My YEC Evidence Challenge

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Four definitions, and with the exception of the first one, their verbs are past tense.

Is it a fact that Jesus is coming again to set up His millennial kingdom?

If not, then those definitions of "fact" can take a hike.

Go away.

 

[AV1611VET]

4 is a little weak

They're all weak and can't hold a candle to the Bible.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

4 is a little weak

Funny since, to me, that sounds like the exact definition you gave.

 

[AV1611VET]

Go away.

That's what they said to Jesus.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's what they said to Jesus.

But you're not Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you're not Jesus.

Speaking of Jesus, and speaking of "facts" in the past tense, did Jesus walk on water?

If you say NO, then that definition of "fact" fails in the past tense as well.

So it fails not only in future tense, but it fails in the past tense too.

Care to try for present tense?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Speaking of Jesus, and speaking of "facts" in the past tense, did Jesus walk on water?

If you say NO, then that definition of "fact" fails in the past tense as well.

So it fails not only in future tense, but it fails in the past tense too.

Care to try for present tense?

Stop trying to put yourself on the same level as Jesus.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Funny since, to me, that sounds like the exact definition you gave.

Something that is known or proven to be true is the same as something that is merely supposed to be true? Ghosts and the loch ness monster are supposed to be true by some. Does this make them a fact?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Something that is known or proven to be true is the same as something that is merely supposed to be true? Ghosts and the loch needs monster are supposed to be true by some. Stores this make them a fact?

That's not what I wrote AT ALL. 'Known' and 'proven' aren't the same as 'supposed'. Known and proven mean that there is EVIDENCE for them.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stop trying to put yourself on the same level as Jesus.

Why? does it interfere with the definition of "facts"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why? does it interfere with the definition of "facts"?

No, it's simply you trying to derail the thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's simply you trying to derail the thread.

Me?

Aren't you the one who brought Jesus up?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Me?

Aren't you the one who brought Jesus up?

No, you did by saying "That's what they said to Jesus."
So, if you have nothing worthwhile to add, stop trying to derail the thread and leave.

 

[KWCrazy]

Data can be wrong, though.

Data can be misinterpreted.

I don't think that things like atoms, electrons or even germs are "easily seen, felt, heard, tasted or smelled"....

All those can be seen if you have the right equipment. A barn two miles away can be seen if you're high enough. These things are physical in nature.

If they can't be measured (ie, they don't have any measureable manifestation or effect), then how can it be differentiated from non-existant things?

They exist with different properties.
Dreams exist. You see them, but can you take pictures? Can you get conclusive proof out of personal experience and testimony?
Suppose you encountered something in your living room and you didn't have your trusty thermal imaging camera ready. Does your ability to capture what you see in recordable media bear any relevance to what you see?

Maybe you should stick to real-life examples, instead of imaginary things.

Joe Demon is real; other than the name. Lucifer took a third of the angels with him when he was cast out of Heaven. These became demons.

Not just the investigation thereof. The thing itself also.

It's not my fault you have a poor understanding of reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you did by saying "That's what they said to Jesus."

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you were addressing Jesus in me when you said GO AWAY in post 141.

My bad.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Oh, I'm sorry.

I thought you were addressing Jesus in me when you said GO AWAY in post 141.

My bad.

Why would... I'm not gonna fall for this. Just go away and stop trying to derail this thread.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would... I'm not gonna fall for this. Just go away and stop trying to derail this thread.

Adios then ... carry on.

Just keep in mind:

Facts can take a hike.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's in the bible.

I am going to need some specifics.

He said so.

The Bible was written by men.

To understand the truth of the bible you have to accept the fact that the bible is true.

That's an awfully tight circle of an argument you have going there.

 

[Loudmouth]

My interpretation of of the bible has no bearing on its truth. My interpretation only tells you something about me, not about the source material.

Surely you understand why we have doubts about the source material itself, don't you? If a book says it is true, you just don't assume it must be true simply because it says so.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science can only reject all spirituality, and it must in order to be science.

You have it backwards. Science would happily accept spirituality if there were evidence supporting it. It isn't the fault of science that those who claim the supernatural is real can't produce any evidence to back those claims. Even worse, spirituality is intentionally defined so as to avoid being tested by science.

Don't get me wrong, I like science and allow it to do it's job, but it is just one subject area of knowledge and never can explain all truth.

There is one thing that science is very good at, and that is finding ideas that are wrong. Young Earth Creationism is wrong as shown by science.

Methodological naturalism is the underpinning philosophy of science, as such science is the study of nature through physically testable and repeatable natural phenomena.

If spirituality really were a part of our universe and if spirituality really did have affects on our universe, then why couldn't science study it?

What you seem to subscribe to is what I term as Scientism, that is treating science as a quasi-religion that you believe can fully answer all the deepest questions of our existence.

Don't you find it interesting that you try to discredit science by making it look more like a religion?

It's only the study of nature through nature, it can only inform us of the properties of physical things. It can't tell us anything about poetry, music, art, morality, ethics, etc...

Why can't it tell us about those things? It would seem to me that neuroscience can tell us a lot about those subjects.