Thesis: YEC are Conspiracy Theorists

[Dan From Smithville]

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




please explain exactly where is your point of disagreement

You just want the conclusion you desire and have no interest in learning anything or seeing where your opinion is flawed.

It could be that the person wasn't dead. There is no known case where observation and testing has lead to the discovery of a resurrected dead body. A body that is alive has never been shown to have once been dead. There is no test to determine that.

You are confusing observation with test. These are not the same thing.

 

[leroy]

It could be that the person wasn't dead.

But that is testable, science can tell us with a high degree of certainty if someone is dead…agree?

There is no known case where observation and testing has lead to the discovery of a resurrected dead body. A body that is alive has never been shown to have once been dead. There is no test to determine that.
.

Maybe, but at least in principle it would be possible to test for a resurrection, ¿why not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But that is testable, science can tell us with a high degree of certainty if someone is dead…agree?



Maybe, but at least in principle it would be possible to test for a resurrection, ¿why not?

There is no test to determine resurrection. You have no way to test the supernatural. You can squirm all you like, but it will not make it so.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But that is testable, science can tell us with a high degree of certainty if someone is dead…agree?



Maybe, but at least in principle it would be possible to test for a resurrection, ¿why not?

If you are claiming that the supernatural can be tested you are going to have to do better than speculation.

 

[leroy]

There is no test to determine resurrection. You have no way to test the supernatural. You can squirm all you like, but it will not make it so.

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable


So which point would you reject 1,2,3,4 or 5 and why? Just kitting, I am not expecting a direct answer...... I know that you don't like to answer questions directly

 

[leroy]

If you are claiming that the supernatural can be tested you are going to have to do better than speculation.

Exactly what is My unsupported speculation?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable


So which point would you reject 1,2,3,4 or 5 and why? Just kitting, I am not expecting a direct answer...... I know that you don't like to answer questions directly

You believer whatever you want, but there is no test for the supernatural.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly what is My unsupported speculation?

That you can test for the supernatural. That you can find resurrected people using the speculation you are illustrating.

What is dead? What is alive? When is someone dead? What are you using as criteria. You claim a lot without demonstrating your claims. Show us that all the things that you claim are facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable


So which point would you reject 1,2,3,4 or 5 and why? Just kitting, I am not expecting a direct answer...... I know that you don't like to answer questions directly

How do you know the degree of certainty around these tests. You are just saying that. When are they tested? Has anyone ever determined that a person was dead, and then they revive? Were they really dead? Under what criteria? Are those the criteria you would use to test the supernatural? How do you eliminate natural causes for what might be called a resurrection or more probably a revival?

You haven't got a test for resurrection and even this rudimentary speculation has never been tested.

Resurrections might be testable, but no supernatural resurrection is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable


So which point would you reject 1,2,3,4 or 5 and why? Just kitting, I am not expecting a direct answer...... I know that you don't like to answer questions directly

Can you tell why a dead body is apparently alive? Can you show that it was supernatural? How do you know? What criteria and what degree of certainty is attached to a supernatural cause? How often do you think you have seen the dead rise? What were you drinking at the time?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Exactly what is My unsupported speculation?

If there is physical evidence to test, it is not supernatural. Since supernatural could be anything you could imagine, how do you eliminate all but one as the cause? How do you determine that it was supernatural and not natural?

You are just making more complicated God of the Gaps arguments.

 

[Heyo]

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable


So which point would you reject 1,2,3,4 or 5 and why? Just kitting, I am not expecting a direct answer...... I know that you don't like to answer questions directly

Of course you can test for phenomena. But you don't have a testable hypothesis how the resurrection happened.

And this still has nothing to do with YEC or conspiracy theories.

 

[leroy]

Resurrections might be testable, but no supernatural resurrection is.

Ok then it's just a matter of labels...... One can test for Resurrections, Gohst, people that can predict the future, etc...

It is just that you wouldn't call them "supernatural" is that your view?

 

[leroy]

If there is physical evidence to test, it is not supernatural. Since supernatural could be anything you could imagine, how do you eliminate all but one as the cause? How do you determine that it was supernatural and not natural?

You are just making more complicated God of the Gaps arguments.

You dont have to eliminate allll the alternative explanations with 100% certanity

If an event contradicts a well known and uncontrovertial natural law, I would label that as *"probably supernatural"

But sure I wouldn't be 100% certain.... If 100% certainy is your standard then Granted one can not test for the supernatural

 

[leroy]

Of course you can test for phenomena. But you don't have a testable hypothesis how the resurrection happened.

And this still has nothing to do with YEC or conspiracy theories.

Well can you present any source that indicates that YEC attribute the scientific consensus for an old earth to a conspiracy? Is that what answers in genesis or any other mayor organization claims


What evidence supports the claims in the OP?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok then it's just a matter of labels...... One can test for Resurrections, Gohst, people that can predict the future, etc...

It is just that you wouldn't call them "supernatural" is that your view?

How? You can set up cameras in an old house. If they capture an image, how do you test it for the supernatural? How do you know that what people call ghosts are really that?

It is not about labels. It is about the fact that you have no tests for the supernatural. All you do is what you always do. Beat a dead horse. We have tests for that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You dont have to eliminate allll the alternative explanations with 100% certanity

If an event contradicts a well known and uncontrovertial natural law, I would label that as *"probably supernatural"

But sure I wouldn't be 100% certain.... If 100% certainy is your standard then Granted one can not test for the supernatural

100% certainty is not my standard. You brought it up.

You have no standard for determining if something is supernatural. Who has determined that ghosts really are ghosts or that they even exist? Who has shown us that demons exist? Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok then it's just a matter of labels...... One can test for Resurrections, Gohst, people that can predict the future, etc...

It is just that you wouldn't call them "supernatural" is that your view?

You have no test for the supernatural. You are just suggesting tests for natural events and some that are not known to have ever occurred using made up in your head scenarios.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But that is testable, science can tell us with a high degree of certainty if someone is dead…agree?



Maybe, but at least in principle it would be possible to test for a resurrection, ¿why not?

Is it possible to test to see if something that is not being looked at is really there when you are not looking at it?

 

[ecco]

1 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is dead at some point

2 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if someone is alive at some point B

3 You can test and tell with a high degree of certanity weather if A predates B

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected or not

5 Therefore resurrections are testable

Since you are confusing weather with whether, perhaps you are confusing resurrect with resuscitate.
----------
res·ur·rect
verb
past tense: resurrected; past participle: resurrected

1. restore (a dead person) to life.
   "he was dead, but he was resurrected"

----------
re·sus·ci·tate
verb

1. revive (someone) from unconsciousness or apparent death.

----------
See...

4 if you know 1,2 and 3 you can know if someone resurrected resuscitated or not

5 Therefore resurrections resuscitations are testable​

...now it makes sense.