Peanut Gallery

Because 1) it would be properly expressed instead of "soil" representing it, and 2) so we as readers could gain the knowledge. No we are not, we're talking about the Earth 3500 years ago. You are off by 4 billion years.Homo-sapiens alone had been around for about 150,000 years before you claim this soil usage took place. Only since the Industrial Revolution, abut 125(?) years ago. And it wouldn't have affected the presence of elements in it. But I'd rather use the accurate, well documented timeline. Not your unfounded numbers.So yes, right around the time you claim god was creating man, the Chinese had a culture rich in sceince and math. If that's what you want it to mean, then fine. But it could just as well describe the lack of knowledge of other lands. Judging by the "soil" reference, and how poorly that describes elements, my money is on the latter. It's funny how you turn to science when you need ity. Do you also accept the timelines given for that "mother language"...?- Oni

If he didn't name them, how do you know he knew them?I don't understand from what basis you can conclude that the ancient writer knew all of the elements of the molecular constitution of the human body simply on the basis of writing that the human body was formed from dust. But dust isn't loam; dust actually lacks many of the necessary elements for life. Dusts are, for the most part, fine-grained silica and lack nitrogen, phosphorus, and other crucial nutrients for growth. That's why you can't grow anything in dusts. So he didn't know it because it was not available, and that somehow proves that the Genesis writer knew things that were not available at the time.Can anybody make heads or tails of this? ICANT is making even less fucking sense than usual. Did the Genesis writer know the molecular constitution of the human body, as you claimed, or didn't he?

Hi bluegenes, So if he knew there was one language and so stated then our modern Linguists have proved the statement a true statement which would make it an empirical piece of evidence or something like that.But some of them have proposed that God in the garden spoke German, Adam and Eve spoke Balsica and the serpent spoke French.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crashfrog, That is the entire purpose of this discussion I started about bluegenes so called theory.The man wrote about things he had absolutely no knowledge of. He was recording what he was told to write down in a book.His claim is all Super Natural Beings are made up in the human mind.His statement was that if our ancestors had information that was not available to them that basically his position would be in grave doubt.I have presented written information that was not available to the man that recorded it.There is no source for that man to have obtained that information.It could only have been provided by a Super Natural Being.All information comes from an intelligent mind or some recorded source.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Except that he didn't write about them. He didn't write anything at all about the elemental constitution of the human body, you've agreed that he didn't know anything about the elemental constitution of the human body, so precisely what is being assumed to be supernatural here?Human bodies aren't made of soil, and even if they were Genesis says dust, not soil, and dust actually doesn't contain nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, or much of anything at all besides silica. You've presented information that was available to you - the elemental composition of the human body - that isn't in the Bible. Somehow you're trying to argue that because the Bible doesn't specify the elemental composition of the human body, that proves that the information wasn't available to the writers of the Bible. Obviously! How on Earth does that prove anything supernatural? Right, but you've already agreed that the ancestors didn't have any information about the elemental composition of the Bible. So, what information did the ancestors have that was not available to them? Be specific. Human bodies are not made from dust or soil, and dusts have no nitrogen, phosphorus, or carbon.

Hi oni, You may be talking about Earth 3500 years ago. But the author of Genesis was talking of the Earth from which man was formed from in the day the LORD God created the Heaven and the Earth. That took place in the beginning whenever that was. Why do you say you had rather use the accurate well documented timeline and then add right around the time you claim God was creating man?If you want to use the time I have God creating man you will use billions of years or more, as I don't know when the beginning was.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi crash, The information that was recorded by the author of Genesis. He did record much information. Much of which was not available to him without an outside source.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I didn't say that he knew there was one language, but that he would assume it, as his story concerned just 2, then a small group of people. Why should there be more? No wonder there was a breakdown in communication, then, and things went wrong. Verboten probably means "eat the bloody apple" in Balsica.But a serpent speaking French is ridiculous. Everyone knows they can't roll their R's.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

What information? Earlier you claimed the information was the complete elemental composition of the human body, but now you've admitted that that information isn't contained in Genesis, and you've asserted that the reason it's not in Genesis is because that information was never made available to the Genesis writer. Well, yeah. So what information are we talking about, specifically?The information that human bodies are made from dust? That's not actually something that is true, that's make-believe. Bodies are not made from dust. Dust is primarily fine-grained silica; human bodies are primarily made from water.Also - I asked you to be specific. Why were you general, instead?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

The ancient Egpytians didn't know of any other landmasses. Neither did the Greeks thousands of years later with much better boats. Create a new topic if you still think you can defend this claim.

Thanks crashfrog, Really? So creationist probability calculations on the possibility of life are worth something (if they do the calculations right - how do you know what is right?)?The original question was whether there was a pen on the desk, so the possibilities are (a) that the pen is on the desk and (b) that the pen is not on the desk. That's as clear as the flip of a coin being heads or tails, and unrelated to time ... Really?If the pen is on the desk from noon to midnight and not on the desk from midnight to noon, what is the probability that you will observe the pen is on the desk? According to you the probability is both 1 and 0, that the pen is on the desk and not on the desk at the same time ... an obvious contradiction, yes?You get to look for one minute, time not of your choosing (you say it is irrelevant): what is the probability that you will see the pen? Assuming that you know the most likely probabilities because you assume you know most of the possibilities and assuming that you know enough to ignore the remaining possibilities.If you don't know the outcome space -- all the possibilities -- then you are assuming that your knowledge is complete enough to make a decision. Which doesn't necessarily mean you can make valid conclusions from the possibilities that you consider. Once again we have the pen on the desk example, where we now have these possibilities:

1. the pen could be on the desk
2. the pen could be near the desk
3. the pen could be very far from the desk, but possible to see with current observation abilities
4. the pen could be beyond the reach of current scientific ability to observe
5. the pen does not exist

What is the probability that the pen will be observed on the desk? I get 1/5 or 20%.If the pen is not observed then what is the probability that it does not exist? I get 1/4 or 25%What is the probability that the pen exists even though it is not observed? I get 3/4 or 75%In this case your outcome space is dominated by the non-observation of the pen and your outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen.However, if you only consider possibilities (1) and (5),
... because considering other possibilities is "not necessary in establishing probability to a significant degree of reliability"
... because "the outcome space is dominated ... by the most likely probabilities"
... which you assume to be either (1) or (5)
... then the failure to observe the pen on the desk leaves you with 1 apparent remaining possibility being considered, and this will be calculated as 1 or 100% probability that the pen does not exist.This leads you to the conclusion (because "the outcome space is dominated ... by the most likely probabilities) that the existence of the pen is "highly unlikely" -- a false conclusion, because other possibilities have not properly been included in the calculation.In this case your outcome space is dominated by the non-observation of the pen AND your outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen. In this case the actual result with the highest probability is that the pen does exist but that you do not observe it: the existence of the pen is "highly likely" based on this evaluation.And yet, curiously, there are still problems with the calculation. The possibility that the pen exists and the possibility that the pen does not exist could be equal (either one or the other is true, the flip of a coin, 50:50), yet here we see the outcome space is dominated by the existence of the pen. It is not enough just to list a number of possibilities, but that you phrase them properly. In this case you have:

1. the pen could be observed
2. the pen could exist but is not observed
3. the pen does not exist

Then when you do not see the pen you have two remaining possibilities, (a) that it exists but is not (yet) observed, and (b) that it does not exist. This gives us the correct answer for the example as stated, but rather obviously (to me anyway), none of these three conclusions ("highly unlikely" or "highly likely" or 50:50) can be considered any more valid than the other.Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia

quote:

---

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments, and the tendency of people to disparage statistics that do not support their positions. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.

​

The term was popularised in the United States by Mark Twain (among others), ...

---

I would also include probability calculations where you do not know all the possibilities.The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is just evidence of an absence of evidence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

I can't say except in reference to a specific calculation you had in mind. Regardless - yes, when evolutionists say "it happened in the past so the odds are 1!" that's a spurious and fallacious counter. Probability calculations have no term for time, as you can see. Right, but those possibilities are not equiprobable. Given that the pen is somewhere in the room, the probability that the pen is on the desk is the area of the desk divided by the area of the room. A coin has only one head and one tails, and the head and tails of a coin are the same size. In a fair flip of the coin, the heads outcome is equiprobable with the tails outcome. That's the reason for the 50/50 odds, not the fact that a coin has only two faces. An unbalanced coin also has only two faces, but by definition its odds are not 50/50; an unbalanced coin favors heads or tails to some extent. No, I specifically stated that the probability is not "both 1 and 0", and again, even if you find the pen on the desk, the probability that you would find the pen on the desk is not "1." Assuming that events that did occur are the sole representative of the outcome space is fallacious. Things that did happen are not automatically of probability 1 and things that did not happen are not automatically of probability 0. Equations of probability have no term for time. The probability you're asking for is "is one minute out of the day at random either between noon and midnight, or between midnight and noon?" and the answer to that is 50/50, since half of a day's minutes are between noon and midnight and the other half are between midnight and noon. Probability allows us to quantify uncertainty, so while we cannot in any but the most degenerate cases explicitly specify the outcome space, we can usually express our confidence in any estimation of the outcome space and therefore the certainty, between 0 and 1, we can have in our conclusions drawn thereof. No, but we can quantify the uncertainty that our lack of knowledge introduces, and decide for ourselves whether we're sufficiently confident in our conclusions to consider them valid. Absolute knowledge is not required to have a practical level of knowledge about things. No, because these possibilities are not equiprobable - the odds that the pen is on the desk are much higher than the odds that you are mistaken that there ever was a pen, because that's a mistake that people very rarely make. Pens do exist and they frequently exist in the vicinity of desks.Again, you're making mistakes as you construct the outcome space. Suppose you have a weighted "cheaters" coin. It is balanced in such a way that, no matter how you flip it, it comes up heads 75% of the time. You flip the coin. What are the odds it comes up tails?By your reasoning, since it has only heads and tails, you conclude 1/2. But I've already told you, it comes up heads 75% of the time. You're forced to conclude that 25% or more the coin comes up simultaneously heads and tails, an impossibility.Do you see how your unwarranted assumption of equiprobability of all outcomes is faulty, now? Absence of evidence is always evidence of absence, because when things are absent, the leave an absence of evidence of their existence. This is a principle that everyone understands to be true; it's how they know when to go to the store for milk - the absence of evidence for the presence of milk in their fridge."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is simply a popular misunderstanding of what evidence is.

I agree.But... I'm not using those assumptions and defaults as successes.
I'm using actual successes as successes.Are you claiming that there are no actual successes for things that were once thought to be supernatural turning out to be merely natural, absolutely none at all? That they are all still unknown and possibly not knowable?Again, the presence of unknown and possibly unknowable origins is a necessity for the Strong Theory to exist. This fact must remain valid.Basic flow: Claim: All SB concepts come from the human imagination.
Example 1 of many: Felix is an SB concept that came from my human imagination.
(Therefore human imagination is a known possible origin)
Theory: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imaginationOver the course of human history, no other source for SBs has ever become known. Therefore: Strong Theory: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imaginationIs this 100% truth? - Of course not, no scientific theory claims such a stance
Does this eliminate other possibilities? - Of course not, in fact, if all other possibilities were eliminated, the Strong Theory would also be eliminated and it would be referred to as a fact (whatever the outcome was) This (if we take it seriously) would appear to be a claim that it is impossible for the supernatural to make itself known to us. If so, then the supernatural is completely unknowable and therefore, why would you expect a Strong Theory (in the scientific sense) to say other than what I'm proposing?
Personally, I think that the supernatural, if a god exists, could make themselves known to us at some time. If that happens... then the theory is also falsified. Depends on how you define the word "supernatural", really.
Kind of like how people use the term "natural" to refer to biodegradable things and not something that is chemically created (like plastic). Plastic is still, strictly speaking, "natural"... but that's not how a lot of people use the term. Here, I'm not using the term "supernatural" in the strict sense you are referring to.As I'm using the term, it is falsifiable.
That is, if gravity did reverse itself whenever I said "Felix". I would term that as supernatural and consider the Strong Theory to be falsified.
Equivalently, I would find the following to be examples of falsification:
-wafers actually turn into human flesh every Sunday mass
-the rapture occurs
-when we checked behind the clouds, Thor was actually there and generally smashes airplanes at his fancyLet me make a very strange example for you. It's a bit absurd, but I think it will get my point across:I live on an island with a tribe of people.
The island has no birds on it, ever.
As far as the evidence that I have goes, no birds exist.
People come to visit our island sometimes, and they tell us of birds from their island (and, yes, birds actually do exist on their island).
They tell me of birds and I don't believe them. Claim: All bird concepts come from the human imagination.
Example 1 of many: Henry is a bird concept that came from my human imagination.
(Therefore human imagination is a known possible origin)
Theory: All bird concepts are figments of the human imaginationOver the course of human history (my island, for as much as I know), no other source for birds has ever become known. Therefore: Strong Theory: All birds are figments of the human imaginationSure, it's incorrect, but that's not the point.
Is it a good, strong scientific theory? Of course it is, it follows all the evidence I have completely.Now, if someone brings an actual bird to my island. Or, perhaps even the bones of a bird or something like that. Then, this theory would be destoyed on the spot.But, what if people kept coming to the island and and only saying and believing that birds exist?What if I asked for them to bring one?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked for them to bring the bones of one?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked for lots and lots of undoctored photographs of them?
...and they bring nothing but more words and beliefs of the birds?What if I asked to go to their island to see for myself?
...and they refuse to let anyone from my island leave our island on penalty of death?Yes, the theory (in the reality of this example) is 100% wrong.
But... as far as the evidence that I have goes... wouldn't you say that it's still a completely Strong Theory? If not, why not? Because, scientifically speaking, it really is still a Strong Theory in this example.

No, I'm not. Not at all. While I do want in the end to find out what your general rules for determining the accuracy of claims, the "pen on desk" example is intended only and specifically to illustrate a limited circumstance where it's very, very easy to see that an absence of evidence would have to be evidence of absence.Your inability to view the scenario as I express it, instead adding in your own completely irrelevant questions into the scenario and thus constructing a straw man, suggests that you're afraid to agree with me on even a simple, straightforward matter for fear that somehow I've laid a trap that will threaten your beliefs regarding deities. I cannot possibly be more explicit in saying that the "pen on desk" scenario is not a direct analogue to the question of the existence of deities - I've stated as much multiple times. Wrong, RAZD. How can I be setting up a straw man of my own position? The result, whether there is a pen on the desk, is not known. I look for a pen on my desk at minimum once per month when it's time to write the rent check, and whether the pen is on my desk is quite blatantly unknown; I have to search for the pen to determine whether it is on my desk. When I search my desk without observing the pen, the absence of expected evidence leads me to conclude that the pen is not on my desk, and I then proceed to either look elsewhere or ask my significant other if she knows where the pen may be.Further, I'm a human being, and not perfect; there are other objects on my desk that can potentially conceal a pen. When I perform a thorough search and fail to observe the pen, I can conclude that the pen is most likely not present on my desk, but I can always be wrong. Evidence doesn't translate into certainty; certainty is for mathematicians, not reality. I could miss a spot in my search, the pen could be under my keyboard for example, I could even be hallucinating, but given the data of an unsuccessful search, I would still estimate the probabilities such that the pen is most likely not on my desk.Again, probabilities are not certainties. Life isn't about certainties, it's about reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available. None of us are omniscient, none of us are perfect, and the potential to miss something or be wrong is inherent in every conclusion we make, but the fact remains that, if I look thoroughly all over my desk for a pen and fail to observe one, it is more likely true that the pen is not on my desk than the alternative.Even if it's 99% probable that the pen is not on my desk, in 1% of my searches I will have missed the pen and I'll be wrong. That in no way invalidates the conclusion that the pen's presence was unlikely.The only way to disagree with those remarks, RAZD, is to suggest that the observation of a pen or lack of observation of a pen on the desk after a thorough search is irrelevant to predicting the likelihood that the pen is actually present. This would mean that seeing the pen would not increase the probability that the pen is on the desk. That's absurd, RAZD. Why are you changing the question, RAZD? You're freely admitting here to constructing a straw man.The question is not whether a pen is present near my desk, or elsewhere in my home, or whatever. The question is whether a pen is present on my desk and my desk alone.The scenario is specifically constructed such that we have an easily recognizable object whose presence can very easily be detected using natural senses, and the question is specifically limited to a very finite space that is easily searched. If the pen is near the desk, RAZD, then the pen is not on the desk, and you would fail to observe it on the desk. So you honestly believe that, if I search my desk, whether I observe a pen or not, the probability of the presence of the pen remains 50/50?That;s absurd, RAZD. If you admit that observing the pen in a thorough search is evidence that a pen is present, then not observing the pen after that same search must be equally strong evidence that the pen is not present. Yes RAZD. I tend to look at the die before rolling it. When you're playing DnD, it's generally wise to make sure that you're actually rolling a d20 to hit rather than a d6, otherwise you'll never get a crit and almost never hit. Here's a picture of a desk, RAZD. This desk is primarily made of glass. You can very easily see the desk and its surface.Is there a pen in the desk in this picture? How do you go about determining that?Hell, open up the scenario - is there anything on this desk? I don't see a computer, or a keyboard, or a monitor, or a clock; are we uncertain whether any of these items are on the desk in this picture, with a true 50/50 chance that any of these objects may or may not be present?Or does the clear lack of an observation of those objects tell us that it is overwhelmingly likely that there is not a pen on this desk in the picture, and neither a computer, nor a keyboard, nor a monitor, nor a clock, nor anything else at all?

The issue gets much worse.If "a search resulting in no pen" actually still leaves a 50/50 chance... then we can't count things There was a episode of Star Trek TNG where Picard was held hostage by a Cardassian. He was mentally tortured by being shown 4 lights. The Cardassian would then ask him how many lights there were. Picard would answer "There are 4 lights." Picard would then be beaten, or refused food to eat or other physical means of torture and then be asked, again, how many lights there were.But, if a search for "no more lights" still leaves a 50/50 chance that more lights are actually there... how could Picard know there were actually 4 lights? And not 5, or 6, or 8, or 500,000?I believe the powergame ended when Picard was finally beamed back to the Enterprise, where he even admitted that at some point he may have actually even seen 5 lights (but always said "4" anyway).Anyway, my point is: there are 4 lights both because of the evidence for 4 lights, and for the absence of evidence of any additional lights.If the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, we could never say there was "a" pen on the desk, even if it's there. Because, we would be relying on the absence of evidence to tell us that there are no additional pens on the desk...