Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[Zosimus]

But, reason would dictate that certainty requires evidence of some kind.

If someone is certain of something, then he should hold to it regardless any evidence presented to the contrary. Since he is certain, he should know that any counter evidence is either false or misleading.
Yet, if someone holds to a theory regardless any evidence presented against the theory, then he is irrational.

Thus, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

 

[Sapiens]

no.... logic resides.....in your head
and who's a moron?

If you wish to assume the appellation, I'll not argue it undeserved, but such was not my intent.

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

 

[Sapiens]

When someone says, "God is extremely unlikely," I want to see the exact calculation used to arrive at the "extremely unlikely" probability. Otherwise, it's just someone saying what he or she feels.

I believe "someone" said:

"Not evidence OF a god, but also not evidence that there IS NO god. The likelihood of there not being a god gets raised due to parsimony and infinite regression."

not:

the '"extremely unlikely" probability' of ...

Thus is was a relative measure, not the absolute measure you suggest.

If someone is certain of something, then he should hold to it regardless any evidence presented to the contrary. Since he is certain, he should know that any counter evidence is either false or misleading.
Yet, if someone holds to a theory regardless any evidence presented against the theory, then he is irrational.

Thus, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

Being certain of something, regardless any evidence presented to the contrary is akin to the misattributed to Einstein definition of insanity, that is to say, "doing something over and over again and expecting a different result", a quote oft also attributed to Ben Franklin and Mark Twain.

 

[leibowde84]

When someone says, "God is extremely unlikely," I want to see the exact calculation used to arrive at the "extremely unlikely" probability. Otherwise, it's just someone saying what he or she feels.

He provided the basis for that unlikeliness by stating it is raised by parsimony and infinite regression. Did you look into those concepts?

 

[leibowde84]

If someone is certain of something, then he should hold to it regardless any evidence presented to the contrary. Since he is certain, he should know that any counter evidence is either false or misleading.
Yet, if someone holds to a theory regardless any evidence presented against the theory, then he is irrational.

Thus, it is irrational to be certain of anything.

It is irrational to be certain of something when faced with evidence that contradicts it. If one claims certainty even in the face of evidence that contradicts it, that person is merely being stubborn and irrational.

 

[Zosimus]

I believe "someone" said:

"Not evidence OF a god, but also not evidence that there IS NO god. The likelihood of there not being a god gets raised due to parsimony and infinite regression."

not:

the '"extremely unlikely" probability' of ...

Thus is was a relative measure, not the absolute measure you suggest.
Being certain of something, regardless any evidence presented to the contrary is akin to the misattributed to Einstein definition of insanity, that is to say, "doing something over and over again and expecting a different result", a quote oft also attributed to Ben Franklin and Mark Twain.

So, basically you have no math of any kind to back up what you said.

 

[Sapiens]

So, basically you have no math of any kind to back up what you said.

No math is required.

So basically you have no sense of any kind to back up what you said, perhaps no sense is required?

 

[Zosimus]

He provided the basis for that unlikeliness by stating it is raised by parsimony and infinite regression. Did you look into those concepts?

I burst out laughing at your post.

Fewer assumptions = better theory. Is that it? All right. Let's take the theory of solipsism. This theory postulates that everything is in your mind.

Since solipsism has fewer assumptions than does science, if you believe in parsimony, you should accept solipsism and reject science.

However, I imagine that you don't. Why exactly is that?

 

[Sapiens]

I burst out laughing at your post.

Fewer assumptions = better theory. Is that it? All right. Let's take the theory of solipsism. This theory postulates that everything is in your mind.

Since solipsism has fewer assumptions than does science, if you believe in parsimony, you should accept solipsism and reject science.

However, I imagine that you don't. Why exactly is that?

Solipsism has other issues, so it is not a competing hypothesis, parsimony (the competing hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected) or no parsimony you have to make it into the starting gate. Besides, : Link

 

[Zosimus]

Solipsism has other issues, so it is not a competing hypothesis, parsimony (the competing hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected) or no parsimony you have to make it into the starting gate. Besides, : Link

So, basically, you accept parsimony when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't.

After all, solipsism explains everything and requires only one assumption whereas science can't explain everything and requires more than one assumption. If you really believed in parsimony, you should embrace solipsism. I mean, solipsism could even explain if the universe flipped itself inside out because, after all, it's all in your head.

What more could you ask for? Incredible explanatory power and only one postulate. Well, that's Occam's Razor for you, and a strong argument for why you should be skeptical of the Razor.

 

[Sapiens]

So, basically, you accept parsimony when it suits you and discard it when it doesn't.

After all, solipsism explains everything and requires only one assumption whereas science can't explain everything and requires more than one assumption. If you really believed in parsimony, you should embrace solipsism. I mean, solipsism could even explain if the universe flipped itself inside out because, after all, it's all in your head.

What more could you ask for? Incredible explanatory power and only one postulate. Well, that's Occam's Razor for you, and a strong argument for why you should be skeptical of the Razor.

When sophists move toward trolls they should be ignored.

 

[james bond]

Evolutionists aren't the ones claiming that Lucy was a chimpanzee, so no, they aren't the ones doing the quote mining.

Existing evidence (analysis of the feet, knees and hips) suggests that the australopithecines did walk upright. Lucy wasn't the only Australopithecus fossil found. Many other have been as well.

Meaning what?

Piltdown Man was a hoax and Nebraska Man was a complete misinterpretation. The australopithecines were quite real and are represented by multiple fossils. Not at all comparable.

So you do agree that they existed? Good. I know they lived in Europe but haven't researched their distribution.

Now how about my other post? You going to respond to that?

Evos claimed Lucy could walk upright. Chimps can do that. That's quote mining.

Lucy wasn't a complete skeleton by any means. It didn't have knees.

Meaning the knee joint was found 1.5 miles away from the rest of the skeleton and in a different layer. That means deceit on the part of the evos.

No evidence for it.

Neanderthals aren't called that by creation scientists. That's a label by evos. They're probably the ancient peoples with great bone density, health, strength, etc. Your wax figures of "Neanderthals" are incorrect. I'll post pics when I can.

I have to look for your other post. What number is it?

 

[james bond]

There is no sense in rebutting the strawmen and red herrings you present from ignorance and or dishonesty.
Perhaps one day you will START talking about the ToE.
But until that day, you are not going to be taken seriously outside the choir.

You have successfully ignored everything presented to you thus far, what reason does anyone have to believe you are honestly interested in truth?

That's circular reasoning. Just b/c you call it strawmen or red herrings does not make it so. What's been presented to me have been strawmen, red herrings, quote mining and philosophy of atheists. That sums it up pretty nicely.

Here's a good rule of thumb for people like you. If something is a fact, then we all can use it. For example, natural selection is probably a scientific law so we all can use it. God of the Gaps was coined by Christian scientists and adopted by atheist scientists for their own purpose. Yet, ti can be used by all. Catastrophism is being used by people more and more. We are discovering that flooding can be the most destructive and killing of all natural disasters. Evos claim evolution is a fact, but many cannot use it.

 

[Zosimus]

When sophists move toward trolls they should be ignored.

You're focusing on the wrong part of this argument. I think it's because you know you're busted.

 

[Thief]

If you wish to assume the appellation, I'll not argue it undeserved, but such was not my intent.

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

and faith needs no proving....

and we are participating in what kind of forum?

think

 

[Zosimus]

This is stupid. This same challenge can be directed at yourself, Zosimus.

Can you provide calculation that "God is extremely likely"?

Can you find a single equation in your scriptures?

If you can't provide equations, mathematical solutions or the "likely" probabilities of God being real and existing, then what you have is just your personal opinion.

But personally, I don't give a rat's ***, with equation or calculation. I am far more interested in evidences, not maths.

Evidences that are verifiable and testable. Evidences that are tangible.

Without evidences, then your faith and belief are no better than wishful fantasy.

Nothing of the sort exist for your belief in your silly primitive superstitions of God, Creator, spirits, angels and demons. There are no evidences to support the afterlife, and of heaven and hell. All of these are mythological, from books based on superstitions and false belief.

I'm agnostic. You don't have to prove anything to be agnostic.

However, if you'd like an exact calculation, I'll give it to you.

First, someone suggests that God exists. I reason that there are two possibilities.

God exists.
God does not exist.

Since I'm an unbiased kind of guy, I consider that there's a 50% chance that God exists and a 50% chance that he doesn't exist. This is called the Principle of Maximum Entropy.

So then I start thinking, what possible test could be applied to determine whether God is more likely to exist or less likely to exist? None. I cannot think of a test, nor has anyone else presented a test to me that could be performed that would make it more likely or less likely that God existed.

So I stay at 50%

 

[McBell]

That's circular reasoning. Just b/c you call it strawmen or red herrings does not make it so. What's been presented to me have been strawmen, red herrings, quote mining and philosophy of atheists. That sums it up pretty nicely.

So much for your alleged higher ground...
No surprise given the amount of dishonesty you display is you posts.

Here's a good rule of thumb for people like you. If something is a fact, then we all can use it. For example, natural selection is probably a scientific law so we all can use it. God of the Gaps was coined by Christian scientists and adopted by atheist scientists for their own purpose. Yet, ti can be used by all. Catastrophism is being used by people more and more. We are discovering that flooding can be the most destructive and killing of all natural disasters. Evos claim evolution is a fact, but many cannot use it.

You reveal a fundamental ignorance of the terms and phrases you use.

Rather difficult to take you seriously when it is so obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

My advice, learn and understand about the ToE instead of parroting others.

 

[Parsimony]

Evos claimed Lucy could walk upright. Chimps can do that. That's quote mining.

You clearly do not know what quote mining is. Quote mining is taking a statement out of context so that it looks like it's saying something that it is not. Chimpanzees do not have bipedalism as their main means of locomotion, whereas Australopithecus had the adaptations necessary for just that.

Lucy wasn't a complete skeleton by any means. It didn't have knees.

I never claimed that it was or that it did have knees.

Meaning the knee joint was found 1.5 miles away from the rest of the skeleton and in a different layer. That means deceit on the part of the evos.

That knee belonged to a different individual. I know of no evolutionary biologist claiming that it belonged to Lucy.

No evidence for it.

As I said, the knee didn't belong to Lucy but rather to a different Australopithecus.

Neanderthals aren't called that by creation scientists. That's a label by evos.

Answers in Genesis calls them Neanderthals, and that's about as creationist as you can get.

They're probably the ancient peoples with great bone density, health, strength, etc. Your wax figures of "Neanderthals" are incorrect. I'll post pics when I can.

They were an ancient people, a people genetically distinct from Homo sapiens sapiens. We know this because they have their DNA sequenced.

I have to look for your other post. What number is it?

#2211

 

[leibowde84]

and again.....for how many repeats.......?

there will not be a repeatable experiment

and if you cannot be sure of your method of thought.....you are not sure of anything

evidence is all fine and good.....
but when it comes to God
all you can do is think

and if you need someone to show you God.................................

My point is that faith in God is not certainty that God exists. There is nothing wrong with taking something on faith, but it cannot be described as "certainty".

 

[Shad]

I burst out laughing at your post.

Fewer assumptions = better theory. Is that it? All right. Let's take the theory of solipsism. This theory postulates that everything is in your mind.

Since solipsism has fewer assumptions than does science, if you believe in parsimony, you should accept solipsism and reject science.

However, I imagine that you don't. Why exactly is that?

Solipsism isn't theory it is a philosophical idea. It can never be a scientific theory as science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false.