ID/Creationism challenge

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But, I suggest, that you would be hard pressed to find any organic flesh attached to any remains after 100 years being buried.

Siberian mammoths.

 

[PixyMisa]

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

Nope. Doesn't work.

Any explanation at all for the existence of organisms supposes that organisms exist. So the simple observation of an organism does not allow us to distinguish between the explanations. So it's not evidence for any of them.

 

[sphenisc]

Nope. Doesn't work.

Any explanation at all for the existence of organisms supposes that organisms exist. So the simple observation of an organism does not allow us to distinguish between the explanations.

I didn't say it did.

So it's not evidence for any of them.

Yes it is.

 

[BadBoy]

Siberian mammoths.

ya, I thought of that, but is that not just skin. I guess your right.

 

[BadBoy]

I didn't say it did.



Yes it is.

no its not. The existence of organisms is evidence for the existence of organisms. Just like Dinosaur fossils are the evidence for the existence of Dinosaurs and the fossil record is the evidence for the exitence of evolution

 

[sphenisc]

no its not. The existence of organisms is evidence for the existence of organisms. Just like Dinosaur fossils are the evidence for the existence of Dinosaurs and the fossil record is the evidence for the exitence of evolution

Yes it is. The existence of organisms is evidence for Creationism. Just like Dinosaur fossils are the evidence for the existence of Dinosaurs and the fossil record is the evidence for the exitence of evolution. Gosh this is fun isn't it?

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't say it did.

Then it ain't evidence.

 

[Wowbagger]

They don't.

Randman: Please look up what the word empirical means.


Science is an empirical beast, you know that. Right?

Discover, for yourself, why none of your papers feed that beast. None of them bring new, empirical knowledge to the table. Read up on what qualifies as standards of evidence, in the empirical world.

 

[sphenisc]

Then it ain't evidence.

Yes it is.

 

[BadBoy]

Yes it is.

oh dear.

organisms exists! so thats proof that an organism creating teapot that is circling the earth created every living thing on this planet.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes it is.

So, the existence of organisms is likewise evidence that God didn't create them?

 

[sphenisc]

So, the existence of organisms is likewise evidence that God didn't create them?

If you can substitute something like "Noncreationism is the belief God didn't create organisms" for the first premise in my argument and (adapt the argument accordingly) and still have it as valid then yes it does. If not, you're going to have to convince me some other way.

 

[BadBoy]

If you can substitute something like "Noncreationism is the belief God didn't create organisms" for the first premise in my argument and (adapt the argument accordingly) and still have it as valid then yes it does. If not, you're going to have to convince me some other way.

me thinks your past convincing.

 

[sphenisc]

me thinks your past convincing.

Really? Cos you almost had me with the teapot argument.

 

[Philosaur]

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

This is called circular reasoning. The existence of life is what we need an explanation for. The existence of life CANNOT be part of the explanation.

Consider:

Jack is dead. Either Alice or Bob did it.

Now, would you say that Jack being dead is evidence that Alice killed him? Is it evidence that Bob killed him? If a fact doesn't differentiate between two alternative explanations, it is evidence of neither.

This is so basic, I can't really believe I'm explaining it. I really hope you just have a very dry sense of humor.

 

[ehcks]

Really? Cos you almost had me with the teapot argument.

I think that's why parody religions exist.

Can you define what god created the universe and the life in it? Is it the god of a current religion? One from the past? Perhaps Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is the true religion.

I'm sure you believe that your god is the true god, but why? Why is your belief in your "one true god" a more reliable belief than anyone else's belief in their own mutually exclusive "one true god"? The outcome of our existence is the same, no matter which god's creationism had happened. It's also the same as if there wasn't a creator at all, which leads to the use of Occam's Razor.

 

[sphenisc]

This is called circular reasoning. The existence of life is what we need an explanation for. The existence of life CANNOT be part of the explanation.

Yes it can. In fact it necessarily must be.

Consider:

Jack is dead. Either Alice or Bob did it.

Now, would you say that Jack being dead is evidence that Alice killed him?

Yes.

Is it evidence that Bob killed him?

Yes

If a fact doesn't differentiate between two alternative explanations, it is evidence of neither.

Yes it is.

This is so basic, I can't really believe I'm explaining it. I really hope you just have a very dry sense of humor.

False dichotomy.

 

[Philosaur]

Yes it can. In fact it necessarily must be.

Yes.

Yes

Yes it is.

False dichotomy.

Look, if you want to play semantic games, I'll bite.

The fact that Jack is dead is consistent with either conclusion, so in a program of piling up facts consistent with a hypothesis, then Jack's pining-for-the-fjords would constitute part of that pile.

But in real world cases, we look for facts which exclude competing hypotheses, otherwise our pile of "evidence" starts to include all sorts of irrelevancies.

For instance, the fact that the sun rose today is consistent with Alice having killed Jack, and also consistent with Bob having killed Jack. Apparently you'd say that the sun's appearance in the sky is evidence of both conclusions. I think most people understand that the sun is (so far as we can tell) irrelevant to deciding which of the two hypotheses is true. Similarly, the fact that Jack is dead offers us no help in determining if Alice killed him, or Bob killed him, or if you or I did.

Now, are you merely being pedantic troll, or are we disagreeing on some real issue?

 

[KingMerv00]

Yes it is.

The existence of organisms is a premise in both evolutionary theory and creationism, premises cannot be used as evidence.

 

[Philosaur]

Answer my questions: without invoking a trillion alternate universes and more, in what manner are 2 particles entangled, a direct observation, in respect to time and distance.

If you cannot answer it, just say so and let someone else talk about the subject.

This relates to my posts to sphenisc:

Quantum entanglement might be consistent with an intelligent designer, but it's also consistent with evolution, and fairies, and the dream of a butterfly, and Allah, and the FSM, etc.

If we allows quantum entanglement, should why not just allow anything at all as evidence of an ID?