Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Perhaps he doesn't like it because its incorrect?

Peer review is not a "popularity contest for ideas" - it's a systematic analysis of information to determine whether it is valid or not.

It's far from flawless, but it's also just part of a wide process.

OK. I'll wait while you describe the system that works without individual bias
or group bias.

By the way, they are working on a system that does not use people
to evaluate papers for publication.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Nope, you aren't, and no it doesn't.
Perhaps you should revisit physics. Yours appears to be at least 50 years out of date.

Well, that wasn't much of an explanation.
What part of physics allows for the the creation of the cosmos?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajni
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
You "reasons" simply described the contest rules.
All contests have a custom set of rules.
The rules contradict your description - the idea that works best is not necessarily the most popular, so it's not a popularity contest.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The rules contradict your description - the idea that works best is not necessarily the most popular, so it's not a popularity contest.

Please cite this aspect of your claim that ranks ideas based on "da best ones".
And show how "best" is objectively determined.
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,210,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Well, that wasn't much of an explanation.
What part of physics allows for the the creation of the cosmos?
I find it amazing that people seem to lose sleep at night over whether or not I personally believe in a First Cause.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
OK. I'll wait while you describe the system that works without individual bias
or group bias.

As long as you are dealing with humans there will always be bias. Peer review isn't perfect, but it is better than all of the other systems for communicating new scientific findings.

By the way, they are working on a system that does not use people
to evaluate papers for publication.

Software has just as many biases as anything else.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,141
Visit site
✟98,005.00
Faith
Agnostic
Please cite this aspect of your claim that ranks ideas based on "da best ones".
And show how "best" is objectively determined.

The best ideas are those that are able to most accurately predict the outcome of new experiments.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Right. Forum posts are not the same as dissertations.
I don't always cite my sources here. But I am willing to
when asked.

Why should one have to ask? When you post something - even on a discussion forum - and you have merely copied and pasted it without indicating as much, you are, whether you are 'willing to cite sources when asked', presenting it as if it were your own.

This is dishonest. Why should dishonesty hinge on whether or not one is asked to come clean?
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Well, that wasn't much of an explanation.
What part of physics allows for the the creation of the cosmos?

It wasn't much of a post. But in answer to your question:

Quantum dynamics plays a huge roll.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Please cite this aspect of your claim that ranks ideas based on "da best ones".
And show how "best" is objectively determined.
I'm not sure quite what you're asking in that first sentence (maybe The Scientific Method will help), but ideas are generally ranked on some version of abductive criteria for reasoning to the best explanation - testability, fruitfulness (predictive success), scope (diversity of explanatory power, unifying power), simplicity (parsimony), and conservatism (consistency with existing knowledge).
 
Upvote 0

Rajni

☯ Ego ad Eum pertinent ☯
Supporter
Dec 26, 2007
8,552
3,930
Visit site
✟1,210,341.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
What are you doing here if you are not interested in learning?
I'm quite interested in learning, and do it all the time.

For example, I have already shared something this thread helped to teach me, in post #407.

Not to state the obvious, but there's little sense in writing people off as disinterested in learning simply because they don't see things the way one might prefer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps he doesn't like it because its incorrect?

Peer review is not a "popularity contest for ideas" - it's a systematic analysis of information to determine whether it is valid or not.

It's far from flawless, but it's also just part of a wide process.

As i am sure you already know, there are 2 very different standards for accepting something as factual, evidence, etc. in the two camps on this forum (and in this debate over all).
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
As i am sure you already know, there are 2 very different standards for accepting something as factual, evidence, etc. in the two camps on this forum (and in this debate over all).

Sounds like a good idea for a thread: How do you define something as factual?
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Almost a month later, and my conclusion here is even more supported.
Been away for a while, come back and see the same 'arguments' against evolution.

And it is always... ALWAYS... 'arguments' against evolution.

NEVER arguments FOR creation/ID.

Analogies to human activity, bible verses, 'problems' with evolution - none of these, not one of them, is evidence FOR creation or ID.


It is almost as if creationists have admitted to themselves, subconsciously, that they cannot actually offer any positive supporting evidence FOR their mere beliefs, and are content to simply attack 'the other.' This is true, whether the creationist is a one-line snark master, or a verbose citation and quote bombing autodidact.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.