What would refute creationism?

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but many say or indicate that in what they say even if the wording is different.

Then quote that.


Sounds like you are flat out admitting that you are changing their words and warping what they mean in the process.

Since where I wrote that (post 2308) the only thing you said that was above that is what is below, in blue. That was what I was referring to. Your type of evidence and proof is what you demand before you will believe. Then you deny that and want to accuse me of lying about it. You want an apology for saying what you tell me you want.

Believers / makers of claims always have a burden of proof concerning the claims being believed / made.
What you are actually trying to say is that believers (in your view) simply don't care to meet that burden.
Not quite the same thing.

Where in that blue quote am I saying "prove it or I won't believe it ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, or even, prove it or it is not true."?


I won't believe things that I won't find convincing. And it takes evidence to convince me.
I don't require things to be "proven" to believe them. I just require sufficient supporting evidence.
What "sufficient" means, would depend on the claim in question.

The undetectable God has left us with a history of interaction with people in the Bible and with prophecies that have been fulfilled. That is evidence of this God who is not detectable in the ways science use but is detectable in ways that humans use.

That's assuming your conclusion.
What we actually have are people making claims that there is / was interaction with an undetectable entity. And those claims require evidence.

No claims is considered accurate "until they are disproven". These claims in particular even can't be disproven, since they are unfalsifiable...............

You are basically saying that you believe them, because you believe them.

The Bible is evidence because of what it tells us.

No, that is circular.
What it says is what requires evidence.
The bible is a collection of claims.

Fulfilled prophecies, witnessed death and so resurrection of Jesus and miracles and etc. That is evidence but you reject it.

No. Those are claims.
And I indeed reject them.
I reject them because there is no evidence to support them - and in many cases, there is much evidence against them.

I require justification for accepting claims as likely true. Especially so when it considers extra-ordinary claims. As Carl Sagan once said: extra-ordinary claims, require extra-ordinary evidence.

But there is none. That's why you require "faith".
You can believe anything on "faith".

I did not say there is no evidence, you are putting words in my mouth.

You acknowledge by implication that there is no independently verifiable evidence.
You do that by
1. keep insisting that there is no empirical / scientific evidence possible
2. that god is undetectable
3. that the only "evidence" is hearsay / anecdotes / visions / revelations / bible writings (which are all of the former, written down)

What you are calling "evidence" is in fact just people making claims.
So all together, in summary: you agree there is no independently verifiable evidence.

If you thought there was, you would have shared that by now.

You should show me where I said that or apologise for that lie about me.

Nope. You have acknowledged it. Explanation of how is above.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No I'm not saying that science does not know, therefore the argument from design must be true. I am saying that if you believe the woodpecker stuff was not designed then that is faith, anti faith, wishful thinking, glass half empty thinking, whatever you want to call it,

You make no sense.

One doesn't require "faith" (or evidence, for that matter) to NOT believe something.

but calling it science is mischaracterisation of what science can say it knows and what it cannot say it knows.

Again, you make no sense.

The claim that is discussed is the positive claim.
Being "it IS designed".

Nobody makes the claim "it is NOT designed", nor is it a useful or meaningful statement to pursue.

Just like no physicist goes out of his way to make, or address, a statement like 'graviton pixies do NOT regulate gravity'.

 

[wellwisher]

There were time in history called the Iron Age. This was the period when humans first leaned how to make iron tools. It was not ancient speculation when iron first appears in the universe, which is typically how Atheists might interpret these words, if written in the Bible. It is about when human first learn about making iron, using coal as the higher heat source needed to process iron ore. Wood fires could only get hot enough to make bronze. We need natural gas, hydrogen gas and electric, to process the extreme metals and alloys.

Genesis and Creationism works the same way. It is really a label for a time period connected to innovation associated with the rise of civilization. It is also about when humans developed their first science models for evolution and the universe. They empathized on how human nature had changed from natural instinct; paradise, to the modern ego, with will and choice.

The modern science discovery, that coordinated with the time scale of Genesis, and this change in human nature, was the invention of written language. Genesis became the first published science theory for a cradle to grave theory of the evolution of the natural world. Their model focused mostly on the evolution of the operating system of the human brain, since human appearance; DNA, was the same for both natural man and the new modern man who once existed side-by-side. The change needed for civilization was not a shallow DNA change, but a deeper change and connected to the brain, caused by the innovation of written language; nurture overcame nature.

What they saw was how the human mind and conscious changed within the new type of man, who lost paradise and their natural human instant; migratory herders and gatherers, into farming and squatters. Dwelling on DNA; body, would have been useless to explain this change, since it was more of a function of bad choice and will; tree of knowledge of good and evil and obedience to written language. Good and evil was based on subjective data, thereby breaking the objective bond of natural living; paradise is lost.

As an example of the subjectivity of good and evil, we have two political parties, each with widely different value systems. We end up with two mutually exclusive sets of knowledge of good and evil. The Left may think capitalism is evil while the Right may think Socialism is evil. One cannot tell which is correct, due to both being subjective systems, with both pretending to be objective. This cause caused(s) division, and in the ancient times could mean war and death, since both sides will fight for what they feel is a righteous cause, all without objectivity.

The rise of civilization occurs within this time frame of Genesis. Their observational skills helped them to infer this was about a change in the brain's way of doing things, and not ay shallow changes in the body; spirit instead of matter, or nurture instead of nature.

How does modern science explain the extra brain power needed to suddenly see humans evolving from wanderers to evolving within civilization? Science and biology is a small fraction of Genesis, yet this is where science fixates. How does science explain the bulk of Genesis, connected to human psychology? I never these science complaining or even bring these parts up. Does it agree? Can science agree Genesis; based on word count, is mostly about a new persistent change in human nature; version 2.0.

In my last post, about space-time versus, disconnected space and disconnected time, the human imagination appears to be able to process data that is better defined by the latter. The imagination is not confined to just objective natural physical reality found in space-time. It can transcend these bounds. The philosophy of science limits itself to only hard sensory input and tries to factor out the more expansive view of the imagination. However, the imagination is what is needed for innovative thinking, to develop new things what are not yet part of reality.

Civilization and pyramids do not grow on trees, or suddenly appear based on casino math, or based any known physics theory that leaves out consciousness and imagination. The sudden change was a brain upgrade with far more access to the imagination, as well as an innovation to record the output; written language.

The imagination can generate spirits and gods, since these define what would be possible if space-time was separated into separate time and separate space, so one could act in time, without space and act in space without time. This all points to the frontal lobe and the imagination; most modern part of the brain starts to become conscious.

Below is a better summary of separated space and separated time and the imagination.

If God had no beginning what was before God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I'm not saying that science does not know, therefore the argument from design must be true. I am saying that if you believe the woodpecker stuff was not designed then that is faith, anti faith, wishful thinking, glass half empty thinking, whatever you want to call it, but calling it science is mischaracterisation of what science can say it knows and what it cannot say it knows.

Then you are making a false Tu Quoque accusation and using that fallacy. No, just because you do not understand the science does not make it faith. It is science. I do not see what is special about the woodpecker case.

It was a bit of a rant. LOL



LOL part of the same rant.

Then try to ease up on those, alright?

 

[gnostic]

One way to refute the more materialist versions of Creation, is to theorize that Genesis is not talking about material type creation, but is talking more about an advancement the human brain's operating system that occurs about 6000 years ago.

The Genesis creation myth isn’t advancement at all: not intellectually, not scientifically, not even creativity.

The whole “God did it” is nothing more than backward thinking of some superstitious people, who not only cannot grasp natural phenomena, then and now, the authors and believers don’t want to learn about nature.

And btw, Genesis is a set of stories, set in imaginary times, with some fictional characters, but it was written 6000 years ago.

Some Jews and Christians may want to believe in traditions that Moses wrote Genesis, Exodus and other books, some 480 years before King Solomon starting the building project of his temple (1 Kings 6:1), but there are no evidence that these books exist in the 15th century BCE, during the early half of 18th dynasty in Egypt, the supposed time that exodus took place, and no Egyptian texts that can verify that Moses exist or the events as narrated in the Exodus, eg the plagues, the mass liberation and exodus out of Rameses (or Egyptian Pi-Ramesses).

None of the attributed books (including Genesis) to Moses exist, until the time of Babylonian Exile, in the 6th century BCE. Genesis and Exodus only demonstrate that they know nothing about the history of Egypt and Levant, during the Late Neolithic (or the Chalcolithic) period (c 4000 - c 3100 BCE) and the Bronze Age (c 3100 - c 1050 BCE).

Examples of author not knowing Egyptian history, is that Genesis cannot name a single Egyptian rulers who were contemporaries to either to Abraham or to Joseph.

If Abraham and Joseph were so important in history, then why are the Egyptian kings are nameless?

Even in the Exodus, the Egyptian princess had adopted Moses, and yet the supposed author do not know the names of the princess or her father ruling Egypt in the time of Moses was born in the late 16th century BCE. There are also no name to the king who was ruling Egypt when Moses confronted the ruler to free the Hebrew slaves.

But there are no names because Moses didn’t write Genesis and Exodus, and because the real authors didn’t know enough about Egyptian history, during the 2nd millennium BCE.

Tell me what advancement in the human brains that occurred in 4000 BCE???

Agriculture and animal domestication started way back in 12,000 years ago, when the ice sheets started to retreated, which was start of ending hunting-and-gathering nomadic lifestyle in the Near East, people started to live in permanent settlements, Neolithic villages or towns (eg Jericho or Tell es-Sultan). Around 8400 BCE, people began building fortified stone walls around Jericho, and even a tower, was far more advanced than all other contemporary. The fortification wasn’t defensive, but to protect homes from flooding of the Jordan.

People in the near east began to create clay pottery, to store food and drink in vessels, around 7000-6500 BCE. Started to learn to make copper tools around 6000 BCE, but only started thriving 5000 BCE. Urban planning also started around 5500 BCE, then flourishing in the 4th millennium BCE, with Uruk (called Erech in Genesis 10), that archaeologists referred to this as the “Uruk period”. Uruk started not only constructing temples in the Inanna District, around 3600 BCE, but in 3300 BCE, the earliest and archaic form of cuneiform inscriptions were discovered at one of these temples.

The points in these history lesson, is that people don’t learn everything at once. Advancements of cultures and technological industries (eg farming, toolmaking, pottery, etc) were long ongoing progresses, that can take centuries and millennia to achieve. Everything didn’t occur in 4000 BCE or 6000 years ago, and there are evidence to support that Adam and Eve were responsible for these advancement.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To be honest, I don’t see the point of this. Creationism is not a scientific idea but a religious one, so asking creationists to work by the rules of science is never going to get any traction.

I suppose you could try this with ID creationism, though, as that tries to dress itself up in the clothing of science. But ID is more or less on its way out, now that Johnson is dead and Dembski sacked and discredited. ID now reminds me of cold fusion research: a handful of cranks trying to keep a zombie idea animated.

Yup. Something like YEC is very easy to tear to shreds. But a more general term of Creationism, then to an Enlightened era Deist then there is no compitition or contradiction amd the Laws of Nature must necessarily come from Nature as a part of the designe by their Grand Architect.