Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

[Dan From Smithville]

Once again you are not answering, amazing!!! There is something really wrong with you.... Just answer yes or no


As for your question I would say that something is supernatural if it contradicts a well known law of nature...

I have answered you. It is not me that has the issues here.

I will give the proper answer as I have and not kowtow to your demands. If you do not like it, you are free to move on. Or do you not have free will here?

Do you know of anything that contradicts the laws of nature?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So exactly which of these 2 statements do you find controvertial

1 Someone that can see the future with detail and accuracy (for example the scores of 1000 soccer games in a row) would be an example of supernatural

2 You can objectively test this against naturalistic hypothesis

You keep changing your premises. Why can't you just start with the premises you keep changing to?

Demonstrate that it is supernatural? You claim to be able to test it. Do it. Stop posting your unsupported assertions and do the test.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So exactly which of these 2 statements do you find controvertial

1 Someone that can see the future with detail and accuracy (for example the scores of 1000 soccer games in a row) would be an example of supernatural

2 You can objectively test this against naturalistic hypothesis

Has anyone ever made 1000 specific predictions like that in a row and everyone turn out to be correct? How do you know they would be an example of the supernatural? Run the test you know so much.

 

[leroy]

Has anyone ever made 1000 specific predictions like that in a row and everyone turn out to be correct? How do you know they would be an example of the supernatural? Run the test you know so much.

Again not answering to my question

 

[leroy]

You keep changing your premises. Why can't you just start with the premises you keep changing to?

Demonstrate that it is supernatural? You claim to be able to test it. Do it. Stop posting your unsupported assertions and do the test.

No I can't test the supernatural according to your standards,

But one can test for claims that seem to contradict known natural laws....... Agree? Yes or no?

 

[leroy]

Do you know of anything that contradicts the laws of nature?

I would say that there are some debatable examples...... Which is why you shouldn't reject the supernatural by default... Feel free to open a new thread on that topic and I'll be happy to participate

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again not answering to my question

Again, you are claiming that which is not true. I have answered it. I will not play your game with you any longer.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would say that there are some debatable examples...... Which is why you shouldn't reject the supernatural by default... Feel free to open a new thread on that topic and I'll be happy to participate

I don't know. You haven't presented any.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No I can't test the supernatural according to your standards,

But one can test for claims that seem to contradict known natural laws....... Agree? Yes or no?

Can you test it according to any objective standards?

I do not know. You haven't presented anything that contradicts the laws of nature.

 

[Heyo]

I would say that there are some debatable examples...... Which is why you shouldn't reject the supernatural by default... Feel free to open a new thread on that topic and I'll be happy to participate

It may be good to open a new OP because we are way off topic here.
But let me clarify one thing here you and @Dan From Smithville seem to confuse:
You are talking about unexplained phenomena,
Dan is talking about hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Scientists and sceptics had egg on their face a few times in the past when they rejected the existence of some phenomena, e.g. ball lightning and spontaneous human combustion.
Supernaturalists have always failed to come up with a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Only the later is subject of this debate. There are no alternative, testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena that lead to the old earth model of Steno proposed by YEC.
This lack of a (published) hypothesis has to be explained by YEC. One possible explanation is the conspiracy theory.
The superiority explanation doesn't really hold water because a superior intellect should be able to formulate a hypothesis and get it published.

 

[gnostic]

Is relying on the only thing we have evidence for and the only thing we can test really a bias?

No, it isn’t bias.

Bias would be letting a preconceptions of belief to dictate the conclusion, instead of letting evidence dictate the conclusion.

In science, evidence not only verify hypotheses, but the testing and evidence can also debunk poorly explained and poorly researched hypotheses. Evidence that would weed out any faulty or incorrect models.

Or do you think a creationist chose that word for negative impact?

That is likely.

Ever since ever since I found out about creationism, particularly those that follow YEC (around 2003 when I joined the 1st forum), I have noticed that YEC creationists would use mass media to not only promote creationism, but use anti-science propaganda.

And the people (creationists) have often used logical fallacies in their arguments both for creationism and against science, evaded or ignored for reliable science sources or researches, for data and evidence.

These re the common tactics I have seen, among all creationists, even those who believe in OEC, especially those who support Intelligent Design.

 

[leroy]

Can you test it according to any objective standards?

I do not know. You haven't presented anything that contradicts the laws of nature.

Yes atleast in principle it's possible to test for gohst, people that can reed the future, resurrections, and other stuff that people would call supernatural....... Honestly I don't understand why is this so hard to accept.

If a man accuratelly predicts the results of 1000 soccer games you can test for different hypothesis
1 he was lucky
2 conspiracy theory,
3 he is lying
4 he can see the future (supernatural hypothesis)

And you can use objective tools and find the best hypothesis.

Agree yes or no?

 

[leroy]

It may be good to open a new OP because we are way off topic here.
But let me clarify one thing here you and @Dan From Smithville seem to confuse:
You are talking about unexplained phenomena,
Dan is talking about hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Scientists and sceptics had egg on their face a few times in the past when they rejected the existence of some phenomena, e.g. ball lightning and spontaneous human combustion.
Supernaturalists have always failed to come up with a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Only the later is subject of this debate. There are no alternative, testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena that lead to the old earth model of Steno proposed by YEC.
This lack of a (published) hypothesis has to be explained by YEC. One possible explanation is the conspiracy theory.
The superiority explanation doesn't really hold water because a superior intellect should be able to formulate a hypothesis and get it published.

God could have created a mature and functional earth. This would explain away many arguments for an old earth.

The rest of the arguments can be explained by appealing to gaps in our knowledge.

I don't agree with YEC, but my point is that they don't need to go as far as to claim a massive world wide conspiracy

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes atleast in principle it's possible to test for gohst, people that can reed the future, resurrections, and other stuff that people would call supernatural....... Honestly I don't understand why is this so hard to accept.

People can make observations or attempt to observe the things that you list, but there are no tests for them to support what they are claimed to be. You do not seem to understand the difference.

If a man accuratelly predicts the results of 1000 soccer games you can test for different hypothesis
1 he was lucky
2 conspiracy theory,
3 he is lying
4 he can see the future (supernatural hypothesis)

And you can use objective tools and find the best hypothesis.

Agree yes or no?

No. Support your claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It may be good to open a new OP because we are way off topic here.
But let me clarify one thing here you and @Dan From Smithville seem to confuse:
You are talking about unexplained phenomena,
Dan is talking about hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Scientists and sceptics had egg on their face a few times in the past when they rejected the existence of some phenomena, e.g. ball lightning and spontaneous human combustion.
Supernaturalists have always failed to come up with a testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

Only the later is subject of this debate. There are no alternative, testable hypothesis to explain the phenomena that lead to the old earth model of Steno proposed by YEC.
This lack of a (published) hypothesis has to be explained by YEC. One possible explanation is the conspiracy theory.
The superiority explanation doesn't really hold water because a superior intellect should be able to formulate a hypothesis and get it published.

Sorry. He is posting responses across multiple threads. I was not paying attention to where they were coming from. Didn't mean to disrupt your thread.

I'll have to get back to you on spontaneous human combustion. Perhaps a new OP for that.

YEC would need to explain the presence of evidence that contradicts their position. One way to do that would be to divert attention from it and claim a global conspiracy theory. Another could be to invoke Satan. Or they could hybridize it. A smaller, core conspiracy, dupes and Satan. What they cannot do, as you point out, is to provide a rational, testable hypothesis to explain the evidence in a way that supports their position.

 

[Heyo]

I'll have to get back to you on spontaneous human combustion. Perhaps a new OP for that.

It's already there: Question about...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's already there: Question about...

Thanks.

 

[gnostic]

No I can't test the supernatural according to your standards,

But one can test for claims that seem to contradict known natural laws....... Agree? Yes or no?

Leroy, if there were tests that have successfully “contradict known natural laws”, you would have shown them by now, instead of asking and repeating the same evasive questions.

You do realize that something are “unknown” now, only mean that we don’t understand.

That doesn’t in any way mean the “unknown” is supernatural.

Supernatural mean something, like magic, which defy natural law. To date, there are no evidence to support the supernatural, nothing to support magic or the so-called divine miracles.

If you have testable evidence, then show it.

Otherwise, you are being evasive or just making excuses, and neither point to evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, it isn’t bias.

Bias would be letting a preconceptions of belief to dictate the conclusion, instead of letting evidence dictate the conclusion.

In science, evidence not only verify hypotheses, but the testing and evidence can also debunk poorly explained and poorly researched hypotheses. Evidence that would weed out any faulty or incorrect models.



That is likely.

Ever since ever since I found out about creationism, particularly those that follow YEC (around 2003 when I joined the 1st forum), I have noticed that YEC creationists would use mass media to not only promote creationism, but use anti-science propaganda.

And the people (creationists) have often used logical fallacies in their arguments both for creationism and against science, evaded or ignored for reliable science sources or researches, for data and evidence.

These re the common tactics I have seen, among all creationists, even those who believe in OEC, especially those who support Intelligent Design.

I would not characterize it as bias either. When the only phenomena that can be observed and tested are in the physical world, it is hardly fitting to call it a bias as some creationists try to assert.

I have yet to see a creationist argument that amounted to more than fallacies, falsehoods flawed reasoning, and invalid assumptions. They cannot support their claims, so the best that they can do is try to tear down science.

 

[leroy]

People can make observations or attempt to observe the things that you list, but there are no tests for them to support what they are claimed to be. You do not seem to understand the difference.

No, I don’t understand the difference, for example one can in principle use the best available scientific evidence and apply the best empirical tests to see if someone is dead, (A) and then you can apply the best available scientific evidence to determine that someone is alive (B)

If A predates B you can reasonable conclude a resurrection took place, using just science, therefore at least in principle you can test for supernatural events, please explain exactly where is your point of disagreement



No. Support your claim.[/QUOTE]

please explain exactly where is your point of disagreement