There is no Creation Debate

[In situ]

And you have no evidence that he did not exist.

Evidence and facts is about what we have observed - it is not about what we have not observed. Statements about what we not have observed is called speculations or opinions. I.e, right now, you are making a speculation.

Like I pointed out in my previous post; you do not understand what is meant with "facts" and "evidence'. Your statement here only underlines your lack of understanding what these things represent and means.

 

[In situ]

I was merely highlighting the absurdity of the claim that a mathematician had calculated the probability of something to be 'less than zero'.

Oh I did miss the part of "less than zero". Indeed that is an utterly absurd claim...

 

[In situ]

Well, well well. I would love to see the evidence that debunks the fact that life was created 6,000 years ago.

Living tress older than 6000 years should be enough to convince most people, if not you have actual sediment rocks, hundreds of meters thick, made up of tiny micro organisms. The presence of these rock would require an act of magic to explain if life was created only 6000 years ago, magic such as that god created these rocks to look much older than they actually are.

While acts of magic might be an acceptable explanation among Young Earth Creatinist, most skeptic people wont accept such explanation unless provided with some form of evidence that such magical event actually can occur. Therefore I need to ask if you have some examples of rock layers of chalk, which cannot be explained by known laws of physics and chemistry, to support your claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old?

 

[In situ]

I would love to see the evidence that debunks life beginning with one man and one woman.

The evidence is called 'genetics' and can be studied at any university. Unless you want to apeel to magic (which creationists does in this case), a population of two individuals would degenerate the entire populations genome in a few generation to such extent it would most likely self-terminate, i.e. die out, in less than 6000 years.

 

[In situ]

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the flood.

It debunks itself, the story is just plain silly and have no actual correlation to what been observed by early atempts trying to prove and find evidence for the biblical flood. If you read the history of how natural science developed during the 18th and 19th century it becomes very clear there exists no evidence for the biblical myth of a flood.

 

[In situ]

I would love to see the evidence that debunks the claim that life is not a product of evolution.

The fact the theory of evolution explains why all life is a nested set, the fact that theory explain the geographical distribution of spices and the fact that every necessary required part of the theory has been observed to operate in nature, that fact that the theory makes falsifiable predictions that are confirmed over and over again, and the fact that there exists no alternative theory that explains these things are evidence that debunks that claim.

 

[expos4ever]

If the model makes no testable prediction that could possibly show that the model is false, the model is abandoned because it is useless.

I am confident that this criterion for assessing a model of reality is of limited use. When I see the sky, I have an inner visual sensation of "blueness". I then measure the wavelength of the light and propose the following prediction as an element of my model of reality: "Whenever light of such a frequency impinges on the retina of a human being, they will have a subjective experience of blueness just as I have".

Can you tell me how this prediction would be falsified?

Do you believe this is a correct "prediction".

 

[The Cadet]

Can you tell me how this prediction would be falsified?

Do you believe this is a correct "prediction".

I believe it's a meaningless prediction. Whether your subjective experience of blue is the same as mine is both meaningless and unimportant, and this is not in any significant way a part of the model of visible light.

 

[HitchSlap]

Jesus died to say otherwise.

Don't be silly dad, everybody dies.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Not al all. The school district has said both are to be taught and the kids are allowed to make their own minds up as to what is true.

Which school district? Cite your sources.
If true, that district will be sued and will lose. It's been ruled that teaching creationism in a public school is a violation of the constitution. It has also been ruled that it is not scientific. Evolution is an observable fact. Creationism is not science.
Should we teach alchemy along side chemistry too? Should we teach astrology along side astronomy?

 

[dad]

See, I find this comparison interesting, because I'm curious as to what role "god" would play in this model. In the current model of the atom, electrons explain the detected charges and serve a useful, specific role in the model. We don't also assume they are conscious, or equally responsible for making sure good children have good dreams; we attribute a specific interaction to them and try to simplify as much as possible while still accounting for the evidence.

The consciousness is in the Designer, not the machine. The forces that make atoms work are above the knowledge of science. Science merely notes how things work and tries to slap a word for the forces in action in their little weak limited way.

 

[dad]

Don't be silly dad, everybody dies.

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word with me. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blasphemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

It actually is not cool to make light of the death of Jesus.

 

[dad]

You have no valid evidence that he existed, let alone been executed. And no evidence at all that he defied the laws of nature by resurrecting. All you have is blind faith.

All creation and life with Him in us is proof. Some just don't see it because they chose darkness.

 

[dad]

Science does not discuss creation - people do -

False. Claiming life on earth started with some gook from a comet fly by or whatever crusty nonsense science conjures up is talking about creation.

since it is not a topic for science but region. The only one that believes creationism has a ligimit place in science is creationists themselves

That would be a hypocritical position to adopt.

- and it is not because they think it is science, or even care about science, but it is used as tool to put their religious agenda onto everyone - in particular children that does not have the knowledge to judge for themselves yet. I say this as a first hand observation of what creationists themselves have written on their own propaganda website.

Science is a religious agenda of hell when it comes to origins. Children are targeted. It is war of the spirit for the souls of the little ones.

About the "limitations"of science. It is thanks to science you got electricity..

That has zero to do with origins or creation. Strawman.

 

[HitchSlap]

Because some posters have been noted over a long period of time for being unwilling to rationally discuss Scripture you are blocked from being able to discuss God's word with me. While there may be places to vent contempt for Scripture and blasphemy etc..this is not one of those places. Thank you. Happy repenting...

It actually is not cool to make light of the death of Jesus.

I understand why you might think somethings not "cool," but with seven billion people on the planet, I can't worry about what each of them thinks. You might do a little introspection and try to evaluate what about Jesus' death bothers you.

 

[expos4ever]

I believe it's a meaningless prediction. Whether your subjective experience of blue is the same as mine is both meaningless and unimportant, and this is not in any significant way a part of the model of visible light.

This is why I think your position is untenable. One of the things that gives life meaning - perhaps the most important thing - is the ensemble of sensations (including emotions) that are, by their very nature - not amenable to verification by the criteria you propose. Yet, I submit they are clearly part of reality! How can this possibly be denied? I suggest the reality is that the world we live in has aspects that are clearly "real" (and important) and yet are not subject to third-party objective verification. I confess I am mystified that one would characterize those aspects as "meaningless" if, in fact, this is what you are doing.

However, perhaps we are talking about different things. You seem to think that a model of light is what is at stake. That is not what I am saying - instead, I am talking about a comprehensive model of reality that incorporates such necessarily subjective, and therefore non-falsifiable, aspects of reality as the inner world of conscious experience. I know I have such an inner world but I have to assume that you have it as well precisely because nature will not "let" me test whether you have it.

Are you suggesting the inner world of experience is not "real" simply because it is not subject to third-party falsification?

 

[HitchSlap]

This is why I think your position is untenable. One of the things that gives life meaning - perhaps the most important thing - is the ensemble of sensations (including emotions) that are, by their very nature - not amenable to verification by the criteria you propose. Yet, I submit they are clearly part of reality! How can this possibly be denied? I suggest the reality is that the world we live in has aspects that are clearly "real" (and important) and yet are not subject to third-party objective verification. I confess I am mystified that one would characterize those aspects as "meaningless" if, in fact, this is what you are doing.

However, perhaps we are talking about different things. You seem to think that a model of light is what is at stake. That is not what I am saying - instead, I am talking about a comprehensive model of reality that incorporates such necessarily subjective, and therefore non-falsifiable, aspects of reality as the inner world of conscious experience. I know I have such an inner world but I have to assume that you have it as well precisely because nature will not "let" me test whether you have it.

Are you suggesting the inner world of experience is not "real" simply because it is not subject to third-party falsification?

Straw man fallacy.

What makes you think neuroscientists are unable to document "subjective" experiences? Were you not aware of this?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am confident that this criterion for assessing a model of reality is of limited use.

It is how the entirety of science is done. If you don't think science and the scientific method is useful, then you need to get outside more often.

When I see the sky, I have an inner visual sensation of "blueness". I then measure the wavelength of the light and propose the following prediction as an element of my model of reality: "Whenever light of such a frequency impinges on the retina of a human being, they will have a subjective experience of blueness just as I have".

Can you tell me how this prediction would be falsified?

If wavelengths from the red portion of the spectrum produce your sensation of blueness, then your hypothesis is incorrect. Ultimately, scientists report empirically measured wavelengths as their data, not their subjective judgment of color.

 

[expos4ever]

Straw man fallacy.

How?

What makes you think neuroscientists are unable to document "subjective" experiences? Were you not aware of this?

I am perfectly aware, for example, that neuroscientists have made great advances in identifying the neural correlates of subjective experience, as the latter are verbally reported. Is this what you are talking about when you use the term 'document' in your post?

The point I was trying to make is that even though the rich content of subjective experience is clearly "real" (what could possibly be more real?) we cannot objectively measure or assess the content of anyone's sensations since nature has locked that door for us - each person's inner world of subjective experience simply cannot be accessed from the outside even though, of course, the neuronal activity that accompanies it can.

To expand:

1. When light of a certain wavelength enters my eyes, I have a subjective sensation of "blueness";

2. We can objectively determine that light of a certain wavelength correlates with my reported experience of blueness;

3. What we cannot "objectively" determine is whether the content of your experience when exposed to the same wavelength of light is the same as mine. You will, of course, report that you see "blue" but - and this is the key - we cannot confirm in any objective way that you are having the same experiential content as me.

4. And yet, I suggest, it is perfectly reasonable to assume your experience is the same as mine and incorporate that hypothesis into a model of the world. Now, of course, that model is therefore not falsifiable in respect to that particular hypothesis. But that surely does not mean I cannot legitimately advance and believe in such an hypothesis.

Please, please do not assume that I don't know what I am talking about. Perhaps I am mistaken but some of the objections I am reading suggest you (and others) think you are talking with someone who needs to be educated about the nature of science, the nature of scientific models, the features of a "good" model of reality, etc. Perhaps I am mistaken in some respects, but it really does appear that some of you are assuming I know almost nothing about these issues. Perhaps this is understandable given the other stuff one reads in this forum.

 

[dad]

I understand why you might think somethings not "cool," but with seven billion people on the planet, I can't worry about what each of them thinks. You might do a little introspection and try to evaluate what about Jesus' death bothers you.

No thanks. Speaking of not worrying what others think....You can cork it on matters of faith in God.