Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[viole]

I have already linked you to the proof that the gravitational propogation rate cannot be the speed of light as claimed. You have made no rebuttal of any kind.

Whatever you say. Ping me when you, or whomever claims that, collect your Nobel prize for killing relativity. i am Swede, so I can show you the best parts of Sweden while you are here.

You are venturing out of the realm of science and into the realm of decision theory. Suffice it to say that it is not necessary to know that the buggers feed on glucose for the decision to starve them of glucose to become a rational gamble. I subscribe to Leonard Savage's theory of subjective expected utility.

You are hoping to hear me say that I would go running to a doctor for aid from western science. I am sorry to disappoint you.

You are not disappointing me at all. Just be careful not to win the Darwin Award, with your mindset, that would be cruelly hironic.

So, maybe those buggers, whatever they are, do not feed in glucose. Maybe they feed on whatever you eat instead of carbohydrates, how do you know?

Yes, the multiple choices are an imporant part of the test because one of the biggest factors in success is using all information available, and the choices are part of the information available!

Multiple choices for such easy questions are for sissies. You have all the information you need to give a precise answer. At least to the questions you asked. Once I won a contest about baseball against Americans with multiple choices trivia. And I have no clue of baseball.

People who mechanically sit down and grind out the answers are not good candidates for business school. These people would be better off as accountants or statisticians than leading companies. Good candidates for business school should immediately get the following question right:

x^2 = 784 -- What is x?

A) 28
B) 32
C) 38
D) 42
E) 58

How do you solve this problem? There are three strategies:

1. Prime factorization. Divide by 784 ÷ 4 = 196. Divide by 4 again = 49. So 7x4 is the answer: 28

2. Plug in the answers. 38 x 38 = 1444 so the answer must be less than 38. 32 x 32 = 1024 so the answer must be A.

3. Plug in numbers. 30x30 = 900 so the answer must be less than 30. There's only one choice less than 30 and that's A.

One hopes that you can see that the third choice is the best method and the method that business schools want to see in their candidates.

Here is another strategy that does not need test and trial: 784 is obviously divisible by 7. So, it can be only A or D. And since 784 is obviously not divisible by 3, unlike 42, then it is A.

It takes 5 seconds, at most. At least if we remember first grade division tables. Multiple choices are a ridicolous help, in this case.

By the way, do you have to write down your method to come to the solution? If not, how do those business schools know they got the right guy? There is a clear and present danger that they will get a mathematician, or a first grader, instead. God forbid, lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

A simple statement of faith. I like it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I thought that was an established fact.


Not if but whether.


If I had cancer, I would consume no carbohydrates of any kind in hopes of starving the glucose-eating buggers to death.


Well, it's not as impressive as you might think. After all, what I have proved is that I am good at taking past GMAT tests. Does that necessarily mean that I will be good at taking future GMAT tests? Not necessarily. Of course, we can assume that the people who write the GMAT test are probably the same people as those who wrote the GMAT test in the past years. Arguably, therefore, we can say that past GMAT tests will resemble future GMAT tests because we know that said tests have been intelligently designed. However, simply because something has been intelligently designed is no guarantee that it will be similar to other intelligently designed things, even if made by the same creator.

Oh, and GMAT tests do contain probability questions. Here's a sample question:

Kurt, a painter, has 9 jars of paint, 4 of which are yellow, 2 are red, and the remaining jars are brown. Kurt will combine 3 jars of paint into a new container to make a new color, which he will name according to the following conditions:

Brun Y if the paint contains 2 jars of brown paint and no yellow
Brun X if the paint contains 3 jars of brown paint
Jaune X if the paint contains at least 2 jars of yellow
Jaune Y if the paint contains exactly 1 jar of yellow

What is the probability that the new color will be jaune?

A) 5/42
B) 37/42
C) 1/21
D) 4/9
E) 5/9

My uncle has been trying that for the last 2 months, on the recommendation of his "naturopath." It's not going well for him at all. I'd reconsider.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Oh great. Another argument from ignorance logical fallacist. What school did you graudate from, and why didn't it cover logical fallacies?

I went to a school which obviously did a better job of teaching reading comprehension than yours.

There is no ignorance here, and certainly no argument from it. I have answers to those questions which I will happily provide. You are the one claiming that the referenced predictions had nothing to do with Natural Selection, not I. I would like for you to explain to me how they do not, since they are quite easily explained through that process.

For reference:

• Based on homologies with African apes, Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

Without Natural Selection, through your position, how could human variation exist?

You inability to do explain this will highlight how our most common features are a product of their environment, driven by the process of natural selection.

What does any of this have to do with tacking by disjunction?

Nothing. It has everything to do with Natural Selection, however, which was your first challenge.

You said that mutations have nothing to do with Natural Selection. I provided you with an array of sources which state otherwise.
You're the one bringing Tracking by Disjunction into a biological conversation as an attempt to deflect any line of questioning that you don't like.

Tacking by disjunction is not computer science terminology. It is the problem that to the extent that finding F supports theory T, it also supports theory T&F for any statement F. For example, any confirmation of the theory "The universe is orderly" also supports the theory "The Universe is Orderly and the Christian God has made it so." Your problem is showing how evidence that supports Darwinism, defined as all parts of the theory that are not natural selection & natural selection cannot be shown to support the other parts of Darwinism not including the theory of natural selection. A few Bayesian equations will be sufficient.

So you want to attack confirmation paradoxes - that's fine. But why don't you just say that? Other than your citation, 5 pages worth of google links refer only to computer science and basic problems with the equating of unequal things.

I always find it interesting in conversations like this that instead of directly address the thing that is being addressed (instead of positively arguing for your position) that people simply try to logically defeat the standard.

Either way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
.. suppose that there are {\displaystyle N}

objects that might be seen at any moment, of which {\displaystyle r}

are ravens and {\displaystyle b}

are black, and that the {\displaystyle N}

objects each have probability {\displaystyle {\tfrac {1}{N}}}

of being seen. Let {\displaystyle H_{i}}

be the hypothesis that there are {\displaystyle i}

non-black ravens, and suppose that the hypotheses {\displaystyle H_{1},H_{2},...,H_{r}}

are initially equiprobable. Then, if we happen to see a black raven, the Bayes factor in favour of {\displaystyle H_{0}}

is
{\displaystyle {\tfrac {r}{N}}{\Big /}{\text{average}}\left({\tfrac {r-1}{N}},{\tfrac {r-2}{N}},...\ ,{\tfrac {1}{N}}\right)\ =\ {\tfrac {2r}{r-1}}}

i.e. about 2 if the number of ravens in existence is known to be large. But the factor if we see a white shoe is only
{\displaystyle {\tfrac {N-b}{N}}{\Big /}{\text{average}}\left({\tfrac {N-b-1}{N}},{\tfrac {N-b-2}{N}},...\ ,\max(0,{\tfrac {N-b-r}{N}})\right)}

{\displaystyle \ =\ {\frac {N-b}{\max \left(N-b-{\tfrac {r}{2}}-{\tfrac {1}{2}}\ ,\ {\tfrac {1}{2}}(N-b-1)\right)}}}

and this exceeds unity by only about {\displaystyle r/(2N-2b)}

if {\displaystyle N-b}

is large compared to {\displaystyle r}

. Thus the weight of evidence provided by the sight of a white shoe is positive, but is small if the number of ravens is known to be small compared to the number of non-black objects.[11]
And secondly, why are you trying so hard to argue against Natural Selection have any predictive quality if you so easily write off positive predictions as a confirmation paradox?
It seems to me that if you actually believed what you wrote then you would have no problem factually accepting that Natural Selection makes predictions about the observable biological world and that sometimes that predictions are thoroughly supported. After all, even if every single prediction was proven to be accurate, that wouldn't mean anything, right?

Orange-breasted falcons (Falco deiroleucus), hawk eagles (Nisaetus cirrhatus) and harp eagles (Harpia harpyja). Humans also prey upon the birds.

The is a big difference between mild predation and direct dependence in an ecosystem. The birds that you're referencing are not vital to the feeding patterns of their avian counterparts. Their over-abundance or disappearance from the diet of those predatory birds would have very little affect on the lives of those birds because their wide range of food sources would continue to sustain them. 100,000 physical changes to Macaws will not make much a difference in the lives of the predators that you listed. This is a prediction of Natural Selection that has been heavily supported through observations in not just the Ara birds and their predator/prey realtionship to the world around them, but in other species as well.

Humans are sometimes eaten by lions. We are prey to lions. Has our overall development been hampered too much by that occasional relationship? Has the development of the lion been dependent on their predatory relationship to us?

Choose any predator/prey combination based on mild predation that you like and this position will still be supported. This is a prediction made by Natural Selection.
So, again, you were mistaken.

This claim confuses the difference between the ontological status of species and epistemological status of the species concept.

Deflection again...

Pick any definition that you like - any accepted definition anywhere - we've seen speciation occur at all of those levels. That's the point.
Attempting to brush that off because you don't think there's a universal definition for what makes a species ultimately does not matter.

Provide more detail about what I should try again.

Try again to fend off the fact that speciation occurs. Changes in populations occur, due to a whole host of forces, under the umbrella of natural selection. They occur often enough, and frequently enough, that they can completely change an organism into something other that what it once was. Call it what you will - this happens and is naturally derived.

Completely irrelevant. The point is that confirmations of giant races of humans, even if found, would not necessarily demonstrate that the Bible were true. Cherry picking Bible verses proves nothing, especially since we are speaking hypothetically.

You are absolutely correct - It would however confirm a prediction, even if indirect, that would stand alone in our greater body of knowledge. Other than in fairy tales or other mythological sources, no scientific endeavor has predicted that humans used to be 20 feet tall and live to be 600 years old. If that could be confirmed, then it would be an accurate prediction made by an otherwise fictional tale. The accuracy of that prediction would at least lend some credence to the notion that other predictions made in that book of wonders could also, possibly, be accurate.

Do you really not agree with that?

No, the argument is that supposed confirmations of natural selection, even if it could be proved true, are irrelevant because:

A) The confirmations are invariably tacking by disjunction;
B) The confirmations are not ones that a person unacquainted with the theory would expect; and
C) Confirmations, in general, are problematic as they are examples of affirming the consequent.

Using your current method of thinking, name me something that can't be picked apart by your understanding of tracking by disjunction.

I imagine you are also aware of the inverse of this argument, right? Nothing that you say in support of yourself really means anything, since confirmations are worthless. You see how that works, don't you? You're own position can't be confirmed because you're just tracking by disjunction.

Well, you're right about one thing. Math is not science. There is, for example, a 360-page proof that 1+1=2. Science, on the other hand, isn't in the business of proving things.

Yes it is.
http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

Also,
science
noun
1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained throughobservation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematicstudy.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles;proficiency.

 

[Zosimus]

Whatever you say. Ping me when you, or whomever claims that, collect your Nobel prize for killing relativity. i am Swede, so I can show you the best parts of Sweden while you are here.

You're joking, right? In case you've forgotten, Barrack Obama has a Nobel Prize for doing absolutely nothing whereas Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposable genetic elements, had to wait more than 4 decades to get recognized.

And you think the Nobel Prize actually measures something?! Puleaze.

You are not disappointing me at all. Just be careful not to win the Darwin Award, with your mindset, that would be cruelly hironic.

I'm not familiar with the word hironic. However, if winning the "Darwin Award" (whatever that is) is a factor, I can say that I have 6 kids so far from four different women, so I'm kicking Richard Dawkins' arse.

So, maybe those buggers, whatever they are, do not feed in glucose. Maybe they feed on whatever you eat instead of carbohydrates, how do you know?

Again, this is covered by normative decision theory.

Multiple choices for such easy questions are for sissies. You have all the information you need to give a precise answer. At least to the questions you asked. Once I won a contest about baseball against Americans with multiple choices trivia. And I have no clue of baseball.

This is apropos of nothing. Studies indicate that the GMAT test has a .459 correlation with grad school success, a number superior to other factors such as undergraduate grades, which only clock in at .283. So you can pooh-pooh the test all you want, it is the test you need to take if you want to study Finance at Wharton or Marketing at Kellogg.

Here is another strategy that does not need test and trial: 784 is obviously divisible by 7. So, it can be only A or D. And since 784 is obviously not divisible by 3, unlike 42, then it is A.

It takes 5 seconds, at most. At least if we remember first grade division tables. Multiple choices are a ridicolous help, in this case.

This is more like arguing in favor of the test than arguing against it. Do you really think that executives will be faced with these problems in the real world without a calculator on hand to aid them in solving them? Of course not. So it isn't a math test or a test about memorizing times tables. The test is designed to measure mental flexibility and real-world problem solving. In fact, most math problems don't require you to solve them at all! Here's an example of a data sufficiency problem:

Q. A certain salesman's yearly income is determined by a base salary plus a commission on the sales he makes during the year. Did the salesman's base salary account for more than half of the salesman's yearly income last year?

(1) If the amount of the commission had been 30 percent higher, the salesman's income would have been 10 percent higher last year.

(2) The difference between the amount of the salesman's base salary and the amount of the commission was equal to 50 percent of the salesman's base salary last year.

A) Statement 1 is sufficient to answer the question whereas statement 2 is not sufficient.
B) Statement 2 is sufficient to answer the question whereas statement 1 is not sufficient.
C) Both statements together provide enough information but either statement separately is not sufficient.
D) Each statement is sufficient to answer the question.
E) Even with both statements, there are not enough data to answer the question.

You see, you don't need to answer the problem at all! You merely must know whether the data are sufficient to get an answer.

This is an important thing to measure. If someone thinks that he or she has sufficient data to make a decision, but he or she does not, then the person will make rash decisions on insufficient information in the business world. Similarly, if the person has sufficient data but thinks that he or she does not, then the person will not take action when action is called for.

By the way, do you have to write down your method to come to the solution? If not, how do those business schools know they got the right guy? There is a clear and present danger that they will get a mathematician, or a first grader, instead. God forbid, lol.

No, there is no need to write down any procedure. You can use common sense, gut feeling, actual calculations, or divine revelation. The only thing that matters is whether you answer correctly.

 

[viole]

You're joking, right? In case you've forgotten, Barrack Obama has a Nobel Prize for doing absolutely nothing whereas Barbara McClintock, who discovered transposable genetic elements, had to wait more than 4 decades to get recognized.

And you think the Nobel Prize actually measures something?! Puleaze.

I'm not familiar with the word hironic....

I am not familar with anyone called Barrack Obama. Either. Which is ... ironic, lol

May ask you to check your own spelling before criticizing others? I am not offended by that, being a non native English speaker, I just want to reduce the chances of you embarassing yourself, in public.

The rest after the weekend.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Zosimus]

My uncle has been trying that for the last 2 months, on the recommendation of his "naturopath." It's not going well for him at all. I'd reconsider.

First of all, there is reason to believe that low calorie, caloric restriction, and ketogenic diets reduce tumor growth in animals by about 30 percent. If you believe in science, you should believe that this is true. I should be the one telling you that what works in animals will not necessarily work in humans and that 80 percent of published scientific studies are false. Strange how the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

But, of course, you only believe in science when it validates your preconceived notions.

I could, of course, follow up with the point that the other 70 percent of tumor growth comes from glucose generated by the liver. Metformin, a diabetic drug, shuts that action off. Here in Peru, I can buy metformin without any prescription of any kind.

Of course, resveratrol is substantially more effective than metformin at shutting off glucose production in the liver. However, researchers have already tried both together and found that they work quite well (in animals). No guarantee for humans.

And, as you probably know, IP6 and inositol are quite effective against cancer in vitro. Again, there is no guarantee that any of this would be effective in humans.

This information lets us set up a subjective expected utility matrix. Once we have one of those, we can make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty.

 

[Zosimus]

I went to a school which obviously did a better job of teaching reading comprehension than yours.

There is no ignorance here, and certainly no argument from it. I have answers to those questions which I will happily provide. You are the one claiming that the referenced predictions had nothing to do with Natural Selection, not I. I would like for you to explain to me how they do not, since they are quite easily explained through that process.

Yet as already documented, I have a 100% reading comprehension score on several standardized tests whereas you have your balls in your hand and nothing more.

For reference:

• Based on homologies with African apes, Darwin predicted that human ancestors arose in Africa. That prediction has been supported by fossil and genetic evidence (Ingman et al. 2000).

All right. Let's go with this nonsense. Please lay out a logical argument that starts with the premise:

There is a process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

And concludes with: Therefore, all humans must have originated in Africa.

That ought to be good for a laugh. Where's my popcorn?

Anyway, there is no reason to believe that humans originated in Africa. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Asia.

Now, since natural selection supposedly predicted the Out of Africa theory, which has now been falsified, does that mean that natural selection is falsified? Of course not. Because no experimental finding could falsify the theory of natural selection. That's because natural selection makes no novel, testable predictions that could be open to experimental falsification.

Without Natural Selection, through your position, how could human variation exist?

Meiosis. Google it.

You said that mutations have nothing to do with Natural Selection. I provided you with an array of sources which state otherwise.

Okay. Lay out a logical argument that starts with "Mutations occur" and terminates in "Therefore, natural selection." This should be good.

So you want to attack confirmation paradoxes - that's fine. But why don't you just say that? Other than your citation, 5 pages worth of google links refer only to computer science and basic problems with the equating of unequal things.

Uhm?! This claim is demonstrably false.

I always find it interesting in conversations like this that instead of directly address the thing that is being addressed (instead of positively arguing for your position) that people simply try to logically defeat the standard.

I find it amusing that whenever someone commits a logical fallacy, he or she invariably wants the other party to assent to it and respond with evidence.

Either way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox
(edited for brevity)

So you like Raven's Paradox. Why didn't you make some sort of an answer to it, though? And why paste all of that unformatted junk into the article? Tell me -- do you agree that finding billions of grains of sand on the beach makes it more likely that Richard Dawkins doesn't exist?

And secondly, why are you trying so hard to argue against Natural Selection have any predictive quality if you so easily write off positive predictions as a confirmation paradox?

They're not confirmations. You don't seem to get it. Here, try this on: My theory is "Jesus is God & computers run on electrcity." Does that mean that every time I turn on a computer, I am confirming Jesus' divinity? No. Why? Tacking by disjunction, that's why.

It seems to me that if you actually believed what you wrote then you would have no problem factually accepting that Natural Selection makes predictions about the observable biological world and that sometimes that predictions are thoroughly supported. After all, even if every single prediction was proven to be accurate, that wouldn't mean anything, right?

Yeah, sure. And sometimes your astrology horoscope turns out right. So what?

The is a big difference between mild predation and direct dependence in an ecosystem. The birds that you're referencing are not vital to the feeding patterns of their avian counterparts. Their over-abundance or disappearance from the diet of those predatory birds would have very little affect on the lives of those birds because their wide range of food sources would continue to sustain them. 100,000 physical changes to Macaws will not make much a difference in the lives of the predators that you listed. This is a prediction of Natural Selection that has been heavily supported through observations in not just the Ara birds and their predator/prey realtionship to the world around them, but in other species as well.

You asked what preyed upon the birds in question. I answered you. If the birds in question were not so gaudy that they can be seen from low Earth orbit, do you think they might be consumed less frequently by predators? If so, why aren't they more drab? Or what about:

Or are you going to tell me that fish have no real predators? Have you ever watched the movie Jaws?

I mean, basically what you're saying is that if your theory is confirmed, then you're right whereas if your theory turns out to be a piece of shoot, then that means nothing.

Pick any definition that you like - any accepted definition anywhere - we've seen speciation occur at all of those levels. That's the point.
Attempting to brush that off because you don't think there's a universal definition for what makes a species ultimately does not matter.

Why should I pick a definition of species given that there such a thing doesn't exist? Why don't you pick a definition of unicorn that we can work with?

Try again to fend off the fact that speciation occurs.

Now who's the one with poor reading comprehension skills? Did you not read that I said "no one can determine whether speciation occurs as no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species" exists."

Do you understand the difference between saying "It doesn't occur" and "No one can determine whether it occurs?"

Using your current method of thinking, name me something that can't be picked apart by your understanding of tracking by disjunction.

Sure. Electricity can kill people. Then you put someone in the electric chair and flip the switch. There's no tacking by disjunction involved in that.

I imagine you are also aware of the inverse of this argument, right? Nothing that you say in support of yourself really means anything, since confirmations are worthless. You see how that works, don't you? You're own position can't be confirmed because you're just tracking by disjunction.

I only partially agree with you. Yes, confirmations don't count, but no that has nothing to do with tacking by disjunction.

Yes it is.
http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html

Your own link says:

"Mathematics is not a science, but there are grey areas at the fringes."

What was that you said about reading comprehension?

 

[Zosimus]

I am not familar with anyone called Barrack Obama. Either. Which is ... ironic, lol

May ask you to check your own spelling before criticizing others? I am not offended by that, being a non native English speaker, I just want to reduce the chances of you embarassing yourself, in public.

The rest after the weekend.

Ciao

- viole

Given that ironic means: using words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
I fail to see why that is ironic.

 

[gnostic]

We are not talking about Noah's flood. We are talking about your claim that it is scientifically impossible for a flood to occur. As I have already pointed out, there is enough water to cover the entire Earth to a depth of 2.5 km. Thus, you cannot claim that it is impossible for a flood to occur. You can only claim that you think that one has not occurred.

As I have kept telling you, I have been referring global flood to Noah's flood, when the flood SUUPOSEDLY OCCURRED when humans were around; a flood supposedly sent to destroyed mankind because of their wickedness.

This thread is a topic about creationism, which is more specifically a challenge for creationists to supply whatever "verifiable evidences" for their creation myths.

I have stayed within topic, and have my replies have been rebuttal against a global flood, relating to creationism. The Genesis flood couldn't have occurred, historically (and archaeologically), geologically and scientifically.

The Genesis global flood didn't occurred scientifically, because it is not possible to show WHEN it occurred, where did all the water come from and where did it ago. It didn't occurred because there are no scientific evidence, how such vessel can contained the amount of animals, the food and water they would need for the whole time they were stuck in the ark, how these redistributed animals through where they have always been found, from a single point (Mount Ararat)

Such as the redistribution of marsupials that are actually native to Australia; like there should show evidences such as remains or fossils in their tens of thousands of kilometres trek from Turkey across Asia to the Australian mainland. Such a journey should have taken generations and years to reach, and marsupials, like the koalas are not known for being long distance travellers. They cannot magically jump from Mount Ararat to Australia.

In any case.

Why do you insist on changing the goalpost for when the flood occurred? This is a topic about creationism, is it not?

You are the one who wants to go off-topic.

Fine, let's go off-topic. Let's not talk about creationism.

And even with your stupid 2.5 km flood, you have not given any instance of time WHEN this (global flood of yours) happened - with or without humans been around.

All you have done is provide conjectures of a possibilities of how much water is needed for a supposedly flood, to be labelled as a "global flood"...that haven't happened.

Science don't rely on conjectures alone. Science required evidences. Without evidences, you are merely stating your opinions; you have not presented any scientific fact.

Take for instance, Australia as an example. Where does the marsupials come from? Had there been a global flood as your 2.5 km, Australia would have been completely be underwater, because there are no mountains high enough in Australia for any man or marsupials to seek reach the high ground. Mount Kosciuszko is the highest mountain in Australia, 2.2 km high; every other mountains are under 2km. The native Australians have been around, at the very least, 40,000 years, but the marsupials have been in Australia far longer than that.

Did your global flood occurred before or after 40,000 years?

According to you, if I remember correctly, when you first brought up the subject about 2.5 km of floodwater, you also stated that the Earth have to be perfectly-near-spherical. Can show me when the earth was perfect sphere?

Do you care to present a timeline of yours 2.5 km global flood (which I must remind you, is still off-topic, but I am willing to go off-topic for now)?

So please show me your scientific sources, and evidences that support your case.

 

[Zosimus]

As I have kept telling you, I have been referring global flood to Noah's flood, when the flood SUUPOSEDLY OCCURRED when humans were around; a flood supposedly sent to destroyed mankind because of their wickedness.

This thread is a topic about creationism, which is more specifically a challenge for creationists to supply whatever "verifiable evidences" for their creation myths.

I have stayed within topic, and have my replies have been rebuttal against a global flood, relating to creationism. The Genesis flood couldn't have occurred, historically (and archaeologically), geologically and scientifically.

The Genesis global flood didn't occurred scientifically, because it is not possible to show WHEN it occurred, where did all the water come from and where did it ago. It didn't occurred because there are no scientific evidence, how such vessel can contained the amount of animals, the food and water they would need for the whole time they were stuck in the ark, how these redistributed animals through where they have always been found, from a single point (Mount Ararat)

Such as the redistribution of marsupials that are actually native to Australia; like there should show evidences such as remains or fossils in their tens of thousands of kilometres trek from Turkey across Asia to the Australian mainland. Such a journey should have taken generations and years to reach, and marsupials, like the koalas are not known for being long distance travellers. They cannot magically jump from Mount Ararat to Australia.

In any case.

Why do you insist on changing the goalpost for when the flood occurred? This is a topic about creationism, is it not?

You are the one who wants to go off-topic.

Fine, let's go off-topic. Let's not talk about creationism.

And even with your stupid 2.5 km flood, you have not given any instance of time WHEN this (global flood of yours) happened - with or without humans been around.

All you have done is provide conjectures of a possibilities of how much water is needed for a supposedly flood, to be labelled as a "global flood"...that haven't happened.

Science don't rely on conjectures alone. Science required evidences. Without evidences, you are merely stating your opinions; you have not presented any scientific fact.

Do you care to present a timeline of yours 2.5 km global flood (which I must remind you, is off-topic)? Please show me your scientific sources

You are completely off-topic. Let's refresh your memory, shall we? I said:

You run off at the mouth about things that you claim to "know" but you really don't know.

You say that a six-day creation is impossible, but I say that a supernatural being could sneeze out a universe exactly as we see it in a microsecond, and we'd never know the difference.

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

You say that it's impossible for people to speak one language one day and another language another day. Yet all of this is supposedly caused by a being that can create the entire universe out of thin air. Impossible? No.

So you don't like God's answers to Job. Personally, I've never read them. However, that doesn't mean that A) God couldn't have said them, B) God couldn't have said something else but gotten misquoted, or C) that the Book of Job is pure fabrication, but God still exists. Even if you could definitively prove that the entire book of Job was written by an insane guy high on opium, what would that prove about whether God exists? Nothing.

As for whether someone witnessed God's wager with Satan, assuming that such a wager existed, surely you realize that with our level of technology we can videotape things and play them back. What might God and his angels be capable of with their level of technology? Who can say? Or go back to the previous question and realize that even if the book of Job is pure fabrication, what does that say about whether God exists? Nothing.

What if you could definitively prove that the Bible, Qur'an, and every other holy book was completely wrong. What would that indicate about whether God exists? Nothing.

For all you know, we are just part of the dream of an alien that sleeps for centuries at a time. Perhaps when that alien awakens, we will cease to exist. For all you know, you are a brain in a vat receiving electrical signals so that alien scientists can better understand how the human brain works.

You see, my problem is not that you believe something. I'm happy that you believe it. My problem is that you run around claiming to know it and furthermore you claim that evidence is involved somehow. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is zero logical basis for using evidence to confirm beliefs.

===============================================
That's what I said. You cannot say that God doesn't exist. Nobody can say that because nobody knows. I don't know. You don't know. No one can know.

And you want to go from the above to talking about Noah and whether Genesis is well evidenced.

Nothing I said had anything to do with Genesis. Can you get that through your head?

Even if you could prove that Genesis was written by a monkey falling on a typewriter, it would in no way, shape, or form refute anything I said above. In fact, it wouldn't even come close.

Get it?

 

[gnostic]

You are completely off-topic. Let's refresh your memory, shall we? I said:

You run off at the mouth about things that you claim to "know" but you really don't know.

You say that a six-day creation is impossible, but I say that a supernatural being could sneeze out a universe exactly as we see it in a microsecond, and we'd never know the difference.

You say that a worldwide flood is impossible, but I say that if the land mass of the Earth were perfectly spherical, the water would cover the Earth and be 2.5 km deep everywhere (excluding calculations for tides). A worldwide flood is hardly impossible.

You say that it's impossible for people to speak one language one day and another language another day. Yet all of this is supposedly caused by a being that can create the entire universe out of thin air. Impossible? No.

So you don't like God's answers to Job. Personally, I've never read them. However, that doesn't mean that A) God couldn't have said them, B) God couldn't have said something else but gotten misquoted, or C) that the Book of Job is pure fabrication, but God still exists. Even if you could definitively prove that the entire book of Job was written by an insane guy high on opium, what would that prove about whether God exists? Nothing.

As for whether someone witnessed God's wager with Satan, assuming that such a wager existed, surely you realize that with our level of technology we can videotape things and play them back. What might God and his angels be capable of with their level of technology? Who can say? Or go back to the previous question and realize that even if the book of Job is pure fabrication, what does that say about whether God exists? Nothing.

What if you could definitively prove that the Bible, Qur'an, and every other holy book was completely wrong. What would that indicate about whether God exists? Nothing.

For all you know, we are just part of the dream of an alien that sleeps for centuries at a time. Perhaps when that alien awakens, we will cease to exist. For all you know, you are a brain in a vat receiving electrical signals so that alien scientists can better understand how the human brain works.

You see, my problem is not that you believe something. I'm happy that you believe it. My problem is that you run around claiming to know it and furthermore you claim that evidence is involved somehow. Nevertheless, I have repeatedly demonstrated that there is zero logical basis for using evidence to confirm beliefs.

===============================================
That's what I said. You cannot say that God doesn't exist. Nobody can say that because nobody knows. I don't know. You don't know. No one can know.

And you want to go from the above to talking about Noah and whether Genesis is well evidenced.

Nothing I said had anything to do with Genesis. Can you get that through your head?

Even if you could prove that Genesis was written by a monkey falling on a typewriter, it would in no way, shape, or form refute anything I said above. In fact, it wouldn't even come close.

Get it?

You still cannot present any evidence for the impossible be possible.

You are tiresome bag.

 

[gnostic]

You still cannot present any evidence for the impossible be possible.

You are tiresome bag.

This topic, must I remind you, is about verifiable evidences for creationism, not your speculative wishful fantasies.

God sneezing the universe into existence is not science, but your unhealthy delusion for the dramatic.

 

[Zosimus]

You still cannot present any evidence for the impossible be possible.

You are tiresome bag.

You still cannot supply any evidence to suggest that evidence is rationally required to believe anything.

Thus, your implied claim "Evidence is required" is unevidenced and self-refuting.

It is true that one should have some sort of a reason to believe something, but evidence is not the only reason.

I know that a lot of people here admire the late Christopher Hitchens, who is credited with saying "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Well, I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but CH was a moron in spades.

 

[gnostic]

You still cannot supply any evidence to suggest that evidence is rationally required to believe anything.

Thus, your implied claim "Evidence is required" is unevidenced and self-refuting.

It is true that one should have some sort of a reason to believe something, but evidence is not the only reason.

I know that a lot of people here admire the late Christopher Hitchens, who is credited with saying "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Well, I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but CH was a moron in spades.

Sorry but where have you provide evidences for your claims?

You have provided zero evidences for 2.5 km global flood.
You have provided no evidences for the earth being a perfect sphere.
And where are the evidences that God has sneezed the universe into existence.

You are the one to talk about self-refuting argument.

No, zosimus.

You expect me to find evidences for there being no global flood, while you are the one who made the positive claim there is one.

Can you provide evidences for 2.5 km global flood or not? Or is it simply you making idle speculation? Can you even provide scientific papers that say where and when this global flood of yours had occurred?

Make a stupid claim, then you are the one who is supposed to provide the evidences.

 

[gnostic]

And oh. BTW. This...

I know that a lot of people here admire the late Christopher Hitchens, who is credited with saying "that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Well, I'm sorry to burst some people's bubble, but CH was a moron in spades.

Thank you for writing this, because I now know that you are full of BS.

I have never read any of Hitchens' works...that if he ever written anything. I have never seen any video of what he said or do...that if he did any video, I wouldn't know.

And that quote you have provided here:"that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." Well, until today, I have seen that quote before.

I don't know much about Hitchen, period. Hell, I don't even know what he looks like.

So if you are trying to rile me up by calling him a moron, that's your business, not mine. I don't know anything about him to judge him.

But I will say this. Once again, you are using strawman to attack. I couldn't care less what Hitchen have to say.

You want to have a go at Richard Dawkins? Go ahead. Yes, I know more about Dawkins than I do Dawkins, but even then I am not a fan of Dawkins. Perhaps, you would like to insult Stephen Hawking, and call him a moron? Again, I couldn't care less what you say to either of them.

Perhaps, you can get my goat, by calling Darwin a moron? I also don't worship him, and not his fan.

So say whatever you like about these people, all you, Zosimus. I don't give a crap about anything you have to say, because it only speaks volume of your own lack of intellect.

You keep doing what you are doing now, make up excuses about things you don't understand. Perhaps, this non-existing God of yours can sneeze another universe into existence.

 

[Riders]

Ive seen lots of documentaries on prehistoric man and how the apes jumped out of the trees started walking upright, that seems pretty logical to me.Theres too many evidence about prehistoric man, creationism doesnt seem to be concerned with prehistoric man.

 

[SkepticThinker]

First of all, there is reason to believe that low calorie, caloric restriction, and ketogenic diets reduce tumor growth in animals by about 30 percent. If you believe in science, you should believe that this is true. I should be the one telling you that what works in animals will not necessarily work in humans and that 80 percent of published scientific studies are false. Strange how the shoe is on the other foot, eh?

But, of course, you only believe in science when it validates your preconceived notions.

I could, of course, follow up with the point that the other 70 percent of tumor growth comes from glucose generated by the liver. Metformin, a diabetic drug, shuts that action off. Here in Peru, I can buy metformin without any prescription of any kind.

Of course, resveratrol is substantially more effective than metformin at shutting off glucose production in the liver. However, researchers have already tried both together and found that they work quite well (in animals). No guarantee for humans.

And, as you probably know, IP6 and inositol are quite effective against cancer in vitro. Again, there is no guarantee that any of this would be effective in humans.

This information lets us set up a subjective expected utility matrix. Once we have one of those, we can make a rational decision in the face of uncertainty.

All of this is a far cry from just changing one's diet and doing nothing else when one has cancer. Oh, he injects and drinks peroxide as well. And prays.

Oh and his tumour has continued to grow, but he is in denial and will tell you that it's actually shrinking. Funny how he goes to a doctor when he needs an MRI but simultaneously thinks that doctors are trying to kill us all so seeks "treatment" from a naturopath who lies to him. There's nothing scientific about that. As I'm continuously asking him, where are the human trials to prove the efficacy of these "treatments" he is taking?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Any verifiable evidence for creationism yet?

 

[Riders]

what does the diet of animals who have to have a particular diet when they have a tumor what does that have to do with creationism? People have to have special diets too, you saying because we are similar to animals it doesn't make sense to me?