How the term "Creationist" has been hijacked

[tarasan]

Firstly, 22 amino acids were produced. Could you back up your claim that each amino acid was destroyed afterwards?
Also, amino acids form everywhere, even in space.
There have been many further experiments where the building blocks for even DNA and RNA have formed.

Anyway, the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that the formation of the building blocks of life (proteins) is possible through natural means. The experiment did just that.

no 22 amino acids werent produced cite your source. mine is one of those Case for faith books, however it is back in Northern Ireland so i cant get you the quote :sorry1:

but hey im back there in 3 weeks so ask me then and ill give it to you

 

[tumbleweed41]

no 22 amino acids werent produced cite your source. mine is one of those Case for faith books, however it is back in Northern Ireland so i cant get you the quote :sorry1:

but hey im back there in 3 weeks so ask me then and ill give it to you

22 amino acids

The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment -- Johnson et al. 322 (5900): 404 -- Science

While it has been shown that the Miller-Urey experiment did not exactly match actual prebiotic conditions on Earth, (Due to new findings since the original 1952 experiment.) The experiment did show that it was possible for amino acids to occur naturally without existing biotic conditions.
Follow up experiments with differing conditions have confirmed this.

 

[Raithie]

ahhh but that would still not equate for the pressure pads, teh vision of him flying around the village etc. also you would have to show me material of santa being able to modify minds.

Yes it could. He could be stealthy! And no, I believe that Santa doesn't want us to objectively prove he's there, he wants us to rely on faith to enjoy the magic of Christmas! And since I believe him to be so amazing and powerful and all knowing, he would do whatever he needed in order to protect the magic of Christmas.

and of course i could disprove unicorns in the same way, firstly we would expect to find their corpses after they die, we would expect to find hoofprints, sightings, horns, hair, all manner of things.

No, the unicorns I believe in always fly, don't leave behind remains and no humans can see or detect them. Oh, and they're omniscient, omnipotent and such. They're beyond your mere human understanding, but they tell me secret things when I cross my arms. You just have to believe in them fully to hear it.

remeber lack of evidence cannot be used against such a thing unless we would expect to find such evidence.

Yes it can. As Christopher Hitchens states: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof".

Using your logic, I can claim the existence of a tiny leprechaun that sits on my shoulder everyday. He's metaphysical and therefore no one can observe or detect him. I believe that he talks to me and tells me to do things. He loves me. He made sure he can never be proved because he wants to test me and make me rely on faith, because he loves that for some reason.

Getting the gist?

 

[Raithie]

no 22 amino acids werent produced cite your source. mine is one of those Case for faith books, however it is back in Northern Ireland so i cant get you the quote :sorry1:

but hey im back there in 3 weeks so ask me then and ill give it to you

Every valid scientific document will attest to 22amino acids. I'm guessing your limiting your search to Creationist / outdated literature?

If your claim is actually valid, it would be available on the internet and would have received much more attention than one mention in a book.

The amino acids were not destroyed. Read about the experiment. As I said earlier, the point of the experiment is to demonstrate that basic building blocks of life can form via entirely naturalistic processes, and it most definitely succeeded in this regard.

 

[painted wolf]

Amino acids are also extremely common across the Universe... more than 100 Amino acids are known and life requires just a fraction of these.

wa:do

 

[Copernicus]

...first off if Santa Existed we would be seeing unaccounted for presents under the tree, we would, if we sensored the floor, see a violation of the sensor pades as he walked by, we should see if we sensored hte chimney an anomilly when he traveled through it with pixy dust. we should also see a sledge in the sky, a village at the North Pole, if it is explored in depth I could go n and on and on.

This is false. You forget that Santa is a magical being who can hide his presence from humans as well as gods and pixies can. Furthermore, he has a motivation for doing so, as he does not wish to turn the world's children into robots without free will. Before he goes down the chimney, he resizes himself to fit. If there is no chimney, he creates one temporarily just so he can fulfill his purpose. There are many more details that one can bring to bear on just why the existence of Santa Claus is compatible with reality as we know it, but your heart is probably too hardened against Santa for you to pay attention.

This is the correct way of dipoving something using lack of evidence rather than just the Athiest statement of "there is no evidence".

I agree. You have not proven the non-existence of Santa in the sense that theists would like to see atheists disprove the existence of God. Instead, you have argued that Santa is really an implausible being for a number of very good reasons. That is, we lack sufficient positive evidence to license belief in him, and we have a sufficient amount of negative evidence to dismiss him as an implausible being.

no only am I showing that there is no evidence for santa, I am also showing were we should find evidence for santa and that it isnt there.

Exactly. Ditto for God.

This is what the Athiest position should do when it trys to use the No evidence for God malarcy, state that there is no evidence then try and show where we should find evidence and dont.

:clap Precisely. In those threads where atheists have mounted these arguments, you still dismiss them as having failed to "disprove" God, but they succeed in the method you have outlined here.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

ahhh but that would still not equate for the pressure pads, teh vision of him flying around the village etc. also you would have to show me material of santa being able to modify minds.

and of course i could disprove unicorns in the same way, firstly we would expect to find their corpses after they die, we would expect to find hoofprints, sightings, horns, hair, all manner of things.

remeber lack of evidence cannot be used against such a thing unless we would expect to find such evidence.

Well, the, where is the evidence for a god? Can we see his footprints? can we see the robes he might have discarded? anything? I find it amusing that religious people have no problem using evidence (or lack thereof) when they are convenient.

 

[tarasan]

Yes it could. He could be stealthy! And no, I believe that Santa doesn't want us to objectively prove he's there, he wants us to rely on faith to enjoy the magic of Christmas! And since I believe him to be so amazing and powerful and all knowing, he would do whatever he needed in order to protect the magic of Christmas.

again show me some myth where it states that Santa has these abilities, ohhhh and how sneaky do you believe an obese man can be?

No, the unicorns I believe in always fly, don't leave behind remains and no humans can see or detect them. Oh, and they're omniscient, omnipotent and such. They're beyond your mere human understanding, but they tell me secret things when I cross my arms. You just have to believe in them fully to hear it.

erm that denies all unicorn legend, please show me what literature shows that unicrons have these attributes. also to have such attributes the unicorns would also have to be spaceless timeless and immaterial do you agree?

Yes it can. As Christopher Hitchens states: "What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof".

Using your logic, I can claim the existence of a tiny leprechaun that sits on my shoulder everyday. He's metaphysical and therefore no one can observe or detect him. I believe that he talks to me and tells me to do things. He loves me. He made sure he can never be proved because he wants to test me and make me rely on faith, because he loves that for some reason.

Getting the gist?

erm my logic was that absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence, as in we can deny in the way hitchens claims only when we dont find evidence that one would expect.

for example lephrechans in legend CAN be detected, just as unicorns in legends can be detected. by attributing attributes that arnt found in these mythical creatures you therefore invalidate your experiences because it would be impossible by these creatures nature, to do the things you are saying. Im not saying that it isnt possible your hearing from something else, but it is impossible that you are being contacted by these specific creatures.

 

[tarasan]

Well, the, where is the evidence for a god? Can we see his footprints? can we see the robes he might have discarded? anything? I find it amusing that religious people have no problem using evidence (or lack thereof) when they are convenient.

like I said you can only discount God if we were to expect evidence in a certain area and found none, for example a unicorn by definition is a mythical horse with a single horn on its head, a unicorn isnt omnimax, it isnt materialness or invisible by definition. therefore what people talk about cannot be a unicorn.

 

[tarasan]

Exactly. Ditto for God.


:clap Precisely. In those threads where atheists have mounted these arguments, you still dismiss them as having failed to "disprove" God, but they succeed in the method you have outlined here.

im going to ignore everything about santa and go for this point, and will go ahead and ask you to state the evidence that we would expect to see the biblical God doing, and which he isnt doing.

 

[Storm]

Exactly. Ditto for God.

What evidence for God should we find?

Well, the, where is the evidence for a god? Can we see his footprints? can we see the robes he might have discarded? anything? I find it amusing that religious people have no problem using evidence (or lack thereof) when they are convenient.

Only if one's God concept is an infantile Superman.

Though I'm not a theist, I admit I could be wrong as the matter is unprovable. I think the problem is that proper scientific study requires a superior position, an element of control. We don't have that with God, and probably never will.

 

[tarasan]

What evidence for God should we find?


Only if one's God concept is an infantile Superman.

Though I'm not a theist, I admit I could be wrong as the matter is unprovable. I think the problem is that proper scientific study requires a superior position, an element of control. We don't have that with God, and probably never will.

Good points

 

[darkendless]

of coruse its not deviod of critical reasoning.

If you can disprove God or make a better speculation then be my guest.

I'm not the one speculating. Its not up to me to do the hard work.

Faith is a claim, creationism is a claim without a base.

 

[Raithie]

again show me some myth where it states that Santa has these abilities, ohhhh and how sneaky do you believe an obese man can be?

He's Santa. He does whatever is needed to keep the faith. He's magical.

erm that denies all unicorn legend, please show me what literature shows that unicrons have these attributes. also to have such attributes the unicorns would also have to be spaceless timeless and immaterial do you agree?

This is my version of Unicorns. (You know, since there are so many religions and even over 38,000 denominations in Christianity alone - I get to interpet stuff differently too!)

Sure. They're spaceless, timeless and immaterial too. Just like God. Want to disprove them now?

erm my logic was that absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence, as in we can deny in the way hitchens claims only when we dont find evidence that one would expect.

One wouldn't expect any evidence from my leprechaun God. He made it so that you can never prove his existence.

for example lephrechans in legend CAN be detected, just as unicorns in legends can be detected. by attributing attributes that arnt found in these mythical creatures you therefore invalidate your experiences because it would be impossible by these creatures nature, to do the things you are saying. Im not saying that it isnt possible your hearing from something else, but it is impossible that you are being contacted by these specific creatures.

He's in the form of a leprechaun, so I call him a leprechaun. He is godly. He can't be observed or detected and he wants us to rely on faith.

The point I'm making is that when I apply the supposed attributes of a God to other creatures/fairytales you can't disprove them.

 

[tarasan]

He's Santa. He does whatever is needed to keep the faith. He's magical.

still santa is an entity that has been recorded doing certian deeds, if your claiming he is doing others you need some evidence.

This is my version of Unicorns. (You know, since there are so many religions and even over 38,000 denominations in Christianity alone - I get to interpet stuff differently too!)
Sure. They're spaceless, timeless and immaterial too. Just like God. Want to disprove them now?

indeed there are all those denominations, however they would agree on the character of God, and hwo we describe e.g. omnimax immaterial etc, so in short the basic facts of what God is, everything they differ on is secondary, you however are completely going against what a unicron is, unicrons by definition are made up of physical matter, when you make these kinds of cliams you misrepresent what a unicorn is as well as how christianity works as a whole, by ignoring how we work things out about our faith you only show your won ignorance.

One wouldn't expect any evidence from my leprechaun God. He made it so that you can never prove his existence.

He's in the form of a leprechaun, so I call him a leprechaun. He is godly. He can't be observed or detected and he wants us to rely on faith.

The point I'm making is that when I apply the supposed attributes of a God to other creatures/fairytales you can't disprove them.

if he is in fact a lephrechaun then yes you would, lephrecans have legends and information about them, what you say goes against what a lephrecaun is then it isnt a lephrecaun, Im sorry that just how logic works if you push something outside the boundaries of what it is then you might as well concede that you are wrong.

your second statement is ridiulus, if i dress up in a donkey suit does that make me a donkey? of course not, just because he looks like something doesnt mean that he is, for example in eziekel god is described as having feet of bronze and a face like molten metal, that doesnt mean that he in fact has a fact of molten metal and feet of bronze!

the point your making is flaud, if you manipulate the legends and change the creatures to suit yourself, then they stop becomming those creatures, just like if you manipulate my God enough it stops becoming the christian God and in fact becomes something else. therefore they are disproved.

 

[Raithie]

still santa is an entity that has been recorded doing certian deeds, if your claiming he is doing others you need some evidence.

He's said to do all those things and retain the mystery through his own magic. He does whatever is needed to keep the blind faith.

indeed there are all those denominations, however they would agree on the character of God, and hwo we describe e.g. omnimax immaterial etc, so in short the basic facts of what God is, everything they differ on is secondary, you however are completely going against what a unicron is, unicrons by definition are made up of physical matter, when you make these kinds of cliams you misrepresent what a unicorn is as well as how christianity works as a whole, by ignoring how we work things out about our faith you only show your won ignorance.

I agree that my unicorn has a point on his head and has white fur, just like how God supposedly looks like man since he created man in his own image.

Also, the "basic facts" change drastically over some denominations and religions. Look at hinduism or any of the other past religions and thousands of man made gods.

if he is in fact a lephrechaun then yes you would, lephrecans have legends and information about them, what you say goes against what a lephrecaun is then it isnt a lephrecaun, Im sorry that just how logic works if you push something outside the boundaries of what it is then you might as well concede that you are wrong.

I said he is in the form of a leprechaun. Just like God is supposedly in the form of humans (God made humans in his image).

your second statement is ridiulus, if i dress up in a donkey suit does that make me a donkey? of course not, just because he looks like something doesnt mean that he is, for example in eziekel god is described as having feet of bronze and a face like molten metal, that doesnt mean that he in fact has a fact of molten metal and feet of bronze!

It's not. I said he was in the form of a leprechaun. Maybe he likes them. But who are you to question his wisom?!

Everything I said about the leprechaun is what you say about God, bar a few minor, trivial details.
Also - you answered my point yourself. See the underlined part.

the point your making is flaud, if you manipulate the legends and change the creatures to suit yourself, then they stop becomming those creatures, just like if you manipulate my God enough it stops becoming the christian God and in fact becomes something else. therefore they are disproved.

Nope. I have my own personal understandings, involving flying, timeless unicorns and spaceless leprechauns.

Once again, the point I am making is that if I apply Gods conveniently applied characteristics of unobservable, undetectable etc., and if I apply them to my own imaginary tales - you can't disprove them. Just like I can't disprove God. Both my concoctions and yours are defined as unproveable.

 

[Willamena]

Once again, the point I am making is that if I apply Gods conveniently applied characteristics of unobservable, undetectable etc., and if I apply them to my own imaginary tales - you can't disprove them. Just like I can't disprove God. Both my concoctions and yours are defined as unproveable.

Characteristic? Or consequence?

 

[Raithie]

Characteristic? Or consequence?

Explain?

 

[Willamena]

Explain?

Characteristics are essential. If I look at a tall horse, and a completely different small horse, the thing that is recognizably "horse" about both species is what is essential (in order for it to be a "horse"). Characteristics are observed.

Unobservability makes no sense as a characteristic. What it says is that "God" is recognizably "God" because we cannot observe "God" --and despite that this flies in the face of everyone who has claimed to have observed "God".

If, on the other hand, the fact that we cannot observe "God" is a consequence of his being, then it can make sense. If something cannot be observed, then it has unobservability as a consequence, but not a characteristic.

 

[tarasan]

He's said to do all those things and retain the mystery through his own magic. He does whatever is needed to keep the blind faith.

excellent so what your saying is that your mean to believe it even though it contradicts what he is?

I agree that my unicorn has a point on his head and has white fur, just like how God supposedly looks like man since he created man in his own image.

ok this is complete biblical ignorance, that verse from the very beginning has been shown to be the fact that both him and us both have a spirit and that we show his likeness in that way, but you tried your best.

Also, the "basic facts" change drastically over some denominations and religions. Look at hinduism or any of the other past religions and thousands of man made gods.

we arnt talking about that we are talking about Christianity, and no tehy dont some denominations spearated over hats for goodness sakes! the reason we have a tendance to seperate is mixed in the protestant histroy, but if you look into it, we seperated over triffle things, please look into my religion more before you make such a misinformed statement.

I said he is in the form of a leprechaun. Just like God is supposedly in the form of humans (God made humans in his image).

again this statement can only be from your ignorance of christianity. like ive said above we have never taken that statement to mean physical similarities.

It's not. I said he was in the form of a leprechaun. Maybe he likes them. But who are you to question his wisom?!

Everything I said about the leprechaun is what you say about God, bar a few minor, trivial details.
Also - you answered my point yourself. See the underlined part.

ecellent so you have understood that there isnt a lephrecaun on your shoulder, excellent so your statement is refuted.

Nope. I have my own personal understandings, involving flying, timeless unicorns and spaceless leprechauns.

Once again, the point I am making is that if I apply Gods conveniently applied characteristics of unobservable, undetectable etc., and if I apply them to my own imaginary tales - you can't disprove them. Just like I can't disprove God. Both my concoctions and yours are defined as unproveable.

ahhh look at that precious underlining adorable!

sorry I should be nice but as ive said your initial statement of the leprechan has been proven false.

this was your claim

"I can claim the existence of a tiny leprechaun that sits on my shoulder everyday"

you then retreated from your point saying that he was merely in the FORm of your statement therefore disproving your initial statement.

so in other words you can disporve such entities, ultimately the God concept especailly when it comes to religion can be pushed back until ultimately it is not the God of the bible, koran etc, just like your "leprechan".

such arguements are only used on the popular level because quite frankly they are immature and silly, we dont deny the possiblity of their being gold on pluto because of lack of evidence but because some athiests want to be lazy they make such silly statements.