What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even Christians know the above!

Some of them make a convincing pretence of not knowing it.

What if all possibilities were removed?

How would that happen? can you give an example?

What if more than one person was involved?

It would depend on the particular context, but it's not unusual for multiple people to misperceive something; our brains work in similar ways, and we tend to be suggestible.

One experiment faked a robbery scene for subjects and asked them to recall only the details they were sure of. If a stooge onlooker made false comments about the details, either while it was in progress or afterwards, many subjects would give those false details as things they saw - and often add extra details of their own. The false details became part of their memories of the event. People have even been given false memories of whole events that never happened - as long as they are fairly plausible and people they trust verify them. Memories are a reconstruction from fragments (which may be mistaken), not a recording. See Seven Sins of Memory.

What if it happened to YOU?

I often misperceive things. Again, it depends on context, but if it was persistent and apparently impossible, the most likely explanation would be a hallucination. Various brain events (e.g. temporal lobe seizure) can produce vivid hallucinations, even revelatory experiences. Hallucinations are surprisingly common. That would be far more likely than that our physical understanding of the everyday world, which has been thoroughly tested, and on which all our technology relies, was completely wrong.

If you came to believe in some kind of life after death...would that change your belief system or world view?

I don't follow you. Obviously, if I came to believe something significantly different from my current belief system and worldview, it would, by definition, change my belief system and world view

 

[xianghua]

I would say that in light of your earlier errors that the implication was there.

dont blame others in your own mystakes.

 

[Subduction Zone]

dont blame others in your own mystakes.

You were the one that made an error, or worse. Context matters. If I read this post of yours and assume that I was in error it means that you admitted to lying. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[xianghua]

You were the one that made an error, or worse. Context matters. If I read this post of yours and assume that I was in error it means that you admitted to lying. Are you sure that you want to do that?

what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

what?

Thanks for confirming that I was not the one in error.

 

[DaveISBA]

In the sciences concepts that cannot be supported by evidence are dismissed. If one wants to propose ID then one should strive to find evidence that supports it.

Diehard evolutionists acceptance of any evidence for creation will never happen as illustrated below!

Richard Dawkins, Famous evolutionist and zoologist, “THE BLIND WATCHMAKER”, p229-230: "the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”
"Both schools of thought [punctuationists' and 'gradualists] despise so-called scientific creationists equally" "Both schools of thought agree that the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and both would reject this alternative."

H.S. Lipson; Prof of Physics, University of Manchester England, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 "To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."

 

[Tinker Grey]

"the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists

Why did you not include the portion between your "2" quotes? Here's the part in between: (Quote 40 on this page Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps")

Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
​

What you have done is quote-mine. Quote mining is taking a quote out of context so as to make it appear that the speaker means something other than what they actually intended.

To quote mine is to lie.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Some of them make a convincing pretence of not knowing it.

How would that happen? can you give an example?

It would depend on the particular context, but it's not unusual for multiple people to misperceive something; our brains work in similar ways, and we tend to be suggestible.

One experiment faked a robbery scene for subjects and asked them to recall only the details they were sure of. If a stooge onlooker made false comments about the details, either while it was in progress or afterwards, many subjects would give those false details as things they saw - and often add extra details of their own. The false details became part of their memories of the event. People have even been given false memories of whole events that never happened - as long as they are fairly plausible and people they trust verify them. Memories are a reconstruction from fragments (which may be mistaken), not a recording. See Seven Sins of Memory.

I often misperceive things. Again, it depends on context, but if it was persistent and apparently impossible, the most likely explanation would be a hallucination. Various brain events (e.g. temporal lobe seizure) can produce vivid hallucinations, even revelatory experiences. Hallucinations are surprisingly common. That would be far more likely than that our physical understanding of the everyday world, which has been thoroughly tested, and on which all our technology relies, was completely wrong.

I don't follow you. Obviously, if I came to believe something significantly different from my current belief system and worldview, it would, by definition, change my belief system and world view

I find it interesting that you feel you cannot even trust your own senses.

You say that you could come to believe in a different belief system and world view if you came to believe in something significantly different than what you believe now.

Perhaps Christians have had this experience?
Can it be that so many hallucinate?

It's difficult for a person to believe something another person has experienced....until it happens to them. (or IF it happens to them).

 

[DaveISBA]

Why did you not include the portion between your "2" quotes? Here's the part in between: (Quote 40 on this page Quote Mine Project: "Large Gaps")

Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize. If you are a creationist you may think that this is special pleading. My point here is that, when we are talking about gaps of this magnitude, there is no difference whatever in the interpretations of 'punctuationists' and 'gradualists'."
​

What you have done is quote-mine. Quote mining is taking a quote out of context so as to make it appear that the speaker means something other than what they actually intended.

To quote mine is to lie.

Why? Don't have the time to waste on conjecture or guesses! Just the facts mam! What is actually observed...which is simply no evidence for the TOE! "(for some reason), very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason (might) be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
So the missing context your are trying to propose is that this (might) be why? Not very scientific?

Ernst Walter Mayr, evolutionary biologists, taxonomist, ornithologist, (Our Long Argument): Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, p. 138
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

You claim "To quote mine is to lie" Did you not just quote mine? You just called yourself a lier!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I find it interesting that you feel you cannot even trust your own senses.

Most of the time they do a good enough job. But if you think your senses and perceptions are entirely trustworthy you're mistaken. Visual and auditory illusions are just the most obvious examples (I rather like the McGurk Effect).

You say that you could come to believe in a different belief system and world view if you came to believe in something significantly different than what you believe now.

If my beliefs changed, I would have different beliefs... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Perhaps Christians have had this experience?

It's possible - but people have many different reasons for their beliefs.

Can it be that so many hallucinate?

I'm not suggesting that Christians have more hallucinations than anyone else. Some types of hallucination (e.g. voices) are more common than others, but around 5% of people report having them.

It's difficult for a person to believe something another person has experienced....until it happens to them. (or IF it happens to them).

Only if the reported experience strains credulity - and credulity varies from person to person. But it is often the case that reports of extraordinary (e.g. seemingly inexplicable) experiences, when investigated, have plausible mundane explanations.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Most of the time they do a good enough job. But if you think your senses and perceptions are entirely trustworthy you're mistaken. Visual and auditory illusions are just the most obvious examples (I rather like the McGurk Effect).

If my beliefs changed, I would have different beliefs... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It's possible - but people have many different reasons for their beliefs.

I'm not suggesting that Christians have more hallucinations than anyone else. Some types of hallucination (e.g. voices) are more common than others, but around 5% of people report having them.

Only if the reported experience strains credulity - and credulity varies from person to person. But it is often the case that reports of extraordinary (e.g. seemingly inexplicable) experiences, when investigated, have plausible mundane explanations.

Are you kidding?
You think I'd even watch that video?
There are priests that do exorcisms.
I guess that's a joke to you too.
Unless it happened to you.

Please don't reply regarding this topic.
Thanks.

 

[pitabread]

But, you see, we both know what we're seeing.
We're not calling it phantasms.

Some people don't know what they're seeing though. I've read a lot of accounts of clearly hallucinogenic phenomena that people ascribe to supernatural forces.

In fact, I suspect this is why so many people believe in the supernatural in the first place.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Some people don't know what they're seeing though. I've read a lot of accounts of clearly hallucinogenic phenomena that people ascribe to supernatural forces.

I agree.
But not all.
Not all means some are real.

I'm not here to convince you to become a Christian.
But I'll be you know about Lourdes in France.
There have been thousands of miracles attributed
to this place where Mary was supposed to have appeared.

The Catholic Church does not take miracles lightly.
They did an extensive study and found that about 67 real, authentic, miracles did happen there. This report goes back a few years, it might be a little more now.

If they say 67, you can bet that there was no explanation,,,not even spontaneous remission of cancer, to what they investigated.

It's difficult to believe something that didn't happen to us personally. I've had a couple of experiences that cannot be explained...I'm not going to discuss them here...but there was NO EXPLANATION for them, in natural terms. One was not Christian in nature.

 

[pitabread]

I agree.
But not all.
Not all means some are real.

Just declaring something real doesn't make it so. In my experience, the evidence for the supernatural is pretty thin.

And this coming from someone who initially grew up believing in ghosts, etc, quite strongly.

There have been thousands of miracles attributed
to this place where Mary was supposed to have appeared.

There have been thousands of accounts of alien abductions too.

The Catholic Church does not take miracles lightly.
They did an extensive study and found that about 67 real, authentic, miracles did happen there. This report goes back a few years, it might be a little more now.

If they say 67, you can bet that there was no explanation,,,not even spontaneous remission of cancer, to what they investigated.

There is a clear conflict of interest there.

I'd be a little more impressed if said miracles could independently verified under rigorous scientific controlled conditions. Unfortunately, to my knowledge so such verification that can stand up to a rigorous level of scrutiny exists.

It's difficult to believe something that didn't happen to us personally. I've had a couple of experiences that cannot be explained...I'm not going to discuss them here...but there was NO EXPLANATION for them, in natural terms. One was not Christian in nature.

The problem is lack of evidence, which is why such anecdotes don't count for much. And moreso when one considers various psychological biases that influence human perception, memory, etc. We're simply not objective sources of this kind of information.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Just declaring something real doesn't make it so. In my experience, the evidence for the supernatural is pretty thin.

And this coming from someone who initially grew up believing in ghosts, etc, quite strongly.

Really?
And WHY did you believe in ghosts?
Was it based on something?

There have been thousands of accounts of alien abductions too.

LOL
Investigated by the CC???

There is a clear conflict of interest there.

Why?
Otherwise people wouldn't visit this interesting place?
OR....you could be right....

I'd be a little more impressed if said miracles could independently verified under rigorous scientific controlled conditions. Unfortunately, to my knowledge so such verification that can stand up to a rigorous level of scrutiny exists.

OK. You don't understand the CC then.
They have NOT endorsed Medjugorje in Serbia.
People go there in droves anyway....whatever floats your boat.

The problem is lack of evidence, which is why such anecdotes don't count for much. And moreso when one considers various psychological biases that influence human perception, memory, etc. We're simply not objective sources of this kind of information.

You're a hard nut to crack!

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does one believe in God because he affirms the supernatural
or does he affirm the supernatural because he believes in God....

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why? Don't have the time to waste on conjecture or guesses! Just the facts mam! What is actually observed...which is simply no evidence for the TOE! "(for some reason), very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason (might) be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
So the missing context your are trying to propose is that this (might) be why? Not very scientific?

Ernst Walter Mayr, evolutionary biologists, taxonomist, ornithologist, (Our Long Argument): Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, p. 138
"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

You claim "To quote mine is to lie" Did you not just quote mine? You just called yourself a lier!

Apparently you can neither spell nor do you understand "quote mine". And you did it again. The full quote is:

Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record. During the synthesis it became clear that since new evolutionary departures seem to take place almost invariably in localized isolated populations, it is not surprising that the fossil record does not reflect these sequences.​

Emphasis added. Evolution fact and theory. The mechanics of evolutionary change

Stop lying.

 

[pitabread]

Really?
And WHY did you believe in ghosts?
Was it based on something?

I was a kid and thought the idea of the supernatural was fascinating.

As I grew up, I realized the implications of the supernatural and I increased my standard of evidence that I would accept for such claims.

LOL
Investigated by the CC???

That's beside the point. The point is that thousands of claims of X doesn't mean much at face value.

You're a hard nut to crack!

What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Does one believe in God because he affirms the supernatural
or does he affirm the supernatural because he believes in God....

There are a lot of reasons people believe in the supernatural. A lot of seems to come to wanting explanations for things we otherwise cannot explain.

 

[GodsGrace101]

I was a kid and thought the idea of the supernatural was fascinating.

As I grew up, I realized the implications of the supernatural and I increased my standard of evidence that I would accept for such claims.



That's beside the point. The point is that thousands of claims of X doesn't mean much at face value.



There are a lot of reasons people believe in the supernatural. A lot of seems to come to wanting explanations for things we otherwise cannot explain.

I like you Pitabread (aintcha glad?) but your above doesn't sound right....

You were right to stop believing in the supernatural....you had no reason to.

Thousands of claims of X don't mean much UNLESS the infamous catholic church investigates it. I can't convince you of how thorough they are...you either accept it or you don't. They don't like all this talk of miracles either --- it waters down the meaning of what they really are.

And believing in the supernatural because there's no other explanation is pretty dumb -- I think.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Are you kidding?
You think I'd even watch that video?
There are priests that do exorcisms.
I guess that's a joke to you too.
Unless it happened to you.

Please don't reply regarding this topic.
Thanks.

??

 

[GodsGrace101]

??

You don't trust your own senses and you think no one else should trust theirs.

I trust mine.
So our conversation is ended here.