Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[exchemist]

Speak for yourself. You are saying that you don't know, and that's all you need to say.

Well I'm speaking for the scientific view of the matter, not just for myself.

We are entitled to believe what we like, of course. What I and others with a science background will take issue with is the pretence that creationism has any support as a scientific idea. It has none, for numerous reasons, one of them being that there is no requirement to jump to a conclusion before the evidence warrants it. This is what I was trying to point out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speak for yourself. You are saying that you don't know, and that's all you need to say.

If you actually knew you could support your claims. If you can't all you have is belief. I have yet to meet a theist that "knows", even though quite a few of them claim to know. Scientists have to be honest about knowledge since if they claim to "know" something their colleagues will not allow them to mere state that they know. They would have to demonstrate how they knew and how others could know as well.

What do you think that you know and how can you demonstrate that knowledge?

 

[Desert Snake]

If you actually knew you could support your claims. If you can't all you have is belief. I have yet to meet a theist that "knows", even though quite a few of them claim to know. Scientists have to be honest about knowledge since if they claim to "know" something their colleagues will not allow them to mere state that they know. They would have to demonstrate how they knew and how others could know as well.

What do you think that you know and how can you demonstrate that knowledge?

First off, 'know' is a personal inference, that may or may not inform our beliefs.
Hence, the word is belief, whether you claim to know, or not.

Aside from from your bad word usage inferences, you are mixing up ideas. What you believe, is what you think is true, ie it is your personal truth.
Ie the correct word there, is belief.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off, 'know' is a personal inference, that may or may not inform our beliefs.
Hence, the word is belief, whether you claim to know, or not.

Aside from from your bad word usage inferences, you are mixing up ideas. What you believe, is what you think is true, ie it is your personal truth.
Ie the correct word there, is belief.

Sorry, but you are using a definition for "believe" and not know. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. To know is not merely to have a strong belief. Knowledge could be said to be a subset of belief, but it is a demonstrable belief. Your beliefs do not appear to be demonstrable.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you actually knew you could support your claims. If you can't all you have is belief. I have yet to meet a theist that "knows", even though quite a few of them claim to know. Scientists have to be honest about knowledge since if they claim to "know" something their colleagues will not allow them to mere state that they know. They would have to demonstrate how they knew and how others could know as well.

What do you think that you know and how can you demonstrate that knowledge?

You know this goes in both directions, right? That science needs to 'prove', something, according to your equation? Your commentary doesn't seem to indicate that you realize that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Sorry, but you are using a definition for "believe" and not know. Once again, knowledge is demonstrable. To know is not merely to have a strong belief. Knowledge could be said to be a subset of belief, but it is a demonstrable belief. Your beliefs do not appear to be demonstrable.

That is nonsense. 'Know', is personal, it informs our beliefs, but our beliefs can either be evidenced, or not. Ie you believe that you know, when when you believe that you know something, whatever it is.
Again, this is hilarious, since you haven't proven anything.

Fun fact, your word usage is terrible for science, because it infers that something must be proven to others. Why don't I just tell you where you where that argumentation goes, it goes to, 'i know this', and in opposition to 'i know that', ie you have taken any useful meaning out of the word know...

Probably doesn't matter at this point, since the word know is generally meaningless, now, anyway.

 

[exchemist]

You know this goes in both directions, right? That science needs to 'prove', something, according to your equation? Your commentary doesn't seem to indicate that you realize that.

Wrong. Science does not deal in proof. It deals only in evidence.

I have lost count of the number of times I have had to explain this to creationists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know this goes in both directions, right? That science needs to 'prove', something, according to your equation? Your commentary doesn't seem to indicate that you realize that.

That is done all of the time in the sciences. To be accepted an idea needs to be proven by the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" at the very least. Not only must ideas be confirmable, scientists need to be able to test them again and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong. Science does not deal in proof. It deals only in evidence.

I have lost count of the number of times I have had to explain this to creationists.

Since scare quotes were used I felt free to use the legal standard of proof rather than a mathematical proof. Considering that they have no reliable evidence for their beliefs they should at the very least accept the lower standard of the legal definition of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is nonsense. 'Know', is personal, it informs our beliefs, but our beliefs can either be evidenced, or not. Ie you believe that you know, when when you believe that you know something, whatever it is.
Again, this is hilarious, since you haven't proven anything.

Fun fact, your word usage is terrible for science, because it infers that something must be proven to others. Why don't I just tell you where you where that argumentation goes, it goes to, 'i know this', and in opposition to 'i know that', ie you have taken any useful meaning out of the word know...

Probably doesn't matter at this point, since the word know is generally meaningless, now, anyway.

Wrong again. There is a reason that we have different words. You make them meaningless if you use the same word for everything. Your definition is terribly flawed.

And no, my usage is perfect for science since one must be able to support one's claims. You on the other hand cannot support your claims. It is a bad definition for you, not for science.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wrong again. There is a reason that we have different words. You make them meaningless if you use the same word for everything. Your definition is terribly flawed.

And no, my usage is perfect for science since one must be able to support one's claims. You on the other hand cannot support your claims. It is a bad definition for you, not for science.

You are opening a can that you don't want want to open, dude.

It's like you have no idea what science can't prove.

Your methodology is well suited to trying to prove to the 'i'm a pink unicorn', crowd, that they aren't pink unicorns. because that's where it's going.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are opening a can that you don't want want to open, dude.

It's like you have no idea what science can't prove.

Your methodology is well suited to trying to prove to the 'i'm a pink unicorn', crowd, that they aren't pink unicorns. because that's where it's going.

Wrong, I understand what science can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". Odds are that you have no idea how one works in the sciences at all. Don't get angry just because you have used a word improperly. Learn from your mistakes.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

"God of the gaps" is the observation that saying "god did it" is an every shrinking category. Gods used to do everything. Not so much any longer. There is no need for a rain god, a lightning god, a sun god, etc.

In my book, Anat complains to El that She was taught Gods controlled various aspects of things, but if a God dies, people still get rain and love and war and stuff, so really, what are They?

ID predicts that life did not develop by slow gradual incremental changes as predicted by Darwin and expected by accumulation of random copying errors , but explosive appearances of new, significantly enhanced designs at just the right time and place- as expected from goal oriented design changes.

How can I believe that God created a human being from dirt when He apparently loses the recipe after the first try? Other gods who make people out of dirt or clay or whatever manage entire races of such beings.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wrong, I understand what science can "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". Odds are that you have no idea how one works in the sciences at all. Don't get angry just because you have used a word improperly. Learn from your mistakes.

You're really not getting this, are you?

• person so and so: i know that god or gods exist
• person so and so: i know that god or gods dont exist
•person so and so: i know that abiogenesis is the best theory
• person so and so: i know that Creationism is most likely


Your precious word is meaningless, congratulations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're really not getting this, are you?

• person so and so: i know that god or gods exist
• person so and so: i know that god or gods dont exist
•person so and so: i know that abiogenesis is the best theory
• person so and so: i know that Creationism is most likely
•person so and so: i know that I'm a pink unicorn

Your precious word is meaningless, congratulations.

That you can't find any real life examples belies your claim. Yes, many people misuse the word. That does not mean that they are correct when they do so.

If one can be shown to be wrong then one really cannot "know". Creationists are easily shown to be wrong in their claims.

And one more correction, abiognenesis is not a theory. There is not even one single hypothesis of abiogenesis. Right now there are several different hypotheses that deal with different parts of abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the way, there is nothing wrong with admitting that one has a belief. It tells us that your belief is not very strong when one has to claim that they "know" when they clearly do not. If a person knows he can support his claim. If he can't all he has is mere belief.

 

[james blunt]

Space is non-creationism, space is obviousness.

Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety; transparent:

Space cannot be created or destroyed , space supersedes all.

Space has no physicality or causality.

Space is pre-dominant

Now you know the creator

Now you can see the creator that is everywhere and all around you .

Now you can all put your books away and believe in the one creator .

Without the space to be created in , something cannot be created.

All your books and all your versions of God have been created within the one true God that supersedes any subjective God.

Space is now and forever.

 

[james blunt]

Space has another message for you

 

[james blunt]

Celebrate the space of God that allows you to move freely amongst the angels of heaven for thy heaven is thy home and thy God is watching you always.

 

[Desert Snake]

By the way, there is nothing wrong with admitting that one has a belief. It tells us that your belief is not very strong when one has to claim that they "know" when they clearly do not. If a person knows he can support his claim. If he can't all he has is mere belief.

Belief can either be evidenced , or not. Ie the person can either believe that they know, or not , and it is still a belief. Claiming that you 'know' something, is arbitrary, since you can claim anything, etc.
This is why your word definition has no inherent meaning, when not used to indicate just a personal truth, which informs your beliefs.