See someone try to defend creationism honestly

[dotoree]

Very little so far since Aronra can't bring himself to let me define what MY OWN VIEWS ARE regarding creation science, nor let creation scientists define what their views are. Until that happens, there's not much point in proceeding.

Aronra gave his reasons why the definitions you proposed were unacceptable to him. You have provided no counter arguments to his, or said precisely which definitions you disagree with. If you want the discussion to progress, perhaps you could detail exactly which of his revisions you disagree with and propose a different or modified version. Addressing his arguments as you do so would be more productive. Just saying that he can't define what you believe is not helping in any constructive way.

--
I'm sorry but this has no relevance. It doesn't matter what he thinks about my definitions about my views in the least. That's NOT his right to decide. That is MY RIGHT ALONE. I DEFINE THEM. NOT HIM.

He may not think there is evidence for those definitions. Fine. I'm not demanding that he agree my definitions have evidence at this point. THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE STAGE IS FOR. It's NOT part of the definitions stage. We can get to evidence and review it. But, he has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to define my views unless I can define his. PERIOD.

NEVER IN HISTORY does an opponent of an idea get to define it. NEVER.
Bryan

 

[borrofburi]

I have never said anything EVEN REMOTELY close to what you allege. I have consistently said that we must follow the weight of evidence. NEVER ONCE have I said that anything must be 100% true or 0% true. NEVER. I MYSELF gave a list of different levels of credibility. Must you insist on continual misrepresentation of me like this????

I've never used the phrase before but: no need to get all butt-hurt. I didn't say anything as remotely accusatory as you seem to be reacting to. As much as playing the victim might be fun, it's awfully hard to have a conversation with you when I can't communicate the impression I'm getting from the words you type without a long diatribe on how the evil borrofburi is misrepresenting you. Or, in short, misunderstanding does not equal misrepresenting.

The ONLY true thing you said above is in blue.

So you maintain that first hand and second hand experience are as strong of evidence as observable, verifiable, and/or repeatable evidence? You maintain that a friend of a friend's story is as strong of evidence of who did the murder as the video footage of the actual murder including the murderer's face? Because those are some of the things I said, and I'd hate to see you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

There are many kinds of truths that you can't even begin to test by science. History is the ONLY way to test whether they are true or not.

I agree with that, that was the whole point of my post: that we don't completely throw out historical evidence, we just have to keep in mind that on the scale of certainty it must necessarily be far lower than, say, the certainty we have that the theory of relativity provides an extremely good approximation of physical phenomena, especially at larger scales.

Who invented the philosophy of hedonism?
Who made the first horse harness?
Who was the first king of Greece?

Hedonism: so far as we can tell it was *most likely* Cārvāka, but it's *historical* fact which means there are a whole number of reasons it might not actually be true but we accept it because it's the best we have at the moment, and it's quite possibly the best we will ever have (or *can* ever have). And that's the point: yes, historical evidence is evidence, but the reason the "historical" qualifier exists (as in "historical fact" or "historical evidence") is because we *must* keep in mind that we don't know for certain and that this is the best we can do with the information that has managed to survive until now.

If we follow your idea above, we'll have to throw out the majority of our history books and shut down the History Channel.

No, that's the whole point of what I've been trying (and apparently failing) to communicate (well, except that I agree it might be worth shutting down the history channel, I've been told that these days it's gotten fairly divorced from actual history anymore, and after watching the discovery channel it wouldn't surprise me): we have our history books but we always remember they're history books, and for secondary sources they're presenting the favorite interpretation of the author of the information that has survived, and for primary sources they're presenting history *at best* through the lens of an individual viewing history (and at worst outright lies attempting to shape history or change the present).


And wow a lot of people respond fast... If I were you I'd take Squawk up on his PM offer, probably.

 

[Inferno]

I'm sorry, but no the evidence does not prove in even a legal sense evolution in my view (and I've been reading the best evolutionists and atheists for decades). But, I understand why you think it does. You've never read any serious evidence for creation science even though there is MUCH that exists and what you have read has been based on false comparisons and double standards. You've been duped and are a victim of censorship and double standards. I've been duped in the past by American education as well in areas not at all related to religion. There is no way to dispute this fact. If you follow ACCURATE DEFINITIONS, consistent standards and compare questions on the same topic and follow the evidence where it leads, you'll have to follow creation science. Easy. Very little contest. But, most evolutionists fight tooth and nail against doing that, exactly as has happened here.
Bryan

Obviously, it's all my fault. How could I be so stupid, I should have just read up on the issue.
Oh wait, I HAVE! :lol:
Get a hold of yourself with your accusations and misrepresentations, they're tiring. I'll make a bet with you: Part of the reason why you don't accept the evidence for evolution is that
1) You're brainwashed.
2) You don't know what evolution is about.

I have never seen a single creationist who does not use out of date material, deliberately misrepresented, out of context quotes, science that is used outside of its application, etc. etc.
The second falsehood is that what I've read about creationism is based on double-standards and false comparisons. I've watched Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, etc. etc. until I wanted to puke because of the above mentioned misrepresentations. The demonstrable truth of the matter is that there was ever only one creationist who's honest and he's been linked to yesterday: This guy here. So tell me, why is it that creationists too agree that evolution works? And not part of it, but all of it.
Also, I'm not fighting any evidence, I'm just showing that you're seriously deluded, up to a point even where you won't accept that you are.
I've already sent you one offer for a debate so here's another challenge: "Show one creationist who isn't consistently using out of date material, misrepresentations of science, outright lies, etc. etc." See AronRa's [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/38/XpeHrkbx9LU]take on the subject[/url] which you apparently haven't, even though your post is just underneath. Silly, commenting on a video without watching it. :lol:

 

[dotoree]

So you maintain that first hand and second hand experience are as strong of evidence as observable, verifiable, and/or repeatable evidence? You maintain that a friend of a friend's story is as strong of evidence of who did the murder as the video footage of the actual murder including the murderer's face? Because those are some of the things I said, and I'd hate to see you throw out the baby with the bathwater.
-
Could you PLEASE go back and read the archives. I put first hand witnesses a little lower than observable. They are NOT weak. NOT EVEN CLOSE. There are varying degrees of credibility of witnesses. There is just not the least bit of accuracy in saying that all witness evidence is weak.

Btw, FIRSTHAND WITNESSES ARE OBSERVERS. ALL SCIENTISTS are WITNESSES. And nearly ALL critiques that apply to witnesses apply in equal measure to scientists. Again, you can judge the credibility of witnesses AND of scientists by a variety of methods, esp. things like independent observations, hostile witnesses in both science and history and that makes it more credible..other ways too. Scientists have bias in their observations and this is well documented as well and agreed to by most informed intellectuals with any knowledge in the area.

A VIDEO would probably be stronger than either a scientists observation or a witness observation. Unfortunately, we don't any farther back than a century ago, so it doesn't help in this discussion.

Bryan
P.S. I asked SQUAWK to set up a debate with Aronra. He hasn't answered or done anything so far. I don't know how to do that at present or even if I can.

 

[ExeFBM]

I'm sorry but this has no relevance. It doesn't matter what he thinks about my definitions about my views in the least. That's NOT his right to decide. That is MY RIGHT ALONE. I DEFINE THEM. NOT HIM.

He may not think there is evidence for those definitions. Fine. I'm not demanding that he agree my definitions have evidence at this point. THAT IS WHAT THE EVIDENCE STAGE IS FOR. It's NOT part of the definitions stage. We can get to evidence and review it. But, he has absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to define my views unless I can define his. PERIOD.

NEVER IN HISTORY does an opponent of an idea get to define it. NEVER.
Bryan

If you remember way back at the beginning of this thread, it began with Aronra providing a list of defined words. You disagreed with some of those and told him what they should be. He came back and provided arguments as to why some of your definitions were unworkable. Since then all you have done to progress this discussion is scream that he can't define your views, which he is not trying to do.

You were the first one to say that some of his definitions were wrong, but when he corrects yours (with arguments and justifications) you start bringing out the caps lock. What do you want Aronra to reply to, seeing as how you've made no attempt to address any of his points? If you don't like his re-defined words say why. You keep saying you want to move the discussion forward, but you refuse to move past the initial definitions. You've not suggested any reworked definitions of any words you contest, or even said what those words are. You're allowed to disagree with Aronra's definitions, just specifically say which ones and specifically why. If you can relate it to Aronra's points, awesome!

If you want the discussion to move forward reply in full to Aronra's last post detailing why you disagree with his definitions. It really is that simple.

 

[borrofburi]

Ok, you have good evidence to believe Santa isn't the one who puts presents under the christmas tree; all that means is that Santa doesn't put presents under christmas trees, not that he doesn't exist. You didn't present any "evidence" against the existence following: Brahma, leprechauns, unicorns, Zeus, Thor, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Manticores, Cthulu, and Flying Spaghetti Monster (and technically Santa as well).

Tell me what phenomenon Brahma and Zeus and pink unicorns are supposed to explain and then the alternatives and then we'll test them. THERE IS NO DEFAULT. NOT FOR ANYTHING, no matter how irrational it sounds. HORDES of things in the history of science have been thought impossible but later proven true.

I will, as soon as you tell me what phenomena the existence of horses, rats, grasshoppers, spiders, uncountable sets, and a dominant strategy in the game of poisoned cookies are supposed to explain... (read: I do not understand why an existence must be a phenomena explanation, especially when we have non-constructive existence proofs in mathematics...)

EXCUSE ME. YOU are 100% WRONG on that. Aronra explicitly told me that the Bible had no practical benefits and challenged me to prove it. Here's a quote from Aronra and I have more than this:

Hmm. Good point. But you're still responding to the tangent and have been for 15 pages or whatever we're on now. If you want a quick way out I don't know if you have one now, but originally it would have been "I disagree, but that's not really relevant to this discussion". Sometimes other people bring up tangents, it's true, but just as you had to learn to say "no" while growing up in real life, while on the internet or debating in general, you have to learn to dismiss tangents as irrelevant.

What tangent? We're establishing definitions and how science and history should be done and what counts as evidence. That is absolutely crucial for further progress. We've barely talked about Bible health principles and not even MENTIONED many others that I would like to get to some time, but that's one reason this forum was founded from the start.

Yes, I should do better at ignoring tangents. But, I lost $150,000 due to liars. It's hard not to respond to falsehoods and expose them for what they are since I've gone through such dire pain because of liars (not all who say falsehoods are liars btw. Some are just ignorant. You can only prove someone is a liar if you can prove intent to lie. That's in the dictionary definition. So, I try to avoid using that term most of the time. Aronra misuses that word a lot and other ones as well. The title of his video on youtube misuses vocabulary.) I did refuse to get into several tangents actually...but could do better.

"What tangent?" the tangent of "biblical living" leading to longevity, which really doesn't have anything to do with defending creationism honestly. I know you and AronRa have not discussed biblical living, but I've seen it crop up in a number of posts that you take the time to respond to, and I just think that you'd have an easier job finding the time to respond to this thread if you stopped following up on things that are not explicitly and directly relataed to defending creationism honestly.

I understand the difficulty of seeing something you believe to be false and not holding your tongue, that's why I suggest "I disagree, but that's not really on topic so this isn't really the place for that". I also understand your position on the word "lie", and I think I agree with you.

Rargh, I wrote a long paragraph and decided it was convoluted... I want to address your idea that if you believe everything you say you're not lying and if you're not lying you are being honest; and that therefore if you really believe what you're saying when you try to defend creationism (even if you're wrong), you're defending it honestly. This lacks subtlety: you can be dishonest without lying. Also, there are those on this forum (who have not yet convinced me) that you can be unintentionally dishonest, specifically unintentionally intellectually dishonest. I don't agree with them (yet), but I only mean to say that I think you probably (or at the very least it's possible that you) do not understand what AronRa means when he says it's impossible to defend creationism honestly. But generally, this is all probably not terribly important, especially when compared to the following two paragraphs.


Moreover: I understand that you want to define your position, I explicitly addressed this in a post that I fear you may not have read (I certainly don't hold it against you with so many voices writing at once). But it's tricky: when AronRa said it was not possible to defend creationism honestly, he had a specific definition of "dishonest" and a specific definition of "creationism" in mind. You're arguing that his definition of creationism is not your definition of the word (or is too narrow), but at best that means AronRa will have to amend the video to say "these definitions of creationism can't be defended honestly"... Regardless that's irrelevant, the point is:

I certainly agree that you have the right to define your own position... So I propose that you define "dotoreepositionism" and then define the precise (scientific) (biological) position that you're trying to defend; ignore the whole "what does the word 'creationism' mean?" conundrum that's become the primary sticking point in the debate.

 

[dotoree]

Obviously, it's all my fault. How could I be so stupid, I should have just read up on the issue.
Oh wait, I HAVE! :lol:
Get a hold of yourself with your accusations and misrepresentations, they're tiring. I'll make a bet with you: Part of the reason why you don't accept the evidence for evolution is that
1) You're brainwashed.
2) You don't know what evolution is about.
--
If I don't know what evolution is about, then you'll have to blame thunderfoot, Stephen Jay Gould, Aronra, my public school biology teachers and the secular establishment because THAT is who I get my information about regarding evolution and continue checking what they say and people like them say to try to be accurate about my opponents. I NEVER try to tell them what their views are as Aronra does and as others do to Creationists.
--
I have never seen a single creationist who does not use out of date material, deliberately misrepresented, out of context quotes, science that is used outside of its application, etc. etc.
--
I've never seen a single atheist or evolutionist who doesn't misrepresent the Bible or creation science in exactly the same ways and usually far worse than any creationists.

---
The second falsehood is that what I've read about creationism is based on double-standards and false comparisons. I've watched Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, etc. etc. until I wanted to puke because of the above mentioned misrepresentations. The demonstrable truth of the matter is that there was ever only one creationist who's honest and he's been linked to yesterday: This guy here.
---
A) NONE of those guys are elite creationists. Ray Comfort isn't a scientist. Hovind doesn't have a ph.d. in science. Ken Ham doesn't either I believe. I watched Hovind once ~10 years ago and very little after that. He's too speculative for my tastes although sometimes he has found good evidence from others. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You haven't read or watched hardly any serious creationists.
B) Your duty is NOT to compare creationists ideas to what you learned in school about evolution and see how well it matches evolution. You may not realize it, but that's often what is being done. That's wrong from the very beginning. Your duty is to compare evolution AND creation to the scientific method (AFTER getting accurate definitions and comparing ideas dealing with the same question...something almost no evolutionist or atheist ever does).

I'm going to have to educate that creationist above. He's really ignorant.
--
So tell me, why is it that creationists too agree that evolution works? And not part of it, but all of it.
--
No informed creationist agrees that all evolution works. NONE.
--
Also, I'm not fighting any evidence, I'm just showing that you're seriously deluded, up to a point even where you won't accept that you are.
--
I've already sent you one offer for a debate so here's another challenge: "Show one creationist who isn't consistently using out of date material, misrepresentations of science, outright lies, etc. etc." See AronRa's [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/user/AronRa#p/u/38/XpeHrkbx9LU]take on the subject[/url] which you apparently haven't, even though your post is just underneath. Silly, commenting on a video without watching it. :lol:[/quote]
--
I've watched several of Aronra's videos...the reason I"m here is because I watched several and he misrepresents quite a few things very very badly starting with trying to pit evolution against the act of creation. HELLO. They don't deal with the same question. They can't be rivals. Evolution deals with how species change. The act of creation deals with the origin of life. They simply can't be rivals. Many fundamental errors like that in Aronra's and other atheist videos. In that category, the act of creation and abiogenesis are rivals and creation act beats abiogenesis EASILY due to biogenesis.

Where did you send me an offer to debate. If Aronra continues to insist on not letting me define my own views...I'll consider another one maybe. But, first guarantee me that you'll let me define my own views without any argument whatsoever and I'll do the same for you. BUT, to be in competition, they MUST deal with the same question and a very similar range.
Bryan

 

[borrofburi]

P.S. I asked SQUAWK to set up a debate with Aronra. He hasn't answered or done anything so far. I don't know how to do that at present or even if I can.

Oh, I missed that (and I guess he did too). I'll talk to Squawk, or maybe I'll set it up myself; it'll get done though. We'll need a (precise) topic that you and AronRa both agree upon... Do you know how to use the PM system? In the upper right corner there is "my account, X messages, logout"... You click on the "X Messages" link and get a list of PMs you can respond to.

 

[dotoree]

If you remember way back at the beginning of this thread, it began with Aronra providing a list of defined words. You disagreed with some of those and told him what they should be. He came back and provided arguments as to why some of your definitions were unworkable. Since then all you have done to progress this discussion is scream that he can't define your views, which he is not trying to do.

You were the first one to say that some of his definitions were wrong, but when he corrects yours (with arguments and justifications) you start bringing out the caps lock. What do you want Aronra to reply to, seeing as how you've made no attempt to address any of his points? If you don't like his re-defined words say why. You keep saying you want to move the discussion forward, but you refuse to move past the initial definitions. You've not suggested any reworked definitions of any words you contest, or even said what those words are. You're allowed to disagree with Aronra's definitions, just specifically say which ones and specifically why. If you can relate it to Aronra's points, awesome!

If you want the discussion to move forward reply in full to Aronra's last post detailing why you disagree with his definitions. It really is that simple.

Sorry, but NO it isn't. Most of his criticisms are based on his foolish idea that he can define my views or that definitions must match his opinion of evidence. Both of those are false. It's a waste of time to respond in detail to his LONG list of 100% opinions and many falsehoods that are pretty much ALL based on that idea or on other equally foolish reasons.

I can deal with all of his supposed rebuttals. It's easy. But, he can NOT have the view that he gets to define my views. That's a NON-STARTER. PERIOD.

 

[dotoree]

"What tangent?" the tangent of "biblical living" leading to longevity, which really doesn't have anything to do with defending creationism honestly. I know you and AronRa have not discussed biblical living, but I've seen it crop up in a number of posts that you take the time to respond to, and I just think that you'd have an easier job finding the time to respond to this thread if you stopped following up on things that are not explicitly and directly relataed to defending creationism honestly.
-
That was NOT a tangent. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Proving that the Bible has proven scientific value for modern people was supposed to be 50% of the 2 points of the debate. That's what we agreed to on youtube. Aronra mislabled the title to only refer to creation vs. evolution. His error, not mine.

2ndly, Biblical health concepts are part of the creation account. They are right there in Genesis 1 and 3.

Rargh, I wrote a long paragraph and decided it was convoluted... I want to address your idea that if you believe everything you say you're not lying and if you're not lying you are being honest; and that therefore if you really believe what you're saying when you try to defend creationism (even if you're wrong), you're defending it honestly. This lacks subtlety: you can be dishonest without lying. Also, there are those on this forum (who have not yet convinced me) that you can be unintentionally dishonest, specifically unintentionally intellectually dishonest. I don't agree with them (yet), but I only mean to say that I think you probably (or at the very least it's possible that you) do not understand what AronRa means when he says it's impossible to defend creationism honestly. But generally, this is all probably not terribly important, especially when compared to the following two paragraphs.

A bit complicated there. Honesty has to do with intention. A liar is dishonest and a dishonest person is a liar. Dictionary says about dishonest:
"disposed to lie, cheat, or steal;"

A lie and dishonest both show intent to deceive. Aronra's video is the thing that is misusing vocabulary and it can NOT be true. Most 100% generalizations are false and his is extremely false.

Thanks VERY much for agreeing that I have the right to define my own views. MUCH APPRECIATED!

 

[Inferno]

I doubt that AronRa will want to debate you after you've done nothing else than misrepresent and lie for the past 15? pages... Why is it that your outset is that everyone else is wrong and nobody but you is correct?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I've watched several of Aronra's videos...the reason I"m here is because I watched several and he misrepresents quite a few things very very badly starting with trying to pit evolution against the act of creation. HELLO. They don't deal with the same question. They can't be rivals. Evolution deals with how species change. The act of creation deals with the origin of life. They simply can't be rivals. Many fundamental errors like that in Aronra's and other atheist videos. In that category, the act of creation and abiogenesis are rivals and creation act beats abiogenesis EASILY due to biogenesis.

So this discution is going to end rather easily. Do you then agree that all life forms we know today (including us) are related, and all it requiered to reach our status quo is the existance of one simple initial organism to kick start it all and the processes described by the unified field o evolution (i.e. theory of evolution) would do the rest?

 

[Myelectroncloud]

I had a short but interesting debate with dotoree on YouTube about observable evidence. This is the last comment I posted:

"So, would you agree then, that this observable evidence could be considered factual? And if so, does it not then follow,, that any supposition based on a witnesses account of what they saw, cannot be evidence, since you did not glean this evidence through observation. Although you heard the words the witness spoke, or read them, you have no basis for comparison to determine whether or not they spoke the, truth." As yet, no reply.

I went on to explain, that observable evidence-which would also have to be used to 'defend creationism honstly,' is only available from what we have at our disposal; that of our five senses. Evidence cannot be gleaned from any other source-unless you're telepathic.

It seems to me, from dotoree's point of view, that the fact that something exists without explanation determines what created it. Indeed, evidence of its existence is conclusive-it must be God. However, you would need at least one of your senses to corroborate the evidence. I am unaware that even a single person-this includes Jesus-is able to see,hear, touch, taste and smell God. Of course, theistical properties dictate that God can be detected from all of those sources! But these too would need corroboration through observable evidence.

To put this another way, if I were guilty of murder, there would have to be corroborative evidence-that of a body. It's detectable; we can see it. Otherwise it's alleged. To claim that God, in one form or another, is guilty of creationism, there would have to be corroborative evidence-none of which is detectable through our five senses. So how, if not using telepathy, can anyone arrive at such a conclusion?

One thing is clear: We can see, hear, touch, taste and smell water. It exists. Irrefutably. We know how it exists and why it exists. Unless you're using those same methods of detection, how can anybody claim that creationism is responsible for the existence of water? You can't. So all you have is faith. Faith, by definition, is not fact. If it were fact, it would not require defence. Since it's faith, you can defend creationism to your heart's content-but you can't do it honestly.

 

[borrofburi]

So you maintain that first hand and second hand experience are as strong of evidence as observable, verifiable, and/or repeatable evidence? You maintain that a friend of a friend's story is as strong of evidence of who did the murder as the video footage of the actual murder including the murderer's face? Because those are some of the things I said, and I'd hate to see you throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Could you PLEASE go back and read the archives. I put first hand witnesses a little lower than observable. They are NOT weak. NOT EVEN CLOSE. There are varying degrees of credibility of witnesses. There is just not the least bit of accuracy in saying that all witness evidence is weak.

Btw, FIRSTHAND WITNESSES ARE OBSERVERS. ALL SCIENTISTS are WITNESSES. And nearly ALL critiques that apply to witnesses apply in equal measure to scientists. Again, you can judge the credibility of witnesses AND of scientists by a variety of methods, esp. things like independent observations, hostile witnesses in both science and history and that makes it more credible..other ways too. Scientists have bias in their observations and this is well documented as well and agreed to by most informed intellectuals with any knowledge in the area.

A VIDEO would probably be stronger than either a scientists observation or a witness observation. Unfortunately, we don't any farther back than a century ago, so it doesn't help in this discussion.

Scientific observation doesn't refer to a scientist telling you his or her memories of the results of doing something, it refers to the recorded data of a well defined experiment; a well defined experiment is so defined that (if I have the resources) I can go do it myself and get my own data (and if it differs wildly from the original scientist's then either (s)he was lying and is about to have a ruined career or I screwed something up). It's true that for those of us who don't have the ability to replicate the experiments or the mathematical and scientific training to properly understand the experiments and data we have to rely upon the witness testimony of scientists (IN THAT FIELD), but the strength of scientific evidence is that the evidence itself is an objective and verifiable recording of the data of a well defined experiment, not the memory based witness of a scientist.

The reasons we trust video footage over eye witness testimoney is that video footage is recorded data whereas eye witness testimony is based *at best* on the human memory of human perceptions (both of which are not always accurate) and rely on the hope that the eye witness isn't lying. Now you'll say "well we check if the eye witness isn't lying", but we do that by having OTHER EVIDENCE, so what that amounts to is saying that eye witness testimony can corroborate other evidence and other evidence can corroborate the testimony and that they can both make the other stronger, and I fully agree; but the point is that on its own eye witness testimony is far less valuable and reliable than recorded data.

And scientific evidence is even better than recorded data because along with the recorded data comes the instructions on how to get your own similar recorded data, as well as the peer review process in which, ideally, other people trained in the field will do their best to provide valid criticisms of the conclusions based on that data (and watch for potentially anomalous data).

The whole point is that witnesses on their own are far weaker than recorded data and scientific evidence, and that things we accept from witnesses alone should be accepted with lesser certainty.

 

[dotoree]

I doubt that AronRa will want to debate you after you've done nothing else than misrepresent and lie for the past 15? pages... Why is it that your outset is that everyone else is wrong and nobody but you is correct?

--
There has not been even one lie by me at all in any post. NOT ONE. I do NOT lie. AGAIN...to prove someone has lied, you MUST prove intent. I detest lying in ways you can not possibly imagine. I just watched a movie "Emperor's Club" with my students and will give a lecture soon on the crucial importance of honesty and never ever lying. I simply do not lie (unless it would save a life, like Schindler or John Weidner or against seriously unjust laws as they did or something very serious like that.). I have in the past long ago lied a few times for selfish reasons... but I don't allow myself to lie now. I am vehemently opposed to anything with a shade of dishonesty.

Unintentional misrepresentations...that is possible...mistakes possible. I'm human and at quite a loss of sleep now because of so many misrepresentations of what my views are and the Bible actually says and others.. and if you find something that I have misrepresented and you provide really solid proof of that that convinces me, I'll thank you no matter how hot the debate is and try not to make the mistake again. But, I'm not infallible like the pope claims to be in some situations (he actually isn't in any situation, but anyway).
Bryan

 

[Yfelsung]

"Hey guys, this book here says I should avoid shell fish."
"So?"
"Well, shellfish can be pretty dangerous if not prepared properly."
"And?"
"Well, obviously this book was inspired by the word of God."
"How so?"
"Well, how would they know shell fish is bad?"
"Maybe random Jewish guy A ate some dirty shellfish and got sick?"
"That's preposterous, it must be God. This proves the bible is 100% fact."
"So... that proves the bible, but the mountains of evidence for evolution isn't sufficient for you?"
"Nope, that's a conspiracy."

Faith: sort of like schizophrenia, dementia and stupidity all rolled into one.

 

[ExeFBM]

Sorry, but NO it isn't. Most of his criticisms are based on his foolish idea that he can define my views or that definitions must match his opinion of evidence. Both of those are false. It's a waste of time to respond in detail to his LONG list of 100% opinions and many falsehoods that are pretty much ALL based on that idea or on other equally foolish reasons.

I can deal with all of his supposed rebuttals. It's easy. But, he can NOT have the view that he gets to define my views. That's a NON-STARTER. PERIOD.

So you're refusing to have any discussion unless Aronra agrees to your definitions without question? He adapted some of his definitions after you posted rebuttals, but you won't adjust any of yours ever? If it's so easy for you to rebut him then do it, and if your rebuttalas are sound he will agree to them. The definitions need to be negotiated and agreed upon between you both, and you're refusing to. They can not be dictated by one side. He's changed definitions for you before, so present your case or drop any pretense of wanting to have a discussion with him.

 

[dotoree]

Scientific observation doesn't refer to a scientist telling you his or her memories of the results of doing something, it refers to the recorded data of a well defined experiment; a well defined experiment is so defined that (if I have the resources) I can go do it myself and get my own data (and if it differs wildly from the original scientist's then either (s)he was lying and is about to have a ruined career or I screwed something up). It's true that for those of us who don't have the ability to replicate the experiments or the mathematical and scientific training to properly understand the experiments and data we have to rely upon the witness testimony of scientists (IN THAT FIELD), but the strength of scientific evidence is that the evidence itself is an objective and verifiable recording of the data of a well defined experiment, not the memory based witness of a scientist.

---
The reasons we trust video footage over eye witness testimoney is that video footage is recorded data whereas eye witness testimony is based *at best* on the human memory of human perceptions (both of which are not always accurate) and rely on the hope that the eye witness isn't lying. Now you'll say "well we check if the eye witness isn't lying", but we do that by having OTHER EVIDENCE, so what that amounts to is saying that eye witness testimony can corroborate other evidence and other evidence can corroborate the testimony and that they can both make the other stronger, and I fully agree; but the point is that on its own eye witness testimony is far less valuable and reliable than recorded data.
---
Independent confirmation whether by scientists or historians is very high quality evidence. But even independent confirmations can be wrong in BOTH areas if people are educated wrongly and have wrong definitions, etc.

Video evidence can be monkeyed with and it's getting harder and harder to tell when as you probably know. It can also be shot in different ways that can misrepresent things at times. Not much video evidence in crimes is as good as the example you listed. But, it's one of the best evidences I'll agree.
--

And scientific evidence is even better than recorded data because along with the recorded data comes the instructions on how to get your own similar recorded data, as well as the peer review process in which, ideally, other people trained in the field will do their best to provide valid criticisms of the conclusions based on that data (and watch for potentially anomalous data).

The whole point is that witnesses on their own are far weaker than recorded data and scientific evidence, and that things we accept from witnesses alone should be accepted with lesser certainty.

--
Again..the training can be the problem. Communists in many different countries did all sorts of publishing in academic journals about communism. Plenty of independent confirmation about how wonderful communism was, tests, experiments and all the rest. But, they were all trained under the same ideology and limited information and all info about democracy banned from those journals.

Both scientific and historical evidence have varying levels of credibility. It depends a lot on the situation which one is better and which cases you cite. Again, EVERY scientist is a witness too. Without observation, you can't do the historic method or the scientific method. I have already cited cases where the historical method got it right LONG before science figured it out. And if that is affecting life, death, health, etc. that's crucial information.

Sorry guys, I've got to stop now..2am AGAIN and exhausted...I probably won't say much for a couple days. I'm so far behind in grading, and have a sermon to give on Saturday (Sunday is never mentioned in the Bible as a worship day. I'll give $1000 to anyone who can show a verse like that ) and other things...I'll come back when I can and hopefully Aronra will have come to his senses by then and agreed with you that I have the right to define my own views.
Thanks again for the more civil conversation! And you have made some good points...might even have to change my levels of credibility a bit ...but 1st and 2nd hand evidence is not the weakest evidence. I can't even remotely agree with you on that.
Bryan

 

[kenandkids]

"Hey guys, this book here says I should avoid shell fish."
"So?"
"Well, shellfish can be pretty dangerous if not prepared properly."
"And?"
"Well, obviously this book was inspired by the word of God."
"How so?"
"Well, how would they know shell fish is bad?"
"Maybe random Jewish guy A ate some dirty shellfish and got sick?"
"That's preposterous, it must be God. This proves the bible is 100% fact."
"So... that proves the bible, but the mountains of evidence for evolution isn't sufficient for you?"
"Nope, that's a conspiracy."

Faith: sort of like schizophrenia, dementia and stupidity all rolled into one.

Perfect imitation! =-)

(except for the fact that they like shellfish and bacon and so dismiss commands to the contrary...)

 

[Inferno]

I'm human and at quite a loss of sleep now because of so many misrepresentations of what my views are and the Bible actually says and others..

Then don't reply. Real life is far more important than replying on a forum. I never reply if I'm too tired. Sleep/job/family comes first.

Unintentional misrepresentations...that is possible...mistakes possible.

Agreed, everybody makes mistakes.

AGAIN...to prove someone has lied, you MUST prove intent.

And how do you prove intent? You can't get into their head, after all.

I'll propose something:
Person A presents an argument.
Person B shows that the argument is false because of a, b and c.
Person A doesn't refute the argument but either says "That's no evidence to prove my argument wrong" or repeats the same argument as before.

Or option b): You show that the information Person A is looking for was already presented or readily available.
For example, all of the afore mentioned Creationists have said that there is no evidence for X, yet a two-second google search reveals said evidence.

Also, kindly tell me who representative creationists are? The ones I talked about were the ones I get linked to most often, from creationists.