Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[gnostic]

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

I am agnostic too.

Being agnostic don't mean much, because I am not limited by just being agnostic.

I am also engineer (as a civil engineer and computer scientist and programmer), so I have some background in practical science (physics and chemistry) and practical maths, so evidences, testings and verifications are vital in my line of works.

I would apply my methodology of testing and finding evidences with my form of agnosticism.

If there are no verifiable evidences (absence of evidences) for the existence of god or gods (as well as spirits and jinns, angels and demons, afterlife and reincarnation, heaven and hell, etc), then I am within my right to being "skeptical" of their existence, and view such belief as false or wishful fantasies.

BUT, if some verifiable evidences presented themselves, then, and only then, will I be less skeptical, and that might eventually lead me to believing.

Only having certainty and knowing (like having evidences) can lead me to believing.

I am what you would call "empirical agnostic", which is another name for weak agnostic, because they tied "knowing" with availability of "evidence", therefore lack of evidences is the same as "not knowing" (or unknown, unknowing or unknowable).

Agnosticism is all about "knowing", not about "believing".

I am just explaining my personal position, above.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Atheists are not the only ones criticise your reasoning and your belief in young earth creationism, or that of Thief and Zosimus, here.

Have you not notice that leibowde84, parsimony and Kelly of the Phoenix are Christians and theists, but they each accept evolution as valid biological explanation and scientific facts of biodiversity and biological change, and reject young earth creationism???

With Kelly, parsimony and leibowde84 accepting evolution, then you claiming and equating evolution with atheists are false and red herring

 

[Thief]

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".

back to science.....again.....

substance cannot move without something to move it

at the point of singularity.......Spirit first

 

[gnostic]

back to science.....again.....

substance cannot move without something to move it

at the point of singularity.......Spirit first

Singularity has nothing to do with spirit.

And you are wrong, about nothing being able to move without something to move it.

The brain control not only the muscles to move neck, limbs and digits, they are also what keep the heart beating, and the lungs to breath in and out, for eyes to see, ears to hear, etc - all without the needs of this nonexistent spirit.

What is spirit anyway?

Have you seen a spirit before?

If you haven't seen one, then how do you know they are real?

There are lot of things that human eyes can't see, but we know that they are really there, because they can be detected and even used.

For instance, radio station will broadcast audio (eg news, interviews and music), turn the audio into radio signal (FM, AM, etc) and transmit the signal. Anyone with a radio, can received the transmitted signal, and turning back to audio, which listening could hear the news or music.

The broadcasted radio signal cannot be seen, but the fact that you are listening to music being played by radio station, miles away from your home, showed that the radio signal is real.

Can you show spirit to be real and detectable?

 

[Sapiens]

"Spirit" is just another form of the usual argument from ignorance.

 

[james bond]

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


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.

Honestly, I do not see where you get dishonesty on my part. Just because I do not agree with people who are usually wrong does not make it dishonest. That's not to say we do not make mistakes.

I've said it before, if you see ignorance, then state the items you find and use the proper terminology and phrasing. So far, from you it's just complaints and criticisms with very little explanation.

Again, I have learned about ToE and provided the website that I use. I also learned about creation science and some of the Bible. That gives me a differential advantage, but the atheists look down their noses. That's a mistake. Some of them want to limit it to biology which is fine, but provide the evidence for the theories and philosophies instead of false claims of strawmen, red herrings, quote mining, parroting and so on.

 

[McBell]

Honestly, I do not see where you get dishonesty on my part. Just because I do not agree with people who are usually wrong does not make it dishonest. That's not to say we do not make mistakes.

I've said it before, if you see ignorance, then state the items you find and use the proper terminology and phrasing. So far, from you it's just complaints and criticisms with very little explanation.

Again, I have learned about ToE and provided the website that I use. I also learned about creation science and some of the Bible. That gives me a differential advantage, but the atheists look down their noses. That's a mistake. Some of them want to limit it to biology which is fine, but provide the evidence for the theories and philosophies instead of false claims of strawmen, red herrings, quote mining, parroting and so on.

your parrot act is all used up.
Might want to try a different approach.

 

[james bond]

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.

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

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

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

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

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

#2211

My bad. The statement should have read. Chimps "can't" do that. I didn't take it of context and change it. I'm saying Lucy is not what the atheist scientists claim it to be and could be borderline fraud. Australopithecus did not have the necessary hip joint for bipedalism. On Nova, Dr. Own Lovejoy reported that the anatomy of Lucy's hipbone was more like primate than human anatomy. He presumed that this was because the pelvic bone was damaged and reshaped a cast of the bone to give it a more human shape. That's either dishonest or literally shaping the evidence to fit evo and then using circular reasoning by saying the skeleton shows evolution. If you look at the museum figures of Lucy, it looks like it is walking upright, but was more like that of a chimpanzee. The knee was found by itself, so we cannot be sure what it belonged to.

As for Neanderthals, just because AIG or creation scientists use the term does not mean that we coined it. It was given by the evos in 1856. For AIG: "Homo neanderthalensis was the scientific name given to an unusual ancient fossil (later to be called Neanderthal Man) found in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, in 1856." They also state that "It was later realized that fossils of H. neanderthalensis had been discovered earlier in Engis, Belgium, in 1830, and in Forbes’ Quarry, Gibraltar, in 1848. (For an extensive history of Neanderthal finds, see, for example, Trinkaus and Shipman 1993)." My point is these Neaderthals was used as examples of "apemen" by the evos which is not correct.

I've run out of time, so will look up #2211 and comment in my next post. Thanks.

 

[Zosimus]

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.

Yes, Mr. I-can't-follow-the-argument. The point is that solipsism has the same predictive power as does science with fewer starting assumptions. Thus, parsimony suggests that solipsism is a better theory. So if you believe in parsimony (I don't), then explain why you don't believe in solipsism. And don't say "science holds to an axiom in which solipsism is false." That is completely irrelevant.

 

[Zosimus]

I am agnostic too.

Being agnostic don't mean much, because I am not limited by just being agnostic.

I am also engineer (as a civil engineer and computer scientist and programmer), so I have some background in practical science (physics and chemistry) and practical maths, so evidences, testings and verifications are vital in my line of works.

If you're so big on evidence, why don't you gather evidence on whether the right word is evidence or evidences? While you're at it, why don't you explain how verification can be carried out without committing a logical fallacy?

I would apply my methodology of testing and finding evidences with my form of agnosticism.

If there are no verifiable evidences (absence of evidences) for the existence of god or gods (as well as spirits and jinns, angels and demons, afterlife and reincarnation, heaven and hell, etc), then I am within my right to being "skeptical" of their existence, and view such belief as false or wishful fantasies.

Well, since there is no evidence to suggest that logical fallacies lead to knowledge, I am within my rights to be skeptical of all scientific "knowledge."

BUT, if some verifiable evidences presented themselves, then, and only then, will I be less skeptical, and that might eventually lead me to believing.

Only having certainty and knowing (like having evidences) can lead me to believing.

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to support the claim that "Evidence is required to believe something."

I am what you would call "empirical agnostic", which is another name for weak agnostic, because they tied "knowing" with availability of "evidence", therefore lack of evidences is the same as "not knowing" (or unknown, unknowing or unknowable).

Agnosticism is all about "knowing", not about "believing".

I am just explaining my personal position, above.

Well, I am just explaining that your personal position is self-refuting.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm still waiting for you to provide evidence to support the claim that "Evidence is required to believe something."

Why would anyone believe something without evidence? I think what qualifies as evidence might vary from person to person, but without evidence of some kind, belief seems foolish, right?

 

[Zosimus]

Why would anyone believe something without evidence? I think what qualifies as evidence might vary from person to person, but without evidence of some kind, belief seems foolish, right?

Not at all! I think that no one should believe in anything without some kind of reason for the belief. What you seem to be saying is that "The only valid reason to believe something is evidence." Of course, you exempt your own claim from that rule because there's no evidence for the claim! Anyone who sticks up for the claim falls back not on evidence but on the idea that "without evidence of some kind, belief seems foolish." Well, I almost agree with you. Certainly it is foolish to believe in something without a reason for doing so. I just think that logic and common sense are just as good (if not better) reasons than evidence is.

So if you really think that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence, you shouldn't believe that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence.

See what I mean?

 

[leibowde84]

Not at all! I think that no one should believe in anything without some kind of reason for the belief. What you seem to be saying is that "The only valid reason to believe something is evidence." Of course, you exempt your own claim from that rule because there's no evidence for the claim! Anyone who sticks up for the claim falls back not on evidence but on the idea that "without evidence of some kind, belief seems foolish." Well, I almost agree with you. Certainly it is foolish to believe in something without a reason for doing so. I just think that logic and common sense are just as good (if not better) reasons than evidence is.

So if you really think that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence, you shouldn't believe that you shouldn't believe in something without evidence.

See what I mean?

I think logical reasoning would qualify as evidence. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

I think logical reasoning would qualify as evidence. It doesn't have to be empirical evidence.

Great–we agree, but I have bad news for you. When most people in the forum say "evidence" they don't mean "I thought about it for awhile, and this is what I came up with." What they mean is sense data that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

 

[leibowde84]

Great–we agree, but I have bad news for you. When most people in the forum say "evidence" they don't mean "I thought about it for awhile, and this is what I came up with." What they mean is sense data that can be reproduced in a laboratory.

Well, there are certainly different kinds of evidence, so it should be on them to clarify, right?

 

[Thief]

one of the basic laws of motion.....
nothing moves without something to move it

so....I reiterate....
at the point of singularity......
Spirit first

 

[leibowde84]

one of the basic laws of motion.....
nothing moves without something to move it

so....I reiterate....
at the point of singularity......
Spirit first

So, how do you know that the "something" that "moved" the BB wasn't a natural event or cause rather than God?

 

[Thief]

So, how do you know that the "something" that "moved" the BB wasn't a natural event or cause rather than God?

God created all that is natural
Spirit first

 

[leibowde84]

God created all that is natural
Spirit first

You are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning (assuming that God created all that is natural), which is merely circular reasoning/logic. Can you support the conclusion that God created all that is natural without resorting to circular logic?

 

[Thief]

You are assuming your conclusion in your reasoning (assuming that God created all that is natural), which is merely circular reasoning/logic. Can you support the conclusion that God created all that is natural without resorting to circular logic?

linear.......Spirit first