As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[AV1611VET]

Naive credulity in children is precious, but in adults-

Don't just blame the children. How many adults were there too?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since we do have evidence of that happening, from both American accounts and British accounts from the Revolutionary War, yes, it did happen.

See, there's that thing: evidence.

Ooooh ... you mean written evidence? like documentation?

I wonder why Christians don't use that too!?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ooooh ... you mean written evidence? like documentation?

I wonder why Christians don't use that too!?

Except that it's not just accounts like "This book says that Jesus walked on water" (yeah, there's technically three; Matthew, Mark and John, but I'm making a point). It's also first-hand accounts of people at the battle of Trenton, orders and accounts from the generals present at the battle, along with actual physical evidence of the crossing having occurred too.

 

[Phred]

Did Washington cross the Delaware?

His army attacked the British and they were both on the same side of the river. His letters say he did. The letters of his men say he was there. They describe an attack. The British say there were attacked. Unless everyone is lying for a reason I can't fathom. Yes.

There are no letters from Jesus. There are no letters from his followers. There are no letters from anyone alive at the time. The Gospels were written years later. There are no firsthand accounts of anything Jesus did. And what Jesus did is not as simple as "crossing the Delaware." You'd need far more than just someone saying he did it. Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So you say a man walked on water? It's up to you to prove it happened. Not a line in a book from 2,000 years ago written by men who never saw it, weren't there and had a vested interest in Jesus being seen as "Divine."

George Washington didn't WALK across the Delaware.

 

[sjastro]

Is that why their boss ended up at the bottom of the Red sea?

Does the Bible record the name of the pharaoh?
Was it Rameses II, Merneptah or Argybargyamun?

 

[Phred]

Is Israel the Promised Land?

(And I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you know what I'm asking.)

And that's a YES or NO question.

No.

 

[dlamberth]

So Jesus didn't walk on water?

Because it's reported that some Buddhist monks levitate and fly, and St. John of the Cross as well as St. Teresa of Avila are reported to have levitated, as well as others in the differing spiritual trajectories, I have no problem with the idea or image of Jesus walking on water.

 

[o_mlly]

Consider fluids for a moment. At the microscopic level it is just a bunch of identical (perhaps with a few contaminants or solutes) molecules colliding with each other by the basic properties of QM and electrostatics. But, at the larger scale the fluid has viscosity, surface tension, pressure, etc. Properties that aren't found in an specific term in the microscopic interactions, but that emerge from the collective interactions of many.

I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.

If Hans puts on 50 pounds, at the larger scale he now has diabetes, coronary heart disease and a touch of osteoarthritis. You may call these "emergent" properties but they are not; it's still the same old Hans. Now, if Hans dropped 70 pounds and could fly then that would be an "emergent" (unexplained) property. Or if an ape in the wild painted a image of its mother then that would be evidence an "emergent" (unexplained) property.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that it's not just accounts like "This book says that Jesus walked on water" (yeah, there's technically three; Matthew, Mark and John, but I'm making a point). It's also first-hand accounts of people at the battle of Trenton, orders and accounts from the generals present at the battle, along with actual physical evidence of the crossing having occurred too.

You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?

(Have you seen my Milliard Fillmore posts?)

 

[o_mlly]

I'm calling it as I see it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course you do. It appears to be time for you to see your ophthalmologist.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because it's reported that some Buddhist monks levitate and fly, and St. John of the Cross as well as St. Teresa of Avila are reported to have levitated,

These reporters, did they die for putting that in writing and then refusing to recant?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?

(Have you seen my Milliard Fillmore posts?)

I have not seen your Milliard Fillmore posts, no.

And I have seen enough of the evidence to say with satisfaction and conviction that Washington did lead American Continental forces across the Delaware to attack the Anglo-Hessian forces during the American Revolutionary War. Your comment of "believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view" really pushes you towards a weird conspiracy theory vibe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course you do. It appears to be time for you to see your ophthalmologist.

You've not present any evidence that evolution might be wrong and you've definitely presented no evidence that creation is factual, and your comments about evolution are far from anything bordering correct.

It really is that simple. So, maybe drop the attitude, learn some humility and stop pretending to be a big shot.

 

[Phred]

I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.

If Hans puts on 50 pounds, at the larger scale he now has diabetes, coronary heart disease and a touch of osteoarthritis. You may call these "emergent" properties but they are not; it's still the same old Hans. Now, if Hans dropped 70 pounds and could fly then that would be an "emergent" (unexplained) property. Or if an ape in the wild painted a image of its mother then that would be evidence an "emergent" (unexplained) property.

An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.
In chemistry, for example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.
In biology, for example, heart is made of heart cells, heart cells on their own don't have the property of pumping blood. You will need the whole heart to be able to pump blood. Thus, the pumping property of the heart is an emergent or a supervenient property of the heart. Claiming that an individual heart cell can pump blood because the heart can would be an example of fallacy of division.

 

[o_mlly]

Nice strawman.

Nope. Reworded the evo's position for levity but did not distort them. If you think I did then pls identify the distorted answer.

 

[pitabread]

I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.

The concept of emergent properties are simply that the property itself is the result of a combined constituent parts that make of the whole. Even basic chemistry demonstrates this through the properties in various molecules that arise from different combinations of atoms.

Rather than being something that science can't explain, it's an observable phenomenon that science explains precisely via the concept of emergence.

 

[Phred]

You've seen all this evidence yourself, have you? or do you believe in those who say this evidence is available for public view?

(Have you seen my Milliard Fillmore posts?)

This is another huge failing of creationists and religionists. We stand on the shoulders of others. There is no need to have to "see it for yourself." There is simply too much knowledge in the world to be able to study it all, learn it all and see it all for yourself. That's why we have the scientific method. If we all do our jobs, we can count on others to do theirs, we learn and advance without being bound to this... "did you see it for yourself" mentality. It allows you to specialize and advance far further than you ever could if you had to replicate every single experiment and observation for yourself. Yes, it also opens the door for someone to perpetuate a falsehood. There is no point to that. Unless you're living in a world where you know you're already doing that. Do you know anyone who's doing that? Say, the Ark Encounter? The Creation Museum? No wonder you're so skeptical of everyone.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did Washington cross the Delaware?

Not only did he cross it, but he walked on water doing it. And he did so wearing a MAGA hat, carrying a Chump flag, whistling Yankee Doodle.

 

[HitchSlap]

Huh?
You said Yep, which is generally taken as agreement.
I make mild attempt at a funny, that agreeing is not much of
a argument and I get all that back?
You take it, and build some fantastical structure
with at least a half dozen falsehoods about me that you
simply fabricated from thin air?
As it happens, I only yesterday finished a book on the
mysteries of speech, which is why I thought to comment
as I did.
If Nature is not an adequate source for my comment
there doubtless are more.
Of course, I don't know what specific claim you made
about FOX, though you seemed to be contradicting
me.
Seems to me the elabourste conclusion based on
zero data delivered with snark and personal remarks
is hat most properly the terrain of the creo, and it I'll befits you
to mimic it.

Ha, sorry for the snark. Must’ve completely missed your intended irony.

Darn!

 

[pitabread]

If you think I did then pls identify the distorted answer.

All of the above. Especially in lieu of the discussion in the thread. Your attempts at paraphrasing aren't paraphrasing; they're distorted fabrications.

For example, your claim about how "man became alive" was already addressed well early in the thread regarding the basic chemistry of living organisms. To claim that the response is "dunno, go ask someone else" is basically just a lie.