No reason to believe X is true, other then my interpetation of Y must be true.

[juvenissun]

Just highlighting your false dichotomy

It is false. But it is true.

If you want to do me a favor, than challenge it. I can't wait.

I say: if evolution is false, then creation is true.

 

[matthewgar]

That's rich! It's only YOUR unique claims that there are phenomena that don't leave any evidence, because that's your ultimate cop-out — your impenetrable smoke-screen — to supposedly hide the workings of God (or more likely the limitations of your inventiveness).

The trouble is that when explaining away such absences of evidence your explanations are so full of holes that 'us guys' feel obliged to pull your imaginings back down to earth. In such cases (like your version of embedded age creation), we present reasoned arguments explaining there's no evidence for such phenomena BECAUSE THEY NEVER OCCURRED.

This is the type of thing I'm refering too, we need evidence or some thing that shows that it's correct to assume that there is no evidence because it was hidden beyond just, "Well the bible said it happened and since no evidence it must be hidden." this tells us nothing, and tells us least of all if thats true, or if true what reason or method for not finding evidence is.

 

[matthewgar]

This view still holds true after many challenges I have posted. Yes, if evolution is wrong, then creation must be true.

Because, there is no third option.

Don't like it? Try to name a process which is neither evolution nor creation.

There doesn't need to be a third option, my point is that argument hasn't proven itself to even be correct. It hasn't proven evolution false, because it hasn't proven itself correct, it still leaves evolution as correct unless you can backup the claim beyond, "My excuse with no evidence is correct, because the bible must be correct as I interpet." because all they are in the end are excuses wich can very well be false or incorrect, and considering there are often a dozen excuses for why a single point disproves a interpetation of the bible and many contradict each other excuses arn't good enough without backing of evidence outside of the bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does making up stuff for Jesus really show him honour? Even if your correct on your interpetations of the bible your still making up explanations and calling them truth, you have no truth in this beyond what is in the bible if your correct.

You have a point about making things up -- and I partly agree with you; but if you'll look around, you'll see that the questions put to us (me, specifically) are of the nature that are really not covered in the Scriptures.

I suspect this is done on purpose to try and fail -- or at least put a dent in -- basic theology.

Case in point is where the water went after the Flood.

It's not good enough with these guys that we believe God sent it -- we can back that up with Scripture; but they want to know where it went.

My contention is that they try to back us into a corner with our own theology -- and that's where I really shine.

I'm not beneath extreme speculation if I have to.

Trying to badger me into giving a viable explanation as to where the waters went in Noah's day will indeed leave you with plenty to think about when I answer you.

Deny what I say, or laugh at it, or ridicule it, and I just might turn it right around and ask you where the waters went -- then make a play on your unwillingness to answer.

In short, I'm good at introducing these guys to mirrors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to compromise the truths of Scripture, and I don't tell lies -- but I will speculate if I have to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why is religion less valuable than other human wisdoms? It takes a lot of brain power.

You got that right!

Like I tell these guys -- if they can't get past Genesis 1, they're in for a doosey of a ride, as it gets harder from there.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is the type of thing I'm refering too, we need evidence or some thing that shows that it's correct to assume that there is no evidence because it was hidden beyond just, "Well the bible said it happened and since no evidence it must be hidden." this tells us nothing, and tells us least of all if thats true, or if true what reason or method for not finding evidence is.

Your "this tells us nothing" is a huge mental block, in my opinion.

What it tells you -- very loudly -- is that we walk by faith and not by sight.

These Internet scientists here are getting a rich dose of how faith operates, and they don't even see it.

Something about us aggravates them, and they attribute it to our lack of knowledge; but it's not, it's our faith they are encountering, and according to Ephesians 6, it is a shield that even Satan cannot penetrate.

 

[matthewgar]

You have a point about making things up -- and I partly agree with you; but if you'll look around, you'll see that the questions put to us (me, specifically) are of the nature that are really not covered in the Scriptures.

I suspect this is done on purpose to try and fail -- or at least put a dent in -- basic theology.

Case in point is where the water went after the Flood.

It's not good enough with these guys that we believe God sent it -- we can back that up with Scripture; but they want to know where it went.

My contention is that they try to back us into a corner with our own theology -- and that's where I really shine.

I'm not beneath extreme speculation if I have to.

Trying to badger me into giving a viable explanation as to where the waters went in Noah's day will indeed leave you with plenty to think about when I answer you.

Deny what I say, or laugh at it, or ridicule it, and I just might turn it right around and ask you where the waters went -- then make a play on your unwillingness to answer.

In short, I'm good at introducing these guys to mirrors.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one to compromise the truths of Scripture, and I don't tell lies -- but I will speculate if I have to.

Speculation is all fine and dandy, but you have a tendecy from some of your posts to treat your claims as facts, I still remember the, "no evidence for the flood, then scientists arn't looking hard, it's there, if they havn't found it they arn't looking hard enough." argument a few weeks ago. Problem is there is a very simple explanation for why all the evidence points to you being wrong, you could just be wrong.

My issue isn't that you come up with explanations, thats good, I have fun with this myself, but before I treat them as fact and such I look for evidence I look for people knowledgable in the subjects that might have something to back up my ideas. Evolution has all this knowledge and information backing it up, you can poke a few holes in some evidence deflate them a bit so they are at least questionable, but your poking holes in a dozen bits of evidence ignoring the thousands more. And many of the holes your trying to poke at were ones patched and reinforced long ago with evidence. I've seen you use many arguments that were destroyed ages ago hence why people keep calling you on PRATT's alot.

If you want to prove your interpetation of the bible to me, and others you need evidence, no ammount of adhoc's and bible quoting will get anywhere with us, scientists or those that accept evolution to be true. Poking afew bullt holes in a reinforced hundred foot well supported wall isn't going to cause it to colapse.

Remember to disprove evolution, you must not only prove why it's wrong, but why to date it's been correct. You may not like evolution you may think it's wrong, but ignoring, ad hoc'ing, straw maning the evidence won't acomplish anything and this is what this topic is about. Not to ridicule you, just the methods to show that you arn't acomplishing anything other then possibly boosting your own beliefs and those that agree with you. Not a single TE or AE is ever going to be convinced on AD hoc's, Strawman, and such alone that knows the first thing about evolution.

 

[matthewgar]

Your "this tells us nothing" is a huge mental block, in my opinion.

What it tells you -- very loudly -- is that we walk by faith and not by sight.

These Internet scientists here are getting a rich dose of how faith operates, and they don't even see it.

Something about us aggravates them, and they attribute it to our lack of knowledge; but it's not, it's our faith they are encountering, and according to Ephesians 6, it is a shield that even Satan cannot penetrate.

Heh actually for me it's a dislike for ignorance on subjects, and a dislike for promoting it. I want to find what god did in this world, not what some person that has no knowledge of the subject of evolution claims he might have done. To me we honour god by learning what he did, not by what we want him to have done, or we rather think he did. Faith is all good and dandy, but faith can lead you astray, it can make you believe falsehoods because you put more faith in your interpetations and feelings then in evidence. I will stick with the evidence and what the world teaches me of god, you can stick to your faith and if your wrong have fun explaining to him why you ignored everything in the world that cried out the truth.

As someone else said you worship the bible more then Jesus and god, what you think the bible says god did is more important then what god himself might have done. If you truly cared about what god did you would look for answers in all things, you would take the evidence where ever it led and not simply ignored any evidence that didn't fit your feelings.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speculation is all fine and dandy, but you have a tendecy from some of your posts to treat your claims as facts, I still remember the, "no evidence for the flood, then scientists arn't looking hard, it's there, if they havn't found it they arn't looking hard enough." argument a few weeks ago. Problem is there is a very simple explanation for why all the evidence points to you being wrong, you could just be wrong.

My issue isn't that you come up with explanations, thats good, I have fun with this myself, but before I treat them as fact and such I look for evidence I look for people knowledgable in the subjects that might have something to back up my ideas. Evolution has all this knowledge and information backing it up, you can poke a few holes in some evidence deflate them a bit so they are at least questionable, but your poking holes in a dozen bits of evidence ignoring the thousands more. And many of the holes your trying to poke at were ones patched and reinforced long ago with evidence. I've seen you use many arguments that were destroyed ages ago hence why people keep calling you on PRATT's alot.

If you want to prove your interpetation of the bible to me, and others you need evidence, no ammount of adhoc's and bible quoting will get anywhere with us, scientists or those that accept evolution to be true. Poking afew bullt holes in a reinforced hundred foot well supported wall isn't going to cause it to colapse.

Remember to disprove evolution, you must not only prove why it's wrong, but why to date it's been correct. You may not like evolution you may think it's wrong, but ignoring, ad hoc'ing, straw maning the evidence won't acomplish anything and this is what this topic is about. Not to ridicule you, just the methods to show that you arn't acomplishing anything other then possibly boosting your own beliefs and those that agree with you. Not a single TE or AE is ever going to be convinced on AD hoc's, Strawman, and such alone that knows the first thing about evolution.

No comment.

 

[AV1611VET]

I will stick with the evidence and what the world teaches me of god, you can stick to your faith and if your wrong have fun explaining to him why you ignored everything in the world that cried out the truth.

Good -- then if the world is your bible, then please explain why this bible has five different explanations as to how we got our moon.

And while we're at it, what's your explanation?

If you can't tell me how we got our moon, please don't think I'm going to listen to you when you tell me how we got our parents.

 

[Bushido216]

It is false. But it is true.

If you want to do me a favor, than challenge it. I can't wait.

I say: if evolution is false, then creation is true.

You can say it all day, it's still wrong.

However, I note with some interest that, as formed, you have a conditional. Let's play with this a little.

Let P stand for "Evolution is false"
and Q stand for "creation is true"

We have the conditional P->Q
and we know that ~Q

SO

If we decide that P->Q represent reality as you seem to believe, we can derive ~P.

1. Show ~P
2 . P->Q
3. ~Q
4. therefore, ~P (2,3 mt)

By your own reckoning, since we have established the relationship P->Q, and we know demonstrably that creationism isn't the case, then evolution must be not false.

Ba boom.

tl;dr Don't appeal to logic unless you're cool with the consequences.

 

[matthewgar]

Good -- then if the world is your bible, then please explain why this bible has five different explanations as to how we got our moon.

And while we're at it, what's your explanation?

If you can't tell me how we got our moon, please don't think I'm going to listen to you when you tell me how we got our parents.

well considering I'm not a astronmer, it's a bit hard to tell you exactly. But first a question, is this 5 over the life of the theories on the moon or currently 5 competing currently considered equally likly chances?

Though the one I believe is the leading and currently considered the main theory is that a small sized planet or such struck the causing a good chunk of the earth and the planet to eject into space wich formed the moon, this has been backed by us finding signs of a planet that was struck simularly last year, and is showing all the chemical traces and such that we would expect too after our moon started to form.

But while were on the subject of competing theories considering there is a half dozen or so competing theories on how the water from Noah's flood go to earth, "Hydro plate, ice asteroid, water canopy, among others." does this mean since you guys can't agree on any of them, and no evidence for any of these, and the fact that all three main ones would kill all life on the planet including Noah and the ark so there is also evidence against, that the noah flood didn't happen?

 

[AV1611VET]

well considering I'm not a astronmer, it's a bit hard to tell you exactly.

You don't have to be an astronomer -- all I'm asking you to do is tell me why there are five different theories as to how we got our moon, if your bible is so accurate.

What these theories are have nothing to do with my point.

 

[Bushido216]

There are however many theories because we don't stick our conclusions before we bother to gather and analyze our evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are however many theories because we don't stick our conclusions before we bother to gather and analyze our evidence.

Then your bible (science) can take a hike.

 

[matthewgar]

You don't have to be an astronomer -- all I'm asking you to do is tell me why there are five different theories as to how we got our moon, if your bible is so accurate.

What these theories are have nothing to do with my point.

They are to show that your point is flawed, each of those points has evidence to back them up. The 3+ flood explanations have nothing to back them up, even if the flood happened there is no reason to believe any of the explanations because 0 evidence. Again we get back to, we have evidence for current theories, you have no evidence but insist they must be wrong because of hypothesis that have no evidence. Case closed. You have nothing to back up your claims, there fore your claims are null and void.

 

[Bushido216]

Then your bible (science) can take a hike.

My Bible is the New American Bible.

That being said, your beliefs don't in any way match reality. This should be considered a problem.

 

[MoonLancer]

Then your bible (science) can take a hike.

I take it your never going to go to a hospital then? Have a healthy life

 

[Targ]

I take it your never going going to go to a hospital then? Have a healthy life

That is ultimately what it always comes back to. Creationists are happy to use the scientific method in the fields of medicine, electronics etc and yet, when it comes to Earth's history, the scientific method goes out of the window and is replaced with the creationist method:

And yet on other related subjects, such as whether the Sun orbits the earth or vice versa, it was ultimately the scientific method that caused Christians to change their views. Use the same method to show Genesis 1 cannot be literal and the scientific method is rejected with the creationist reverting back to the creationist method.

The creationist method is inconsistently applied, non-rational and stagnatory and these are the reasons why I believe that the creationist method has more reason to take a hike than science.

 

[Cabal]

It is false. But it is true.

If you want to do me a favor, than challenge it. I can't wait.

I say: if evolution is false, then creation is true.

Already have challenged it. Waiting for your reply. You seem to think insisting that it's not a false dichotomy is showing it's not.

Although given that you contradicted yourself in the first line, I'm not getting my hopes up.

There are all the other creation myths, which are equally scientifically meritorious, and if evolution is found to be incorrect another scientific theory would likely spring up to explain all data including the anomalous. There are far from two options involved in this.