Irony of the evolutionary belief

[leroy]

Correct. Did you think I claimed otherwise? What I said is that a naturalistic explanation is preferred to a supernaturalistic one because natural mechanisms are known to exist, but there is no evidence that supernaturalism is a real thing, and that the simplest explanation that can be correct is the preferred one.

If you claim a supernatural explanation for the universe, it's you that needs to present evidence. Did you want me to provide evidence that naturalistic mechanisms exist? Probably not.

But the natural mechanisms that you need for creating big bangs are not known to exists I don’t see any advantage for your view

 

[leroy]

Why not?

logic

From the fact that elephants exist it doesn’t follow that elephants created the big bang

From the fact that natural mechanisms exist it doesn’t follow that the big bang was created by natural mechanism

Why is this so hard to understand

Everything else that science investigates reveals natural phenomena.

And science has revealed that known natural laws cant create big bangs….in fact know natural laws say that matter(energy) can´t be created nor destroyed……………… so ether

1 the big bang was caused by a supernatural mechanism (something that doesn’t have to respect the laws of nature) (God)

2 or science is wrong, which would mean that you are the one who is denying science.

There’s no examples of any supernatural phenomena or causes that can be confirmed. So supernatural claims are dubious and irrelevant.

You have your personal bias and motives, and none of us care what you think. We are committed to correcting your errors and pointing out your flawed thinking.

I bring up cancer as a trap for you creationists because it illustrates how your assumptions and beliefs are flawed. Of course you want to avoid it. It’s a no win for your beliefs.

You what to change the topic. That is why I am avoiding it…………….feel free to open a new thread about cancer, and I will participate.

 

[Pogo]

And the natural laws that we know about can´t create big bangs ………. We are both postulating something that we don t know about

No, you are postulating something, we are trying to teach you about rational inference and so far you are refractory.

 

[leroy]

Ow yes, and we all know humans are valid candidates for being the creators of the universe.

Neither nether known designers nor known natural laws are candidates for the big bang.

The possible causes for the big bang are

1 an unknown type of designer

2 an unknown type of natrual law

3 or something else (still unknown)

Of we are all even in this particular point

 

[leroy]

Only because you make up a definition that nobody else uses.
It's a dishonest approach and you know it.

Well just change “what people say or report” instead of testimony in all of my comments…….. where is the dishonesty ? is there any commentsthat looks better (more credible) because I used the word testimony instead of “what other peole say or report”?

 

[leroy]

It's a "nonsense view" to say that claims don't become evidence by believing them?

Owkay then.



Ok. That's a claim.



No. You have no way of calculating that probability. You are a tourist. Assuming you didn't do any research on the town, the hotel, the restaurants, etc before you went there (so you went to the town blind), you have no clue. All you have is the claim of the unknown person.




No. That would be the "hypothesis" itself. He's the one who's making that claim.



You are not making any sense. Where did the "hypothesis" come from? It's the supposed local who's telling you this, right?
Claims aren't evidence of themselves.

You can assess the claim based on circumstances. Is it trustworthy? Since it's a person working at the hotel, you could reason that this person has incentive not to lie to you, since that would damage the rep of the hotel. So you might decide to take his word for it. Note that language: take his word for it.

This means there is no evidence. There is just the claim and you deciding on its trustworthyness. Your basis for believing it thus has nothing to do with the claim, but rather with the fact that he's working at the hotel and has a reputation to uphold and customer satisfaction to take care of.

The "testimony" itself is not the evidence. The "testimony" is the claim.



Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.
And in the case above, there is no evidence.

There is merely an assessment of evaluating trustworthyness, based on your understanding of hotel employees caring about customer satisfaction and the hotel's reputation of providing accurate intel to tourists.

The claim is just the claim.
Claims are not evidence of themselves. They never are.


I just provided your mistakes above.

You consistently confuse claims with evidence.
Claims are not evidence. Claims require evidence.
And in the case above, there is no evidence.

There is merely an assessment of trustworthyness of the person making the claim, based on the idea that hotel workers have incentive to provide tourists with accurate intel.

Well you are alone on this one………….. everyone in this forum would grant that the claim of a local man is evidence for the location of the restaurant.

In other words a local man telling you that restaurant A is closer than restaurant B would be evidence , that A is closer.

"Evidence is data that matches (or contradicts) predictions / expectations of falsifiable hypothesis. Good, reliable evidence is objective and independently verifiable."

I am curious, in your opinion, what part of your definition is not meat with the claim of the local man?

- If A is closer to B then we woudl predict local men claiming that A is closer to be. (so the data mathces the predictions)
- The existance of the man and existance of the testimony and the location of the restaurants are objetive and verifiable

So given your definition , how does the claim of the local man, fails to be evidence?


Perhaps someone like @Dan From Smithville would-be a fair judge



Assume that you are a tourist on some city and that you have no idea about the locations of restaurants A and B

Assume that you ask a local man (say someone that works in the hotel)

Assume that this local man says that Restaurant A is closer than Restaurant B

Would you (Dan) say that the claim of this local man counts as evidence in favor of A being closer than B?

 

[leroy]

If you claim a supernatural explanation for the universe, it's you that needs to present evidence. Did you want me to provide evidence that naturalistic mechanisms exist? Probably not.

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

 

[Pogo]

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

Affirm is the wrong word again.

 

[Pogo]

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

Sorry we are not going to rewrite the English language just for you.

 

[YoursTrue]

But the natural mechanisms that you need for creating big bangs are not known to exists I don’t see any advantage for your view

Look, let's be honest. If Stephen Hawking said it's possible that something could come out of nothing, then that must the answer. Even if he changed his mind once in a while -- the advantage in S. Hawking's view is that he said it. I guess. And people glorified him for that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry we are not going to rewrite the English language just for you.

typical of some evasive answers. Go back to Stephen Hawking and agree with him, why don't you? Yes/no, maybe--

 

[YoursTrue]

I affirm that God is the best explanation for the big bang, you affirm that some unknown natural mechanism is the best explanation………..then way I see it we both have to present evidence, not just me

It seems reasonable to me, thank you, Leroy. I doubt if Stephen Hawking is thinking in his esteemed coffin place. As we get older, we realize how short our lives can be.
So there are those who are appreciative of the account of Jesus and his time on the earth as he raised some who were dead, showing that he was (is) the long-awaited Messiah. I am happy I have learned and realize what the Bible says -- some cross over from death to -- life. :=)

John 5:24=27
Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to quit this. I am not the only one that has had to point out when you do this.

Why is reality so hard to face? You seem to want to claim that your God is a liar, why is that? Can you answer that question?

What makes you say that I "seem to claim that my God is a liar? Can you please explain your remark?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What makes you say that I "seem to claim that my God is a liar? Can you please explain your remark?

Yes, and this is why I so often try to get creationists to understand the concept of evidence. The scientific evidence against the myths of Genesis are endless. The ones for them are nonexistent. That means that for those myths to be true that God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. Planting false evidence is a form of lying so one is claiming that God is a liar when one says that those myths are true.

If God cannot lie then the book of Genesis cannot be read literally.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and this is why I so often try to get creationists to understand the concept of evidence. The scientific evidence against the myths of Genesis are endless. The ones for them are nonexistent. That means that for those myths to be true that God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. Planting false evidence is a form of lying so one is claiming that God is a liar when one says that those myths are true.

If God cannot lie then the book of Genesis cannot be read literally.

I have never said to the best of my memory that Genesis is to be read literally. In every aspect. Now go fight with that. And since I do not believe everything in the Bible is literal, then please do either take your words back, or fight with yourself about that. Thank you for your explanation.

 

[Pogo]

typical of some evasive answers. Go back to Stephen Hawking and agree with him, why don't you? Yes/no, maybe--

Agree with him on what, that the sum total energy of the universe is zero? We know particles come and go from existence, heck HS experiments give evidence for that. It is science, there is more to learn, but we know a lot more than before he was born and he contributed.
The Universe is amazing and even more amazing the more we learn about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And for those that are interested, here is a picture that refutes the standard YEC version of Noah's Ark:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have never said to the best of my memory that Genesis is to be read literally. In every aspect. Now go fight with that. And since I do not believe everything in the Bible is literal, then please do either take your words back, or fight with yourself about that. Thank you for your explanation.

Alright, then what is your filter? What do you believe and what do you not believe? Even the Adam and Eve myth is enough to say that you are calling God a liar.

 

[Pogo]

I have never said to the best of my memory that Genesis is to be read literally. In every aspect. Now go fight with that. And since I do not believe everything in the Bible is literal, then please do either take your words back, or fight with yourself about that. Thank you for your explanation.

Well, you deny evolution based only on your reading of Genesis, so if not literally, what is your reason for your denial?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, and this is why I so often try to get creationists to understand the concept of evidence. The scientific evidence against the myths of Genesis are endless. The ones for them are nonexistent. That means that for those myths to be true that God would have had to have planted endless false evidence. Planting false evidence is a form of lying so one is claiming that God is a liar when one says that those myths are true.

If God cannot lie then the book of Genesis cannot be read literally.

Actually, you are the one claiming the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as portrayed in the Bible is a liar. And many would agree with you, including those who ostensibly go to church, synagogue or other houses of worship. I have come to believe that the Bible is God's word, as you know I did not always believe that. If you think I can prove or show every detail as evidence, guess what? I can't. That does not prove or show in my opinion that the Bible is not true. Or inspired by God, to men. Or that evolution as considered by Darwinian theory adherents is true. But that's me and I realize not everyone will agree with that. As also exemplified in the scriptural account. Some believed, others did not.