Irony of the evolutionary belief

[Subduction Zone]

You are not telling the truth about what I believe. So therefore since you do not know what I believe about the account in Genesis, you really cannot say how I believe it. But thanks anyway, have a good evening. Also, since I see you could not/will not relinquish the false idea you embrace about lava not carrying sediment, unfortunately nothing you say to impugn my belief in God and the Bible now holds any credence with me. But thanks anyway.

You have demonstrated that you believe the Adam and Eve myth. That alone is enough.

 

[Subduction Zone]

kind of sad. not about evolution and your belief in it, but that you will not/cannot believe there is a God who cares. Anyway, I hope you get better, thanks. bye for now. As some may tell you, faith is a gift from God. So you have a good evening.

Faith is never a pathway to the truth.

 

[John53]

kind of sad. not about evolution and your belief in it, but that you will not/cannot believe there is a God who cares. Anyway, I hope you get better, thanks. bye for now. As some may tell you, faith is a gift from God. So you have a good evening.

So your God picks and chooses who knows about them?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And the natural laws that we know about can´t create big bangs ……….

No, we don't know that. Science as a process is the quest to find out what nature can and can not do.
We don't know in advance what it can and can not do or how. If we did, we would have little use for science.

We are both postulating something that we don t know about

No. We know that the "designers" we know about are limited to this universe. We also know that these "designers" are in fact a product of this universe.
So these designers can be ruled out as designers of the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the natural mechanisms that you need for creating big bangs are not known to exists

Which is why research is done to find out what happened.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Neither nether known designers nor known natural laws are candidates for the big bang.

The possible causes for the big bang are

1 an unknown type of designer

2 an unknown type of natrual law

3 or something else (still unknown)

Of we are all even in this particular point

No, those options are not "even".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well just change “what people say or report” instead of testimony in all of my comments…….. where is the dishonesty ?

The dishonesty is in the baggage of the word "testimony".
And scientific papers are also not merely "what people say". They are verifiable descriptions of evidence and proposed testable explanations of said evidence.

is there any commentsthat looks better (more credible) because I used the word testimony instead of “what other peole say or report”?

It's clear to everybody here what you are attempting to do.
You're trying to drag down scientific research to the level of "I saw the loch ness monster yesterday" in a rather pathetic attempt to make any wild a$$ claim look somehow "valid" or worthy of consideration.

It's quite humurous.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well you are alone on this one…………..

Clearly I am not.

everyone in this forum would grant that the claim of a local man is evidence for the location of the restaurant.

I guarantee you that that isn't the case.

In other words a local man telling you that restaurant A is closer than restaurant B would be evidence , that A is closer.

Nope.
It's a claim. Claims require evidence.

"Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis. Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable."

I am curious, in your opinion, what part of your definition is not meat with the claim of the local man?

The claim itself is the hypothesis


I'm skipping the rest because it's just a trippling down of the same error.

You continue to confuse the claim with evidence.
Claims aren't evidence.
Claims require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

typical of some evasive answers. Go back to Stephen Hawking and agree with him, why don't you? Yes/no, maybe--

I don't know about you, but right out the gates, I'ld be more inclined with following Hawking on matters of big bang cosmology then I would an unqualified internet troll who insists on calling scientific papers "testimony".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure I want to be drug into these discussions anymore. It seems like such a waste of energy to try and convince people for whom no amount of reason and evidence is ever going to be considered against personal belief, apparent indoctrination and apparent self-appointed expertise in logic, science and the mind of the biblical God.

With that editorial out of the way, I suppose I can give you my opinion based on the reasoning I would use.

1. The man is in the city in question. One would expect that a person that is apparently working and likely a resident of the city a person is in would have a greater chance of knowing local dining choices.

2. The man is local. The expectation would be that a local person would know local restaurants better than one that is not local to the area. Just as I know what is local to my area having frequented those places.

3. The man works in the hotel and restaurant business and the expectation is that choosing someone in that profession would increase the odds that they would know restaurants in the city.

4. Experience teaches most of us that spend any time in hotels that employees there frequently are questioned about local dining choices and have taken the time to know the local restaurants to be able to inform their guests.

It is a claim. It can be tested by seeking and finding the restaurant. It is supported with those pieces of evidence I have listed. But, by itself, it is a claim. If you just asked a random person the same question, much of that supporting evidence would not be attributable to the claim. You can still test it. You may get lucky. But the former, better supported claim should offer the best odds of succeeding.

All correct. Much the same as what I said.

The problem is that @leroy insists that the claim itself is evidence of itself.
He can't seem to understand that claims are just claims.

If one finds the claim trustworthy, the reasoning to justify that is going to be about other things then the mere claim.
If there is evidence for this claim, it is NOT going to be the claim itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

kind of sad. not about evolution and your belief in it, but that you will not/cannot believe there is a God who cares. Anyway, I hope you get better, thanks. bye for now. As some may tell you, faith is a gift from God. So you have a good evening.

Why when you are wrong is breaking the Ninth Commandment your first move? If there was a "God who cares" I could easily believe. It is a pity that you cannot read and understand your own religious book. All that you can do is to echo the silly platitudes that you grew up with. You do not understand faith. You do not understand right from wrong. And you clearly do not understand the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your God picks and chooses who knows about them?

Extreme Christians can never realize how they just claimed that their own God is evil.

 

[F1fan]

Why when you are wrong is breaking the Ninth Commandment your first move? If there was a "God who cares" I could easily believe. It is a pity that you cannot read and understand your own religious book. All that you can do is to echo the silly platitudes that you grew up with. You do not understand faith. You do not understand right from wrong. And you clearly do not understand the Bible.

If children and mothers of children (at the very least) suddenly no longer got cancer I would be impressed and consider it a supernatural intervention. Of course the question would be, why did the creator cause cancers in the first place, and why didn't it know better?

Even leroy wanted to avoid the cancer issue because it is cancerous to his idea of God itself. What gets me is how any believer can assert their God exists and is caring while children and good people suffer and die of diseases. The two do not work together as realities, and diseases we know are real. What room if left for a "loving God"? None.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If children and mothers of children (at the very least) suddenly no longer got cancer I would be impressed and consider it a supernatural intervention. Of course the question would be, why did the creator cause cancers in the first place, and why didn't it know better?

Even leroy wanted to avoid the cancer issue because it is cancerous to his idea of God itself. What gets me is how any believer can assert their God exists and is caring while children and good people suffer and die of diseases. The two do not work together as realities, and diseases we know are real. What room if left for a "loving God"? None.

I know, so many contradictions. They appear to get their "understanding" of the Bible from their various sects and that comes from some ancient founder or founders. It is only very loosely based upon what the Bible says and is extremely cherry picked.

 

[The Hammer]

lol, thanks. Leprechauns are in the same category, you think? Thanks for response.

Why did you avoid my question? I answered yours truly, and honestly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ill try this question

Consider these 2 claims

1 the big bang was caused by God

2 the big bag was casued y an unknown natural mechanism

If I understand your view, there is no evidence for none, so why do you pick option 2 over option 1 ? Shouldn't you be 50% 50%

No.

It would be:
1. The Big Bang was caused by God / The Big Bang was NOT caused by God
2. The Big Bang was caused by a natural mechanism / The Big Bang was NOT caused by a natural mechanism

Well I think there is evidence for angels so ill say that the odds are more than 50%

That's not how probabilities work. You've just pulled the number out of thin air.

As for green feathers , well there are millions upon millions of different atributes that angels could have

Here, you're confusing possibility with probability. They are not the same.

. The probability that they have exactly green feathers are low because of th many other possible things.....

No. The probability that angels have green feathers is completely unknown. We don't even know if angels exist in the first place.

That is like asking for the odds that you live in an organge house numbered 56 house with 10 windows, 4 tvs 15 stairs and 6 doors.... sure it is possble but many other things are equally possible , the odds are 1 in millions

Pretty much anything is possible.

Whether something is probable is a whole different thing. You need numbers to fill in the formulas with. If you don't have any numbers, you can't calculate the probability.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why did you avoid my question? I answered yours truly, and honestly.

you may have answered honestly and there are just some questions you can and probably should ask others. Bye for now...

 

[The Hammer]

you may have answered honestly and there are just some questions you can and probably should ask others. Bye for now...

Nope I asked you for a reason.
I wanted your expert facts.

So if you want to just ignore me that's fine. But that says more about your position then it does my question.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is pretty clear that you are only pretending to ignore. You may not have a response. That would at least be honest.

I explained who Michael Behe is to you. I explained why he failed to you.

Creationists could try to use the scientific method to support their claims but none of them ever do. You should wonder why they are afraid to do so.

Trolling. It's called trolling. That's what's going on here.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The one who invented the Piltdown man is very famous too.

Is he? I don't know his name.
Do you?