Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[nuttypiglet]

So all you want is the ability to dictate reality?

and where on earth did you get the idea of dictatorship from. I am really confused as to why you jumped to that and suggest I want to dictate?

What do you think happens with voting for example? Is the most common belief with something in society accepted?

 

[bhsmte]

LOL you don't get the point. What we believe IS our reality. If you believe nothing, then you have NO reality.

What you believe is indeed the reality you have chosen, for you. Thats fine for you, but if you don't posses any objective evidence for your personal reality, just don't claim it applies to others.

 

[nuttypiglet]

What you believe is indeed the reality you have chosen, for you. Thats fine for you, but if you don't posses any objective evidence for your personal reality, just don't claim it applies to others.

How many people on this planet, out of all humans individually, do you honestly believe have a unique belief in something? So of COURSE it applies to others LMAO. With regards to the Multiverse theory, which started all this, this theory or hypothesis is being pushed towards others as an explanation. It's what science does with everything.

 

[bhsmte]

How many people on this planet, out of all humans individually, do you honestly believe have a unique belief in something? So of COURSE it applies to others LMAO. With regards to the Multiverse theory, which started all this, this theory or hypothesis is being pushed towards others as an explanation. It's what science does with everything.

Again, what you choose to define as your own realities or beliefs are indeed fine for you. As long as you don't negatively judge others who don't share your beliefs by claiming they are inferior to you, I have no problem with what you choose to claim as your own reality.

In the end, if you do not posses any objective evidence that your own reality is verifiable, you can't expect others to jump on board because you feel they should.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Again, what you choose to define as your own realities or beliefs are indeed fine for you. As long as you don't negatively judge others who don't share your beliefs by claiming they are inferior to you, I have no problem with what you choose to claim as your own reality.

In the end, if you do not posses any objective evidence that your own reality is verifiable, you can't expect others to jump on board because you feel they should.

How can you possibly supply evidence for everything you believe? Come on. If I love my cat and believe it, how could I prove that to you? They would be just words wouldn't they.

 

[AV1611VET]

If I love my cat and believe it, how could I prove that to you?

By showing me your hands and arms!

 

[TLK Valentine]

and where on earth did you get the idea of dictatorship from. I am really confused as to why you jumped to that and suggest I want to dictate?

What do you think happens with voting for example? Is the most common belief with something in society accepted?

Let me rephrase. if you believed you had the ability to fly, what would happen if you jumped off a tall building?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Let me rephrase. if you believed you had the ability to fly, what would happen if you jumped off a tall building?

Now this is getting even more silly. What on earth would make me believe I can fly? unless I was perhaps intoxicated. Let's try to stay level headed on this.

 

[JWGU]

You keep saying it wouldn't have violated the initial seeding, but what I'm saying is it would violate evolution if this is how life was seeded.

No, it absolutely would not. It just wouldn't. Common descent has nothing to say about the origin of life, so what you are saying is not logical. I don't know how many ways I can restate this.

You say we have plenty of evidence how dinosaurs etc went extinct, but do we. One minute we are told it was a large meteor, then it was volcanic activity, then it was that they suffocated because the oxygen content of the air reduced.

It was primarily a meteor strike. There may have been other factors as well, but the "aliens" theory would need actual evidence--and lots of it--before it is worth even considering.

It seems to me nobody knows what happened.

I know that is how it seems to you.

Whatever happened, it was pretty quick. Haven't fossils of dinosaurs been found where they were still eating? volcanic eruptions would certainly cause me to abandon a meal, so would a meteor strike.

Such fossils are formed when the animal chokes or is covered by a landslide, not from the mass extinction event. In any case, not all animals can move quickly.

I also believe those those fossils were formed in sedimentary rock, so that creates an argument for both those ideas.

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but even if that were true--I don't know if it is--how on earth does that create an argument for alien life?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Now this is getting even more silly. What on earth would make me believe I can fly? unless I was perhaps intoxicated. Let's try to stay level headed on this.

You missed the word "if" in there, didn't you?

You said that your belief IS your reality. I would like to examine that statement further.

 

[nuttypiglet]

No, it absolutely would not. It just wouldn't. Common descent has nothing to say about the origin of life, so what you are saying is not logical. I don't know how many ways I can restate this.

It was primarily a meteor strike. There may have been other factors as well, but the "aliens" theory would need actual evidence--and lots of it--before it is worth even considering.

Yep.

Such fossils are formed when the animal chokes or is covered by a landslide, not from the mass extinction event. In any case, not all animals can move quickly.

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but even if that were true--I don't know if it is--how on earth does that create an argument for alien life?

Well let's go over your points, one at a time. First you say that common descent has nothing to do with origins. Well, it does. Let's say that aliens wiped out life several times, and put new, but similar life forms on the earth, using them to kind of shape the world. It could be easy to be fooled into thinking that life evolved, when in reality it was scratched and re-created.

Evidence for alien seeding of the Earth? how could you ever obtain that. I suppose if it is true, they would return soon to remove Man because he is destroying this wonderful world. With evidence already existing regarding Aliens, and before you say anything I realise there's a lot of fraud out there, but for every government in the world to classify something which doesn't exist seems odd.

With regards to dinosaurs being very quickly destroyed and fossilised in that state, there are far more than a snake. T-rex fighting a triceratops for example, or a Velociraptor eating its prey. If it was a blast from a meteor, well I can't imagine those scenes existing.

I'm not trying to enforce we were actually seeded by aliens, I'm giving it as a hypothesis that could be as strong as any other. It has the same evidence shown so far by abiogenesis which is virtually zero. I'm also trying to point out HOW a problem found in abiogenesis could show evolution as wrong.

 

[JWGU]

Well let's go over your points, one at a time. First you say that common descent has nothing to do with origins. Well, it does.

No. It doesn't. Definitionally, it doesn't. I really don't understand how you're not getting this.

Let's say that aliens wiped out life several times, and put new, but similar life forms on the earth, using them to kind of shape the world. It could be easy to be fooled into thinking that life evolved, when in reality it was scratched and re-created.

Okay. This has nothing to do with terrestrial abiogenesis (life arising from nonlife here on Earth) and has everything to do with life arising multiple times independently. Do you see why those are independent? Why either one could happen without the other? Secondly, is this a falsifiable hypothesis that would result in evidence different from that of common descent?

Evidence for alien seeding of the Earth? how could you ever obtain that.

That is our point. You can't, so it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses could be true, but they are not scientific hypotheses because they cannot be disproved.

I suppose if it is true, they would return soon to remove Man because he is destroying this wonderful world.

You suppose? Okay. Are you willing to put a date on when this will occur? If it is within a human timescale (the next 30 years, say), we can call this hypothesis falsifiable! Of course, you'd have to justify how the alien species would be able to visit in the first place without having been detected yet (this would be a high-energy device coming straight towards us) and also how we could differentiate "regular" alien invaders from life-seeders.

With evidence already existing regarding Aliens, and before you say anything I realise there's a lot of fraud out there, but for every government in the world to classify something which doesn't exist seems odd.

This is not a sentence. I could try to parse it to figure out what you meant but I do not think it is worth it in this case.

With regards to dinosaurs being very quickly destroyed and fossilised in that state, there are far more than a snake. T-rex fighting a triceratops for example, or a Velociraptor eating its prey. If it was a blast from a meteor, well I can't imagine those scenes existing.

The mistake you are making is that you seem to believe that all fossils formed at the same time--directly after the meteor hit. In reality, almost none of our fossils are from that point. That is not surprising, because (of course) the vast majority of the history of dinosaurs occurred before the meteor hit.

I'm not trying to enforce we were actually seeded by aliens, I'm giving it as a hypothesis that could be as strong as any other.

It is either an unscientific hypothesis, or an incredibly weak scientific hypothesis that is not nearly as strong as many others.

It has the same evidence shown so far by abiogenesis which is virtually zero.

The "alien" hypothesis is also hypothesizing abiogenesis, just not terrestrial abiogenesis. It is also hypothesizing multiple visits from an intelligent alien life form, most likely in flagrant violation of the laws of physics, which for some reason decided to plant evidence to make it look like common descent was accurate. Even if we assume there was some sort of falsifiability about it, the "alien" hypothesis is implausible to an absurd degree. Terrestrial abiogenesis is not.

I'm also trying to point out HOW a problem found in abiogenesis could show evolution as wrong.

You have not accomplished this, and you never will so long as you continue to be confused about (1) what makes a hypothesis falsifiable, and (2) what the theory of evolution through common descent actually states.

 

[lasthero]

I suppose if it is true, they would return soon to remove Man because he is destroying this wonderful world.

And you suppose this, why?

but for every government in the world to classify something which doesn't exist seems odd.

Every government in the world is classifying aliens...I don't suppose you're going to back that statement up, are you?

T-rex fighting a triceratops for example

You talk like you're speaking about something specific. I'm not even accusing you of making this stuff, I'd genuinely like to see it.

If it was a blast from a meteor, well I can't imagine those scenes existing.

The meteor wouldn't have killed every single dinosaur immediately. Many of them survived and slowly died off.

I'm giving it as a hypothesis that could be as strong as any other.

The problem is that, again, it's completely unfalsifiable. There are ways to gather evidence for or against abiogenesis. There's no way to gather evidence for or against the aliens. We don't know anything about them, so it's impossible to recognize their handiwork. Even if they evidence was all around, you wouldn't know it if you saw, and there's no way to verify it without actually knowing how they did what they did.

 

[nuttypiglet]

No. It doesn't. Definitionally, it doesn't. I really don't understand how you're not getting this.

Okay. This has nothing to do with terrestrial abiogenesis (life arising from nonlife here on Earth) and has everything to do with life arising multiple times independently. Do you see why those are independent? Why either one could happen without the other? Secondly, is this a falsifiable hypothesis that would result in evidence different from that of common descent?

That is our point. You can't, so it is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Unfalsifiable hypotheses could be true, but they are not scientific hypotheses because they cannot be disproved.

You suppose? Okay. Are you willing to put a date on when this will occur? If it is within a human timescale (the next 30 years, say), we can call this hypothesis falsifiable! Of course, you'd have to justify how the alien species would be able to visit in the first place without having been detected yet (this would be a high-energy device coming straight towards us) and also how we could differentiate "regular" alien invaders from life-seeders.

This is not a sentence. I could try to parse it to figure out what you meant but I do not think it is worth it in this case.

The mistake you are making is that you seem to believe that all fossils formed at the same time--directly after the meteor hit. In reality, almost none of our fossils are from that point. That is not surprising, because (of course) the vast majority of the history of dinosaurs occurred before the meteor hit.

It is either an unscientific hypothesis, or an incredibly weak scientific hypothesis that is not nearly as strong as many others.

The "alien" hypothesis is also hypothesizing abiogenesis, just not terrestrial abiogenesis. It is also hypothesizing multiple visits from an intelligent alien life form, most likely in flagrant violation of the laws of physics, which for some reason decided to plant evidence to make it look like common descent was accurate. Even if we assume there was some sort of falsifiability about it, the "alien" hypothesis is implausible to an absurd degree. Terrestrial abiogenesis is not.

You have not accomplished this, and you never will so long as you continue to be confused about (1) what makes a hypothesis falsifiable, and (2) what the theory of evolution through common descent actually states.

I'm not saying that the dinosaurs died at the same time. I'm saying it's obvious some were killed pretty damn quick. They weren't given time to run from tearing at a meal, or to leave a fight. It was something very instant and wet. A meteor that close, to cause instant death would have blown them to pieces. A volcano would have left no remains if that close. Even if it was a flood, why would a t-rex and triceratops remain in gripped combat rather than try to get to land. What event killed them in those positions?

 

[JWGU]

I'm not saying that the dinosaurs died at the same time. I'm saying it's obvious some were killed pretty damn quick. They weren't given time to run from tearing at a meal, or to leave a fight. It was something very instant and wet. A meteor that close, to cause instant death would have blown them to pieces. A volcano would have left no remains if that close. Even if it was a flood, why would a t-rex and triceratops remain in gripped combat rather than try to get to land. What event killed them in those positions?

Once again, most dinosaur fossils--including those in the positions you describe--are not from the time of the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event. They are from isolated events like landslides and earthquakes. Why do you think they would all be from around the time of the meteor strike, and not the hundreds of millions of years before that?

 

[lasthero]

Even if it was a flood, why would a t-rex and triceratops remain in gripped combat rather than try to get to land.

You're assuming they would have the presence of mind to see it coming, stop what they're doing, call a truce and run to shore.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me rephrase. if you believed you had the ability to fly, what would happen if you jumped off a tall building?

Can squirrels fly?

 

[JWGU]

Can squirrels fly?

What type of squirrel? What constitutes "flight" in your mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

What type of squirrel?

Flying squirrels.

 

[JWGU]

Flying squirrels.

You didn't answer my second question.

Edit: It has been over an hour and AV1611VET has still not answered my simple question. I would find this strange but there seems to be an epidemic of this sort of tight-lipped behavior in this sub-forum. Clearly, there are some questions (like "what constitutes flight in your mind?" and "are you willing to put a date on when this will occur?" and "do you see why these are independent?", to name a few from previous posts) that have no easy answers.