AronRa
Administrator
Yet another YouTuber has dragged me into a protracted discussion in the comments section of one of my videos. Christistruth1 is an anonymous sock-puppet (with only four subscribers) who made several comments on my video, proof AND evidence, accurate AND correct. I won't post the entire exchange here. It's not worth the effort, and it's all redundant anyway. I'll just post the points of contention which he keeps forcing me to repeat for him.
1. Christistruth1 argues that 'miracles' are defined as 'rare' events, each one unique, and never-repeating, and that they are not necessarily attributed to a supernatural source. He maintains this argument despite the fact that many preachers insist that conception is a miracle of spiritual incarnation which happens every day. Further he argues that the word, 'miracle' is not defined as impossible.
I argued that rare does not mean 'unrepeated'. In fact most events which are rare HAVE been repeated. No dictionary defines 'miracle' as a 'rare' event either. In every instance, every citation attributes a supernatural source. In a few cases, (Merriam Webster/Wiktionary/Cambridge Dictionary) miracles are described as 'extraordinary' in the same sense that it might also be described as 'paranormal', and are always attributed to a supernatural source. In virtually all other cases, (Oxford, American Heritage, Macmillan, Wordsmyth, Websters current, Websters 1913, Websters 1828, and DictionaryReference) there is a consensus [independently paraphrased] that a 'miracle' is inexplicable by science or contradicts physical? laws. There is no ambiguity about this. Each of the ten dictionaries define 'miracles' as being impossible -in that miracles are events which suspend or defy the laws of nature, and therefore cannot be accounted for by science, because they are physically impossible.
Miracles are not 'rare' "by definition" since none of the definitions use or imply anything relating to their frequency of occurrence. Another contributor to that forum pointed out that in Christistruth1's own video "refuting atheism pt1", he said that every single human being is "a miracle" because it is unique. Of course this would mean that there would soon be approx. 7 billion repeated "miracles" on Earth. So hopefully that point has been adequately proven.
The second point is his contest of my statement that faith is inherently dishonest. One of the reasons for moving that discussion to this forum is that he words his arguments in such a nonsense fashion that it is impossible to correct all those errors within a limit of 500 characters. For example:
However it is easy enough to show that faith is inherently dishonest. Christistruth1 keeps trying to pretend that he 'knows' what no one even can know, while at the same time telling me that I can't claim to know ANYTHING unless I prove that I already know EVERYTHING. Similarly he says that the statement "I don't believe you" counts as a positive claim. His double-standards are just the beginning of the dishonesty of faith.
For those of you who have read my arguments before, this one will be no different. Sorry.
So Christistruth1, let me ask you a handful of opening questions:
1. Ignoring for the moment the myriad creationist arguments which have all been proven wrong a thousand times each, yet are still being presented on YEC websites around the world anyway, can you show me one verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution?
2. Point out one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress.
3. Name any evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism.
4. Name a professional creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over actual [natural] science.
5. Do you admit that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true?
6. Do you admit that it is unwise to assert absolute conviction even when there is evidence?
7. Do you admit that it is dishonest to pretend to know that which no one even can know?
8. Do you admit that it is dishonest to automatically and thoughtlessly reject evidence not yet revealed simply because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions?
9. Do you understand that someone holding an honest position wouldn't have to -or want to- avoid questions like these?
10. Remember that a fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable -in that it can be objectively verified.
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
These are the facts of evolution, ways which we can sufficiently prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. What facts can you show me that will distinquish your preferred beliefs from the illusions of delusion?
1. Christistruth1 argues that 'miracles' are defined as 'rare' events, each one unique, and never-repeating, and that they are not necessarily attributed to a supernatural source. He maintains this argument despite the fact that many preachers insist that conception is a miracle of spiritual incarnation which happens every day. Further he argues that the word, 'miracle' is not defined as impossible.
I argued that rare does not mean 'unrepeated'. In fact most events which are rare HAVE been repeated. No dictionary defines 'miracle' as a 'rare' event either. In every instance, every citation attributes a supernatural source. In a few cases, (Merriam Webster/Wiktionary/Cambridge Dictionary) miracles are described as 'extraordinary' in the same sense that it might also be described as 'paranormal', and are always attributed to a supernatural source. In virtually all other cases, (Oxford, American Heritage, Macmillan, Wordsmyth, Websters current, Websters 1913, Websters 1828, and DictionaryReference) there is a consensus [independently paraphrased] that a 'miracle' is inexplicable by science or contradicts physical? laws. There is no ambiguity about this. Each of the ten dictionaries define 'miracles' as being impossible -in that miracles are events which suspend or defy the laws of nature, and therefore cannot be accounted for by science, because they are physically impossible.
Miracles are not 'rare' "by definition" since none of the definitions use or imply anything relating to their frequency of occurrence. Another contributor to that forum pointed out that in Christistruth1's own video "refuting atheism pt1", he said that every single human being is "a miracle" because it is unique. Of course this would mean that there would soon be approx. 7 billion repeated "miracles" on Earth. So hopefully that point has been adequately proven.
The second point is his contest of my statement that faith is inherently dishonest. One of the reasons for moving that discussion to this forum is that he words his arguments in such a nonsense fashion that it is impossible to correct all those errors within a limit of 500 characters. For example:
To properly address that weirdly misphrased question, I must first point out that science doesn't prove anything 'true'. Science only disproves what is false. This applies even to faith, which can't be proven true either. Second, philosophy can't be 'proven' either way, and evidence is irrelevant to philosophy. So that part of the question makes no sense at all.Christistruth1 said:
However it is easy enough to show that faith is inherently dishonest. Christistruth1 keeps trying to pretend that he 'knows' what no one even can know, while at the same time telling me that I can't claim to know ANYTHING unless I prove that I already know EVERYTHING. Similarly he says that the statement "I don't believe you" counts as a positive claim. His double-standards are just the beginning of the dishonesty of faith.
For those of you who have read my arguments before, this one will be no different. Sorry.
So Christistruth1, let me ask you a handful of opening questions:
1. Ignoring for the moment the myriad creationist arguments which have all been proven wrong a thousand times each, yet are still being presented on YEC websites around the world anyway, can you show me one verifiably accurate argument of evidence indicative of miraculous creation over biological evolution?
2. Point out one time in the history of science when assuming supernatural explanations ever improved our understanding of anything -instead of actually impeding all progress.
3. Name any evolutionary scientist who lied in the act of promoting evolution against creationism.
4. Name a professional creationist who did NOT lie when arguing for creationism over actual [natural] science.
5. Do you admit that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true?
6. Do you admit that it is unwise to assert absolute conviction even when there is evidence?
7. Do you admit that it is dishonest to pretend to know that which no one even can know?
8. Do you admit that it is dishonest to automatically and thoughtlessly reject evidence not yet revealed simply because it conflicts with your predetermined conclusions?
9. Do you understand that someone holding an honest position wouldn't have to -or want to- avoid questions like these?
10. Remember that a fact is a point of data which is either not in dispute or is indisputable -in that it can be objectively verified.
It is a fact that evolution happens; that biodiversity and complexity do increase, that both occur naturally according to the laws of population genetics amid environmental dynamics. It is a fact that alleles vary with increasing distinction in reproductive populations, and that these are accelerated in genetically isolated groups. It is a fact that natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift have all been proven to have predictable effect in guiding this variance both in scientific literature and in practical application. It is a fact that significant beneficial mutations do occur and are inherited by descendant groups, and that several independent sets of biological markers do exist which trace these lineages backwards over myriad generations. It is a fact that birds are a subset of dinosaurs, in the same way that ducks are a subset of birds, and that humans are a subset of apes in exactly the same way that lions are a subset of cats. It is a fact that the collective genome of all animals has been traced to its most basal form through reverse-sequencing, and that those forms are also indicated by comparative morphology, physiology, and embryological development, as well as through chronologically correct placement of successive stages revealed in the geologic column. It is a fact that every organism on earth has obvious relatives either living nearby or evident in the fossil record, and that the fossil record holds hundreds of clearly transitional species even according to the strictest definition of that term. It is a fact that both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly-observed and documented dozens of times, both in the lab and in naturally-controlled conditions in the field, and that these instances have all withstood critical analysis in peer-review. It is also a fact that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or measurable validity, and that no would-be alternate notion has ever met even one of the criteria required of a scientific theory.
These are the facts of evolution, ways which we can sufficiently prove -even to your satisfaction- that evolution is an inescapable reality both of population genetics and evident phylogeny. What facts can you show me that will distinquish your preferred beliefs from the illusions of delusion?
lolololol
