Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Thanks Inferno. I guess I did not go back far enough with my ctrl-F search of the thread. This does make me wonder why dotoree could not have done the same thing and shown that I was wrong.

Sure thing buddy.
Yeah I know, I went waaaaay too far back, but my excuse is that I was really really bored and wanted to exercise my mind a bit. Wasn't much in terms of exercising though, maybe a stroll through the park... :lol:

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Bryan, are you alright? Seriously.
This kind of reaction makes me wonder if you are about to have a mental breakdown or something. It seems desperately exaggerated. Frantically demonstrative. Way over-the-top emotive.

A thanks to you for your concern. I'm way overcommitted as even my dad says...but making progress on all fronts and am in no danger of a mental breakdown. Forgetfulness due to lack of sleep, yes for sure.

I was reacting to Hytegia's lunacy sort of like a CEO who once interviewed a new graduate from university for a job. The graduate said something like this:
"I'm looking for a job paying 100k a year with 2 months paid vacation and a company car."

The CEO answered,
"Hey I've got just the thing for you and it comes with 2 free trips to Hawaii, a masseuse, your own private office and even a gourmet chef, promotions to triple the pay in just 1 year and a gorgeous secretary who was a model last year to boot."

The graduate answered, "Really."

The CEO answered, "No, but you started with the joking, so I thought I'd join in on the fun."

I usually refrain..but I'm sometimes tempted to go down to the degenerate schoolboy mocking level that has nothing to do with rationality that is SOOO common among atheists (there are some admirable exceptions)...that's where some of the emotion came from. I expected this nonsense even before I arrived (again there are some who posting good challenges and with citations who are to be respected for doing that, and which I will answer as I have time), but sometimes it's a bit hard to take this constant immaturity from a site which claims to be rational.

If you really don't have time for your family or whatever, then you really shouldn't prioritize this forum.

Good advice and I'm usually good at keeping priorities straight, but sometimes the continual false accusations that I'm not answering things making it falsely look like I can't, gets to me a bit. I make sure to spend significantly more time than the average with my daughter every week (and want to with my wife, but she's crazy stressed out working 2 jobs. But, sometimes I do have to make up later time I have missed.

Would you be so kind as to share a little about what your objectives are, and where you think you have made progress?

1. Demonstrate the fact that the Bible has profound levels of evidence, more than any competing worldview and that it LONG ago falsified the null hypothesis and is the most reasonable choice BY far as well as profoundly beneficial to EVERYONE'S life whether they believe it or not and possibly from that some people will be interested in following the evidence to faith in God which will benefit THEM enormously in this life as well as forever, where I someday hope to meet them and talk for millenia on science and all sorts of topics that will make all discussions on earth seem like less then kindergarten!!
2. Have you seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"? Al Gore says his goal was to find all the obstacles to understanding the problem and accepting the evidence and then break those walls down, tunnel around, under, over them, etc. to help people be convinced by the evidence. I use that movie and teach about Global Warming in my classes sometimes. And I have the same goal in talking with atheists..to figure out what is causing them to reject the evidence and figure out ways to break down those views that are very harmful to them.
3. Learn where the weak points are in my arguments and how my wording my not be as precise as it should be, figure which way to present the evidence so it is most easily accepted, maybe even learn some arguments that need to be thrown out entirely.
4. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man." I continually do that with Christianity. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that anything will EVER even remotely rival the evidence Christianity has compiled...but I can't ever say no 100% to the possibility. I have to stay open minded if I don't want to waste my life on falsehoods, etc. It's good to continually check what we think is right since many great minds have been wrong on small and even large concepts in the past.

And a couple others..but those are the main ones.

When gauging the reactions to your posts, and talking with some of the users in the chat or elsewhere, the only thing you seem to making progress in is causing annoyance and head-shaking.

Totally unsurprising. I have the same reaction when I try to convince tea party types that Obama isn't a socialist and they think I'm off my rocker as well. It took me years to accept the fact that my country, the CIA, had been frequently involved in a LOT of immoral activities (assassinations, massacres, coup detats, etc.). Long held beliefs are not usually disturbed or changed without massive evidence in the other direction and exposing the falsehoods and fallacies that support them...which is why I am having to write such lengthy posts at times. Trust me, we've ONLY scratched the surface so far and mostly are just clearing away philosophical fallacies and nonsense and prejudice as much as possible first. VERY soon we'll move into the harder and more in depth evidence from history and science in the debate. There's MUCH more to come and this is NO idle jest.

But, I have to try to clear delusions and prejudice from people's minds on both the right and the left or else the evidence won't matter hardly at all. I also thank those who clear them from my mind...we ALL have them in some area or another...ALL. This is something that most westerners REALLY need to understand is FACT.

You haven't convinced anyone here of anything, perhaps other than the fact that to be a creationist, you have to seriously stretch and misrepresent reality in order to be able to alleviate the massive cognitive dissonance ringing in your mind.

Tut, tut, tut. We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet. No a priori judging, please. Get Dr. Sarfati's book if you want a headstart...and please don't go reading atheist site reviews of it and judging it on that...that's despicably irrational...how would you like it if I only read the critics of atheists, such as the "bananaman" Ray Comfort (don't you ever wonder why atheists continually straw man Christianity with people who don't have Ph.Ds in any area of science or history like him and OFTEN even teenagers...even though there are 1000s of people who have Ph.Ds in the relevant areas, such as Dr. Craig, Dr. Emil Silvstru, Dr. Kurt Wise and so many others??? Same problem with any of you judging Christianity or creation science by reviews from evolutionists and atheists.

There's a logical progression that has to be followed and in every spare moment I have after real life priorities, I'm working on it. I thought 1 legal case would be over and done by now..but the dishonest defendants appealed to a 2nd round. I'm not that unhappy about it actually, since I think there's a VERY high chance I can get a judgement for a LOT more money from the 2nd judge since my lawyer somehow missed conveying some VERY crucial facts in all the translations that were going on...but it does take time.)

This thread is about what EVIDENCE one would accept God (or gods). Let us try to stick to that, shall we?
With that in mind, let me put it clearly to you:
Whether or not Darwin was racist is in NO WAY evidence against the theory of evolution!

So please, if you want to do more waffling around with this topic, could you be so kind as to make a new thread apart from this one, which is about evidence?

I've committed to mostly presenting the evidence in the debate with Inferno...I'll post some here and already have posted some, but, keep checking the debate which is here and fairly soon I'll put a short file online for those who don't have time.

I've said that the fact that Darwinism encourages racism does NOTHING to discredit it scientifically (there's astronomical amounts of scientific evidence for that coming up in the debate..I've got 2,500 files of evidence on this topic ALONE...I'm NOT talking hot air at all..if you want an intro, I highly recommend Dr. Jonathon Safarti's book, "The Greatest Hoax of All" with scientific references on nearly every page (many from secular sources). But, his book is mostly on only 1-2 pillars of creation science and there are ~12 major foundations for it with 1000s of lines of evidence and countless confirmations, which is indisputably evidence. Most people here don't even know the definition of creation science accurately, nor most of the12 foundations, let alone the 1000s of lines of evidence for it.

In this Darwin and racism situation, it was supposed to be only a minor point..mostly to try to help people not be prejudiced against the evidence for creation science or in favor of methodological naturalism or universal common descent and a priori rejecting all evidences against these materialistic philosophies and falsifications of them. There are many strong evidences against them and they have also harmed people in many ways, such as causing the amputation of 1000s of organs of people since they were considered "vestigial", hindering scientific progress, influencing the corruption of human knowledge (How many museums have a caveman display about our inferior ancestors vs.how many have displays about sophisticated technology of the ancients, such as robot technology 2,000 years old...hmmm....things that make you go hmmm..many scientists and historians have been frustrated because the establishment wouldn't take finds that conflicted with the evolutionary time lines seriously and significant evidence has been suppressed in this area.) and more.

I haven't had time to write out things in detail on this subject yet...and it's pretty clear to me that it touches a VERY sore spot with evolutionists that they are extremely sensitive about and so I probably should not use it until it's much more precise with better cited references (something I've recognized this week, but probably should have known already). My points are being constantly misrepresented on this topic and I just don't have time to deal with that at present. But simply:
1) The scientific claims of Darwinism/universal common descent do not themselves say that we should be racist. I never claimed they did. But, the scientific claims DO lead people VERY easily to philosophical conclusions of superiority of certain races over others and this is an indisputable fact of history with many scientists arguing this.

2) If you don't have inferior and superior races, etc. you don't have universal common descent and will then be some type of creationist, LOL . The ideas are impossible to separate no matter how much people might wish to for ethical, political, religious, etc. reasons.

But, maybe this will suffice for trying to help convince people that it's completely against their own interest and lives to be prejudiced against the profound evidence for creation that dwarfs most of the evidence for universal common descent.

In a debate at Stanford, Dr. Will Provine, a Cornell biologist and evolution supporter, outlined concisely what Darwinism means for human values. He flashed a list on the screen:
Consistent Darwinism implies "No life after death; No ultimate foundation for ethics; No ultimate meaning for life; No free will."

If anything should require extraordinary evidence, the very first candidates should be ideas that result in less life, less meaning, less free will, less life on earth and no eternal life, etc. for any sane being who thinks life has value (again this extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is a double standard that would destroy much of the knowledge of science if applied consistently and can't be reconciled with the foundations of science. Inferno's GREAT modification of it to call it more following the weight of evidence is something I would largely agree with, but that's not how most atheists use it..they basically use it to say, "Well, if I haven't seen God, there's no evidence." The same argument could be applied to the Big Bang..."I haven't seen it and so there's no evidence"....and many other things. It is not a rational argument in the way it's commonly used by atheists.)

Again very rushed...try to be understanding that this is NOT my paying job,
Bryan

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Thanks Inferno. I guess I did not go back far enough with my ctrl-F search of the thread. This does make me wonder why dotoree could not have done the same thing and shown that I was wrong.

Sure thing buddy.
Yeah I know, I went waaaaay too far back, but my excuse is that I was really really bored and wanted to exercise my mind a bit. Wasn't much in terms of exercising though, maybe a stroll through the park... :lol:

TIME my friend, TIME. There are 100s of things I just have NO time to do that I wish to. Pretty much anything I haven't answered as well as certain mistakes of being not precise enough, etc. is solely because my time is limited. I've slept 4 hours both of the last 2 nights. I don't need sympathy, etc. but I can only do a certain amount with the time that I have...in about 3 weeks though my classes will be finished and when I turn in grades, I'll be a LOT freer. Be patient . and read the debate here and esp. the links I provide.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=51&t=8484

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet.

We know, asshole. That's the problem. You've posted a few hundred thousand words, and presented ZERO EVIDENCE. When we note that you've posted no evidence, you call us all sorts of names as though you have actually posted evidence and we're treating you unfairly.

 

[nasher168]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Forgetfulness due to lack of sleep, yes for sure.

:shock:

...then you're spending too much time here. Perhaps you don't think it's too bad, but that really is. If you're at that point, then half an hour of sleep is worth more to you than half an hour (or probably longer) typing out responses here.

I'm not telling you in polite terms to fuck off. I haven't really been involved in or even read all of this thread and your presence doesn't irritate me. But sleep deprivation is not healthy. At all.

If you feel the need to read this, think about how to respond and type something out addressing me... don't. Spend that time having a nap instead.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Forgetfulness due to lack of sleep, yes for sure.

:shock:

...then you're spending too much time here. Perhaps you don't think it's too bad, but that really is. If you're at that point, then half an hour of sleep is worth more to you than half an hour (or probably longer) typing out responses here.

I'm not telling you in polite terms to fuck off. I haven't really been involved in or even read all of this thread and your presence doesn't irritate me. But sleep deprivation is not healthy. At all.

If you feel the need to read this, think about how to respond and type something out addressing me... don't. Spend that time having a nap instead.

Well, the problem is that it takes 90 seconds to post the single best and most compelling piece of evidence he's got. It takes 90 minutes to compose a complex excuse for why he can't post that single best and most compelling piece of evidence.

 

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Nothing I've said has been acknowledged (I don't mean replied to, I understand that you don't have enough time to reply to everyone) so out of what was said above, I will focus on only two points:

1) There are roughly 12 major foundations for creation science. Which?

2)

2) If you don't have inferior and superior races, etc. you don't have universal common descent and will then be some type of creationist, LOL . The ideas are impossible to separate no matter how much people might wish to for ethical, political, religious, etc. reasons.

I've already shown that this is wrong, but since you haven't acknowledged that you were shown wrong, here is my very simple challenge:

)O( Hytegia )O([/url]"]

The Debacle Discussion
Inferno and dotree
were scribbling a storm -
a discussion of God,
the posts both long and worn.
The fight against nonsense
had grown forlorn.

So Inferno sat down
and typed out quite simply
"Am I less than a fish
or a fish less than me?
A dip in the ocean
and we shall see."

But dotree dashed it off
and failed to answer it,
for his reasoning showed
he didn't care one bit.
That's the thing about him -
he just writes shit.​

The End.

He was paraphrasing me here:

Wrong. As I've already explained, a poor understanding of evolution does indeed give that impression. However, if you go past book titles or quote-mines such as the above, you realize that scientists actually say the exact opposite. An in depth study shows that "things in the past" are always adapted to a specific environment, so when they go into a different environment they will always be "inferior to things" that evolved in the "different environment". (Note that "inferior" the way I use it means "not as likely to produce as many offspring".)
Am I inferior to a fish or is a fish inferior to me? Put me in the ocean and we'll see. On the other hand, put a shark on land and the odds are reversed.
In the same way, am I inferior to a trilobite or is a trilobite inferior to me? Trilobites first appeared around 526mya and disappeared 260mya. Humans have existed for a maximum of 200,000 years.

Do you see the problem? If not, I'll spell it out to you: Species are always more successful in the environment they adapted to. A comparison of two species is pointless if they don't exist in the same environment. Racism from a purely biological point of view is stupid.

The challenge can be found both in what Hytegia rhymed and in what I said:
So Inferno sat down
and typed out quite simply
"Am I less than a fish
or a fish less than me?
A dip in the ocean
and we shall see."

"Am I inferior to a fish or is a fish inferior to me? ... In the same way, am I inferior to a trilobite or is a trilobite inferior to me?"

What does evolution say about this? Am I inferior or is the other creature inferior?

 

[tuxbox]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet.

That is because there isn't any. If you are going to be a theist, at least believe in theistic evolution.

 

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet.

That is because there isn't any. If you are going to be a theist, at least believe in theistic evolution.

Not "believe", accept.
I had to nit-pick that.

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

If you're going to spout Kurt Wise at us I strongly suggest you go and read his own words, since he is a spectacularly bad example for you.

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet.

As I recall you tried doing this in that 30+ page train wreck where you called out AronRa and ended up looking like an idiot. You failed then, I doubt you'll pull a rabbit out of the hat this time either.

 

[australopithecus]

To keep the original thread on topic, as requested, Truthislife's arguments and subsequent replies will now be in this thread.

 

[Gnug215]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Bryan, are you alright? Seriously.
This kind of reaction makes me wonder if you are about to have a mental breakdown or something. It seems desperately exaggerated. Frantically demonstrative. Way over-the-top emotive.

A thanks to you for your concern. I'm way overcommitted as even my dad says...but making progress on all fronts and am in no danger of a mental breakdown. Forgetfulness due to lack of sleep, yes for sure.

I do get responding to a "joke" with a joke, but the reaction seemed out of proportion in a somewhat unsettling way.

I understand being committed, but pick your battles. I'm not saying you should stop posting here, but perhaps cut down a bit on the size of your posts and get some extra sleep instead. (Lack of sleep = VERY bad.)

I usually refrain..but I'm sometimes tempted to go down to the degenerate schoolboy mocking level that has nothing to do with rationality that is SOOO common among atheists (there are some admirable exceptions)...that's where some of the emotion came from. I expected this nonsense even before I arrived (again there are some who posting good challenges and with citations who are to be respected for doing that, and which I will answer as I have time), but sometimes it's a bit hard to take this constant immaturity from a site which claims to be rational.

The "League of Reason" title is actually a joke, in case you didn't know. The "site" as such doesn't claim to be rational. The site just started as... well, an anti-creationist website centered around specific events on YouTube.
I'm not sure to what extent the users here in general would claim to be rational, but I suppose most of use value rationality and reason when it comes to matters of science and such. That doesn't mean we've abandoned our emotional side, as some of the more emotional outbursts demonstrate.

The insults and mocking you find, I'd gather, are simply an annoyed response to what people consider to be unreasonable.

If you really don't have time for your family or whatever, then you really shouldn't prioritize this forum.

Good advice and I'm usually good at keeping priorities straight, but sometimes the continual false accusations that I'm not answering things making it falsely look like I can't, gets to me a bit. I make sure to spend significantly more time than the average with my daughter every week (and want to with my wife, but she's crazy stressed out working 2 jobs. But, sometimes I do have to make up later time I have missed.

Again, pick your battles. People on here are anxiously awaiting evidence, and will (as demonstrated) be very impatient and resistant to "circumstantial details". Specifically, off the top of my head, I'd recommend dropping the more pointless stuff like Darwin's racism and Pascal's Wager.

Would you be so kind as to share a little about what your objectives are, and where you think you have made progress?

1. Demonstrate the fact that the Bible has profound levels of evidence, more than any competing worldview and that it LONG ago falsified the null hypothesis and is the most reasonable choice BY far as well as profoundly beneficial to EVERYONE'S life whether they believe it or not and possibly from that some people will be interested in following the evidence to faith in God which will benefit THEM enormously in this life as well as forever, where I someday hope to meet them and talk for millenia on science and all sorts of topics that will make all discussions on earth seem like less then kindergarten!!

You should really have jumped to this one from the start. But you should know that many here have listened to "evidence" and promises of evidence from the Bible for many years now, and most have also not heard anything new for many years, so your promises of profound levels of evidence will be (are) met with understandable amounts of skepticism, to put it mildly.

Oh, and a few millennia sounds nice, but... once that's done there's eternity left.

2. Have you seen the movie "An Inconvenient Truth"? Al Gore says his goal was to find all the obstacles to understanding the problem and accepting the evidence and then break those walls down, tunnel around, under, over them, etc. to help people be convinced by the evidence. I use that movie and teach about Global Warming in my classes sometimes. And I have the same goal in talking with atheists..to figure out what is causing them to reject the evidence and figure out ways to break down those views that are very harmful to them.

Well, then a tip for you here when trying to convince people: don't antagonize them first. If you do that to your opponent in any debate, the chance of convincing them more or less drops to 0. Emotions and psychological mechanisms make sure of that. As that Cracked.com article (that I believe I linked to) said: we humans are not programmed to find truth; we're programmed to win.
Make sure you keep that in mind yourself when being presented with opposing views.

3. Learn where the weak points are in my arguments and how my wording my not be as precise as it should be, figure which way to present the evidence so it is most easily accepted, maybe even learn some arguments that need to be thrown out entirely.

Yeah, racism/Pascal again.

4. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "To have doubted one's own first principles is the mark of a civilized man." I continually do that with Christianity. It's EXTREMELY unlikely that anything will EVER even remotely rival the evidence Christianity has compiled...but I can't ever say no 100% to the possibility. I have to stay open minded if I don't want to waste my life on falsehoods, etc. It's good to continually check what we think is right since many great minds have been wrong on small and even large concepts in the past.

I like to think that I and most of the users here feel the same way.

You probably don't think so based on what you've experienced, but the same goes for the people here with regards to you.
(Fundamental Attribution Error, The Typical Mind Fallacy and whatnot.)

Be sure. Many of us have been... shall we say... unconvinced about religion for many years. We've heard most of the arguments. We've seen most of the "evidence". Most of it has been so bad that it is shocking to us that anyone could hold some of the opinions we've seen.

When gauging the reactions to your posts, and talking with some of the users in the chat or elsewhere, the only thing you seem to making progress in is causing annoyance and head-shaking.

Totally unsurprising. I have the same reaction when I try to convince tea party types that Obama isn't a socialist and they think I'm off my rocker as well. It took me years to accept the fact that my country, the CIA, had been frequently involved in a LOT of immoral activities (assassinations, massacres, coup detats, etc.). Long held beliefs are not usually disturbed or changed without massive evidence in the other direction and exposing the falsehoods and fallacies that support them...which is why I am having to write such lengthy posts at times. Trust me, we've ONLY scratched the surface so far and mostly are just clearing away philosophical fallacies and nonsense and prejudice as much as possible first. VERY soon we'll move into the harder and more in depth evidence from history and science in the debate. There's MUCH more to come and this is NO idle jest.

Opinions die hard, I think we all know that, and I appreciate that you're attempting to go about this in some novel way, clearing the path first, but to put it bluntly: you're doing it wrong.
So far you've just entrenched people more. Prejudice is rising as it seems clear that we here have, quite simply, a different understanding of some core concepts.
You're not really gonna win any hearts by "hi-jacking" concepts/terms/words. To really convince people, you'll have to speak "their language", and not take their terminology hostage in some stubborn attempt of setting up your arguments. (A classic example is when theists try to define "atheism" to mean "disbelief/rejection/hatred of God, or the like. It is not only false, wrong and annoying; it is also pointless.)
So far, having browsed the conversation (I'm busy myself, and I'll admit to not having time to fully read everything said), it seems that we and you use terms like "faith", "evidence" and "quote-mining" differently. That's just from immediate memory.

You haven't convinced anyone here of anything, perhaps other than the fact that to be a creationist, you have to seriously stretch and misrepresent reality in order to be able to alleviate the massive cognitive dissonance ringing in your mind.

Tut, tut, tut. We haven't even TOUCHED the evidence for creation science yet. No a priori judging, please. Get Dr. Sarfati's book if you want a headstart...and please don't go reading atheist site reviews of it and judging it on that...that's despicably irrational...how would you like it if I only read the critics of atheists, such as the "bananaman" Ray Comfort (don't you ever wonder why atheists continually straw man Christianity with people who don't have Ph.Ds in any area of science or history like him and OFTEN even teenagers...even though there are 1000s of people who have Ph.Ds in the relevant areas, such as Dr. Craig, Dr. Emil Silvstru, Dr. Kurt Wise and so many others??? Same problem with any of you judging Christianity or creation science by reviews from evolutionists and atheists.

Right off the bat, I recommend not using any of Dr. Craig's arguments.

I don't know Dr. Sarfati, but just checked out a clip of him on YouTube, where he uses some old (and wrong) arguments, so color me skeptic.
Also, the book title "The Greatest Hoax on Earth" rings many alarm bells. It is one thing to have a beef with evolutionary theory, but suggesting that it's a hoax is a stretch that takes you right into the group of deluded conspiracy theorists.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as you've heard before. But this claim of a massive hoax is an outrageous claim and thus requires outrageous evidence.

This thread is about what EVIDENCE one would accept God (or gods). Let us try to stick to that, shall we?
With that in mind, let me put it clearly to you:
Whether or not Darwin was racist is in NO WAY evidence against the theory of evolution!

So please, if you want to do more waffling around with this topic, could you be so kind as to make a new thread apart from this one, which is about evidence?

I've committed to mostly presenting the evidence in the debate with Inferno...I'll post some here and already have posted some, but, keep checking the debate which is here and fairly soon I'll put a short file online for those who don't have time.

Well, I don't think anyone here understands the hesitation - even in spite of your explanation about clearing up some things first.

I've said that the fact that Darwinism encourages racism does NOTHING to discredit it scientifically (there's astronomical amounts of scientific evidence for that coming up in the debate..I've got 2,500 files of evidence on this topic ALONE...I'm NOT talking hot air at all..if you want an intro, I highly recommend Dr. Jonathon Safarti's book, "The Greatest Hoax of All" with scientific references on nearly every page (many from secular sources). But, his book is mostly on only 1-2 pillars of creation science and there are ~12 major foundations for it with 1000s of lines of evidence and countless confirmations, which is indisputably evidence. Most people here don't even know the definition of creation science accurately, nor most of the12 foundations, let alone the 1000s of lines of evidence for it.

I think we'd all like to have those pillars/foundations of creation listed.

And well, you're still up against against several hundred thousands of peer-reviewed papers about evolution, so those numbers do very little to impress us.

In this Darwin and racism situation, it was supposed to be only a minor point..mostly to try to help people not be prejudiced against the evidence for creation science or in favor of methodological naturalism or universal common descent and a priori rejecting all evidences against these materialistic philosophies and falsifications of them. There are many strong evidences against them and they have also harmed people in many ways, such as causing the amputation of 1000s of organs of people since they were considered "vestigial", hindering scientific progress, influencing the corruption of human knowledge (How many museums have a caveman display about our inferior ancestors vs.how many have displays about sophisticated technology of the ancients, such as robot technology 2,000 years old...hmmm....things that make you go hmmm..many scientists and historians have been frustrated because the establishment wouldn't take finds that conflicted with the evolutionary time lines seriously and significant evidence has been suppressed in this area.) and more.

I will admit to prejudice and severe skepticism, but probably not in any manner that you think. I am skeptical of creation because NOTHING I've seen presented is convincing. I am skeptical because of that track record.
I'm biased towards methodological naturalism because it's pretty much a tautology: the natural world consists of natural things, come about by natural means, governed by natural laws. The supernatural SIMPLY DOES NOT FACTOR INTO this equation because it is a NATURAL equation. That doesn't mean I exclude the supernatural from my worldview. I just exclude it from the SYSTEM OF Methodological naturalism.
If I wanted to include the supernatural, I'd have to call it something else... maybe Methodological supernaturalism or the like.

While the representation of our forefathers may often be simplistic and unfavorably generalizing, I'd suggest that your notions of their advances may be a tad optimistic. You have to remember that meth. naturalism hasn't, after all, always been around to "suppress" their advances and ideas. If they really had been as advanced as you seem to suggest, we'd probably be having this discussion telepathically via neural implants... and I'd be on Proxima Centauri 3, enjoying Minecraft 7 on my holodeck.

I haven't had time to write out things in detail on this subject yet...and it's pretty clear to me that it touches a VERY sore spot with evolutionists that they are extremely sensitive about and so I probably should not use it until it's much more precise with better cited references (something I've recognized this week, but probably should have known already). My points are being constantly misrepresented on this topic and I just don't have time to deal with that at present. But simply:
1) The scientific claims of Darwinism/universal common descent do not themselves say that we should be racist. I never claimed they did. But, the scientific claims DO lead people VERY easily to philosophical conclusions of superiority of certain races over others and this is an indisputable fact of history with many scientists arguing this.

2) If you don't have inferior and superior races, etc. you don't have universal common descent and will then be some type of creationist, LOL . The ideas are impossible to separate no matter how much people might wish to for ethical, political, religious, etc. reasons.

But, maybe this will suffice for trying to help convince people that it's completely against their own interest and lives to be prejudiced against the profound evidence for creation that dwarfs most of the evidence for universal common descent.

I find that most "evolutionists" are sore about most misrepresentations about evolution, but I would supposed that playing the racism card is one of more annoying "arguments" we encounter, because it seems like a cheap shot that plays on all our modern sensibilities - plus that it's not relevant.

Oh, and I doubt many of ussee it in terms of "inferior and superior" races. Or "races" at all. I assume you mean species here, but I'm not sure.
With Universal Common Descent, you don't have "inferior and superior" races, you just have predecessors and successors.
That is how I presume most of us see it, which I hope demonstrates a bit why we find your talk of racism pointless, nonsensical, annoying and even disingenuous.

In a debate at Stanford, Dr. Will Provine, a Cornell biologist and evolution supporter, outlined concisely what Darwinism means for human values. He flashed a list on the screen:
Consistent Darwinism implies "No life after death; No ultimate foundation for ethics; No ultimate meaning for life; No free will."

If anything should require extraordinary evidence, the very first candidates should be ideas that result in less life, less meaning, less free will, less life on earth and no eternal life, etc. for any sane being who thinks life has value (again this extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence is a double standard that would destroy much of the knowledge of science if applied consistently and can't be reconciled with the foundations of science. Inferno's GREAT modification of it to call it more following the weight of evidence is something I would largely agree with, but that's not how most atheists use it..they basically use it to say, "Well, if I haven't seen God, there's no evidence." The same argument could be applied to the Big Bang..."I haven't seen it and so there's no evidence"....and many other things. It is not a rational argument in the way it's commonly used by atheists.)

Again very rushed...try to be understanding that this is NOT my paying job,
Bryan

I think most here would accept those four points that "Darwinism" implies for human values.

Why? Because evolution is a natural process. It has no real say about our values (which, incidentally, is also why Dawkins would "reject evolution" in terms of applying it as a "free-market" concept on human society.)

Just because I accept evolution, and realize that it means those 4 things, does not mean that I have no values/ethics/meaning in my life.

Making that connection and forcing it onto us will also probably just annoy us and get you nowhere.
Also, suggesting that making the claim that those 4 points requires extraordinary evidence doesn't really compute with us. We just don't make that connection. And for you to make it actually suggests to me that you are applying your own emotions and moral sensitivities onto a scientific fact - which makes no sense. That, together with your talk of racism, really seems to suggest that a lot of your argumentation originates from your emotions, and now you're trying to make emotional appeals to use in some form.

As for "seeing evidence" about the Big Bang, for example... A theory has been put forth. It makes certain predictions and has some requirements. If we find facts that support it, we accept that as evidence for the theory.

With God... what do we have? A supernatural being that does... stuff. What stuff? No clue. This is where you come in.

This is where you tell us what/who God is. Set up the theory of God. Tell us what we should find as a result of his existence. Show us where the requirements of his existence are being met.

Show us the evidence!

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hi,
Sorry for the delays in answering. Been crazy busy..worked from 9am to 10pm...on a Sunday...hate working on Sundays (although the students are really nice) but unavoidable at present (plus a professor friend asked for some urgent help on some work that has a deadline on Tuesday). I've got a couple posts close to done (debate one and then yours Gnug)...but not quite. Hope to post them in a couple days. Then maybe can catch up on some others. Apologies to all. In about 3 weeks should be freer than now with classes ending, esp. after final grades are turned in.
Bryan

 

[australopithecus]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hi,
Sorry for the delays in answering. Been crazy busy..worked from 9am to 10pm...on a Sunday...hate working on Sundays (although the students are really nice) but unavoidable at present (plus a professor friend asked for some urgent help on some work that has a deadline on Tuesday). I've got a couple posts close to done (debate one and then yours Gnug)...but not quite. Hope to post them in a couple days. Then maybe can catch up on some others. Apologies to all. In about 3 weeks should be freer than now with classes ending, esp. after final grades are turned in.
Bryan

None of us care about your personal life, and what's more you've been told this countless times. If you can't post here then we don't need an explanation for this. Post when you can, but please, stop informing us of every little detail as to why you haven't posted. We really just don't care.

 

[sturmgewehr]

OH MY GOD, I can't believe I just went through all this pages through thousands and thousands of words and yet I never saw any evidence, what in the world is the point of writing so much shit that will confuse u more than convince you, plus this ThruthIsLife is all over the place not saying anything at all just being vague.

Keeps repeating the same Christians set the foundations of Science all the time, so freaking what, those Christians were scientists and they discovered stuff based on empiricism and what science is based today and not on the freaking bible who thought the world is flat.

 

[Inferno]

OH MY GOD, I can't believe I just went through all this pages through thousands and thousands of words and yet I never saw any evidence, what in the world is the point of writing so much shit that will confuse u more than convince you, plus this ThruthIsLife is all over the place not saying anything at all just being vague.

Keeps repeating the same Christians set the foundations of Science all the time, so freaking what, those Christians were scientists and they discovered stuff based on empiricism and what science is based today and not on the freaking bible who thought the world is flat.

Yup, now guess how we feel. Plus, what you read was only half of what we had before! (TruthIsLife7 = dotoree)

And here's the kicker... he's not done yet. I'm expecting a reply to my debate post in the next week or so, though it could of course take longer than that.

As for your question "what's the point", well that's fairly easy to answer: Gish Gallop to the max!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Imagine a dick driving towards your face, and you can't do anything about it. The only thing going through your mind is "Man, I'm going to have to suck this thing. Shit."

But then, at the last moment, it changes course and lands on your eye. You sigh and say "Well, that's not so bad."
And then it continues, and pushes itself through your eye and into your gray-matter. Eventually, your brain begins to loose function and your motor senses go numb, causing you to fall into a twitching mess as you're being skullfucked into oblivion.

That's what reading and responding to dotree's posts feels like.

 

[sturmgewehr]

Imagine a dick driving towards your face, and you can't do anything about it. The only thing going through your mind is "Man, I'm going to have to suck this thing. Shit."

But then, at the last moment, it changes course and lands on your eye. You sigh and say "Well, that's not so bad."
And then it continues, and pushes itself through your eye and into your gray-matter. Eventually, your brain begins to loose function and your motor senses go numb, causing you to fall into a twitching mess as you're being skullfucked into oblivion.

That's what reading and responding to dotree's posts feels like.

Yup, now guess how we feel. Plus, what you read was only half of what we had before! (TruthIsLife7 = dotoree)

And here's the kicker... he's not done yet. I'm expecting a reply to my debate post in the next week or so, though it could of course take longer than that.

As for your question "what's the point", well that's fairly easy to answer: Gish Gallop to the max!

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL :lol: :lol: :lol:



I kind of realized that thing, I mean when u make a point just make a point in a couple of words be as concise as possible, post the most important facts u have under ur sleeve and don't spam the hell out of the topic, I mean even if u r telling any truth all that stuff that guy has written is gonna exhaust u mentally plus he has posted youtube documentaries which take 1.5 - 2 Hours to watch, seriously I don't know why you people replying to this guy.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

If I had to choose between a 40,000 word research paper that told me nothing, and a grade-school theme that presented me a single piece of evidence, the data drawn from it, and the conclusions about it (those being the three paragraphs, of course) I would take the child's paragraphs.
The Bible that dotree so highly praises speaks of many wise men and fools - it is the mark of the foolish to spew words like vomit, and return to them like a dog to eat them.

And, of course, Sophocles stated that much wisdom often goes with brevity of speech. If what you have to say is worth hearing, you don't actually need to coat it in layers and layers of double-talk and nonsense. If what you're saying can stand upon it's own merit, then speak it.