Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The only logical argument for creationism

Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:29:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Yup, the fossil record for one.
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:09:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:29:28 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Yup, the fossil record for one.

ummm, no. that does not support creation as posited in the Bible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:14:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic

Your ability to express a concept better than your opponent does not mean your concept is valid or scientific.

Evolution has withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny by experts in the field. Creationism can make no such claim.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.

The 'flaws' that would be required for YEC to be consistent with what we know date-wise is on the order of 100,000- 1,000,000. I find this a rather astonishing display of mental gymnastics if you are required to sail past multiple independent methods which indeed point to that sort of timescale.

It would do you some good to apply Occam's Razor to your position if that seriously is your stance. Over half your fellow Christians see your position is untenable, there is a good reason for that.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:19:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.

Can you point us to the peer reviewed papers you've published on these subjects?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:14:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic

Your ability to express a concept better than your opponent does not mean your concept is valid or scientific.

Evolution has withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny by experts in the field. Creationism can make no such claim.

Creationism was the prevailing view of Darwin's day and had stood for years before Darwin came on the scene. It was still the prevailing view among scientists for decades after and took a while before consensus shifted. Appeal to authority is a fallacy not an argument. Scientists could be named who believed in Creationism as well, e.g. Newton, Pasteur, Vahan Damadian, etc.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:20:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

OK, according to Genesis 1, if you switvch your brain on before reading it, verse 1 is simply a bald statement that the heaverns and teh earth were created.

That is before teh first day even begins.

Actually to call them Creative days, as we all do , is nto entirely accurate for two reasons.

The most obvious is that they aren't literal days, they are "definite but unspecifiedperiods of time", a different, but wiodely used meaning for day, even today. They were also presumably of approximately equal length.

In fact scripturally they work out to approximately 7,000 years each, and, also scripturally we are still in the 7th.

Secondly they do not cover all of creation since the heavens anbd the earth are already created, which incidentally must also include the sun and moon, or the heavens would not have been created at that point.

If you read verses 2 onwards, they are more conversational than just bad statement, and appear to eb written as if by an observer actually on the planet surface at the time. Hence even though they have already been created, the light from teh sun reaches the earth in verse 3, and the sun and the moon appear visible in verse 14.

Therefore according to Genesis the earth was created more than 48,000 years ago, and when God created the animals he only created teh basic kinds and built in teh ability to adapt and diversify. That factor is what is mistaken for evolution but is in fact adaptation.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:23:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:19:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.

Can you point us to the peer reviewed papers you've published on these subjects?

Peer reviewed papers only support the status quo and so are useless as evidence of anything real other than that the writer has aimed to please the status quo. The certainly don't prove teh status quo right, which is just as wqell, since it isn't.
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:26:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:23:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:19:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.

Can you point us to the peer reviewed papers you've published on these subjects?

Peer reviewed papers only support the status quo and so are useless as evidence of anything real other than that the writer has aimed to please the status quo. The certainly don't prove teh status quo right, which is just as wqell, since it isn't.

The scientific establishment blackballs anyone who is creationist. Vahan Damadian helped invent the MRI Machine for example but was excluded from the Nobel Prize for doing so because he was a YEC. Similarly the Institute for Creation Research publishes plenty of peer-reviewed papers that are ignored by the scientific establishment because they are creationist.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:27:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:19:41 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:14:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic

Your ability to express a concept better than your opponent does not mean your concept is valid or scientific.

Evolution has withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny by experts in the field. Creationism can make no such claim.

Creationism was the prevailing view of Darwin's day and had stood for years before Darwin came on the scene. It was still the prevailing view among scientists for decades after and took a while before consensus shifted. Appeal to authority is a fallacy not an argument. Scientists could be named who believed in Creationism as well, e.g. Newton, Pasteur, Vahan Damadian, etc.

Appeal to authority other than experts is a fallacy. Appealing to the authority of acknowledged experts is not a fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The consensus of modern scientists agree evolution is valid.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:29:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:27:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:19:41 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:14:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic

Your ability to express a concept better than your opponent does not mean your concept is valid or scientific.

Evolution has withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny by experts in the field. Creationism can make no such claim.

Creationism was the prevailing view of Darwin's day and had stood for years before Darwin came on the scene. It was still the prevailing view among scientists for decades after and took a while before consensus shifted. Appeal to authority is a fallacy not an argument. Scientists could be named who believed in Creationism as well, e.g. Newton, Pasteur, Vahan Damadian, etc.

Appeal to authority other than experts is a fallacy. Appealing to the authority of acknowledged experts is not a fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The consensus of modern scientists agree evolution is valid.

According to your own source, "However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:32:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:20:43 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

OK, according to Genesis 1, if you switvch your brain on before reading it, verse 1 is simply a bald statement that the heaverns and teh earth were created.

If you bothered to read that post, I said I was assuming gap theory.

That is before teh first day even begins.

Actually to call them Creative days, as we all do , is nto entirely accurate for two reasons.

The most obvious is that they aren't literal days, they are "definite but unspecifiedperiods of time", a different, but wiodely used meaning for day, even today. They were also presumably of approximately equal length.

Even assuming this (it's false, as the Hebrew of Genesis is best interpreted as a literal 24 hour period, few scholars would disagree on this).

In fact scripturally they work out to approximately 7,000 years each, and, also scripturally we are still in the 7th.

Sure, let's assume this. So assuming this, everything that has happened on Earth since it has formed in your theory is 7x7,000 - <50k years ago.

Secondly they do not cover all of creation since the heavens anbd the earth are already created, which incidentally must also include the sun and moon, or the heavens would not have been created at that point.

Well the bible said the stars, the Sun and the Moon were made on day 4. And the stars run headfirst into the distant starlight problem.

If you read verses 2 onwards, they are more conversational than just bad statement, and appear to eb written as if by an observer actually on the planet surface at the time. Hence even though they have already been created, the light from teh sun reaches the earth in verse 3, and the sun and the moon appear visible in verse 14.

This is not objective reasoning. But sure, let's assume this. The verse in genesis doesn't say "made visible" though, it just says "made". The Sun was either made before life existed, or made after. Your interpretation depicts both, hence a contradiction. All our evidence is to say the Sun was both made and shining before "day 3".

Therefore according to Genesis the earth was created more than 48,000 years ago, and when God created the animals he only created teh basic kinds and built in teh ability to adapt and diversify. That factor is what is mistaken for evolution but is in fact adaptation.

So. According to genesis, ALL the animals in Earth appeared no more than 50,000 years ago.

But this contradicts what we know about life on earth. Life in Earth existed a long, long time before then. Like four orders of magnitude earlier.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:37:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:21:08 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If nobody wants to debate the subject so be it, but my assertions stand then.

Send me a debate on Gap theory. And include the actual main chronological and time considerations within the rules, so I have a goalpost to strike.

I have been meaning to do a YEC debate for a while.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:40:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:23:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:19:06 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:13:00 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:04:51 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:59:56 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If anyone wants to debate me on the subject let me know. The only reason I didn't present more here is that there wasn't enough writing room. I warn you though you will very likely be taking a loss as this subject is one of my specialties.

http://www.debate.org...

I just read your debate.

You advocate for Gap Theory, I.e. The Earth already existed before the first day if creation.

I would like to see how you reconcile the fact that virtually all of life on Earth existed before 6,000 years, given that gap theory predicts that life would have been created within that 6,000 year period (although the Earth would not have been).

Sounds like a dead theory to me.

There is evidence that life can't be as old as commonly claimed, and there are serous flaws with the methods used to arrive at such ancient dates (e.g. radiometric dating, dendrochronology, etc.). Again, willing to bring this up in debate if anyone doubts that I can do so. There's still a lot of evidence left that I can bring up.

Can you point us to the peer reviewed papers you've published on these subjects?

Peer reviewed papers only support the status quo and so are useless as evidence of anything real other than that the writer has aimed to please the status quo. The certainly don't prove teh status quo right, which is just as wqell, since it isn't.

Please don't make statements about the peer review process if you don't have the first clue what it is, and what it entails, as your post amply demonstrates. Thanks.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:41:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:29:08 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:27:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:19:41 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:14:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:52:42 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 5:09:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 4:10:48 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Meh, there's evidence that can be presented for creationism which makes more sense from a creationist standpoint than an evolutionist standpoint.

REALLY!? ;-)

Already won a debate on the topic

Your ability to express a concept better than your opponent does not mean your concept is valid or scientific.

Evolution has withstood more than 150 years of scientific scrutiny by experts in the field. Creationism can make no such claim.

Creationism was the prevailing view of Darwin's day and had stood for years before Darwin came on the scene. It was still the prevailing view among scientists for decades after and took a while before consensus shifted. Appeal to authority is a fallacy not an argument. Scientists could be named who believed in Creationism as well, e.g. Newton, Pasteur, Vahan Damadian, etc.

Appeal to authority other than experts is a fallacy. Appealing to the authority of acknowledged experts is not a fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The consensus of modern scientists agree evolution is valid.

According to your own source, "However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

"It is important to note this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

Evolution could be wrong, and of course this is why evolution is continually tested. You have not refuted the authority of evolutionary scientists or their claims. Plus, even if you show evolution to be flawed in some way, the replacement theory will still need to explain the fossil record, the genetic evidence, and all other evidence for evolution, and creationism cannot do that.

Are you advocating young or old earth creationism? I'll be happy to discuss this further tomorrow.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:46:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:41:37 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:29:08 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
Appeal to authority other than experts is a fallacy. Appealing to the authority of acknowledged experts is not a fallacy.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

The consensus of modern scientists agree evolution is valid.

According to your own source, "However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not."

"It is important to note this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

Evolution could be wrong, and of course this is why evolution is continually tested. You have not refuted the authority of evolutionary scientists or their claims. Plus, even if you show evolution to be flawed in some way, the replacement theory will still need to explain the fossil record, the genetic evidence, and all other evidence for evolution, and creationism cannot do that.

Are you advocating young or old earth creationism? I'll be happy to discuss this further tomorrow.

Immediately after saying that though it says "Appeals to authority are not valid arguments" and then says that it is only reasonable to disregard the claims of experts if "someone has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence." Your source acknowledges that if one has said understanding or evidence they have reasonable basis for doubting experts.

I am advocating young life on earth creationism, which is close to YEC I suppose.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:47:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 2:57:42 PM, Mikal wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

God knew how to keep His people from knowing who they really are. All He had to do was make them believe His illusions were real. I've met several people who have observed aliens and spaceships. One of them took pictures of aliens going in and out of a spaceship that was parked outside his motorhome.

If you haven't noticed, God is having His people find more artifacts in the ground than ever before and there's no way for His people to explain how they got there. That's because they're only illusions that aren't real. It's very difficult for God's people to believe this is all a dream.
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:49:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:40:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:23:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Peer reviewed papers only support the status quo and so are useless as evidence of anything real other than that the writer has aimed to please the status quo. The certainly don't prove teh status quo right, which is just as wqell, since it isn't.

Please don't make statements about the peer review process if you don't have the first clue what it is, and what it entails, as your post amply demonstrates. Thanks.

Well, there is a definite bias where papers with creationist conclusions cannot be published in the scientific community. Creationists do publish peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals, but they cannot include any pro-Creationism conclusions or commentary, or the papers will not be published.

http://creation.com...
Mikal
Posts: 11,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:47:36 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2014 2:57:42 PM, Mikal wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

God knew how to keep His people from knowing who they really are. All He had to do was make them believe His illusions were real. I've met several people who have observed aliens and spaceships. One of them took pictures of aliens going in and out of a spaceship that was parked outside his motorhome.

If you haven't noticed, God is having His people find more artifacts in the ground than ever before and there's no way for His people to explain how they got there. That's because they're only illusions that aren't real. It's very difficult for God's people to believe this is all a dream.

Remind me , to go over this during our next interview. I would love to discuss it
Jzyehoshua
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:50:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:37:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:21:08 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If nobody wants to debate the subject so be it, but my assertions stand then.

Send me a debate on Gap theory. And include the actual main chronological and time considerations within the rules, so I have a goalpost to strike.

I have been meaning to do a YEC debate for a while.

Alright, I can send you a debate on whether evidence exists that is more reasonable for creationism than evolution, with a clearly defined definition of creationism as Gap Theory, is that alright?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:56:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:49:19 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:40:19 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:23:32 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Peer reviewed papers only support the status quo and so are useless as evidence of anything real other than that the writer has aimed to please the status quo. The certainly don't prove teh status quo right, which is just as wqell, since it isn't.

Please don't make statements about the peer review process if you don't have the first clue what it is, and what it entails, as your post amply demonstrates. Thanks.

Well, there is a definite bias where papers with creationist conclusions cannot be published in the scientific community. Creationists do publish peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals, but they cannot include any pro-Creationism conclusions or commentary, or the papers will not be published.

http://creation.com...

They simply cannot be junk. They need to include all their data, and need to have conclusions that follow from the data. I have read a number of articles on that 'journal', especially Dr. Humphries, and his articles would easily be binned within the junk journals of science due to the lack of rigor in the data presented.

Missing data, incorrect error bars, dubious extrapolations on a handful of data points with massive error bars. It's not something I even expect bottom-of-the-barrel undergrads to try and present. Given the other articles on that journal, especially the non-scientific ones (which I myself, a non-historian etc. Could easily have written), it's hardly a surprise nine of these passed peer review.

You can have great data, amazing discoveries, but if the science is presented sh*t, then it will not be published. This includes science that is mainstream, your data, supporting info etc need to be there. Creationists simply do not do this in their articles.

Now are you going to send me that debate challenge?
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 6:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2014 6:50:54 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:37:05 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/4/2014 6:21:08 PM, Jzyehoshua wrote:
If nobody wants to debate the subject so be it, but my assertions stand then.

Send me a debate on Gap theory. And include the actual main chronological and time considerations within the rules, so I have a goalpost to strike.

I have been meaning to do a YEC debate for a while.

Alright, I can send you a debate on whether evidence exists that is more reasonable for creationism than evolution, with a clearly defined definition of creationism as Gap Theory, is that alright?

I wanted to talk about dating, rather than evolution. I can do evolution but it would rest on presuppositions of an old earth, so it would distract from it.

A resolution such as:
"Life on Earth appeared more than 6,000 years ago"

I would take the BoP with that resolution.