Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[omega2xx]

Lol! Now you're just being childish. I told you my credentials - what about yours?

Your credentials come from being taught by evolutionists, who were taught by evolutionist for many generations. You can't prove one thing using your credentials that supports evolution.

My crededntals include the ability to read, evaluate and judge the accuracy of a statement. and judge a statements accuracy. One does not have to be a scientist to understand the basic truths of any science discipline.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know who the universe was formed, I just ca't prove it

To quote AaronRa "You don't KNOW it, if you can't SHOW it"

, and you can't disprove it

That's a shift of the burden of proof.
I can't prove Thor doesn't exist, but likely you won't consider that a reason to believe that Thor exists, right?

My explanation is the most logical.

How so?

Imagining is not evidence.

Claiming it is "perfect", isn't either.

There is not room for further improvements.

That's actually false.

There is only room for further discovring which will point more to its perfection.

Assuming your conclusion, are we?

 

[DogmaHunter]

My crededntals include the ability to read, evaluate and judge the accuracy of a statement. and judge a statements accuracy. One does not have to be a scientist to understand the basic truths of any science discipline.

pssst: muslims, hindu's, scientologists,... all have those "credentials" as well.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Logic is not needed. If an A becomes a B there must be point at which it happens.

You should read up on the sorites paradox.

Exactly how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap? Exactly when does a baby become a child? exactly when does a child become a youth? exactly when does a youth become an adult? Exactly when does and adult become elderly?

 

[omega2xx]

For the sake of argument, I'll go ahead and assume that no progress whatsoever has been made and that we thus are utterly ignorant on how life began.

My question wasn't about what science claims or hypothesizes. My question was about what YOU claimed concerning the origins of life.

Because your argument seems to be "science doesn't know, therefor my religion is correct"

I have not mention my religion. What I have said is that my explanation is the most logical.

No. It is saying "this here is unknown, therefor this random claim here is correct or valid"

I have not said it is correct or valid. I have said it is more logical.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have not mention my religion.

Yes you did.
You appealed to the god you believe in.
That is your religion.

What I have said is that my explanation is the most logical]

It is not. I know you claim that, but you have yet to demonstrate how these claims are logical.

I have not said it is correct or valid. I have said it is more logical.

Pointing to undetectable, undemonstrable deities in order to explain unexplained phenomena, is not logical.

Or put another way: it is not logical to try and explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[omega2xx]

pssst: muslims, hindu's, scientologists,... all have those "credentials" as well.

Some may, some don't. Any way, my point is you NEVER provide any verifiable scientific evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Some may, some don't. Any way, my point is you NEVER provide any verifiable scientific evidence.

Says the guy who's mantra is simply repeating "it's logical!!!!"

You have been given plenty of verifiable scientific evidence, in this thread alone.
As Jimmy D's post, with a small collection of links to such posts, demonstrates.

Burrying your head in the sand, will not make the evidence disappear.

 

[omega2xx]

Yes you did.
You appealed to the god you believe in.
That is your religion.



It is not. I know you claim that, but you have yet to demonstrate how these claims are logical.



Pointing to undetectable, undemonstrable deities in order to explain unexplained phenomena, is not logical.

Or put another way: it is not logical to try and explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

It is also not logical to say something is true without providing the evidence that makes it true. That is my main point. You can quibble about everything else but you need to include some evidence for what you say. If you try, dont forget the scientific HOW.

 

[omega2xx]

Says the guy who's mantra is simply repeating "it's logical!!!!"

You have been given plenty of verifiable scientific evidence, in this thread alone.
As Jimmy D's post, with a small collection of links to such posts, demonstrates.

Burrying your head in the sand, will not make the evidence disappear.

YAWN

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My crededntals include the ability to read, evaluate and judge the accuracy of a statement. and judge a statements accuracy.

Evaluate and judge incorrectly, if your posts are any indication.

One does not have to be a scientist to understand the basic truths of any science discipline.

Science disciplines don't deal in 'basic truths', but the gist is correct; however, you've demonstrated that you belong to those non-scientists that don't understand a scientific discipline.

But why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Is it hubris or the Dunning-Kruger effect?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not an argument. It is a FACT you can't falsify.

Oh please. A possible future cannot be a fact, and obviously can't be falsified in the present.

 

[Jimmy D]

Still humoring the troll?

I suppose he's a good advert for the vacuity of creationism.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is also not logical to say something is true without providing the evidence that makes it true.

Then don't do exactly that........

That is my main point. You can quibble about everything else but you need to include some evidence for what you say.

Awesome. I await your evidence for the existance of godly entities and their claimed role in the creation of the universe, the creation of life, etc.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I am only talking about the original creation. If God didn't do it, it seems unlikely that the universe started out as perfect as it is today. Even if it did you can't prove it. So how does randomness become perfectly ordered?

Define perfect, as in when you say 'it seems unlikely that the universe started out as perfect as it is today.' How is the universe 'perfect'? It just is. That's like saying the number 4 is perfect because it's not 3.9999 or 4.000023 but a nice round number.

When we look into the fine details of the universe, it's based on chaos not order. See quantum physics. It only appears 'perfectly ordered' because you're looking at it at a high level where the underlying chaos has been averaged out.

Just because I can't 'prove it' doesn't mean that my view of the universe and how it works isn't massively more accurate than yours. It's not a matter of proving anything, but whose theories or wild conjectures, are better at explaining the universe. From what we've been able to find out, modern physics does a pretty damn good job at explaining the universe. How well does religion explain the universe, and can you back up any claims that you make?

I know who the universe was formed, I just ca't prove it, and you can't disprove it. My explanation is the most logical.

I can show that science's explanation for how the universe was formed has supporting evidence and isn't just wild conjecture. How can you do the same for religion?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Still humoring the troll?

I suppose he's a good advert for the vacuity of creationism.

Quite; sometimes a troll is amusing, sometimes annoying, and sometimes like a slow-motion train wreck that you can't help watching with appalled fascination. This one combines all three

 

[Speedwell]

Logic is not needed. If an A becomes a B there must be point at which it happens.

No. As long as you hold on to that notion you will never understand what a "species" is or how speciation happens.

Then do it.

That's why I keep asking you how much math you know. How far back to we have to go with this? High school algebra & geometry? College level calculus and differential equations? Have you ever taken a course in inferential statistic?

I accept creation on scientific grounds(after their kind) and reject evolution on scientific grounds(after their kind).

What's a "kind?"

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Whether we have a closed system or not has not been proved yet. There are good scientist on both sides of that fence.

I didn't even mention a closed system. What I wanted you to find out is the increase in entropy is a criteria for spontaneity.

 

[Herman Hedning]

My explanation is the most logical.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[omega2xx]

Evaluate and judge incorrectly, if your posts are any indication.

You can't tell because you haven't offered any evidence for me to evaluate.

Science disciplines don't deal in 'basic truths', but the gist is correct;

That is exactly what real science deals in, but since evolution has no basic scientific truth the disciple of Darwin have twisted and lied about what real science does.

however, you've demonstrated that you belong to those non-scientists that don't understand a scientific discipline.

There are Christian scientist who reject what you accept. and they are far better qualified in science than you are.

But why are you embarrassing yourself like this? Is it hubris or the Dunning-Kruger effect?

When you evos have no answers, you resort to insults. How sad. You don't even understand what verifiable evidence is. Even sadder.