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

[Astrid]

How does one start here when the environment for life to begin requires many environmental elements to exist providing for even the possibility for life to evolve into this and that in the first place?

What elements are those?

 

[o_mlly]

Since you are so fond of nitpicking minor discrepancies in member's posts, I'm sure you will be appreciative of a reciprocal gesture.
If you meant to write the plural possessive then the correct expression is -- "members' -- ".

@Hans Blaster made no mention of material forces. They referenced fundamental forces. There is, excuse the pun, a fundamental difference.

Let me get this straight, you claim that the "fundamental forces of materials" is not the same as "fundamental material forces"? Do you further assert that those forces also act on immaterial substances. ie., souls?

And as to your petty comment on @driewerf 's titration, when I did experiments in the chem. lab at university one would ask "what did you get from the titration?", the process and the measurement both being encapsulated in the word. Perhaps you've never had the opportunity to carry out a titration yourself.

Look the word up in the Oxford dictionary. Titration is a process, it is not the measurement.

Perhaps it's not so nice to be on the receiving end of snark. At any rate I encourage you stop the provocative nitpicking and focus on an adult conversation, or we're going to see another thread closed

No worries. I've been snarked by professionals but not yet in this thread so far.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No worries. I've been snarked by professionals but not yet in this thread so far.

Do I need to use more snark then?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me get this straight, you claim that the "fundamental forces of materials" is not the same as "fundamental material forces"? Do you further assert that those forces also act on immaterial substances. ie., souls?

There are the fundamental forces of nature.

It's not clear what counts as material and non-material in your world view.

Does material have to have mass? (Rest mass.)

Is a photon immaterial? The electromagnetic field?

Is every thing described by the for forces of nature material?

Is space time considered material, immaterial, or neither?

I ask these questions, because we never speak of material v. non-material "stuff" or causes. There are just the laws of physics (if you like that term) and what they act on.

 

[o_mlly]

If you come up with better evidence for human existence science will affirm your evidence, but hypotheses/theories without scientific evidence are routinely dismissed.

OK. Some are annoyed as am I that the thread is degenerating.

One of the main reasons for this is the continuing effort to request that I defend a claim from faith, belief in things not seen, against scientific standards of sensible evidence. Not going to happen.

To defeat this claim all one has to do is put forward an argument that the claim is irrational or internally inconsistent.

 

[pitabread]

Immateriality is the major problem - the problem of interaction; how can the immaterial affect the material? if there was some animating principle, material or immaterial, that could influence the body, that influence would have been detected.

This is always a common issue whenever anything supernatural is brought up. There is never an explanation on how any of this is supposed to actually work.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Stanford's definitions are fine. Your interpretation of PSR was not.

Define "reasonable". Do you disagree with any of the First Principles as reasonable?

I've already posted long ago exactly how to destroy my claim:
Demonstrate that the creation is irrational or has internal inconsistencies.
Go for it.

What probability as a percentage do you have now that whatever evolution theory you hold is true?

Given your contributions to date, I don't think you have any intention of having a reasonable discussion, so I'll finish with a summary of what I think - Your argument is literally immaterial and without substance.

 

[pitabread]

One of the main reasons for this is the continuing effort to request that I defend a claim from faith, belief in things not seen, against scientific standards of sensible evidence. Not going to happen.

To defeat this claim all one has to do is put forward an argument that the claim is irrational or internally inconsistent.

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. That's just a tactic admission that your claim is unsupported / indefensible.

The onus is on you to demonstrate the veracity of your claim. Otherwise there's nothing worth arguing against.

 

[eleos1954]

What elements are those?

you've got google ... use it ;o)

 

[AV1611VET]

You cannot define the terms that you try to use whether it is "kind" or "genus". Since you can't you lost your argument. Case closed.

I'm not defining it, I'm giving it a synonym.

 

[o_mlly]

This is always a common issue whenever anything supernatural is brought up. There is never an explanation on how any of this is supposed to actually work.

What is the scientific explanation for the experience of the color red? The experience is not supernatural. It's the background color in the three blocks below this post.

 

[Ophiolite]

Let me get this straight, you claim that the "fundamental forces of materials" is not the same as "fundamental material forces"? Do you further assert that those forces also act on immaterial substances. ie., souls?

He didn't say fundamental material forces. The sentence you complained about had the words fundamental forces.

Look the word up in the Oxford dictionary. Titration is a process, it is not the measurement.

And it is a remarkable work. I have the full version on my shelves. If it suffers from one limitation in this instance, it has been written by lexicographers not chemists. I prefer to look up the Wikpedia entry on titration, an entry doubtless written by chemists. That declares "Titration is a common laboratory method of quantitative chemical analysis to determine the concentration of an identified analyte." i.e titration involves measurement. If you had studied chemistry in a practical setting you would know this and not make egregious errors.

No worries. I've been snarked by professionals but not yet in this thread so far.

. . .Yes, of course.

 

[o_mlly]

You are trying to shift the burden of proof. That's just a tactic admission that your claim is unsupported / indefensible.

Nope. I've defended my claims that creation provides a unified explanation of man's existence, citations from reputable scientific sources that bias is intrinsic especially in the observation and interpretation of evidence in evolutionary theory, that evolutionary theory has no explanation for consciousness (mind from matter), that the use of "emergent property" and "brute fact" in the theory strain credulity.

Of course, if you choose to ignore the my evidence and arguments not much I can do.

 

[Astrid]

you've got google ... use it ;o)

Right.
You' ve no idea what you're talking about,
so put it on me .

 

[o_mlly]

Given your contributions to date, I don't think you have any intention of having a reasonable discussion, so I'll finish with a summary of what I think - Your argument is literally immaterial and without substance.

Please feel free to join Phred and the others for a group hug. You may commiserate together.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, not at all. God inspires whomever He wills. His divine inspiration put Truth into the authors’ minds. Their human task was to find their prophetic voice and wrap into words the Truth given to them.

Right, this is what has been said about every holy book ever written by men.

 

[Frank Robert]

OK. Some are annoyed as am I that the thread is degenerating.

One of the main reasons for this is the continuing effort to request that I defend a claim from faith, belief in things not seen, against scientific standards of sensible evidence. Not going to happen.

To defeat this claim all one has to do is put forward an argument that the claim is irrational or internally inconsistent.

There may be some people on here who want to argue that your claim of faith is irrational or inconsistent and want you to defend your faith but that is not me. A large percent of your posts are aimed at finding fault with evolution and my point was that the strength of evolution is weighted by scientific evidence not what it doesn't know but it is irrational to think what evolution doesn't know defeats it.

 

[o_mlly]

i.e titration involves measurement ...

Dog with a bone?

That declares "Titration is a common laboratory method ...

Thank you.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dog with a bone?

Thank you.

A common laboratory method that involves measurent. You were wrong. Live with it. Welcome to my ingore list.

 

[Astrid]

A common laboratory method that involves measurent. You were wrong. Live with it. Welcome to my ingore list.

Ha.
Beat you to it by one post.