AronRa
Administrator
Why do I have to repeat everything for you? Everything I say below was copied-and-pasted from things I've already posted earlier in this thread.
You do understand that you will still have to define what creation is,
At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.
There is no need to exclude what was never implied in the first place. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence, and what is not supported, and whatever is not supported doesn't warrant serious consideration.
Supernatural: That which is assumed to be beyond nature and outside our reality, magical, miraculous, extraordinary, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics.
I never mix meanings.
you will show that there is no truth to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature.
Incredulity will not qualify as a counter-argument.
If you have no precedent or parallel or any other indication that it is even possible, then it isn't. If you have no evidence to show, then you have nothing for me to consider.
All the evidence everywhere contradicts your compilation of fables, and I mean on every level. Because it's not just that it's wrong scientifically and historically and ethically and morally; even the theology is irreconcilable nonsense.
trying to reason with you will be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Consequently this is also going to get absurdly long, because you can't answer simple questions honestly;
Quit ducking & dodging all my direct questions, and properly address my points and challenges.
This will be a mutual discussion. I will answer all your direct questions of course, but you don't get to ignore mine.
If you repeatedly dodge or ignore direct questions, then it is off.
Now since you're repeating yourself regarding my earlier challenge -still unanswered, allow me to repeat it too:
I asked you if you yet understood why Spontaneous Generation is not the same thing as Abiogenesis. Yet even after I provided the definitions for each, you still didn't get it. So I'm going to start using simpler words, and I would encourage you to use 'yes' or 'no' instead of inflated excuses.
1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?
1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.
1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.
1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?
1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?
If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.
I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.
2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.
The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.
In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.
You could fail to answer one or two of these and still have a theory. The theory of evolution has an answer to all of these, and so does atomic theory, and cell theory, and a host of others. But the theory of gravity can't yet answer every one, because they haven't quite worked out the mechanism. Gravity is still a theory though, and a theory is the highest level of confidence science can bestow. It's just that the theory of gravity isn't as well-supported as evolution is.
However if you can't answer ANY of these, then maybe you should take the shortcut and simply admit that creationism does not qualify as a theory.
Don't think I'm going to let you off any of these points.
God: (1) A magical anthropomorphic entity, typically immortal, and central to most religions, typically a primarily spiritual being who’s continued existence may be independent of whichever physical form(s) it may choose.Justice Frangipane said:Quick comment on the existence of God argument before we go further.
God is defined by a variety of attributes including his miraculous nature.
Now you're being deliberately obtuse, another typical tactic of the creationist, trying not to understand.If I were to describe you as angry but at the moment you were happy would you not exist because the defining characteristic I chose to define you by was not present? Hardly!
I define my terms and hold rigid to those definitions,If we would like to pretend that we as human beings CAN define what is possible and what is not possible that's fine, I think it's a noble pursuit but the simple fact is we can not prove the non existence of ANYTHING so while in scientific practice you may rule out the worth of investing in any number of rational thoughts by the CURRENT ability to make progress in validating those thoughts by currently available mechanisms that doesn't define the reality of the world we live in.
You do understand that you will still have to define what creation is,
Have you noticed that creationism has never contributed anything of any value to the sum of scientific understanding?It only ONLY quantifies how we can observe it, not IF we can observe it and more importantly it does nothing for the arguement of existence AT ALL.
Rationalism: A secular perspective that belief should be restricted only to that which is directly- supportable by logic or evidence, that while many things may be considered possible, nothing should be believed to be true unless positively and empirically indicated.Saying that God can not exist because our ability to quantify the mechanism by whichever a miracle may occur is rationally insane.
At the very least, I can show you that evolution is real, that it is an inescapable fact of population genetics, and that creationism is an unreasonable and irrational belief in a repugnant collection of ridiculous fables.
There is no need to exclude what was never implied in the first place. In science, there is only what is supported by evidence, and what is not supported, and whatever is not supported doesn't warrant serious consideration.
Magic / Miracle: The evocation of supernatural powers or entities to control or forecast natural events.Imagine a person in the 1800's trying to explain how a phone worked or almost any of our modern electronics. It is if by MAGIC that these things are possible. Just because we don't understand the mechanism doesn't by any means mean that the process is less scientific. God, for all we know may be a great scientist who uses no unscientific means by which to accomplish the tasks that's he is said to have performed. While we call them supernatural it maybe that outside of our current realm of understanding that the possibility of various things does in fact exist naturally. If we knew the mechanism by which a "miracle" was performed it would cease to be a miracle in that very moment. So it appears that miracles are defined by a lack of understanding. So saying that a lack of understanding must exist for the property to exist does create a logical fallacy in your description of gods ability to exist. If we understood it, it would no long "be".
If events previously described as miraculous were found to be miraculous by natural means.... Would they still be miracles?
Supernatural: That which is assumed to be beyond nature and outside our reality, magical, miraculous, extraordinary, being independent of logic and inexplicable by science because it defies the laws of physics.
If there were any sound, sane, or logical reason to believe that a god existed, I would accept that. But if there were such a thing, there would also be some evidence of it, some reason to believe it -other than the willfully ignorant deliberate dishonesty, unsupported assertions, illogical assumptions, and irrational ravings of only the least credible of all peopleIf God were found to be capable of miracles by processes previously thought to be in contradiction or suspension of natural law but found to be in accordance with a law that superceeded our current understanding of those laws would he then exist?
look back at your Bible. It's a story book with no confirmed prophesies, no discernible wisdom and no external support. It's absolutely wrong about absolutely everything it says that can be tested. So we have the evident facts of reality pitted against the irrelevant lies of mythology.All of this assumes that we have a FULL understanding of the laws of physics and that those laws are ALL ENCOMPASSING.
if there is nothing whatsoever to imply that your assertion even could be correct, then you still haven't met the minimum criteria for consideration. Your postulation would still be unsupported and unrealistic,There is a very real possibility that the laws we see here are both temporary and local and not the key to all that is and has ever been.
Obviously you misunderstood me again.You particular god is defined as existing outside this reality, which means that he does not exist in reality.Your using the word "this" to mean the word "any". Let me rephrase.
Your particular God is defined as existing outside "this" reality, which means that he can exist in another reality. (As well as existing in both)
I never mix meanings.
you will show that there is no truth to Biblical creationism, and you will understand that it is only an assertion of magical fables with no accountability or value beyond that of poorly written archaic literature.
you have no truth at all on your side, nothing whatsoever that you can actually show to be true. While I can -and will- easily prove that the things I know are true, you will be unable to show that anything you believe in is even real.(3) In science, we cannot say that anything is possible until there is some precedent or parallel indicating that it is. Otherwise I could say that it is possible that monkeys *might* fly out of my ass. So until you produce some indication that your god is possible, plausible, and probable, it isn't.Sure. We are talking formulaic process here not reality.
Notice that you have failed to provide any reason to believe that. You have shown no 'clear truth' such as you imagine -despite repeated challenges to do so!Origin of matter. God is now plausible.
Incredulity will not qualify as a counter-argument.
If you have no precedent or parallel or any other indication that it is even possible, then it isn't. If you have no evidence to show, then you have nothing for me to consider.
All the evidence everywhere contradicts your compilation of fables, and I mean on every level. Because it's not just that it's wrong scientifically and historically and ethically and morally; even the theology is irreconcilable nonsense.
trying to reason with you will be like trying to nail jello to the wall. Consequently this is also going to get absurdly long, because you can't answer simple questions honestly;
Quit ducking & dodging all my direct questions, and properly address my points and challenges.
This will be a mutual discussion. I will answer all your direct questions of course, but you don't get to ignore mine.
If you repeatedly dodge or ignore direct questions, then it is off.
Now since you're repeating yourself regarding my earlier challenge -still unanswered, allow me to repeat it too:
I asked you if you yet understood why Spontaneous Generation is not the same thing as Abiogenesis. Yet even after I provided the definitions for each, you still didn't get it. So I'm going to start using simpler words, and I would encourage you to use 'yes' or 'no' instead of inflated excuses.
1a. Spontaneous Generation is the idea that life contains a supernatural life-force called 'vitalism', and that once-living things like old meat, rotting vegetables and feces will miraculously generate insects and vermin. Do you accept that that is what the old hypothesis of spontaneous generation was?
1b. Do understand and accept that no scientist ever thought there was poop or garbage lying around before there was life on this planet? Because that would be required if we were talking about Spontaneous Generation.
1c. Do you understand and accept that Abiogenesis is the current hypothesis which holds that the formation of homeostatic cells and the achievement of the basic properties of life came about through a culmination of overlapping NATURAL sequential processes from (and related to) a prior matrix of organic chemicals.
1d. Do you now understand that 'organic' chemicals does NOT mean 'chemicals that were once alive?
1e. Do you accept that the science of cellular biology does not include the notion that cells possess an inate mystical vitalism?
1f. Do you admit that abiogenesis was never disproved, even though Spontaneous Generation was?
If you want a shortcut, just admit that abiogenesis is a completely different concept than Spontaneous Generation. It also might be good to note that Spontaneous Generation was disproved by methodological naturalism, which is the very thing that implies abiogenesis.
I also asked you whether you realize why changing allele frequencies in reproductive populations cannot account for the formation of life, chemical elements, stars or planets, or time & space, and you made some weasely excuse for this too. So unless you want to explain what population genetics and cell theory have to do with the formation of stars and so on, then I suggest you make an honest concession that 'evolution' (as it is defined by those who know, study, and teach it) is NOT what your criminally fraudulent charlatan sheeple shepherd said it was. If you learn anything from MISTER (not 'Doctor') Kent Hovind, inmate # 06452-017, it should be not to follow him.
2. Do you understand and accept that evolution deals only with biodiversity, and not the origin of...Life the Universe and Everything.
The first point to cover before we proceed any further is one that you're still arguing even though you have completely ignored the required challenge three times already.
In order to show whether creationism qualifies as a theory, you'll need to
3a. define what a supernatural creation is. Show me what you can honestly say you actually know about it. Show me how I can know it too.
3b. Explain the mechanism(s) behind it.
3c. What laws were postulated, and by whom?
3d. Show me where anything was ever demonstrably created. Failing that, show me where conjuration has ever been indicated by evidence and vindicated in peer review.
3e. Explain what hypothesis we could use to potentially falsify it. Give me a prediction: If creationism is true, then an experiment or expedition should reveal X but could not permit Y, something like that.
You could fail to answer one or two of these and still have a theory. The theory of evolution has an answer to all of these, and so does atomic theory, and cell theory, and a host of others. But the theory of gravity can't yet answer every one, because they haven't quite worked out the mechanism. Gravity is still a theory though, and a theory is the highest level of confidence science can bestow. It's just that the theory of gravity isn't as well-supported as evolution is.
However if you can't answer ANY of these, then maybe you should take the shortcut and simply admit that creationism does not qualify as a theory.
Don't think I'm going to let you off any of these points.