Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[leibowde84]

not at all....
I understand cause and effect.

there's nothing ignorant about it.

Obviously you don't understand what an "argument from ignorance" is, as it in no way means that your argument is ignorant. It means that you are basing your argument on the lack of an alternative explanation and/or evidence that your argument is false. Below is a great explanation of this logical fallacy, often used to defend belief in the supernatural.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Ad Ignorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?

Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) *******!

Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dawkins explicitly bases his arguments on evidence and the lack thereof. Not atheism.

nooo never!

best selling book: 'The God delusion'

there's a tiny hint!

Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion'- he was far more interested in expanding scientific understanding, than his own personal beliefs

 

[Thief]

Obviously you don't understand what an "argument from ignorance" is, as it in no way means that your argument is ignorant. It means that you are basing your argument on the lack of an alternative explanation and/or evidence that your argument is false. Below is a great explanation of this logical fallacy, often used to defend belief in the supernatural.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Ad Ignorantium

(also known as: appeal to ignorance, absence of evidence, argument from personal astonishment, argument from Incredulity)

Description: The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

Logical Form:

X is true because you cannot prove that X is false.

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

Example #1:

Although we have proven that the moon is not made of spare ribs, we have not proven that its core cannot be filled with them; therefore, the moon’s core is filled with spare ribs.

Explanation: There is an infinity of things we cannot prove -- the moon being filled with spare ribs is one of them. Now you might expect that any “reasonable” person would know that the moon can’t be filled with spare ribs, but you would be expecting too much. People make wild claims, and get away with them, simply on the fact that the converse cannot otherwise be proven.

Example #2:

To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it. Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

Exception: The assumption of a conclusion or fact deduced from evidence of absence, is not considered a fallacy, but valid reasoning.

Jimbo: Dude, did you spit your gum out in my drink?

Dick: No comment.

Jimbo: (after carefully pouring his drink down the sink looking for gum but finding none...) *******!

Tip: Look at all your existing major beliefs and see if they are based more on the lack of evidence than evidence. You might be surprised as to how many actually are.

not buying any of that......
you simply won't do the obvious....

at the point of singularity.....choose....
Spirit first?....or substance?

It's one or the other.
don't be a lame intellectual

 

[leibowde84]

nooo never!

best selling book: 'The God delusion'

there's a tiny hint!

Lemaitre never wrote a book called 'The Atheist Delusion'- he was far more interested in expanding scientific understanding, than his own personal beliefs

You obviously haven't read the God Delusion, or you would know that the book IS based on the lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

 

[leibowde84]

not buying any of that......
you simply won't do the obvious....

at the point of singularity.....choose....
Spirit first?....or substance?

It's one or the other.
don't be a lame intellectual

I would argue that you are being the lame intellectual, as you just explicitly stated that you don't care if your argument is logically flawed. Ad Ignorantium is a well-known and acknowledged logical fallacy, so the fact that you just refuse to even recognize it in your own argument shows your unwillingness to participate in reasoned debate.

As for your question, I don't know which came first. I believe in God, so I guess I BELIEVE that the spirit came first, as I believe that God was the initial cause, but the more I learn, the more I understand that our scientific understanding is still so infantile that utilizing "cause and effect" as an argument for God is extremely lacking.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Obviously you don't understand what an "argument from ignorance" is, as it in no way means that your argument is ignorant. It means that you are basing your argument on the lack of an alternative explanation and/or evidence that your argument is false. Below is a great explanation of this logical fallacy, often used to defend belief in the supernatural.

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Example #1

We can't figure out how life on Earth could possibly spontaneously spring into existence by complete fluke. Therefore we can assume it most likely did

Example #2

We can't possibly even begin to investigate the existence of a multiverse, therefore it probably exists

Example #3

'It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history' Dawkins. Therefore it's an undeniable fact that they had an evolutionary history

 

[Thief]

I would argue that you are being the lame intellectual, as you just explicitly stated that you don't care if your argument is logically flawed. Ad Ignorantium is a well-known and acknowledged logical fallacy, so the fact that you just refuse to even recognize it in your own argument shows your unwillingness to participate in reasoned debate.

As for your question, I don't know which came first. I believe in God, so I guess I BELIEVE that the spirit came first, as I believe that God was the initial cause, but the more I learn, the more I understand that our scientific understanding is still so infantile that utilizing "cause and effect" as an argument for God is extremely lacking.

you don't know which came first.....and then you proceed with argument?

who then is ignorant?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You obviously haven't read the God Delusion, or you would know that the book IS based on the lack of verifiable evidence for the existence of God.

aka:

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

 

[leibowde84]

ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE


Example #1

We can't figure out how life on Earth could possibly spontaneously spring into existence by complete fluke. Therefore we can assume it most likely did

Example #2

We can't possibly even begin to investigate the existence of a multiverse, therefore it probably exists

Example #3

'It's as if they were just planted there with no evolutionary history' Dawkins. Therefore it's an undeniable fact that they had an evolutionary history

Straw man alert. You are arguing with yourself on these. The Multiverse is not a scientific theory, saying that something is "most likely" is not the same as declaring it as being the truth, and you haven't provided the background for Dawkins' comment. But, that being said, any argument based on the lack of alternative or the lack of disproving evidence is not valid or, at the very best, logically flawed.

 

[leibowde84]

you don't know which came first.....and then you proceed with argument?

who then is ignorant?

First of all, I never called you ignorant. An "argument from ignorance" is a logical fallacy. All you have to do is read the explanation I provided. But, if you are too stubborn to do that, please don't belittle yourself with stupid comments.

And, I have no problem admitting my ignorance. I admitted that I don't know, and I explained what I believed to be the case. I then explained why I cannot trust my belief until I figure out more.

 

[dust1n]

I acknowledge the element of faith in my belief, do you?

Well, considering I don't believe in any sort of objective reality, yea I have to work with uncertain knowledge on a daily basis.

Okay, if evolution requires any element of faith, as you assert, than its foundations in knowledge are at most as well grounded as your knowledge in the belief of God.

So, do you agree, or disagree?

 

[leibowde84]

aka:

X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

The book merely explains why Dawkins feels that God is an illusion created by man. He provides many forms of evidence in his argument for this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Straw man alert. You are arguing with yourself on these. The Multiverse is not a scientific theory, saying that something is "most likely" is not the same as declaring it as being the truth, and you haven't provided the background for Dawkins' comment. But, that being said, any argument based on the lack of alternative or the lack of disproving evidence is not valid or, at the very best, logically flawed.

we agree, the multiverse is not a scientific theory, it's an argument from ignorance. In fact I agree with Krauss, it's not entirely clear it's even a theory at all.

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The book merely explains why Dawkins feels that God is an illusion created by man. He provides many forms of evidence in his argument for this.

right , so he concludes God does not exist (is an illusion) , merely from what he sees as lack of evidence that he does.

in other words X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

it's not just an argument from ignorance, it's an entirely personal subjective ignorance on his part

 

[viole]

we agree, the multiverse is not a scientific theory, it's an argument from ignorance. In fact I agree with Krauss, it's not entirely clear it's even a theory at all.

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

Suppose they have been planted there. By God or Whomever.

Why did not God plant humans to start with?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

First of all, I never called you ignorant. An "argument from ignorance" is a logical fallacy. All you have to do is read the explanation I provided. But, if you are too stubborn to do that, please don't belittle yourself with stupid comments.

And, I have no problem admitting my ignorance. I admitted that I don't know, and I explained what I believed to be the case. I then explained why I cannot trust my belief until I figure out more.

It's not a matter of 'figuring'....

It's a matter of choice.

at the point of singularity you have a choice.

What is really holding you back?
you already know....your cry for verifiable evidence will not be met.

 

[leibowde84]

right , so he concludes God does not exist (is an illusion) , merely from what he sees as lack of evidence that he does.

in other words X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

it's not just an argument from ignorance, it's an entirely personal subjective ignorance on his part

No, he provides evidence that certain notions of God cannot be correct. No one can prove that God doesn't exist, and he admits that.

 

[leibowde84]

It's not a matter of 'figuring'....

It's a matter of choice.

at the point of singularity you have a choice.

What is really holding you back?
you already know....your cry for verifiable evidence will not be met.

I already provided the answer, though. I explained what I believe. What more do you want?

Why don't you think that arguments from ignorance are logically flawed?

 

[SkepticThinker]

we agree, the multiverse is not a scientific theory, it's an argument from ignorance. In fact I agree with Krauss, it's not entirely clear it's even a theory at all.

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

You need to stop quote mining Richard Dawkins with this quote. The full context has been provided to you by several people on several different occasions, which demonstrated that you are misquoting him to mean something he actually doesn't mean at all. I have to ask at this point, do you enjoy appearing foolish and dishonest?

 

[SkepticThinker]

right , so he concludes God does not exist (is an illusion) , merely from what he sees as lack of evidence that he does.

in other words X is false because you cannot prove that X is true.

it's not just an argument from ignorance, it's an entirely personal subjective ignorance on his part

Have you read the book?