Where is the evidence for non- creationism?

[Subduction Zone]

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 o indicate just a personal truth, which informs your beliefs.

Ie using the word know, for your beliefs, isn't doing anything, besides taking an actual meaning, out of the word.

You're presenting your beliefs, get over it.

Correct, one can have evidence for a belief. But I disagree on when one gets to say "know". When one cannot support ones beliefs then it is clearly to early to say "know" no matter how hard one believes. One should say that one has a very strong belief. Again, nothing wrong with having a belief. But if one can't defend one's beliefs one should not use the word "know". If you look up the word "know" your personal definition does not fit the primary definition of the word. But my definition does fit the primary definitions given.

Now are you ready to learn how scientist know that many of the stories in the Bible are myth?

 

[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.

Translation: science is claiming to be 'all knowing', although this is subject to revision. So, all knowing sort of, unless revised.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Translation: science is claiming to be 'all knowing', although this is subject to revision. So, all knowing sort of, unless revised.

How on Earth did you get that claim? That was not implied at all. You are making the error of thinking that if one does not know everything one cannot know anything. That is not the case.

 

[Desert Snake]

Correct, one can have evidence for a belief. But I disagree on when one gets to say "know". When one cannot support ones beliefs then it is clearly to early to say "know" no matter how hard one believes. One should say that one has a very strong belief. Again, nothing wrong with having a belief. But if one can't defend one's beliefs one should not use the word "know". If you look up the word "know" your personal definition does not fit the primary definition of the word. But my definition does fit the primary definitions given.

Now are you ready to learn how scientist know that many of the stories in the Bible are myth?

I always say believe. That is why i 'm a Believer.

That doesn't inform whether I believe that my beliefs are evidenced, or not, they may or may not be.

Doesn't matter if someone says know, they're still just saying what their belief is. That is where we get 'so and so knows that they're a pink unicorn' from.
Hey whatever, they believe that that they know that they are a pink unicorn.

Doesn't matter who's saying it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I always say believe. That is why i 'm a Believer.

That doesn't inform whether I believe that my beliefs are evidenced, or not, they may or may not be.

Doesn't matter if someone says know, they're still just saying what their belief is. That is where we get 'so and so knows that they're a pink unicorn' from.
Hey whatever, they believe that that they know that they are a pink unicorn.

Doesn't matter who's saying it.

Okay fine, you believe. Now let's get back to the title of the thread. The title of this thread is "the evidence for creationism". If an idea is correct there should be evidence for it. Can you think of any evidence that supports the claims of creationists?

When I show that some of the claims of the Bible are false I do have to have one assumption. That is that if a god exists he would not actively lie to us. Most theists seem to agree with that assumption. But given that assumption it is possible to demonstrate that there was no flood of Noah for example.

 

[Desert Snake]

How on Earth did you get that claim? That was not implied at all. You are making the error of thinking that if one does not know everything one cannot know anything. That is not the case.

Nope, but know is contextual to an argument with parameters, and then it is just a signifier of an agreed upon outcome to an equation. It's just a signifier, and you could use another word, or a nonsense word, or a symbol, in it's place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, but know is contextual to an argument with parameters, and then it is just a signifier of an agreed upon outcome to an equation. It's just a signifier, and you could use another word, or a nonsense word, or a symbol, in it's place.

Sorry but that is simply not the case. But thanks for the word salad.