Well 7 days could be god days, it doesn't really mean 24 hours for 7 days, 7 days could be 7 seconds, 7 days could be 7000 years, 7 days could be 500 million years. God could have created the world, and then evolution took its part. The bible does focus on only one part of the world, so Adam couldn't have named every single animal, and Noah couldn't have gathered every single one.
Also, if god created the first man and woman, it doesn't prove race.
Why is it that you don't find dinosaurs in the same layer of Earth as humans or them as trilobites? Not one fossils has EVER been found out of place of what evolution says it would be found.
Here is the evidence, the facts, go look. The fossils are layered like this: In the bottom layer of rock are shell fossils, above that is a layer with shells and fish fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish and amphibians fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian and reptile fossils, above that is a layer with shells, fish, amphibian, reptile fossils and dinosaur fossils. No human or bunny fossils are found in any of these layers. No dating method used
I love how the evidence for Creation Science is always TRYING to disprove REAL SCIENCE. They never have any valid evidence. They just bash evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, and other logically/rationally thought out theories. But never provide any facts as to why its wrong or why they are right. Do you people ever bring forth evidence to support your nonsense, I would be glad to look, as would many other people. Because if there were evidence we would be inclined to believe.
@4thcoming Dude, that's bull, the book is bull, and you're kinda... honestly... stupid for believing it without actually researching what the fossil record suggests, what the DNA of modern organisms suggests, etc. seriously, that's dead wrong.
"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' D. Adams
@AAL That's a bad analogy, but I'll play along. Water, like life, will mold to fit its container or echo system. Therefore we adapted to this world like the water molded to the hole. If there was to much water for the hole, it simply flowed or evaporated asay because it wasn't needed just like what happened to life through evolution. Becareful with analogies as arguments. They often don't work.:)
@AAL Did I call you any name? No. So kiss my ass dickhead. Just because you don't have two brain cells to split between you head and your ass doesn't mean doesn't mean you have to flaunt you stupidity with me.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss If you ignore the message that an analogy is supposed to confer and instead concentrate on how the metaphor can be misapplied, then of course it doesn't work.
@garouHH Yes, but my point is that you analogy doesn't counter the argument. It's completely irelovent to the argument. The only way you can counter an argument is with proof of your claim. An analogy is not or ever will be proof or evicence to prove a claim.
@garouHH I understand what an analogy is for. But the argument is already illustrated very clearly here. I just don't understand what you were trying to accomplish by stating the obvious. That's all.
@garouHH :) First off I wouldn't say I was abusing the analogy. 2nd I am asuming that we are on opposite sides of this debate. If so, then I really prefer it when the people on the other side of the argument can bring up good points to support their side. The analogy did nothing to add to the discussion and I was just trying to prompt you to bring up a point that carried more relovence and weight. I honestly am not trying to be disrespectful. Just trying to get better arguments. That's all.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Adams' anecdote is a nice illustration of anthropocentricism and how the creation myth might come have about. I found no comment that would make quoting it inappropriate. Nor do I find anything about it that would make your critique of it appropriate. *That* is my point.
@garouHH Ah. I understand. But there is still some confusion because even though Adams may be know for illustrating how the creation myth came about, just the quote itself doesn't specify where your stance is. People on both sides will use stuff from each other to make their point. So just using the quote kinda' gives it a, "put my 2 cents in," feel. So like I said, my point is I don't know what your trying to say with just a quote that either side could use to stress a point.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Considering that I, in this place, don't forward the anecdote for either side, but comment on your reaction to it, my position is irrelevant to this line of discussion. For the record, and only for that, I concur with Adams' position on the topic.
Our knowledge of biochemistry proves inheritance and not special creation. Why? Just ask any biochemist. It supports the fossil record to a tee, to a tee.
You make many assertions with nothing to back those assertiions up.
Your comment on the fossil record is just plain wrong and nothing like that which professional palaeontologists who work in the field and lab say.
Also please sort out the contrast between your text and background.
@pilgrimpater My friend FirstFreedomFighter knows about biochemistry and is in the ID movment so ask him on his channel comments or send him a pm. Also I
like to make some of my videos a bit campy and some amtuerish so lay off my work lol!!
@pilgrimpater All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (6), June-July 1977, p. 24.)
@4thcoming Why are you talking about transitionals (of which there are litereally thousands)? I am not talking about transitionals, i am talking about the general progression of the development of organic life over geological time. We don't need transitionals to know that the fossil record as we see it can only be explained by evolution. Even if we disagree over the processes and mechanisms, it is still evolution.
@4thcoming For many more wise than i am it is the microbiology that shows a clear inheritence by descent. However for me it is the fossil record which for the umpteenth time of telling you clearly demonstrates an advancement in organic life over geological time. No transitionals nor time lines are needed to support that argument (though they do of course).
@4thcoming Not only does "little" not mean "nothing", Gould also presented why those transitions are *relatively* abrupt (which "relatively" being stressed by me to indicate that it does indeed take a trained paleontologist to actually see that there are such transitions and not just a smooth, continuous development).
@4thcoming While I usually aim to keep a civil tone, I really have to vent on this occasion.
You not knowing what someone who you quote one line from is very typical of a creationist. Quote-mining is, after all, what brought Darwin saying that to claim that the human eye evolved was ridiculous, completely ignoring that right after that quote he went on for a few paragraphs to tell us how it might have happened. Now bugger off and read the Wikipedia articles on Gould an punctuated equilibrium.
@4thcoming As I said I was venting in an uncivilized tone. Still, can you deny that you, whether by intention or by lack of knowledge, quote-mined Gould and misrepresented his position?
If I see another creationist quote mining that 33 year old essay one more time...
Gould was introducing his concept of punctuated equilibrium. His point was that individual species evolve (relatively) rapidly, so evolution occurs in fits and starts, rather than slowly and steadily. We have relatively few fossils showing transitions BETWEEN SPECIES, but we've found many more in the last 33 years. Even in 1977, we had oodles of fossils showing transitions between lineages.
@sykeo123 "but if you had a brain to begin with you would have noticed those yourself." People like you use strawmen, red herrings and if you had a brain to begin with which you actually do not that I think of it lol you would realize the error
of your ways. I try my best to avoid logical fallacies which were created to shut down
Creationist arguments btw like the circular logic fallacy.
In contrast, biblical theologians have taught for centuries that God is eternal. Let’s consider this view logically. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now. Something exists now. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
1.If P, then Q. 2.Not Q. 3.Therefore, not P. Another way of stating the conclusion, “There never was a time when absolutely nothing existed,” is to remove the double negative and say, “There always was a time when something existed.”
"Tomorrow I will spontaneously acquire 5 million dollars in cash."
Although it may make me happy to think that this will happen, more over, convince myself that it's true; simply saying it does not ACTUALLY make it true.
Now it would be one thing if I kept such a thought to myself, it would be a whole different story if I was to share with others. Imagine how crazy people would view me if I genuinely thought this would happen...
Now imagine me making the same claim after tomorrow...
@damaxman In logic, the Law of Teleology affirms that “where there is design, there must be a designer”—a point conceded by infidels (see Ricci, 1986, p. 190). Thus, even unbelievers have recognized that the design argument is a weapon to be reckoned with in the arsenal of apologetics. ;p
For starters, teleology is not a law. Secondly, it affirms nothing as you stated. It was proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and by Saint Anselm around 1000AD, and suggests that everything is purpose driven towards an inevitable end. Similar to the philosophy of causation.
Once again, simply saying something does not make it true. Perhaps you put too much "faith" in creationist literature.
It is only perceived as faith to "believe" in evolution when you come from a creationist perspective. Funny, how no other congregations make such claims. Also quite peculiar as to why the Vatican would officially proclaim it to be fact if it wasn't.
As per the designer argument, it is self defeating as a means to explain God as the creator. In this assertion, God himself would require a designer, who would require a designer, and so on...Cont.
@damaxman If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. Another way of stating the conclusion, “There never was a time when absolutely nothing existed,” is to remove the double negative and say, “There always was a time when something existed.”
To suggest that this "design" would demonstrate an infinite progression of designers who designed designers, is to propose a means of explanation beyond burden of reason. Furthermore, to propose that this "designer" chain simply ends with the first God, suggests that NOT everything requires a designer.
@damaxman The below three propositions comprise what is known in formal logic as a valid syllogism. A syllogism is simply a set of three statements. The first statement presents the major premise. The second statement puts forth the minor premise, and the third represents the conclusion, which necessarily follows from the first two premises in a properly constructed syllogism.
@damaxman I do not seek to waste time only point out things I see as wrong or used in a context where it should not be used and pointed out. I'm here to give people an understanding of creationism compared to evolution.
Universities are generally institutions. They are funded by providing a service to those who wish to pay for it, namely education. In general, universities are considered a higher degree of education as opposed to college, and are more expensive as a result. This is my definition, but you may care to seek others.
@damaxman I appeal to authority and present the evidence from their point of view and facts. I have devoted my spare time to learning about evoltuion, creation, ID, philosophy, theology, critical thinking, logic and science such as biology and so far Creation has much more going for it then evolution does. My point is to convince people that Creation is correct and they can decide
What authority? The creationist authority? Why bother even mentioning evolution if you appeal only to one viewpoint?
I'm attempting to be as un-judgmental as I can be here, but it seems that creation is the only "science" that you care to understand.
I mean honestly, how many of these "brilliant" creation scientists am I going to have to personally discredit before you realize there is something wrong with what their proposing? Does honesty mean anything to you?
@damaxman I agree and not to meantion they're about 500 years to late to jump on the band wagon now. So their only way of catching up is to take the real research that has been done by science and try to spin it in their favor. I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways. I don't know. I'm as stumped as you are.:)
@4thcoming That's cool, but the how can you say that creation has more going for it when it hasn't bee RESEARCHED nearly has long as evolution? And like Micheal Shermer said, If creation is correct, then what is there to teach as a science? Well God created everything. Class dismissed. There is no science in that and evolution is a science and has LOTS of evidence to support it. Does evolution have all the answers yet? No, but with time and REAL science, it could.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss You've got some good point but actually creation HAS BEEN researched more then science has, Most of the scientists throughtout history have belived in Creation/God/the Bible/Jesus Christ. Also Darwin was a smart man but his theory has some holes in regards to macro evoltuion having taken place. I'll look up atheism and skeptic on wiki btw but I already know what they mean so...;p
@MAGNETGRUNT Then your a theistic evolutionist lol like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and even TheHonestTheist here on youtube! Congrats! There is nothing wrong with that belief. I might change the music. And oh yeah look into them and biolog's as well. Glad you enjoyed my video btw... well kinda anyway lol :)
@joshkarandora Neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins and history, not with presently observable and repeatable events. They can, however, be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which to predict and correlate observed facts. Neither can be proved; neither can be tested. They can only be compared in terms of the relative ease with which they can explain data which exist in the real world
I never said anything about evolution. All I'm concerned about here are your claims about your "Creation Model".
If you can't link your claim with a Deity without jumping to conclusions and you can't think of a way to falsify your claim why are you calling it science?
Sorry, you don't get to make up some standard and pass it off as science.
You can't support your conclusions, so why don't you be honest and call it for what it is:? A wild unsupported guess.
That is an untrue statement because there is no scientific metiod in creationism and no definitive evidence has ever been shown to prove creationism or intelligent design. Not disrespect. Just pointing out the facts.
@ThePhilosophersAbyss I disagree. The evidence is in favor of creation. Ask FirstFreedomFighter. And the fossil record and many other things point to creation. Scientists are supposed to keep an open mind but have closed it and now follow Darwin and his teachings like he is Jesus which he is not.
@4thcoming I constantly keep track of both sides of the argument and what you call evidence isn't evidence. It's spin on the very hard work that real scientists spend many decades on to find the real answers. Even if your "evidence" was real, it would still contredict how the bible says the universe and all it's life on earth was created. As far as people following Darwen like he's Jesus, that is obsurd. Thousands work to test his theory and found him to be on the right track. No disrespect.
@4thcoming Also true scientists and skeptics do not follow Darwin or anyone else as if they were Jesus because the true scientist and skeptic has no dogma. That is a big part of being a skeptic. I'm not trying to be ignorant, but before you make and accusation like that, you should first learn what the meaning of skeptic, athiest, ect., means and what they're stance on truth and how they find it is. Otherwise you can't have an intelligent conversation. Respond if you'd like.
There's no such thing as a "creation science model" because creationism is both uscientific and untrue.
Reunakk 2 weeks ago
Well 7 days could be god days, it doesn't really mean 24 hours for 7 days, 7 days could be 7 seconds, 7 days could be 7000 years, 7 days could be 500 million years. God could have created the world, and then evolution took its part. The bible does focus on only one part of the world, so Adam couldn't have named every single animal, and Noah couldn't have gathered every single one.
Also, if god created the first man and woman, it doesn't prove race.
dclaver2 1 month ago
If that's a very good creation science model then I don't even need to answer this.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
Why is it that you don't find dinosaurs in the same layer of Earth as humans or them as trilobites? Not one fossils has EVER been found out of place of what evolution says it would be found.
JAB63096 6 months ago
gregrutz 7 months ago
There is not one accurate statement in this video
speakoftheunknown 8 months ago
Thats i bunch of bull crap!!!!
0oknm 8 months ago
I love how the evidence for Creation Science is always TRYING to disprove REAL SCIENCE. They never have any valid evidence. They just bash evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, and other logically/rationally thought out theories. But never provide any facts as to why its wrong or why they are right. Do you people ever bring forth evidence to support your nonsense, I would be glad to look, as would many other people. Because if there were evidence we would be inclined to believe.
brewerbrian420 9 months ago
Lmao, "hydraulic geologic shock"?! That does sound like creationist science! I bet I could make one up: "aerodynamic atmospheric rush" Lmfao!!!
MoneyfreeSociety 9 months ago
Waste of time...
tomaselvis 11 months ago
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof." Ashley Montagu
arizonaviking 1 year ago
@arizonaviking Absolutely true.
@4thcoming Dude, that's bull, the book is bull, and you're kinda... honestly... stupid for believing it without actually researching what the fossil record suggests, what the DNA of modern organisms suggests, etc. seriously, that's dead wrong.
weirddudeonice 11 months ago
"imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' D. Adams
AAL 1 year ago
@AAL lol.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@AAL That's a bad analogy, but I'll play along. Water, like life, will mold to fit its container or echo system. Therefore we adapted to this world like the water molded to the hole. If there was to much water for the hole, it simply flowed or evaporated asay because it wasn't needed just like what happened to life through evolution. Becareful with analogies as arguments. They often don't work.:)
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Take it up with Douglas Adams dumbass.
AAL 1 year ago
@AAL Did I call you any name? No. So kiss my ass dickhead. Just because you don't have two brain cells to split between you head and your ass doesn't mean doesn't mean you have to flaunt you stupidity with me.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss If you ignore the message that an analogy is supposed to confer and instead concentrate on how the metaphor can be misapplied, then of course it doesn't work.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH Yes, but my point is that you analogy doesn't counter the argument. It's completely irelovent to the argument. The only way you can counter an argument is with proof of your claim. An analogy is not or ever will be proof or evicence to prove a claim.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Nor is it meant to. An analogy of an argument is meant to illustrate the argument, not to be the argument.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH I understand what an analogy is for. But the argument is already illustrated very clearly here. I just don't understand what you were trying to accomplish by stating the obvious. That's all.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Well, what was your point in abusing the analogy like you did in the first place?
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH because he's a dumbass
AAL 1 year ago
@garouHH :) First off I wouldn't say I was abusing the analogy. 2nd I am asuming that we are on opposite sides of this debate. If so, then I really prefer it when the people on the other side of the argument can bring up good points to support their side. The analogy did nothing to add to the discussion and I was just trying to prompt you to bring up a point that carried more relovence and weight. I honestly am not trying to be disrespectful. Just trying to get better arguments. That's all.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Adams' anecdote is a nice illustration of anthropocentricism and how the creation myth might come have about. I found no comment that would make quoting it inappropriate. Nor do I find anything about it that would make your critique of it appropriate. *That* is my point.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH Ah. I understand. But there is still some confusion because even though Adams may be know for illustrating how the creation myth came about, just the quote itself doesn't specify where your stance is. People on both sides will use stuff from each other to make their point. So just using the quote kinda' gives it a, "put my 2 cents in," feel. So like I said, my point is I don't know what your trying to say with just a quote that either side could use to stress a point.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss Considering that I, in this place, don't forward the anecdote for either side, but comment on your reaction to it, my position is irrelevant to this line of discussion. For the record, and only for that, I concur with Adams' position on the topic.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH Alright. Cool. It's been fun. However my daughter is awake and I have to do baby maintainence now. Talk to ya' later.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
Our knowledge of biochemistry proves inheritance and not special creation. Why? Just ask any biochemist. It supports the fossil record to a tee, to a tee.
You make many assertions with nothing to back those assertiions up.
Your comment on the fossil record is just plain wrong and nothing like that which professional palaeontologists who work in the field and lab say.
Also please sort out the contrast between your text and background.
Music was okish i guess but that's all.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater My friend FirstFreedomFighter knows about biochemistry and is in the ID movment so ask him on his channel comments or send him a pm. Also I
like to make some of my videos a bit campy and some amtuerish so lay off my work lol!!
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming How many peer reviwed papers has your friend submitted?
Sorry but even if he is bone fide he is in a miniscule minority.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History", vol. LXXXVI (6), June-July 1977, p. 24.)
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming Why are you talking about transitionals (of which there are litereally thousands)? I am not talking about transitionals, i am talking about the general progression of the development of organic life over geological time. We don't need transitionals to know that the fossil record as we see it can only be explained by evolution. Even if we disagree over the processes and mechanisms, it is still evolution.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater What is the evidence or proof for evolution again?
And why do Creationists have to keep answering questions while
evoheads just sit back and keep asking questions?
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming For many more wise than i am it is the microbiology that shows a clear inheritence by descent. However for me it is the fossil record which for the umpteenth time of telling you clearly demonstrates an advancement in organic life over geological time. No transitionals nor time lines are needed to support that argument (though they do of course).
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
@pilgrimpater Are you talking about what Franciso Ayala
was talking about on his book about Darwin from 2007?
C c.?
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming Never heard of Franciso Ayala. So obviously not.
pilgrimpater 1 year ago
Comment removed
sykeo123 1 year ago
@4thcoming Not only does "little" not mean "nothing", Gould also presented why those transitions are *relatively* abrupt (which "relatively" being stressed by me to indicate that it does indeed take a trained paleontologist to actually see that there are such transitions and not just a smooth, continuous development).
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH idk that lol. Interesting!
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming While I usually aim to keep a civil tone, I really have to vent on this occasion.
You not knowing what someone who you quote one line from is very typical of a creationist. Quote-mining is, after all, what brought Darwin saying that to claim that the human eye evolved was ridiculous, completely ignoring that right after that quote he went on for a few paragraphs to tell us how it might have happened. Now bugger off and read the Wikipedia articles on Gould an punctuated equilibrium.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH You sound like PJ on FirstFreedomFighter's channel. And no Creationists are not like that at all. You are generalizing us too much.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming As I said I was venting in an uncivilized tone. Still, can you deny that you, whether by intention or by lack of knowledge, quote-mined Gould and misrepresented his position?
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH No I was not qoute mining.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming Then what do you call quoting somebody to imply that he'd hold a position that he doesn't hold?
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH Why did he speak those qoutes in the first place then?
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming Because it is part of his argument against classical gradualism and for punctuated equilibrium. Did you even bother to read the article?
garouHH 1 year ago
@4thcoming
If I see another creationist quote mining that 33 year old essay one more time...
Gould was introducing his concept of punctuated equilibrium. His point was that individual species evolve (relatively) rapidly, so evolution occurs in fits and starts, rather than slowly and steadily. We have relatively few fossils showing transitions BETWEEN SPECIES, but we've found many more in the last 33 years. Even in 1977, we had oodles of fossils showing transitions between lineages.
mistergarth 1 year ago
Our knowledge of metallurgy, photosynthesis, quantum mechanics and linear algebra points towards sushi being the best food ever.
garouHH 1 year ago
@garouHH lol xD
4thcoming 1 year ago
therefore ....
this video is shit
learn real science
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 That's is? Pathetic at best.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
what should i do waste my time pointing out how you just make wild assumptions and argument from ignorance?
but if you had a brain to begin with you would have noticed those yourself.
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 "but if you had a brain to begin with you would have noticed those yourself." People like you use strawmen, red herrings and if you had a brain to begin with which you actually do not that I think of it lol you would realize the error
of your ways. I try my best to avoid logical fallacies which were created to shut down
Creationist arguments btw like the circular logic fallacy.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
LMAO now you are crying straw man for mocking you for being a complete tool and using 10 logical fallacies throughout this video?
look up what the fuck a straw man is
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 Name the fallacies please.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
"blah blah our knowledge of dna suggest -> life is designed"
Confusing Cause and Effect
sykeo123 1 year ago
@4thcoming
i could keep going if ya want?
sykeo123 1 year ago
@4thcoming
how does that song go?
"He jacked the little bitty baby
The man has got to be insane
They say the spell that he was under
The lightnin' and the thunder
Knew that someone had to stop the rain
Run away, run away from the pain
"
sykeo123 1 year ago
@sykeo123 Sigh...
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
exactly double sigh... you making another trash video not like we don't have enough of videos dealing with your fairy tale
sykeo123 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@4thcoming
what no comment?
that is all ya had? point it out than run away?
sykeo123 1 year ago
In contrast, biblical theologians have taught for centuries that God is eternal. Let’s consider this view logically. If there ever was a time that absolutely nothing existed, nothing would exist now. Something exists now. Therefore, there was never a time that absolutely nothing existed.
4thcoming 1 year ago
1.If P, then Q. 2.Not Q. 3.Therefore, not P. Another way of stating the conclusion, “There never was a time when absolutely nothing existed,” is to remove the double negative and say, “There always was a time when something existed.”
4thcoming 1 year ago
"Tomorrow I will spontaneously acquire 5 million dollars in cash."
Although it may make me happy to think that this will happen, more over, convince myself that it's true; simply saying it does not ACTUALLY make it true.
Now it would be one thing if I kept such a thought to myself, it would be a whole different story if I was to share with others. Imagine how crazy people would view me if I genuinely thought this would happen...
Now imagine me making the same claim after tomorrow...
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman In logic, the Law of Teleology affirms that “where there is design, there must be a designer”—a point conceded by infidels (see Ricci, 1986, p. 190). Thus, even unbelievers have recognized that the design argument is a weapon to be reckoned with in the arsenal of apologetics. ;p
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
For starters, teleology is not a law. Secondly, it affirms nothing as you stated. It was proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and by Saint Anselm around 1000AD, and suggests that everything is purpose driven towards an inevitable end. Similar to the philosophy of causation.
Once again, simply saying something does not make it true. Perhaps you put too much "faith" in creationist literature.
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman It takes more faith to believe in evoltuion my friend!!
I was merely suggesting a take on this matter btw i.e. a case for a creator ;)
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
It is only perceived as faith to "believe" in evolution when you come from a creationist perspective. Funny, how no other congregations make such claims. Also quite peculiar as to why the Vatican would officially proclaim it to be fact if it wasn't.
As per the designer argument, it is self defeating as a means to explain God as the creator. In this assertion, God himself would require a designer, who would require a designer, and so on...Cont.
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman If P, then Q. Not Q. Therefore, not P. Another way of stating the conclusion, “There never was a time when absolutely nothing existed,” is to remove the double negative and say, “There always was a time when something existed.”
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
To suggest that this "design" would demonstrate an infinite progression of designers who designed designers, is to propose a means of explanation beyond burden of reason. Furthermore, to propose that this "designer" chain simply ends with the first God, suggests that NOT everything requires a designer.
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman The below three propositions comprise what is known in formal logic as a valid syllogism. A syllogism is simply a set of three statements. The first statement presents the major premise. The second statement puts forth the minor premise, and the third represents the conclusion, which necessarily follows from the first two premises in a properly constructed syllogism.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
That's great, do you have a point or are you just wasting my time by copying and pasting statements pertaining to logic?
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman I do not seek to waste time only point out things I see as wrong or used in a context where it should not be used and pointed out. I'm here to give people an understanding of creationism compared to evolution.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
To what value is this "understanding" of creation when all the information that you bestow is inaccurate?
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman By the way, could you tell me what institution formed the university?
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
Universities are generally institutions. They are funded by providing a service to those who wish to pay for it, namely education. In general, universities are considered a higher degree of education as opposed to college, and are more expensive as a result. This is my definition, but you may care to seek others.
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman I appeal to authority and present the evidence from their point of view and facts. I have devoted my spare time to learning about evoltuion, creation, ID, philosophy, theology, critical thinking, logic and science such as biology and so far Creation has much more going for it then evolution does. My point is to convince people that Creation is correct and they can decide
where to take it from their.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
What authority? The creationist authority? Why bother even mentioning evolution if you appeal only to one viewpoint?
I'm attempting to be as un-judgmental as I can be here, but it seems that creation is the only "science" that you care to understand.
I mean honestly, how many of these "brilliant" creation scientists am I going to have to personally discredit before you realize there is something wrong with what their proposing? Does honesty mean anything to you?
damaxman 1 year ago
@damaxman I agree and not to meantion they're about 500 years to late to jump on the band wagon now. So their only way of catching up is to take the real research that has been done by science and try to spin it in their favor. I'm sorry, but they can't have it both ways. I don't know. I'm as stumped as you are.:)
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@4thcoming That's cool, but the how can you say that creation has more going for it when it hasn't bee RESEARCHED nearly has long as evolution? And like Micheal Shermer said, If creation is correct, then what is there to teach as a science? Well God created everything. Class dismissed. There is no science in that and evolution is a science and has LOTS of evidence to support it. Does evolution have all the answers yet? No, but with time and REAL science, it could.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss You've got some good point but actually creation HAS BEEN researched more then science has, Most of the scientists throughtout history have belived in Creation/God/the Bible/Jesus Christ. Also Darwin was a smart man but his theory has some holes in regards to macro evoltuion having taken place. I'll look up atheism and skeptic on wiki btw but I already know what they mean so...;p
4thcoming 1 year ago
I say it it a product of both. I wanted to continue watching the video but the music and graphics were nauseating
MAGNETGRUNT 1 year ago
@MAGNETGRUNT Then your a theistic evolutionist lol like Francis Collins, Alister McGrath and even TheHonestTheist here on youtube! Congrats! There is nothing wrong with that belief. I might change the music. And oh yeah look into them and biolog's as well. Glad you enjoyed my video btw... well kinda anyway lol :)
4thcoming 1 year ago
@MAGNETGRUNT I meant Biologos lol.
4thcoming 1 year ago
So, how do you link any of this with a creator?
You didn't. So, why make an assertion that a creator is involved at all?
Without a smoking gun, all you are doing is jumping to conclusions.
Furthermore, how would you empirically falsify this "Creation Science Model"?
If you can't do even that, then you can't call it science.
I'll give you an easy exit. Admit that you don't know and we'll leave it at that.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
@joshkarandora lol are you for real?
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
Yes I'm for real.
Are you?
You have claimed that your model meets a scientific standard. So, answer the questions.
1) How do you empirically link this with a Deity without jumping to any conclusions.
and
2) How can you falsify your claims.
This is what the scientific method is.
If you can't meet this burden, you can't make any claims of any scientific standard.
Or, once again, admit that you just don't know and we'll leave it at that.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
@joshkarandora Neither evolution nor creation is accessible to the scientific method, since they deal with origins and history, not with presently observable and repeatable events. They can, however, be formulated as scientific models, or frameworks, within which to predict and correlate observed facts. Neither can be proved; neither can be tested. They can only be compared in terms of the relative ease with which they can explain data which exist in the real world
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming
I never said anything about evolution. All I'm concerned about here are your claims about your "Creation Model".
If you can't link your claim with a Deity without jumping to conclusions and you can't think of a way to falsify your claim why are you calling it science?
Sorry, you don't get to make up some standard and pass it off as science.
You can't support your conclusions, so why don't you be honest and call it for what it is:? A wild unsupported guess.
joshkarandora 1 year ago
That is an untrue statement because there is no scientific metiod in creationism and no definitive evidence has ever been shown to prove creationism or intelligent design. Not disrespect. Just pointing out the facts.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@ThePhilosophersAbyss I disagree. The evidence is in favor of creation. Ask FirstFreedomFighter. And the fossil record and many other things point to creation. Scientists are supposed to keep an open mind but have closed it and now follow Darwin and his teachings like he is Jesus which he is not.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming I mean ask FFF about ID.
4thcoming 1 year ago
@4thcoming I constantly keep track of both sides of the argument and what you call evidence isn't evidence. It's spin on the very hard work that real scientists spend many decades on to find the real answers. Even if your "evidence" was real, it would still contredict how the bible says the universe and all it's life on earth was created. As far as people following Darwen like he's Jesus, that is obsurd. Thousands work to test his theory and found him to be on the right track. No disrespect.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago
@4thcoming Also true scientists and skeptics do not follow Darwin or anyone else as if they were Jesus because the true scientist and skeptic has no dogma. That is a big part of being a skeptic. I'm not trying to be ignorant, but before you make and accusation like that, you should first learn what the meaning of skeptic, athiest, ect., means and what they're stance on truth and how they find it is. Otherwise you can't have an intelligent conversation. Respond if you'd like.
ThePhilosophersAbyss 1 year ago