Can any creationist tell me ...

[Subduction Zone]

Oops! I found a snide remark from you that I apparently had overlooked!

I stated: "If the Earth today were smoothed out, the existing water would cover the planet to a depth of 1.7 miles!"

And your reply was sarcastic:


I had just finished saying that your behavior was more respectful than some of the others. Now I read this.

I respond with a fact, and you answer back with disrespectful sarcasm, and a "so what."
You know why I mentioned that, I don't think you're that dense, not to get it.

If you disagree with my conclusion, just say so. But don't be a yokel about it.

Your claim was a non sequitur, that is why you got the response of "so what". Perhaps you should try to learn the difference between oceanic and continental plates. In a sense continental plates float in the asthenosphere in the same way that icebergs float in the ocean. It is why they are at a higher elevation than oceanic plates.

A little knowledge of the history of the sciences would help you too. Many of the earliest of geologists were Christians that were looking for evidence to support the Noah's Ark story. Instead they ended up debunking it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Your claim was a non sequitur, that is why you got the response of "so what". Perhaps you should try to learn the difference between oceanic and continental plates. In a sense continental plates float in the asthenosphere in the same way that icebergs float in the ocean. It is why they are at a higher elevation than oceanic plates.

A little knowledge of the history of the sciences would help you too. Many of the earliest of geologists were Christians that were looking for evidence to support the Noah's Ark story. Instead they ended up debunking it.

Nope! The opposing camp just has a bigger foghorn, and drowns them out with louder noises. @Deeje , we're starting the Flood thread soon, OK?

 

[blü 2]

I had just finished saying that your behavior was more respectful than some of the others. Now I read this.

It's a matter for you. Act as you think fit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope! The opposing camp just has a bigger foghorn, and drowns them out with louder noises. @Deeje , we're starting the Flood thread soon, OK?

`
Sorry, but you are only fooling yourself.

But then you demonstrate that by running away when you are shown to be constantly wrong.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why are you ignoring the other aspects of my quote about the clam evidence, like the fact that they died quickly, with their shells closed? And the fact that there are numerous giant clam beds globally, which died in a cataclysm?

I'm curious.....exactly how do you believe those clams ended up at Mt. Everest?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

`
Sorry, but you are only fooling yourself.

But then you demonstrate that by running away when you are shown to be constantly wrong.

"Running away"?? I'm still here. Lol.

You haven't "shown" me to be wrong, only in your own mind and those of your comrades.

All you have presented here are suppositions, and highly subjective, circumstantial evidence.

As I said, y'all just have a louder foghorn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Running away"?? I'm still here. Lol.

You haven't "shown" me to be wrong, only in your own mind and those of your comrades.

All you have presented here are suppositions, and highly subjective, circumstantial evidence.

As I said, y'all just have a louder foghorn.

Yes, but when you avoid defending your bogus claims that is running away. And of course I have shown you to be wrong. Your inability to understand does not mean that is not the case.

That is why I offer to go over the basics with so many creationists. If you understood the basics there would be no need for you to run away.

By the way, you do not know what evidence is. Your claim is false. Once again, let's start with a discussion on what is and what is not evidence.

 

[dad1]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

Hey, why has it not put a scratch on Aesop's fables either?

 

[blü 2]

Hey, why has it not put a scratch on Aesop's fables either?

Good neither at science nor at common sense, you say?

You may be on to something there!

 

[dad1]

Good neither at science nor at common sense, you say?

You may be on to something there!

Believing the absolute and unassailable truth does not really affect the various fables like those of fake news origin sciences.

Not all will chose to be set free of lies or delusions just because they hear truth. Their haven of darkness is safe until the light of heaven covers the earth one day.

 

[Alucard]

In 1859 The Origin of Species hit the stands, and most scientists and thoughtful people were very rapidly persuaded by the power of its arguments and demonstrations.

Though creationism never wholly went away after 1859, it was greatly overshadowed until, in 1961 Whitcomb and Morris published The Genesis Flood, and, particularly in the US, put enthusiasm into the bible literalists' cause again. The book also marks the birth of 'creation science'.

I address this question to creationists here:

If, as creationists say,

─ the theory of evolution is truly wrong, and

─ 'creation science' is valid science

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?

I know you are addressing the question to creationists even though I am not really one, sort of.

Nevertheless, I wanna just give you some of my opinion and if you could, give me some corrections/advice

I guess you can say the reason why creationism has not put one single scientific mark so far, maybe, is because creationism is different from science.

Science uses facts and through tests they can come up with conclusions. So science uses the evidence and religion is more faith-based but MANY will argue against it which I find to be funny.

Whatever both is based on is not relevant, to me at least, I just want to seek the truth. I do not yet know how to do this however.

 

[blü 2]

Believing the absolute and unassailable truth does not really affect the various fables like those of fake news origin sciences.

But there are no absolute truths, hence no unassailable truths.

Truth, after all, means conformity with reality.

It doesn't mean conformity with personal belief; if it did, 'truth' would be completely subjective.

And since our knowledge and understanding of reality change from time to time, truth isn't eternal. It's always a work in progress.

Not all will chose to be set free of lies or delusions just because they hear truth.

Sad but true.

Their haven of darkness is safe until the light of heaven covers the earth one day.

You wish them in hell. I wish them understanding.

Good luck with your studies of the physics and cosmology of our universe.

 

[blü 2]

I guess you can say the reason why creationism has not put one single scientific mark so far, maybe, is because creationism is different from science.

Sure is.

So science uses the evidence and religion is more faith-based but MANY will argue against it.

That's the heart of the matter ─ facts v fable.

Whatever both is based on is not relevant, to me at least, I just want to seek the truth. I do not yet know how to do this however.

My own view is that an argument satisfactory to reasoned enquiry (which includes scientific method as a subset) is, for me, a satisfactory argument.

And the underlying idea here is that we look at examinable evidence and reason honestly and transparently from it to see where it leads us. And we open our conclusions to criticism, and we assess the criticism honestly.

When we encounter unexaminable evidence (eg claims of experiences of gods, ghosts, and so on) then we proceed skeptically; not as necessarily untrue, but not as necessarily true either. And that indeterminate status means that evidence is not useful without a more solid foundation.

And there's more ─ falsifiability, repeatability, retesting &c ─ but that's the general idea.

 

[Alucard]

Sure is.

That's the heart of the matter ─ facts v fable.

My own view is that an argument satisfactory to reasoned enquiry (which includes scientific method as a subset) is, for me, a satisfactory argument.

And the underlying idea here is that we look at examinable evidence and reason honestly and transparently from it to see where it leads us. And we open our conclusions to criticism, and we assess the criticism honestly.

When we encounter unexaminable evidence (eg claims of experiences of gods, ghosts, and so on) then we proceed skeptically; not as necessarily untrue, but not as necessarily true either. And that indeterminate status means that evidence is not useful without a more solid foundation.

And there's more ─ falsifiability, repeatability, retesting &c ─ but that's the general idea.

I see, thanks for the information

 

[dad1]

But there are no absolute truths, hence no unassailable truths.

No, is that true? Absolutely true? If so, you are wrong and there are truths! If you are wrong and there really are absolute truths you are still wrong! Either way you are wrong. Quite a position you are in there.

Truth, after all, means conformity with reality.

Reality of the future need not be the reality of today. Nor does the reality of the far past need to be the reality of today. Those with a severed view of what reality is should not preach to others.

It doesn't mean conformity with personal belief; if it did, 'truth' would be completely subjective.

In science when a true claim is made we can check it. Subjective is not limited to only that which happens to be under your nose either. Not only have you abused the words truth and reality and subjective, but you relegated them to your belief system.

And since our knowledge and understanding of reality change from time to time, truth isn't eternal. It's always a work in progress.

You adapt to the most recent reality when busted. That does not give you any monopoly on all truth and reality. On the contrary. The constant need to correct your being wrong shows that there is a pattern of being wrong that is predictable and observable.

You wish them in hell. I wish them understanding.

You project evil thoughts onto me, which I have not said in any way. I hope they have the sense to abandon the sinking ship before drowning.

Good luck with your studies of the physics and cosmology of our universe.

The temporal universe is interesting and all that, but studying it is of limited import.

 

[blü 2]

No, is that true? Absolutely true?

No, it's simply true.

In science when a true claim is made we can check it.

In science, as in everything else, 'truth' is the best opinion, the best understanding, available at the time. Once it was true that the earth is flat and the stars go round it, for instance. Now it's not true.

Not only have you abused the words truth and reality and subjective

'Truth' is conformity with reality. Reality is the sum of things with objective existence, that is, things that exist independently of any concept of them in a brain. Subjective means the aspect of the perceiving brain in relation to (external) reality.

Lay out your definitions and we can compare notes. Until you do that, you haven't indicated what you mean.

That does not give you any monopoly on all truth and reality.

So what? I didn't claim one.

The constant need to correct your being wrong shows that there is a pattern of being wrong that is predictable and observable.

The ongoing need to recognize when you're in error and correct it is a feature of the rational mind.

You project evil thoughts onto me, which I have not said in any way.

No, I simply disagree with you.

 

[dad1]

No, it's simply true.

You are saying what you are saying is not absolutely true then?

In science, as in everything else, 'truth' is the best opinion, the best understanding, available at the time. Once it was true that the earth is flat and the stars go round it, for instance. Now it's not true.

So the current baseless story that has not yet gotten busted as false is true as far as science goes?

'Truth' is conformity with reality.

So reality is made to conform to science?

Reality is the sum of things with objective existence, that is, things that exist independently of any concept of them in a brain.

That says nothing about the objects that exist, because the so called reality you seek to tar them with is based on the beliefs you project onto the objects, not the objects themselves.

Subjective means the aspect of the perceiving brain in relation to (external) reality.

So science is subjective then, OK. They perceive the far universe to be a certain way in their brains.

/QUOTE]Lay out your definitions and we can compare notes. Until you do that, you haven't indicated what you mean.[/QUOTE]

Truth...= Jesus. On a smaller level, truth is what is true.
Reality = God On a smaller level, reality has to do with what is actually real.
Objective = 'what it under your nose based thinking' -- unless you have actual knowledge things far from your nose are the same as that which is under it.

So what? I didn't claim one.

Science does claim a lot about where man and the universe came from. They act like they have a monopoly on creation.

The ongoing need to recognize when you're in error and correct it is a feature of the rational mind.

Especially when the ones in systematic ongoing predictable error want to keep their grants and jobs and have had their wild new stories believed for so long. I do not happen to think it is rational to never be able to come to a knowledge of the truth.

No, I simply disagree with you.

No, you said this..

"You wish them in hell..." That is not disagreeing, that is slander.

 

[blü 2]

You are saying what you are saying is not absolutely true then?

Of course.

If you know an absolute truth, by all means tell me, and ─ the important part ─ demonstrate that it's an accurate statement about reality ie true, and applies without exception or chance of amendment ie absolute.

So the current baseless story that has not yet gotten busted as false is true as far as science goes?

Didn't you know that all conclusions of science are tentative? That they're derived by empiricism and induction, so that nothing protects them from a counterexample that we may find tomorrow, or never find?

That's why scientific method requires conclusions to be expressed in falsifiable form. The aim is to be falsifiable but not falsified. This allows the search for what's true in reality to advance.

And by the other side of that coin, the failure of religion to subject itself to such impartial and scrupulous examination has led to nonsense like creationism.

So reality is made to conform to science?

Nope. Science changes because reality is what it is.

That says nothing about the objects that exist, because the so called reality you seek to tar them with is based on the beliefs you project onto the objects, not the objects themselves.

No. It's a corollary from my assumption that a world exists external to the self, and my assumption that our senses are capable of informing us about that world. Since by posting here you demonstrate that you share those assumptions, there's no issue between us there.

So science is subjective then, OK.

There's no pure objectivity. However, if you want to maximize objectivity, then reasoned enquiry, which includes scientific method, is the only way forward.

Truth...= Jesus.

Oh dear, not that meaningless nonsense again. I swear to tell the Jesus, the whole Jesus and nothing but the Jesus. Don't be silly.

On a smaller level, truth is what is true.

So now you need a definition of 'true' that isn't circular. What is it?

Reality = God

Ho hum.

On a smaller level, reality has to do with what is actually real.

So what definition are you using for 'real'?

Objective = 'what it under your nose based thinking'.

That too is meaningless.

Science does claim a lot about where man and the universe came from. They act like they have a monopoly on creation.

No, they act like they've carefully gathered evidence, formed and tested hypotheses, chosen the one that best correlates with observation, retested it against the facts, and against various other hypotheses, and ─ in the case of the universe ─ arrived at a well-founded theory starting at the Big Bang; and in the case of the origin of species, demonstrated the correctness of the theory of evolution and continued to add to it.

If you disagree, you're at liberty to examine the evidence yourself, test it yourself, and run any argument you can develop in that fashion up against the present view.

"You wish them in hell..." That is not disagreeing, that is slander.

If you don't wish them in hell then I withdraw the remark. Do you expect them to go to hell? If you do, do you wish it were otherwise?

 

[dad1]

Of course.

If you know an absolute truth, by all means tell me, and ─ the important part ─ demonstrate that it's an accurate statement about reality ie true, and applies without exception or chance of amendment ie absolute.

Didn't you know that all conclusions of science are tentative? That they're derived by empiricism and induction, so that nothing protects them from a counterexample that we may find tomorrow, or never find?

That's why scientific method requires conclusions to be expressed in falsifiable form. The aim is to be falsifiable but not falsified. This allows the search for what's true in reality to advance.

And by the other side of that coin, the failure of religion to subject itself to such impartial and scrupulous examination has led to nonsense like creationism.

Since science cannot so much as detect a spirit on earth, we cannot ask them about God in heaven! To suggest that the proofs over history God gave us were inadequate because science was left out of the loop, (and indeed called foolishness by Him) is ridiculous.
That is like saying that because we never asked a chimp about specific moon landing coordinates, it was inadequate.

Nope. Science changes because reality is what it is.

Well, thanks science for WOMD and pollution and all that, but your origins fables change nothing!

No. It's a corollary from my assumption that a world exists external to the self, and my assumption that our senses are capable of informing us about that world. Since by posting here you demonstrate that you share those assumptions, there's no issue between us there.

There's no pure objectivity. However, if you want to maximize objectivity, then reasoned enquiry, which includes scientific method, is the only way forward.

Oh dear, not that meaningless nonsense again. I swear to tell the Jesus, the whole Jesus and nothing but the Jesus. Don't be silly.

If people tried to be like Him they would not be the liars they are.

No, they act like they've carefully gathered evidence, formed and tested hypotheses, chosen the one that best correlates with observation, retested it against the facts, and against various other hypotheses, and ─ in the case of the universe ─ arrived at a well-founded theory starting at the Big Bang; and in the case of the origin of species, demonstrated the correctness of the theory of evolution and continued to add to it.

If you disagree, you're at liberty to examine the evidence yourself, test it yourself, and run any argument you can develop in that fashion up against the present view.

If you don't wish them in hell then I withdraw the remark. Do you expect them to go to hell? If you do, do you wish it were otherwise?

? What remark?

 

[blü 2]

Since science cannot so much as detect a spirit on earth, we cannot ask them about God in heaven!

The problem here is that no one has provided a definition, a useful description, of either a real spirit or a real god, such that if we found a candidate, we could determine that it was indeed a spirit or indeed a god.

(No such problem arises with imaginary spirits or imaginary gods, of course ─ they can be whatever one wants them to be, and in this are indistinguishable from what the market offers.)

So as it stands, to speak of a real god, a god with objective existence, is to speak of something with no coherent concept behind it. To speak of a real god is not to have a clue what one's talking about.

Are you able to solve that problem? After all, if God is indeed real, has objective existence, then God has qualities that identify [him] uniquely. If [he] appears as a burning bush, the bush, or at least the fire, will necessarily have physical traces of that uniqueness. What exactly are we looking for?

And while we're about definitions, how do you define 'true'? 'real'? 'subjective'?

Well, thanks science for WOMD and pollution and all that, but your origins fables change nothing!

You wish me to accept that as your admission that you can't give a useful definition of 'God' and then give a satisfactory demonstration of God in reality, then? Or can you do those things?