Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

This is really rather funny. Professional scientists said that Charles Dawson was credible when he claimed to have found the skull and jawbone of an ape-man at Piltdown, and creationists sneer at them for being credulous. Now you say that Ron Wyatt is credible when he claims to have made important discoveries in Biblical archaeology, and you expect everybody to believe you without question.

Ok. I get it. Most if not all of you in this forum don't have any confidence that Ron Wyatt is a credible archaeologist. We've derailed the thread long enough. Let's move back on topic, ok?

 

[gaara4158]

It wasn't subjective. Maybe to you but not to me. Look at the definition of objective.

Something is either objective or it isn’t. Objectivity by definition leaves no room for personal judgement, emotion, or opinion. You’re basing your argument on a personal experience, which is the very definition of subjective. You are judging your experience to be genuine but you admit you cannot demonstrate it to anyone else. Objective facts are exclusively demonstrable, quantifiable, and independently verifiable. Your claim is none of those things. You don’t have to give up your belief, but you can’t keep saying you’re being objective.

My position on evolution is one of complete deference to the subject matter experts. I am not one. If you disagree with them you’ll have to explain why.

 

[Divide]

Objectivity by definition leaves no room for personal judgement, emotion, or opinion.

Correct. And when God strolls in and speaks to you, all personal judgement emotion and opinion is out the window. He really is there, really did say that. So It was an objective experience and therefore makes my statements about it objective. That you choose not to believe me about it, is ok, but it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Divide]

Objective facts are exclusively demonstrable, quantifiable, and independently verifiable.

Really. How do you back that one up? That is not so. You made that one up my friend, lol.

 

[Skreeper]

He really is there, really did say that. So It was an objective experience and therefore makes my statements about it objective. That you choose not to believe me about it, is ok, but it doesn't change the facts.

It could also be possible that you had a hallucination or some other type of delusion.

How did you rule those options out?

 

[Divide]

It could also be possible that you had a hallucination or some other type of delusion.

How did you rule those options out?

It wasn't. Can we get back on topic now, or what? Geez man. This thread isn't about me.

 

[Skreeper]

It wasn't. Can we get back on topic now, or what? Geez man. This thread isn't about me.

You made it about yourself when you claimed that your personal experience with god is a fact without providing sufficent justification.

 

[gaara4158]

Correct. And when God strolls in and speaks to you, all personal judgement emotion and opinion is out the window. He really is there, really did say that. So It was an objective experience and therefore makes my statements about it objective. That you choose not to believe me about it, is ok, but it doesn't change the facts.

Experiences are by definition not objective. All experiences are subjective because they depend on a subject to experience them. Objective facts do not depend on any subject to be true. There is no such thing as an objective experience. It’s a contradiction in terms.

 

[gaara4158]

Really. How do you back that one up? That is not so. You made that one up my friend, lol.

Lol, really? Let me help you out:

Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

 

[Divide]

Lol, really? Let me help you out:

Objectivity (philosophy) - Wikipedia

So uh, where exactly does this say that it has to be able to be tested and so forth? I'm not seeing it.

"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.../"

Perhaps down lower in the article it gets philosophical and wonders about if it can be tested then it can be assume to be a true fact. But your reference agrees with me and my definition.

So if you intend to start getting philosophical on me, I will stand on my original statement...you made up that rule, lol!

Try again Brother.

 

[gaara4158]

So uh, where exactly does this say that it has to be able to be tested and so forth? I'm not seeing it.

"Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.../"

Perhaps down lower in the article it gets philosophical and wonders about if it can be tested then it can be assume to be a true fact. But your reference agrees with me and my definition.

So if you intend to start getting philosophical on me, I will stand on my original statement...you made up that rule, lol!

Try again Brother.

What part of that definition leaves room for you to call your method of verifying Wyatt’s video objective?

 

[Divide]

You made it about yourself when you claimed that your personal experience with god is a fact without providing sufficent justification.

Justification? Uh, what?

My justification is that I (stupidly) mentioned it in effort to back up Ron Wyatt.

Perhaps you mean substantiation? To offer proof or whatever.

Ok. Let's move on. Let's...get...back...on...topic...
Answer this:
Ok so would this be a fair statement to attribute to your position?:

Matter + Energy + Entropy = Life...?

 

[Divide]

What part of that definition leaves room for you to call your method of verifying Wyatt’s video objective?

Geez, you guys wont let this go huh?

Ok.
Lookey...
ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
ˌäbjekˈtivədē/
noun

1. the quality of being objective.
   "the piece lacked any objectivity"
   synonyms: impartiality, absence/lack of bias, absence/lack of prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, neutrality, evenhandedness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, detachment, dispassion, neutrality
   "the quest for total objectivity is unrealistic".../

In other words proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It established facts to me. It was not a delusion or hallucination. God said to me, "Pray for your Brother Michael" (A Brother in Christ)
I (stupidly) questioned God and said "Why, what happened, is he ok?"

God said (in that tone which is used on children when daddy means Just do it...) "Pray for him NOW, he needs help"
And then the presence of God left. I immediately prayed for the man, which didn't take long, and then I found myself sitting there wondering what had happened to him, why did he need help? So I got on that Christian forum and sent him a private message, asking what happened today, and was he allright. I told him what had happened. (That God told me to pray for him)

A few hours later he answered me. It seems that unbeknownst to me, that he is diabetic, and had low blood sugar while he was in class in some small school that he goes too, and he was about to pass out. He needed sugar. He got up and left the class to go to the vending machine. He didn't make it, he began to collapse, or collapsed in the hallway. Then he said that a stranger (small scholl where everyone knows each other) walked up to him in a suit and said, "I'm here to help Brother, what do you need?" and he said OJ from the vending machine...
The stranger (Angel in disguise) got it for him and then disappeared.

He looked at the time stamp of my PM and figured I message him right about the time that all this was going on. He got a wow out of God telling me to pray for him to be helped, and thanked me. So this was not a hallucination. Because Michael needed help and confirmed that he did and we spoke about it. A hallucination would not have known that he needed help.

Now I expect that you'll demand that I bring him to this board to confirm this too?! I don't know if he even will. So either don't believe me, or take my word for it, or whatever, but let's move on...
Answer my question!! It is an alternate and logical path that I will take you down with this new line of discussion about the topic. Or are you scared to do that? Lol.
Come on brother, That isn't my only proof.

 

[tas8831]

Correct. And when God strolls in and speaks to you, all personal judgement emotion and opinion is out the window. He really is there, really did say that. So It was an objective experience and therefore makes my statements about it objective. That you choose not to believe me about it, is ok, but it doesn't change the facts.

You have presented no facts, just an assertion about a subjective experience that may or may not have occurred.

 

[Skreeper]

Ok so would this be a fair statement to attribute to your position?:

Matter + Energy + Entropy = Life...?

You want to know how I would define life?

life
lʌɪf/
noun

1. 1.
   the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

 

[tas8831]

Back on topic. I said earlier that Sid said, they found the Hebrew alphabet in our DNA.

LOL!

Yup - and JFK kept the Roswell aliens in the White House basement....

 

[gaara4158]

In other words proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Ah, I see the error you’re making now. You think it sufficient to call something objectively true as long as you have no doubt about it. The removal of doubt is a feature of objectivity, but it is not the determining factor. The determining factor of objectivity is a factual basis. If you cannot provide any facts to support your claims, then there’s no point moving on to other topics. I’m not interested in what you’re sure about, sir, I’m interested in what you can demonstrate.

 

[Divide]

You have presented no facts, just an assertion about a subjective experience that may or may not have occurred.

Ok. Whatever you say brother. Let's get back on topic now, and I'm gonna remember to not share anything like that here ever again.
...and if Jesus ever comes and visits me, I'll have Him sign a notarized affidavit to the same, lol.

How about you answering my question? You guys haven't answered it, and I'm beginning to find that a bit odd...
That's not all I have, lol.

 

[Divide]

You want to know how I would define life?

life
lʌɪf/
noun

1. 1.
   the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

No Sir, that's not what I asked. You all assert that the universe and earth and life on earth happened randomly and by chance, so I asked if this is a fair statement.

Does matter + Energy + Entropy (randomness) = Life?

 

[Divide]

Ah, I see the error you’re making now. You think it sufficient to call something objectively true as long as you have no doubt about it. The removal of doubt is a feature of objectivity, but it is not the determining factor. The determining factor of objectivity is a factual basis. If you cannot provide any facts to support your claims, then there’s no point moving on to other topics. I’m not interested in what you’re sure about, sir, I’m interested in what you can demonstrate.

Ok, then let's begin here...

Does matter + Energy + Entropy (randomness) = Life?