My scientific evidence challenge.

[Loudmouth]

If there is no guidance, then it's non-guidance....willy-nilly.

That is false. There is guidance from natural law. It just isn't guidance by a deity as you are claiming.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We know that it's either directed or willy-nilly.

Nope, at least not by your usual definition of directed.

You can make false assertions all that you want. You will not be taken seriously.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, at least not by your usual definition of directed.

You can make false assertions all that you want. You will not be taken seriously.

It's not directed or not willy-nilly? What exactly was the process which created humanity if not one of these?

 

[justlookinla]

That is false. There is guidance from natural law. It just isn't guidance by a deity as you are claiming.

Ok..guidance by natural law.

What was the source of this guidance? What was the goal of the guidance?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok..guidance by natural law.

What was the source of this guidance?

Natural law.

What was the goal of the guidance?

You don't need a goal in order to have guidance.

 

[justlookinla]

Natural law.



You don't need a goal in order to have guidance.

Guidance demands a direction and direction demands a goal.

 

[Loudmouth]

Guidance demands a direction and direction demands a goal.

Prove it.

 

[justlookinla]

Prove it.

guide
[gahyd]

verb (used with object), guided, guiding.
1.
to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person

 

[Loudmouth]

guide
[gahyd]

verb (used with object), guided, guiding.
1.
to assist (a person) to travel through, or reach a destination in, an unfamiliar area, as by accompanying or giving directions to the person

Definitions are not proof of anything.

Where is your proof that direction requires a goal? Gravity has a specific direction. What is the goal of gravity? Where is your evidence for this goal?

 

[justlookinla]

Definitions are not proof of anything.

LOLOLOL!!

Where is your proof that direction requires a goal? Gravity has a specific direction. What is the goal of gravity? Where is your evidence for this goal?

LOL!

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOLOLOL!!



LOL!

I guess "LOL" means, "I am wrong" or "You got me there".

 

[Loudmouth]

LOLOLOL!!



LOL!

I gave you examples of guidance that has no goal. You ignored them. Why?

 

[tamtam92]

It is not "my definition". And if you read the OP you would see that I am not giving it away for free, some participation is needed. Sadly creationists seem to be deathly afraid of even the concept of scientific evidence. It indicates that deep down they know that they are wrong.

Didn't know that.

I am not calling anyone fools. But people are showing themselves to be so by their actions. Also all religions have claims on that order, so it is not impressive at all. You need to do a lot better than that. All religious leaders seem to have known that they were selling a bit of bunkum, whether it is Islam, Hinduism, or even Christianity. Predictable verses should not impress anyone. If your religion is true the evidence will be much deeper than that.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote very carefully. The discussion about being foolish was just an aside, not the core of my argument.

In other words Josephus is not a reliable source.

You're not keen on history, are you?

And yes, one or two biased studies may indicate an earlier gospel, most scholars think otherwise.

1/ References? 2/ Truth is gained by majority vote? 3/ show me an unbiased study on that question please.

That is easy. Because many people that are against the theory of evolution make the obviously false claim that "there is no evidence for the theory of evolution". Anyone who makes that claim has shown that they do not know what evidence is. Now you may not agree with the conclusions drawn from evidence, but to deny it there are only two possibilities, either the person does not know what evidence is or he is lying.

I get your point, thank you. But 1/ you only answer to my first remark, you don't answer my questions (with which I was trying to understand your point of view). 2/ Maybe the issue is not how you define evidence but how you define "the theory of evolution". In other words, how much the evidence for evolution (eg changes in a bird's beak shape) allows for claims on the "grand theory of evolution" (from molecule to man, or even from nothing to everything). I have a big issue with extrapolations. Extrapolations don't work in real life (interpolation is difficult enough).

No, there is no such thing as "scientific proof". Proof is a mathematical term. And your link went to an English-French dictionary. It does not give a definition.

That's because I'm french, so to me the translations given explained the sense (and there were english synonyms which helped too). In any case, you were just one click away from the formal definition, here: evidence - WordReference.com Dictionary of English.

Now I'm not sure we're advancing anything with that discussion. You're not trying to understand what I'm saying. I give you references, links, but you don't seem to care about it. You don't even try to destroy my arguments, you just toss them off. It's not very interesting as a debate.

 

[tamtam92]

Yes, and so did the authors of almost every religious book in the world.

Really? You mean most of the authors of religious books describe their own experiences?
Can you give details? I don't know all the religions very well, but what I read from the Quran, I remember it tooks ideas from the Bible.
From what I read in Wikipedia, the book of Mormons tells stories that happened well before the life of Joseph Smith. The Sikhs book looks like a book a mystic hymns.

The fact that someone died for their beliefs is not evidence for that belief since every religion can make the exact same claim.

This is true. We see people die for the wrong beliefs.

I don't know if you've read Schopenhauer but you're using the kind of tricks he suggests. Slightly changing what your opponent says allows you to contradict him.

dad said "they had experiences and observations that they died for." not *beliefs*.

=> The first christians didn't die simply for what they *believed* (though they had faith). They claimed to *have seen* Jesus alive. They didn't say "I believe Jesus is alive" but "Jesus is alive". It was not a belief they had hold for a long time or for which they had fought all their life. They had not been indoctrinated in their childhood. It was all new to them, and they had a hard time to believe it themselves.
You might tell me Joseph Smith also claimed to have mystical experiences. There is one important difference: he was alone in having these experiences and could have been deluded.
The disciples were hundreds right from the beginning.

It is too easy to say "there is no evidence". If we say there is no evidence for Jesus Christ's resurrection, we can as well say that Jules Cesar didn't wage war in Gaul or that Plato didn't exist. Let's be honest. What is your proof that Plato existed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn't know that.

Is that an apology? It should be.

I'm not sure you read what I wrote very carefully. The discussion about being foolish was just an aside, not the core of my argument.

It seemed to have been the core of your argument. It looked like you were playing the martyr card.

You're not keen on history, are you?

You're not keen on logic, are you?

1/ References? 2/ Truth is gained by majority vote? 3/ show me an unbiased study on that question please.

Everyone will have their own bias, but the ones that I have seen that claim recent writing of the gospels seem to do so since a later gospel hurts them. From my understanding the dating of the gospels relies on historical events mentioned in them, such as the destruction of the Jewish temple:

How Is the Date of Composition of the Gospels Estimated? - Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange


There are other parts of the New Testament that are known to be older. Some of the letters of Paul for example.

I get your point, thank you. But 1/ you only answer to my first remark, you don't answer my questions (with which I was trying to understand your point of view). 2/ Maybe the issue is not how you define evidence but how you define "the theory of evolution". In other words, how much the evidence for evolution (eg changes in a bird's beak shape) allows for claims on the "grand theory of evolution" (from molecule to man, or even from nothing to everything). I have a big issue with extrapolations. Extrapolations don't work in real life (interpolation is difficult enough).

Again, I am not defining scientific evidence. And The theory of evolution has a fairly standard definition. Darwin's theory has been modified a bit, but his key claims have been shown to be correct. Though you may not like what you call extrapolations when several independent lines of evidence all support one and only one theory it is thought to be extremely strong evidence for that theory. You might want to Google "consilience".


Consilience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's because I'm french, so to me the translations given explained the sense (and there were english synonyms which helped too). In any case, you were just one click away from the formal definition, here: evidence - WordReference.com Dictionary of English.

Now I'm not sure we're advancing anything with that discussion. You're not trying to understand what I'm saying. I give you references, links, but you don't seem to care about it. You don't even try to destroy my arguments, you just toss them off. It's not very interesting as a debate.

That is not the "formal defintion" it is only a definition. And I am talking about a specific type of evidence here. You do realize that there are different forms of evidence, don't you?

And so far I have not been too impressed with your "arguments". If you want to debate a point make a valid one. Don't simply post a Gish Gallop. If you post a Gish Gallop all that you get are equivalent responses.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? You mean most of the authors of religious books describe their own experiences?
Can you give details? I don't know all the religions very well, but what I read from the Quran, I remember it tooks ideas from the Bible.
From what I read in Wikipedia, the book of Mormons tells stories that happened well before the life of Joseph Smith. The Sikhs book looks like a book a mystic hymns.

Experiences of themselves and others. Why do you think that this is important?

This is true. We see people die for the wrong beliefs.

Including Christians.

I don't know if you've read Schopenhauer but you're using the kind of tricks he suggests. Slightly changing what your opponent says allows you to contradict him.

I do not think that I am. But as I pointed out you posted a Gish Gallop in your first post here. You covered all sorts of topics and posted nonsense. Try to stay on topic.

dad said "they had experiences and observations that they died for." not *beliefs*.

So then you agree with me. Sorry, being a bit snarky since dad is about the worst possible source that you could site. If dad says something it is almost always wrong.

=> The first christians didn't die simply for what they *believed* (though they had faith). They claimed to *have seen* Jesus alive. They didn't say "I believe Jesus is alive" but "Jesus is alive". It was not a belief they had hold for a long time or for which they had fought all their life. They had not been indoctrinated in their childhood. It was all new to them, and they had a hard time to believe it themselves.
You might tell me Joseph Smith also claimed to have mystical experiences. There is one important difference: he was alone in having these experiences and could have been deluded.
The disciples were hundreds right from the beginning.

It is too easy to say "there is no evidence". If we say there is no evidence for Jesus Christ's resurrection, we can as well say that Jules Cesar didn't wage war in Gaul or that Plato didn't exist. Let's be honest. What is your proof that Plato existed?

I have seen people alive today, and many not so alive, that had very similar beliefs. And they are beliefs. I am not impressed. At any rate the topic of this thread is scientific evidence. I am not trying to disprove the Jesus story here.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


That is enough. There is a great deal of flaming in this thread and it is being closed. The
Creation & Evolution Statement of Purpose includes this:



Handling Disagreements

Members who participate in the Creation & Evolution forum are expected to treat one another with courtesy and respect at all times, ESPECIALLY when you disagree with each other. It is not a flame for a member to disagree with another member's argument or opinion on a specific topic.

• When you disagree, address the content of the post and not the poster.

Too many comments are directed at the member.





​