reality, who we call God.

Empty claim that is subjective opinion, nothing more. I do not share your view so the "we" only applies to you and those like you. Also given how different each religion describes God the "we" becomes further reduced to those that follow your particular religion and the denomination you happen to follow within the religion. Considering your views posted on this thread the "we" is most likely a minority.

Our own perception is just a world view, and we can never completely understand reality objectively, that would be to know God.

You contradict yourself. If perception is reality its not a worldview. If perception is a worldview this does not mean it is based on reality or even true. Worldviews are construct about reality not reality itself.

No one in their right mind claims that we must, or we do, understand everything completely. Your presupposition does not make a fact just because you believe it.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Empty claim that is subjective opinion, nothing more. I do not share your view so the "we" only applies to you and those like you. Also given how different each religion describes God the "we" becomes further reduced to those that follow your particular religion and the denomination you happen to follow within the religion. Considering your views posted on this thread the "we" is most likely a minority.



You contradict yourself. If perception is reality its not a worldview. If perception is a worldview this does not mean it is based on reality or even true. Worldviews are construct about reality not reality itself.

No one in their right mind claims that we must, or we do, understand everything completely. Your presupposition does not make a fact just because you believe it.

If a dozen people witness a crime, all dozen might say something different according to their perception. What really happened can never be known. But a court rules based on the realities of the perceptions of the witnesses. No one knows Reality objectively.

 

[Shad]

If a dozen people witness a crime, all dozen might say something different according to their perception. What really happened can never be known. But a court rules based on the realities of the perceptions of the witnesses. No one knows Reality objectively.

Witness accounts are actually considered very unreliable hence why evidence is given greater weight than witness accounts. See the problem with perception yet? Evidence can be used to approximate what happened, reality. All you are doing is creating a strawman by treating science and it's ideas as absolutes then knocking your strawman down. Science is tentative not absolute. You have yet to provide evidence of your views outside the text you take far too literal.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Who ever said I make science an absolute? The ultimate Absolute is God Himself. No matter about philosophy. What does it have to do with my claim that God created the universe 5776 years ago? The burden of proof is on you. No one denies or even cares about evolution. Show me the evidence.

 

[savagewind]

Who ever said I make science an absolute? The ultimate Absolute is God Himself. No matter about philosophy. What does it have to do with my claim that God created the universe 5776 years ago? The burden of proof is on you. No one denies or even cares about evolution. Show me the evidence.

Adam created 5776 years ago. The universe created 5776 years ago. What does it mean?

 

[Shad]

Who ever said I make science an absolute?

You are arguing that since science can not provide absolutes the results it does produce should be doubted on this basis. As per your carbon dating mishap

The ultimate Absolute is God Himself. No matter about philosophy.

No it's a matter for philosophy. It certainly isn't science.

What does it have to do with my claim that God created the universe 5776 years ago?

Since your claim is not based on any evidence outside of the Bible.

The burden of proof is on you.

Actually it isn't. You made the claim, using the Bible as evidence is circular reasoning so you still need to meet your burden of proof. Geology has already met the burden of proof decades ago.

No one denies or even cares about evolution.

You seem to care a lot about it.

Show me the evidence.

Enroll in a biology course at university. They will teach you what you should have learned but for some reason didn't or couldn't. Evolution is taught at every credible university on the planet. Find one.

 

[Brian Schuh]

You are arguing that since science can not provide absolutes the results it does produce should be doubted on this basis. As per your carbon dating mishap




No it's a matter for philosophy. It certainly isn't science.



Since your claim is not based on any evidence outside of the Bible.



Actually it isn't. You made the claim, using the Bible as evidence is circular reasoning so you still need to meet your burden of proof. Geology has already met the burden of proof decades ago.



You seem to care a lot about it.



Enroll in a biology course at university. They will teach you what you should have learned but for some reason didn't or couldn't. Evolution is taught at every credible university on the planet. Find one.

Creationists generally mind their own business, and most are hard working, tax paying citizens, who find a government demanding their children to attend public school that teaches them belief in a Creator God is stupid, ignorant or delusional. Yet still they don't fight the issue, but instead homeschool. Why do you feel the need to push your views on others?