Why no evidence FOR creation/ID?

[Divide]

Well, my post was a direct response to this:



But I forgot that christians often work to "lessen God's harvest and destroy God's people". They are obviously not True Christians™.

Man, I don't know if it's the lack of coffee so far or what, but I have no clue what you're trying to say here. Or where you're coming from.

 

[gaara4158]

I think you should consider the possiblility that what I say is true, simply because I have no reson to lie about it, nor have you suggested one as a possibility. I'm not in it for the money, I'm not trying to convert you, I simply made a claim that it was confirmed for me that it is true. You being an atheist, I don't really expect that you would believe that. However, I'm not just talking to you personally, but to many people.

Many people who are not atheist and think differently than you do, know that God does give people words of knowledge, and revelations of truth. They may see the videos, be unsure about it, but read what I have written about it, and they already may know that God works in these type of ways many times...so could find it an acceptable confirmation. Scripture say that in the mouth of two or three witnesses, the truth shall be established.

So there you have it. The atheists wont believe it, and others might. But just because you personally do not believe it, or believe in God...is no reason for you to be stiff-necked about it as if, you're right about everything and that's that. That's a fairly arrogant attitude to have. You not believing it, doesn't establish that it is untrue.

I get what you’re saying. Really, I do. I don’t profess to be terribly intelligent nor to be right about everything. Heck, I’m not even sure about my grammar half the time. I’m not the one claiming to have direct communication with the creator of the universe and again, I’m not calling you a liar. I have considered your position and given it the credence it merits, which is none since you admit you cannot support it beyond your own word which contradicts empirical evidence.

As I said before, the people on here who accept evolution are the not kinds of people who accept arguments from divine revelation, at least not on scientific matters. You are free to make these kinds of arguments on religious matters, but on the subject of evolution you are just spinning your wheels.

 

[Divide]

which contradicts empirical evidence.

What empirical evidence would that be?

 

[gaara4158]

What empirical evidence would that be?

The evidence for evolution. There are libraries and internet databases full of it. You can start with a simple Google search but it would also be useful to visit your local library and ask a librarian to show you a few entry level books on the subject.

Here are a few links to start you off:

Khan Academy

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

 

[tas8831]

I'm not selling a book. I'm not selling a CD. I'm not making a claim about having a special ability. I'm making a claim that I know Ron Wyatt is credible.

Support your claim that he is not.

Support your claim that he is.

Pick 1 thing he claims and defend it.

 

[Ophiolite]

Boy, you are really hung up on that critical thinking stuff.

Hung up on it? Yes and No.

Yes: why would one not be? The opposite of critical thinking is lax, careless, unquestioning, gullible acceptance of whatever is thrown at you that has a certain appeal. I was an expert in this when I was younger. I could have represented my country had wishy-washy thinking been an Olympic event. I don't regret those times; it helps me understand a little where you are coming from. But recall the old saying "you don't want to be so open minded that your brains fall out".

No: I would scarcely have mentioned it if you had not earlier claimed that you were well versed in critical thinking. I see very little evidence of that and so, it should be challenged until either you concede your critical thinking skills are lacking, or you begin to actually demonstrate them. This is done in the same spirit with which I expect you to tackle me on every error, equivocation, looseness of terminiology, exaggeration, irrelevancy or fabrication that you judge me to be guilty of.

We don't agree on what establishes a fact, that's all. Your facts must be able to be proven in a test environment. My facts do not always have to be established in a test environment. I know better than that.

Well, you haven't told me how you establish facts. You haven't even defined "fact", that I recall. For the record:

• I do not require that facts be proven in a test environment.
• I look for assertions to be supported by the balance of evidence
• I require that if assertions are disproven in any environment that they be discarded.
• I'm less interested in facts (which are as slimy as eels) and more interested in finding the most plausible explanation for observations.

You may believe you "know better than that", but I've always valued a strong measure of self doubt. It's a tool in ones critical thinking tool kit.

It sounds as if science is your religion. Anything outside of science is wrong. And scientists never lie for the money...okayy...

1. I don't have a religion. Religions seem to require a significant element of faith. Science, fortunately, when practiced correctly, has no need of faith.
2. Science has a restricted field of study. It has nothing to say on matters outside that field of study. If you believe otherwise you are mistaken.
3. I have never claimed that scientists don't lie for money. However, I cannot think of any instance where this has been demonstrated. I would be interested to learn what examples you have. Some scientists do lie for recognition, or because they abandon their scientific principles and seek to "prove" something they believe based on faith that "they know better".
At any rate, such a claim is irrelevant since the scientific method is well designed to correct for inappropriate subjectivity, deceit and error.

Some facts that have been established for me, in a non-testable way, are still established facts and truth. This takes it into objectivity and critical thinking.

If these "facts" are not testable then they are not objective. You seem to have a very loose definition of critical thinking.
In passing, I'll note that science does not concern itself with "truth". It is too abstract a concept and too prone to emotive, subjective claims.

The truth is stranger than fiction brother. and if you can't grasp that, then we're unlikey to ever agree on anything. It may sound like foolishness to you...but that doesn't mean it is.

Have I said anything to the contrary? "Truth", which I'll take for the moment to be equivalent to "well supported theory" is very often stranger than fiction. J.B.S.Haldane famously remarked "The world is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine".

 

[Divide]

Support your claim that he is.

Pick 1 thing he claims and defend it.

Who, Ron Wyatt or God?

 

[Divide]

If these "facts" are not testable then they are not objective. You seem to have a very loose definition of critical thinking.
In passing, I'll note that science does not concern itself with "truth". It is too abstract a concept and too prone to emotive, subjective claims.

No, not at all. It is you who have too narrow a view of critical thinking. Look up objective and then tell me where something has to be testable to be a fact.

I will respond to your many other points later, I have to run out the door right now...

 

[pitabread]

Nope. I never claimed to have a special ability. I do not have any special abilities. That is just something that God has done for me in the past, and never has it happened because of my own volition.

Fair enough, but you were the one to bring this up in defense of Ron Wyatt.

Ron Wyatt has been attacked over this because there is a real spiritual war going on, so people who speak truth will be attacked and denounced in an effort to lessen God's harvest and destroy God's people. Take that for what you will, but it is the truth.

As I pointed out earlier, at lot of the criticism he has received are from other Christians including creationist organizations. And if you look at their arguments, this isn't about some 'spiritual war'. It's simply about Wyatt's claims to have discovered basically every single important Biblical find ever with nothing substantial to back them up. They are simply calling him out on it.

That's my point. Ron is credible.

Remember what I said earlier about different standards of evidence? This nicely illustrates it.

You watched some Ron Wyatt videos, had a "feeling" and decided that you believe it. But if you ask me, that's a pretty weak standard for evidence.

If Wyatt had really discovered everything he's claimed to have, he'd probably be the most celebrated amateur archaeologist in the history of amateur archaeology. Biblical scholars from around the world would be heralding his discoveries as the greatest Biblical finds of all time.

And yet, when you start to dig into his claims, you'll quickly find they evaporate. There is nothing substantive to back up anything he has claimed to have found. Consequently, a lot of people, particularly those involved in archaeology, Biblical scholarship, and even other creationist organizations consider him a fraud.

 

[Divide]

Fair enough, but you were the one to bring this up in defense of Ron Wyatt.

I was trying to make the point that it wasn't just a feeling that I had, it was more confirmation than that.

As I pointed out earlier, at lot of the criticism he has received are from other Christians including creationist organizations. And if you look at their arguments, this isn't about some 'spiritual war'. It's simply about Wyatt's claims to have discovered basically every single important Biblical find ever with nothing substantial to back them up. They are simply calling him out on it.

Yeah I know, and I can show you videos of supposed Chritians out on the street condemning people and talking trash to them. They aren't Christians, they're christian in name only but they don't live it.

Remember what I said earlier about different standards of evidence? This nicely illustrates it.

You watched some Ron Wyatt videos, had a "feeling" and decided that you believe it. But if you ask me, that's a pretty weak standard for evidence.

No...you're atheist so no wonder you don't believe anything. I understand that. And it was more than a feeling, but...you don't get that.

If Wyatt had really discovered everything he's claimed to have, he'd probably be the most celebrated amateur archaeologist in the history of amateur archaeology. Biblical scholars from around the world would be heralding his discoveries as the greatest Biblical finds of all time.

And yet, when you start to dig into his claims, you'll quickly find they evaporate. There is nothing substantive to back up anything he has claimed to have found. Consequently, a lot of people, particularly those involved in archaeology, Biblical scholarship, and even other creationist organizations consider him a fraud.

You'd think so, wouldn't you...and yet he's not. Wow, I wonder why? because Satan has people out working for him when they believe that they're working for God. Oh the irony of it...but it's true.

And I was skeptical so did dig into his claims. Do you know how many oh we found the ark of the covenant videos are on Youtube? A lot. I've watched at least most of them. I didn't get "that feeling" of truth when watching anyone's video about the Ark...except Ron Wyatts. So...there you have it.

He has discovered many other things too, and I "got the feeling" (Lol) when I watched them too. So I didn't just watch Ron's video and say Ohhh he found it. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm more skeptical than you realize.

 

[Divide]

Well, you haven't told me how you establish facts. You haven't even defined "fact", that I recall. For the record:

Here's how I define Fact:
a thing that is indisputably the case.
"the most commonly known fact about hedgehogs is that they have fleas"
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; .../

It is indisputable, it is...a fact. Now some facts can be tested and some facts can not. I realize that most of you atheists rely on testable facts. I rely on that somewhat, but also on other things which you are not likely to accept. Like for instance, when God reveals something to me. God is a fact. He spoke to me, ok? It is indisputable to me that God exists. It is a fact.

• I do not require that facts be proven in a test environment.

• I look for assertions to be supported by the balance of evidence

• I require that if assertions are disproven in any environment that they be discarded.

• I'm less interested in facts (which are as slimy as eels) and more interested in finding the most plausible explanation for observations.

Well uh, I know God's existance is a fact. He spoke to me, among other things. It is not testable, but it is a fact. Therefore, God's word is true. Scripture is true, factual.

You may believe you "know better than that", but I've always valued a strong measure of self doubt. It's a tool in ones critical thinking tool kit.

I agree with this. I have very much self doubt. I have very much skepticism. I'm no newbie to God who has just picked up a bible yesterday and began praying and reading. You don't know me, or what I have been through. I went through quite a bot to arrive where I am now. NOW, I show up on this board and start saying, I know this, I know that...and who am I? You don't know me. No wonder you doubt me, lol. I understand that. Nevertheless, I will post what I will post, and if you read enough of my posts, eventually you'll be able to piece together much of what has transpiried to me to get me to this point.

1. I don't have a religion. Religions seem to require a significant element of faith. Science, fortunately, when practiced correctly, has no need of faith.
2. Science has a restricted field of study. It has nothing to say on matters outside that field of study. If you believe otherwise you are mistaken.
3. I have never claimed that scientists don't lie for money. However, I cannot think of any instance where this has been demonstrated. I would be interested to learn what examples you have. Some scientists do lie for recognition, or because they abandon their scientific principles and seek to "prove" something they believe based on faith that "they know better".
At any rate, such a claim is irrelevant since the scientific method is well designed to correct for inappropriate subjectivity, deceit and error.

1. Oh-ho-ho, I disagree. Science does so require faith. Unless you are a scientist yourself, then you have to put your faith into the scientist and accept his word that he speaks the truth. Are you a scientist? I'm guessing no. Me either. Ok then. You just have your fav scientists who you trust sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

2. I'll agree with that.

3. I have two examples of scientists who lie for money and notoriety. Neil Degrasse, and that Chinese guy, Mikako or whatever his name is. Government shills. On the payroll. Especially Neil. That guy is a joke.

 

[HitchSlap]

So I didn't just watch Ron's video and say Ohhh he found it.

Sounds kind of like you are.

There's a lot more to it than that. I'm more skeptical than you realize.

Actually, what you've described as your heuristic for accepting Wyatt's claims is the exact opposite of skepticism. It comes across as implicit gullibility.

Wyatt has never produced one shred of evidence to support his claims, yet you're willing to accept it because of a feeling. Could have been heartburn for all you know.

 

[pitabread]

No...you're atheist so no wonder you don't believe anything.

First of all, I don't consider myself an 'atheist'.

Second of all, you have no idea what I believe or why I believe it.

You'd think so, wouldn't you...and yet he's not. Wow, I wonder why? because Satan has people out working for him when they believe that they're working for God. Oh the irony of it...but it's true.

What if Satan had Ron Wyatt has working for him? What if you've been hoodwinked? Would you even know?

And I was skeptical so did dig into his claims. Do you know how many oh we found the ark of the covenant videos are on Youtube? A lot. I've watched at least most of them. I didn't get "that feeling" of truth when watching anyone's video about the Ark...except Ron Wyatts. So...there you have it.

Watching a bunch of Youtube is not "digging" into his claims.

If you really wanted to verify his claims, you'd do so by searching for independent confirmation of his finds by reputable archaeological sources. Have you tried that?

 

[pitabread]

Wyatt has never produced one shred of evidence to support his claims, yet you're willing to accept it because of a feeling. Could have been heartburn for all you know.

You know what this reminds me of? Stephen Colbert's definition of "truthiness" from the Colbert Report.

Of course, that was blatant satire. Are we being Poe'd?

 

[HitchSlap]

You know what this reminds me of? Stephen Colbert's definition of "truthiness" from the Colbert Report.

Of course, that was blatant satire. Are we being Poe'd?

I would have to say there's a great chance.

Poe's Law strikes again!

 

[Ophiolite]

1. Oh-ho-ho, I disagree. Science does so require faith. Unless you are a scientist yourself, then you have to put your faith into the scientist and accept his word that he speaks the truth. Are you a scientist? I'm guessing no. Me either. Ok then. You just have your fav scientists who you trust sounds like he knows what he's talking about.

I don't know how you define "scientist". I am not a scientist, but I have an honours degree in Geology, I worked as such in the oil industry for a few years before moving into engineering disciplines - they tend to employ many of the same principles.

In those scientific disciplines I am interested in I am quite capable of assessing the quality of published research. No faith is required. For those disciplines I have less grounding in I have confidence in the effectiveness of the peer review system to ferret out the most egregious errors in most cases. And frankly, in these fields, the basic question "what simplifications have been made" is powerful in suggesting what weight should be given to the study's conclusions.

Put another way. If I have any favourite scientists it is because they have demonstrated an ability to ask and answer interesting questions. Part of that demonstration lies in the presentation of the data and the analyses in a clear and convincing manner, accessible to me, or anyone with minimal science training. Faith could hardly be further away.

 

[Divide]

First of all, I don't consider myself an 'atheist'.

Second of all, you have no idea what I believe or why I believe it.

Fair enough. You sound like one sometimes though.

What if Satan had Ron Wyatt has working for him? What if you've been hoodwinked? Would you even know?

What if D-O-G really spelled cat? Come on man. I may not know everything, but I'm not a total idiot. Besides, then God would be a liar. Because His word says He who seeks Him will find Him, and that His Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth.

Watching a bunch of Youtube is not "digging" into his claims.

If you really wanted to verify his claims, you'd do so by searching for independent confirmation of his finds by reputable archaeological sources. Have you tried that?

Well, in a manner of speaking it is. I've been trained in body language recognition and read a lot of body language books. So I do pretty good at watching people for signs of sincerity and signs of lying. (My ex-wife hated that! She called me human lie detector, Lol!)

I wouldn't even know which archaeological places to go to to ask them to verify his findings. I've seen videos of the Israel lab people who tested the blood that Ron Wyatt found on top of the ark of the Covenant and they say it is human and only has 23 chromosones instead of the 43 that it should have if it were a human mother/human father. So that is verified.

As far as I know, the Ark is still in the cave where Ron found it. They sent 6 guys to retrieve it and they all died. It has been said that the ark will remain there until the Mark of the Beast law is enacted then it shall be revealed to the world as an evidence of God.

 

[Divide]

I don't know how you define "scientist". I am not a scientist, but I have an honours degree in Geology, I worked as such in the oil industry for a few years before moving into engineering disciplines - they tend to employ many of the same principles.

In those scientific disciplines I am interested in I am quite capable of assessing the quality of published research. No faith is required. For those disciplines I have less grounding in I have confidence in the effectiveness of the peer review system to ferret out the most egregious errors in most cases. And frankly, in these fields, the basic question "what simplifications have been made" is powerful in suggesting what weight should be given to the study's conclusions.

Put another way. If I have any favourite scientists it is because they have demonstrated an ability to ask and answer interesting questions. Part of that demonstration lies in the presentation of the data and the analyses in a clear and convincing manner, accessible to me, or anyone with minimal science training. Faith could hardly be further away.

That's good I guess as far as that goes, and I can recognize and give validity to a certain amount of intelligent understanding to you for those reasons. However, as you yourself said, science is many specialized areas and you're not specialized in anything beyond geology. Perhaps not even geology. I'm not entirely sure how much academic accolades that an honorary geology degree would have...or did you mean a degree, with honors, in geology?

My educational background is sort of weird. I used to get very bored in class, and began skipping school. But most of the time that I was skipping school, I would literally stay at home and read books. I kid you not. I started reading psychology books when I was like 9 or 10. It became my childhood hobby, lol. and playing chess. Junior high and high school was a joke and I did the same thing. My teachers hated me because I rarely did their assignments but when I took the tests, I passed so they had to pass me. I dropped out in 10th grade. But as soon as I turned 18 I went right down and got my GED. I pre-tested to see if I would need tutoring, and I smoked the pre test. No tutoring needed. then when I went in and tested for the GED, I got a 93.2 on the test. As I got got older, I kept reading. I still read. I tested in 8th grade to have a 120 IQ and I retested just a few years ago and got a 136. So I'm not stupid even though I am largely self educated. You may laugh at that or you may not. I dunno. I prolly should have went to college instead of picking up a wrench. But it's nice to be able to fix things.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's good I guess as far as that goes, and I can recognize and give validity to a certain amount of intelligent understanding to you for those reasons. However, as you yourself said, science is many specialized areas and you're not specialized in anything beyond geology. Perhaps not even geology. I'm not entirely sure how much academic accolades that an honorary geology degree would have...or did you mean a degree, with honors, in geology?

First the trivia. I mean - in British vernacular an honours degree, not an honorary degree.

Now the main points:

Of course geology is itself sub-divided into further disciplines. Off the top of my head and in no particular order we could consider stratigraphy, sedimentology, petrology, palaeontology, micropalaontology, geochemistry, historical geology, geomorphology, geophysics, geochronology, mineralogy, tectonics, vulcanology, petrography, tectonics, petroleum geology, economic geology, structural geology, crystallography, regional geology, seismology, engineering geolgy, etc.

And each of those has subdivisions. A palaontologist will likely specialise in one class, such as the Cephalopoda, or more likely a sub-class, such as ammonites. Within those he will specialise further perhaps in terms of studying their role in the ecology, or their evolution over time, or their role as index fossils, or the ammonites of a specific, restricted geological age, or geographical location. One of my teachers had chosen to specialise in sexual dimorphism in ammonites.

So how could I, or anyone, hope to understand the incredibly granular, detailed research that would emerge from such specialisation? Simple. Only three things are required:

1. Knowledge of the vocabulary
2. Understanding of the scientific method
3. Focus

(If you wish to get picky, you could say focus translates into hard work and a sound technique for reading and absorbing the literature, whether textbook, or research paper.)

Now returning to the heart of our discussion, we have two alternate approaches.

Your Approach: base a lot of your positions on what you know is the truth.
My Approach: take advantage of the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of individuals who are and were much smarter than I.

Are you surprised I should opt for the second approach? I don't trust my own observations and intuitions. Why on Earth should I accord any weight to yours?

 

[Divide]

First the trivia. I mean - in British vernacular an honours degree, not an honorary degree.

Now the main points:

Of course geology is itself sub-divided into further disciplines. Off the top of my head and in no particular order we could consider stratigraphy, sedimentology, petrology, palaeontology, micropalaontology, geochemistry, historical geology, geomorphology, geophysics, geochronology, mineralogy, tectonics, vulcanology, petrography, tectonics, petroleum geology, economic geology, structural geology, crystallography, regional geology, seismology, engineering geolgy, etc.

And each of those has subdivisions. A palaontologist will likely specialise in one class, such as the Cephalopoda, or more likely a sub-class, such as ammonites. Within those he will specialise further perhaps in terms of studying their role in the ecology, or their evolution over time, or their role as index fossils, or the ammonites of a specific, restricted geological age, or geographical location. One of my teachers had chosen to specialise in sexual dimorphism in ammonites.

So how could I, or anyone, hope to understand the incredibly granular, detailed research that would emerge from such specialisation? Simple. Only three things are required:

1. Knowledge of the vocabulary
2. Understanding of the scientific method
3. Focus

(If you wish to get picky, you could say focus translates into hard work and a sound technique for reading and absorbing the literature, whether textbook, or research paper.)

Now returning to the heart of our discussion, we have two alternate approaches.

Your Approach: base a lot of your positions on what you know is the truth.
My Approach: take advantage of the hard work and dedication of tens of thousands of individuals who are and were much smarter than I.

Are you surprised I should opt for the second approach? I don't trust my own observations and intuitions. Why on Earth should I accord any weight to yours?

Sure I understand where you're coming from. I think it's important to recognize that others education and personal pursuits and experiences lead them down a different path of knowledge than our own, and perhaps as such their perspectives may indeed be valuable in some sense and may serve to expand our own knowledge...if they know what they're talking about, are not playing games, or on someone's payroll which has an agenda to spread disinformation.

We both seem to have a reasonable grasp on what we're discussing, and apparently, neither one of us seem to have an agenda of disinformation, nor or on anyone's payroll. I doubt that you're lying about your position and views and I certainly am not. Nor am I on anyone's payroll for the same.

SO when we butt heads about details, it's merely from our preconceived notions of our standards of truth regarding a subject matter. You are pretty much unwilling to accept that I recognize the spiritual influences that affect my life and that I take them seriously as regards establishing truth and the ramifications of other truths that are implied in what I recognize to be truths brought about to me from spiritual sources. The example being of course, that God spoke to me (among other things) thereby establishing the truth of His existence and consequently, the truth of the Bible and related.

Maybe our respective educational backgrounds have given us different sets of standards in which to accept truth. The mainstream educational system did not largely educate me, so I suppose that I missed out on some of the indoctrination's which accompany such a background. There are pros and cons to different methods. So we as individuals are to recognize this, and to take the good, and trash the bad parts. Even Scripture says to do this...rightly divide the truth from error.

From what I can tell, you seem to be somewhat narrow minded in your foundation of standards which you adhere to in your pursuit of knowledge and understanding. And this is good in a way and bad in a way. It's good to have strict standards and to stick to them, but to never consider other methods of establishing truth beyond establishment protocols is leaving you somewhat short sighted in your pursuit in my opinion.

The spiritual realm and spiritual influences are real upon this planet. We will probably not get to know the full reality of the influence that beseiges us until it is all over with. We may be shockingly surprised at the sheer amount of influence, both good and bad that we all experienced within our lifetimes.

You should be a little more open minded. I don't mean to abandon what you know and go full blown spiritual, I think that would be a mistake also. But understand that you have been lied to for most of your entire life, about the truths and realities which are upon us here.