Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 8:07 AM
29 online now:
caffeine, Hyroglyphx, PaulK, RAZD, Theodoric (5 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,845 Year: 9,881/19,786 Month: 2,303/2,119 Week: 339/724 Day: 2/62 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 121 of 222 (607098)
03-02-2011 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by bluegenes
03-01-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi again bluegenes, still trying to take the thread off topic I see.

Why are you frightened of my questions?

Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

And yet you do not show that there are lies, certainly you have not addressed this the way I have documented your falsehoods repeatedly. Typical pseudoskeptic response. Typical denial type reply common to creationists type pseudoscience.

Let me see if I can lay it out for you - one more time - what your problem is:



the bluegenes argument
the counter argument
the hypothesis
all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
all descriptions of supernatural beings are discussing different aspects of a universal truth with symbolic language
first argument presented
subjective evidence consisting of made up junk
objective evidence documenting the Hindu premise
pros and cons for first argument
CON: made up caricatures do not represent any supernatural beings
PRO: objective documentation demonstrates the known previous evidence for hypothesis
second argument
subjective personal interpretation that creation myths are "mutually exclusive"
counter interpretation that creation myths are describing different aspects of a universal truth in symbolic language
first pros or cons for interpretations
CON: requires unnatural level of understanding of modern science by ancient people
PRO: requires natural level of understanding of symbolic language common to ancient people
second pros or cons for interpretations
CON: requires unnatural level of accuracy in being able to describe events, at odds with known human behavior
PRO: requires natural level of accuracy in being able to describe events, congruent with known human behavior
third pros or cons for interpretations
CON: does not show a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination
CON: does not show that some aspects of the creation stories are not products of human imagination, just that this does not affect the existence of supernatural beings
falsification test
present a supernatural being
demonstrate that all supernatural beings are the product of human imagination
falsified
not one single instance yet
not one single instance yet
problems with falsification test
does not eliminate false result: supernatural beings can exist and not be presented
impractical in practice, but at least one makes it questionable for starters ...

I can continue this, for instance demonstrating that you have yet to provide a system or methodology that does not rest you your assuming the consequent to determine whether a supernatural being is a product of human imagination or a real being, but the point should be obvious even to the most confirmation bias blinded cognitive dissonant observer as well as those reviewing the arguments with open-minded skepticism.

As you can see from this summary, we have two opposing hypothesis, neither of which has been falsified, and where your hypothesis has not been substantiated in any way that can differentiate it from the other and vice versa.

Now, either BOTH are scientific theories, as you claim, or BOTH are hypothetical conjectures, as I have stated: they have virtually the same degree of lack of objective empirical evidence, neither has been tested and neither has been falsified. If anything the "Hindu hypothesis" is better supported by (a) being based on some objective evidence that documents this premise (and some other aspects) and (b) by relying on natural behavior of human beings rather than unnatural (supernatural?) behavior of human beings.

The objective thinking open-minded skeptic, however, will see that neither position has been established by any objective empirical evidence, that there is no scientific theory here, and that the question of the existence of god/s is neither proven nor disproven.

QED

Unless you have any other evidence to present - objective empirical evidence - you have lost this debate by absolutely failing to substantiate your six (6) assertions, as has already been documented many times in this debate.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 03-01-2011 2:59 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-02-2011 1:03 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 123 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:45 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 124 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 7:39 AM RAZD has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3884
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 122 of 222 (607101)
03-02-2011 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
03-02-2011 12:25 AM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
Hi again bluegenes, still trying to take the thread off topic I see.

Just for the amusement of the peanut gallery, how about answering the message 120 questions anyway?

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 10:09 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 123 of 222 (607119)
03-02-2011 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
03-02-2011 12:25 AM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
RAZD writes:

The counter argument: all descriptions of supernatural beings are discussing different aspects of a universal truth with symbolic language

You mean that vampires and fairies are really aspects of the evil spirits that cause disease? Or of werewolves? Or of the giant turtle who supports the earth?

At least we now know that you do believe that theories aren't scientific if unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them haven't been falsified.

This means that there are no such thing as scientific theories, in your opinion, as unsupported claims can be made that contradict all of them.

What about my other questions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:25 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 124 of 222 (607121)
03-02-2011 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by RAZD
03-02-2011 12:25 AM


Seven months, and the strong theory remains unfalsified.
The most important questions are in the yellow section, and relate to the basis of your arguments against my theory on this thread.

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the well documented evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that the theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old is not a scientific theory because the unsupported "anti-thesis" of omphalism has not been falsified?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think that scientific theories are "illogical" and not scientific theories if they are based on inductive reasoning?

Your arguments in this thread are all based on your apparent belief in those last two. If you can't answer "yes", your arguments are all destroyed. If you answer "yes", you will be wrong in both cases, and you will have demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of science. You're stuck.

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we humans have in our minds other than human invention?

These questions are all on the topic of the theory.

quote:

Humans can and do invent SBs.

We have not established the real existence of any SBs external to the human mind, so human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Therefore: Inductive theory: All supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.


You are now apparently claiming that an unknown universal truth is an alternative known source of supernatural beings.

Unsupported claims don't weaken scientific theories.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 12:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 10:30 AM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 125 of 222 (607146)
03-02-2011 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Adminnemooseus
03-02-2011 1:03 AM


Re: Seven months, and still no theory, still no evidence.
Hi Adminnemooseus,

The topic of this thread is whether or not bluegenes has a theory. This includes him providing evidence that supports the transition from hypothesis to theory in the scientific method.

Just for the amusement of the peanut gallery, how about answering the message 120 questions anyway?

(A) it is not the topic of this thread: the topic of this thread is for bluegenes to support his assertions with objective empirical evidence.

(B) why don't you ask bluegenes to provide the evidence -- he claimed he had "plenty" of it so why is it not already presented?

It's been 7 months without objective empirical evidence, a rather extreme breech of forum guidelines if you ask me.

(C) why don't you ask bluegenes to answer the questions in:

  1. Message 121:
    quote:
    Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?

  2. Message 119
    quote:
    Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

    For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

    • claim (1) ... "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" ... This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (5) ... "The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (6) ... "this is a strong theory" ... Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?


  3. Message 117: same questions re claims
  4. Message 115: same questions re claims
  5. Message 113: same questions re claims
  6. Message 111: same questions re claims
  7. Message 106: same questions re claims
  8. Message 102: same questions re claims
  9. Message 100: same questions re claims
  10. Message 96: same questions re claims
  11. Message 82: same questions re claims
  12. Message 100: also "If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it? If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?"
  13. Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
  14. Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
  15. Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered

(D) note that I've said I'll answer the questions once bluegenes provides the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.

Note that I have asked for the evidence since Now try the topic: can you defend your theory? (Message 4), that it was recapped\repeated in Message 78 and I haven't seen any moderator step in to ask bluegenes "for the amusement of the peanut gallery" to answer these questions.

I think bringing this thread to a close, by demanding that bluegenes actually provide the "plentiful" objective empirical evidence he should have, and claimed he had, -- or to withdraw the claims -- would be a much more productive use of moderation.

This should have been done 7 months ago, imho.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Adminnemooseus, posted 03-02-2011 1:03 AM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 126 of 222 (607158)
03-02-2011 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 7:39 AM


Seven months & the weak unsubstantiated hypothesis still has no objective evidence
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes,

The most important questions are in the yellow section, and relate to the basis of your arguments against my theory on this thread.

You don't have a theory.

That has been vividly demonstrated by your complete inability to provide substantiating evidence in 7 months of posting on this thread.

It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

Seven months, and the strong theory remains unfalsified.

Because I haven't seen the need yet, because you don't have a theory.

Demonstrate that you have a theory and then we can proceed to the question of how bad your "falsification test" is and why it is likely to produce false results.

If it is a strong theory then why can't you provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

Answer: it is not strong, it is not a theory, it is a hypothetical conjecture based on bias, opinion and wishful thinking, as I originally stated in Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1).

Curiously, the Hindu hypothesis also remains unfalsified, and it is just as supported by evidence as your pretend hypothesis, so by your "logic" it must also be a strong theory -- or your logic is erroneous. Again.

You have failed to support your claims in any way by objective empirical evidence that demonstrates that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination. This failure show that it is a weak hypothesis.

why don't you answer the questions in:

  1. Message 121:
    quote:
    Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims?

    Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it?

    Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses?

    What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence?

    Were your assertions lies?



  2. Message 119
    quote:
    Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?

    For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):

    • claim (1) ... "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" ... This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (5) ... "The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
    • claim (6) ... "this is a strong theory" ... Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?


  3. Message 117: same questions re claims
  4. Message 115: same questions re claims
  5. Message 113: same questions re claims
  6. Message 111: same questions re claims
  7. Message 106: same questions re claims
  8. Message 102: same questions re claims
  9. Message 100: same questions re claims
  10. Message 96: same questions re claims
  11. Message 82: same questions re claims
  12. Message 100: also "If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it? If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?"
  13. Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
  14. Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
  15. Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : splng


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 7:39 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:24 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 127 of 222 (607244)
03-02-2011 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by bluegenes
01-19-2011 7:38 PM


Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery
bluegenes and RAZD only

Another note for the peanut gallery:

In the Peanut Gallery, Message 1047 bluegenes states:

quote:
xongsmith writes:

bluegenes may not have realized it....

Of course bluegenes realizes.....

bluegenes writes:

That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description.

There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.

As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.

Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.


This is, of course either a lie by bluegenes or a functional inability to understand by bluegenes (and others that seem convinced by this falsehood) or just plain delusion.

Once again we see that if you ask certain people about my position you will be given false information, either by deliberate misinformation (lying), stupidity (can't understand it), delusion (making up stuff that isn't real) or ignorance (which is curable by asking me).

What I refute are arguments falsified by objective empirical evidence, such as that the earth is young or that there was a world wide flood. I do not state that the evidence for an old earth devoid of ww floods falsifies any god/s, in fact I have argued the obverse: that it does not falsify those god/s or even the bible, per se, just the interpretation that leads to false conclusions about the age of the earth and the actuality of a ww flood.

That is a mistake that some atheists make (like bluegenes has in this thread, with the use of creation myths to attempt to show supernatural beings do not exist -- an attempt that failed).

Now bluegenes can apologize for spreading false information, or he can try to bluff his way out of this one, as he is trying to bluff his way out of failing absolutely to provide the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by bluegenes, posted 01-19-2011 7:38 PM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 128 of 222 (607247)
03-02-2011 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by RAZD
03-02-2011 10:30 AM


Seven months, and my opponent still doesn't understand basics.
RAZD writes:

You don't have a theory.

This is your claim, based on two beliefs that you keep expressing. (1) That scientific theories can't exist without falsifying unsupported contradictory claims. This would mean that there are no scientific theories. (2) That it's "illogical" and invalid to use inductive reasoning to establish theories. This also would mean that there would be no scientific theories, only facts.

You may not be capable of understanding this, but your two false beliefs described above are the basis of your arguments that I don't have a theory.

RAZD writes:

It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you?

The conclusion, a theory, is a result of inductive reasoning. The SBs concepts in our minds have only one known source, that of Tinkerbell, the YEC god, and the giant who built a causeway that's actually a volcanic formation. Human invention.

Scientists have no way of distinguishing an individual adult animal found in the wild that was born of another animal from an individual adult animal found in the wild that previously was conjured magically out of a hat, or created at the whim of some gods who decided some extra rabbits were needed to feed the local foxes. But, as with the real communicating SBs, we have no known example of a single magically produced animal, and Pasteur's law + evolutionary theory are not damaged by unsupported claims of origins. The animals are assumed, by inductive reasoning, to come from their only known source.

Some religious people believing that the ex-nihilo creation of animals once happened does not weaken any scientific theory, just like all unsupported religious beliefs (your Hindu hypothesis for example).

I shouldn't have to keep explaining this. Has it occurred to you that you might be out of your depth, and taking up a straightforward hobby like golf might be more in keeping with your talents than discussing science on the internet?

RAZD writes:

Because I haven't seen the need [to falsify the theory] yet, because you don't have a theory.

: Are you implying that you could demonstrate the existence of a real SB beyond all reasonable doubt at any time you "see the need to"? My theory predicts that you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that on this thread even if someone offered you a million dollars to do so.

RAZD writes:

If it is a strong theory then why can't you provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

I have. It's hardly my fault that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence is. You seem to think it has to involve Hindu beliefs, for some strange reason. It doesn't. Just repeatable observations.

RAZD writes:

Curiously, the Hindu hypothesis also remains unfalsified, and it is just as supported by evidence as your pretend hypothesis, so by your "logic" it must also be a strong theory -- or your logic is erroneous.

Really? Which SB descriptions are known to be "aspects" of a known "universal truth", or a known real extant SB?

Human invention of SBs is known to all of us (we can all do it at will, for a start).

RAZD writes:

why don't you answer the questions…..

Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims?

I have. Your apparent position that religious beliefs are evidence rather than the repeatable observations I've made is not scientific. It's nuts.

RAZD writes:

Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it?

Again, you can't blame me for your inability to understand the evidence presented that human invention is the only known source of SBs. I've explained why I keep asking you two important questions at the beginning of the post, and in previous posts.

RAZD writes:

Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses?

When something is the only known source of a described group of things (like clouds of raindrops and adult rabbits of baby rabbits) the evidence that all of the group come from that source is overwhelming, and easily understood by all intelligent people.

If I remember correctly, the early posts were mainly about trying to explain to someone the difference between scientific theories and facts, and your incompetence is hardly my fault.

RAZD writes:

What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence?

Nothing.

RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?

No.

Now, stop pretending you understand science, and answer my questions, which are aimed at seeing if you're qualified to discuss science at an adult level on the internet.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

Do you think that theories established using inductive reasoning are "illogical", and therefore cannot be scientific theories?

Your posts throughout this thread indicate (very strongly) that you should answer "yes" to these two questions. There's no point in you repeatedly claiming that I have no theory, or that it's weak, without answering these questions intelligently. At present, it has the same value as a ten year old making the same claim of "no theory (which he might well do with brightly coloured posts and flashing text).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 10:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 7:32 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 129 of 222 (607256)
03-02-2011 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 6:24 PM


still no substantiating evidence
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi once again bluegenes, please see Message 127

RAZD writes:

You don't have a theory.

This is your claim, based on two beliefs that you keep expressing.

You really need to stop misrepresenting my positions.

I have shown you that there is no significant difference in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture and the Hindu hypothesis, nor is there any difference in the amount and quality of evidence available (all subjective, except some objective documentation for the Hindu premise). Whatever methodology used in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture also applies to the Hindu hypothesis.

This is documented in Message 121 with this conclusion:

quote:
Now, either BOTH are scientific theories, as you claim, or BOTH are hypothetical conjectures, as I have stated: they have virtually the same degree of lack of objective empirical evidence, neither has been tested and neither has been falsified. If anything the "Hindu hypothesis" is better supported by (a) being based on some objective evidence that documents this premise (and some other aspects) and (b) by relying on natural behavior of human beings rather than unnatural (supernatural?) behavior of human beings.

If you claim one is a theory and the other is an hypothesis, then you are guilty of special pleading and assuming a reality that does not exist. That, of course would be a creationist like pseudoskeptic approach.


RAZD writes:

It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you?

In other words your only methodology is to assume that you are right. Know of any science that operates this way?

You don't have a real scientific methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences, so you can't test your hypothetical conjecture, and thus you CANNOT have a scientific theory. You can't even turn up one real piece of evidence.

RAZD writes:

If it is a strong theory then why can't you provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

I have. It's hardly my fault that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence is. .... (blather, blather, obfuscation, avoid real answer, etc).

Really? Which supernatural being have you shown (by your non-existent methodology) to be "products of human imagination" by objective empirical evidence?

Please provide name, objective evidence describing the supernatural being, and the objective evidence showing it is a product of human imagination, I must have missed it.

RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?

No.

Yet we KNOW that you have lied: see Message 127

Enjoy

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : added below line


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 6:24 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 8:00 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 130 of 222 (607264)
03-02-2011 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by RAZD
03-02-2011 7:32 PM


Give up commenting on science, RAZD.
RAZD writes:

You really need to stop misrepresenting my positions.

I'm representing them very accurately. You're clearly not capable of understanding their implications.

RAZD writes:

I have shown you that there is no significant difference in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture and the Hindu hypothesis, nor is there any difference in the amount and quality of evidence available (all subjective, except some objective documentation for the Hindu premise).

You're a fantasist.

1) Humans can and do make up SBs.

2) Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Inductive theory: All SBs are figments of the human imagination.

1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths.

3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

Are you trying to make the peanuts laugh?

So, you do believe that scientific theories have to compete with unsupported claims that contradict them.

Take up golf. Please.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 7:32 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 9:17 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 131 of 222 (607270)
03-02-2011 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by bluegenes
03-02-2011 8:00 PM


the amusing and amazing failure of bluegenes
bluegenes and RAZD only

Amusingly, you're lying again bluegenes, but why should that surprise me.

You've been caught (Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery (Message 127)), with your pants down on the ground and your hands full of poop, and can't admit that your portrayal of my position (in Message 59 here and Message 1047 in the peanut gallery thread) is a false misrepresentation (due to your inability to understand me) or an outright lie (due to maliciousness, or self-delusion).

Either way, this demonstrates that you are intellectually incapable of accurately portraying my position/s in these arguments. A point that is reinforced with your latest post, as these ...

1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths.

3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

... are also false portrayals of my position and my beliefs. One need only read my posts to see that you have misrepresented the arguments.

The fact that you cannot deal with my position is your problem, not mine, as is the fact that I have demonstrated that your whole fantasy hypothesis is based on personal opinion, bias and willful thinking, including your amazing "process" of assuming you are correct and never never never testing it (or even being able to).

That is not how science is done --- so you don't try to say what is science and what is not, because you lie about your claims and you lie about my rebuttals.

I have refuted your claim that you have a theory, and all you can do is insult and lie\misrepresent.

Not one single supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in seven (7) months of debate, yet (amazingly) as late as Message 128(1), you still seem self-deluded that your claims are somehow substantiated and validated by your imagination. You're a fraud.

Enjoy

(1)

quote:
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

Yet there still is no substantiating evidence showing even one single supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence that is demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in seven (7) months of debate.

This from the person who claimed to have "plenty of evidence" and this is one of the claims that he says is not a lie.

Amazing.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by bluegenes, posted 03-02-2011 8:00 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 132 of 222 (607328)
03-03-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by RAZD
03-02-2011 9:17 PM


Histrionics don't falsify scientific theories.
Here are the two posts that seem to have provoked your latest bout of histrionics. What's your problem?

xongsmith writes:

We have seen months and months of RAZD asking bluegenes where is the evidence he promised?

bluegenes may not have realized it, but the best dagger is the supernatural being commonly known as the Lord God of the Old Testament, the god of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. This supernatural being is claimed to have created everything in 6 days. Then he took a nap on the 7th day. He is not the Deist God of RAZD and others. No - this is a specifically different entity. He is not a trunk or tail of some incompletely seen Heffalump.

Scholars throughout history have studied this old testament dude and a huge amount of homo sapiens sapiens still believe the writings therein that these scholars have concluded means the Earth is only some 6000 years old. The YEC people are a vibrant living sector of the current world and have been around for about as long as anyone would care to measure. This YEC God is not a comic book character, not a caricature in the sense that RAZD is talking about.

Who here in EvC has provided the most objective scientific evidence that this YEC God cannot be correct? Who has more completely demolished the YECs that dare venture into this discussion board?

In short, who has most provided bluegenes with the evidence RAZD is asking for?

The answer is: RAZD, himself.

bluegenes writes:

xongsmith writes:

bluegenes may not have realized it....

Of course bluegenes realizes.....

bluegenes writes:

That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description.

There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist.

As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.

Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.

Your brother xongsmith makes a point very similar to one I've made on this thread, and includes the phrase "bluegenes may not have realized it". Because of that phrase, I reply, linking to a post which showed that I had realized the general point that he's making.

Now, if you want to accuse me of lying, quote the exact phrase which you think is a lie. Is there something about "specific SB-concept" that you don't understand?

RAZD writes:

Not one single supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in seven (7) months of debate...

Would you care to clarify what you mean by "supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence"?

Give some examples of some supernatural beings that would fit the description and some that wouldn't if you can.

RAZD writes:

bluegenes writes:

1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths.

3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

... are also false portrayals of my position and my beliefs. One need only read my posts to see that you have misrepresented the arguments.

Which of those three statements is wrong, and why?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2011 9:17 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 3:07 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 133 of 222 (607400)
03-03-2011 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 7:37 AM


Falsehoods, false logic and assumptions don't make scientific theories.
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, a little slow?

What's your problem?

One wonders how blind you seem to be?

See Lies or misinformation or delusion? Another note for the peanut gallery (Message 127) -- a message I have directed you to several times already.

It shows you have posted a lie\falsehood\delusion about my position by assuming something YOU think is, but in fact is NOT, part of my arguments.

Now, if you want to accuse me of lying, quote the exact phrase which you think is a lie.

Curiously I have already pointed this out. Your inability to see it would seem to be additional evidence to me that you are mostly ignoring what I actually say in favor of you assuming your mythology about what I say can be passed off in its place: perhaps that's why you keep talking about straw man arguments rather than my actual position/s.

It's called cognitive dissonance, when you read something, cannot understand it properly due to conflicts with your dearly held beliefs, and so you "interpret" it to fit your paradigms. When you repeat it back, you get your muddled opinions, not my arguments.

Here's the one I've noted before (not the only one though):

Of course bluegenes realizes....
bluegenes writes:

...
As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept.


Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.

RAZD msg 127 (again): writes:

What I refute are arguments falsified by objective empirical evidence, such as that the earth is young or that there was a world wide flood. I do not state that the evidence for an old earth devoid of ww floods falsifies any god/s, in fact I have argued the obverse: that it does not falsify those god/s or even the bible,per se, just the interpretation that leads to false conclusions about the age of the earth and the actuality of a ww flood.

That is a mistake that some atheists make (like bluegenes has in this thread, with the use of creation myths to attempt to show supernatural beings do not exist -- an attempt that failed).

Emphasis added.

You need to stop trying to inject your revisionist faulty logic into my arguments.

Now you can apologize for the lies/misrepresentations/falsehoods or you can go fart in 10 leagues of shark infested water, it doesn't matter to me because I know you have misrepresented arguments about my positions, that you have been unable to substantiate six (6) claims, and that you like to make lofty sounding arguments about how science is done, but fail to see that you do not do it. You have not followed the scientific method.

Of course this same cognitive dissonance would also be why you are incapable, apparently, of seeing that you do not have a scientific theory in spite of spending over 7 months in a pattern of conflict avoidance to keep from admitting that you do not have objective empirical evidence that shows that a single supernatural entity is a product of human imagination and you have no methodology and you have no theory.

Here's another reminder that you still don't seem to understand, that even if you did establish that creation myths were contradictory (which you haven't), it doesn't show that a single supernatural entity is made up:

Message 109
... From this, we do not conclude that there's no furniture makers. ...

By extension now -- applying your most recent cognitive dissonance revisionist attempt to explain the children reports -- we see that you actually acknowledge that your "mutually exclusive" criteria in no way shows that supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

In other words you admit it (your purported contradiction) is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

You have no evidence.

You claimed to have "plenty of evidence" and all you seem to do is to keep repeating this singularly lame argument that has been shown by your own words above, that it is not evidence that supernatural beings are made up.

These were your words:

quote:
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

We now know that this is a lie\falsehood\delusion.

It is not a theory
It is not strong (except in odor)
It is not supported by "plenty of evidence"

Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate

You were also caught out on your total absence of a scientific methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences, as noted in Message 129:

RAZD writes:

It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you?

In other words your only methodology is to assume that you are right. Know of any science that operates this way?

You don't have a real scientific methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences, so you can't test your hypothetical conjecture, and thus you CANNOT have a scientific theory. You can't even turn up one real piece of evidence.

I addressed this issue previously too:

Message 109 What is your system, method or technique, whatever, for actually applying your concept that can determine when concepts are figments of imagination rather than just assume it?

By just assuming that it is so?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

By making stuff up?

Really?

Is that how science is done?

Sadly, for you, personal opinion, bias and willful thinking are still not able to alter reality in any way, nor are they the foundations of scientific theories.

scientific process

pseudoscientific process

observe objective empirical evidence
missing

form a priori hypothetical conjecture
 present 

(A) form hypothesis to explain the known evidence
known evidence missing

claim you have a theory
 present 

develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis)
missing

look for evidence to support the hypothesis
 present 

(B) develop test to differentiate hypothesis from antithesis
missing

use invalid logic to make conclusions
 present 

run tests to see if hypothesis or antithesis falsified
missing

claim it is a strong theory
 present 

if hypothesis is invalidated go back to (A)
not tested

say you have plenty of evidence
 present 

if antithesis not invalidated go back to (B)
not tested

claim some highly unlikely event will falsify the theory
 present 

publish methodology, results and propose the theory
missing

say it is up to others to invalidate the theory
 present 

after testing & replication of results by others theory is accepted
missing

ignore contradictory information and repeat assertions
 present 

Conclusion: what you have is a hypothetical conjecture based on your opinion, biases and wishful thinking, it is not a scientific theory based on the scientific method and properly tested, it is pseudoscience at best, delusion at worst.

Your pitiful refutation was:

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Curiously you failed to demonstrate a single part that was a lie, while here we see substantiation that the information in the chart is true.

You have also, it seems, put a lot of (faith? in your) argument about how your "theory" is based on inductive logic -- and fail to realize that this ALSO is part of your problem. Induction is what gets you to a scientific hypothesis, based on evaluation of objective empirical evidence.

You don't have the evidence to get to a scientific hypothesis, to say nothing about developing it into a theory by testing ... and generating more objective empirical evidence. Your failure to have ANY objective empirical evidence that a single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination, by a single piece of objective empirical evidence, is proof enough that you do not have a scientific hypothesis, to say nothing about not having a scientific theory, and it definitely invalidates any claim on your part to having a "strong theory".

Is it a scientific theory or is it wishful thinking? (Message 1): In Message 167 on the An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" thread bluegenes asserted:

quote:
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.

We've had the debate: you've lost.

Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate

I call that unequivocal failure on your part to even begin to substantiate your assertions.

Message 128
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : engls

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : banner

Edited by RAZD, : codes


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 7:37 AM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 5:31 PM RAZD has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 650 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 134 of 222 (607439)
03-03-2011 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by RAZD
03-03-2011 3:07 PM


Shouting in large bold text doesn't falsify scientific theories.
RAZD writes:

What I refute are arguments falsified by objective empirical evidence, such as that the earth is young or that there was a world wide flood. I do not state that the evidence for an old earth devoid of ww floods falsifies any god/s, in fact I have argued the obverse: that it does not falsify those god/s or even the bible,per se, just the interpretation that leads to false conclusions about the age of the earth and the actuality of a ww flood.

I repeat, you spend a lot of time on this board presenting evidence against the YEC SB-concept. Not other interpretations of the Bible, or other Christian SB-concepts, but that specific one. An SB-concept can only be defined by its description.

I did not say that you were intentionally presenting evidence in order to falsify a specific SB-concept. I'm well aware that you could be doing it inadvertently..

An example. Someone presenting the known evidence about the causes of human diseases in a series of lectures would be inadvertently presenting evidence against the specific SB-concept of the evil spirits that cause disease. The evil spirits could be something the lecturer hadn't even considered when preparing his talks.

He wouldn't be presenting direct evidence against English garden fairies, werewolves, or pixies.

RAZD writes:

Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate

You keep repeating this in large yellow text, as if you think that you're saying something important. In my last post, I asked you what it meant, and to give examples of supernatural beings "named and described by objective empirical evidence".

What do you mean by "named and described by empirical evidence"? Give examples of SBs "named and described by objective empirical evidence."

You certainly won't be referring to stuff in the scientific literature which describes SB-concepts in papers containing words like "delusions" and "hallucinations", will you? So, what are you talking about?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 3:07 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by RAZD, posted 03-03-2011 6:26 PM bluegenes has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19891
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 135 of 222 (607445)
03-03-2011 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by bluegenes
03-03-2011 5:31 PM


being dense does not make you right
bluegenes and RAZD only

Hi bluegenes, still failing to see that you are so absolutely wrong in such a simple matter?

I repeat, you spend a lot of time on this board presenting evidence against the YEC SB-concept.

So you continue to use your blind revisionist opinion instead of reading what I wrote:

... in fact I have argued the obverse:
that it does not falsify those god/s
or even the bible, ...

Age Correlations and an Old Earth Message 11: 03-23-2004 why not OEC

Your confidence is humorous. Obviously not being done with my 9th grade Earth Science Class, I am in no way capable in holding an intelligent, and valid discussion with you, but somehow I doubt what you say is true.
I do enjoy sarcasm. Seriously though heliocentrism dislodged the earth from being the center of the universe and the christian faith has survived. Is age that different a "challenge" to the faith? I think it is less so, as the age is ultimately indeterminate from the bible ... have you tried?

Understood, sounds pretty interesting, but the "Supernatural" elements which are discussed here, I believe as truth, so why read a "Jefferson" Bible, when I have it in my grasp in the KJV, NIV?
If you consider that the Jefferson is the ultimate distillation of the bible, then you know it cannot be totally discredited. Where there are supernatural elements that cannot be refuted by factual evidence, then those too cannot be discredited. Faith in jesus as the son of god is one of those elements.

The fact that there are many sects of christianity that do not require a literal interpretation of the bible, to say nothing of requiring a young earth, shows that christianity will survive the loss of the YE model ... it is already doing so. Not that everyone will be convinced, there are still some flatearthers after all.

I believe that there are elements of truth in all religions, and if you look for concordance you can find it -- religious experience of ascetics for example cover the earth and appear in most (I do not know "all") religions.

What is wrong with Old Earth Creationism?

Does that sound like I am arguing that the god of the bible is imaginary or discredited? Jesus?

I can find other examples, but this one should be sufficient to prove my point that I have not argued that god/s are invalidated, only that the earth is known to be old and not covered by a ww flood because of the objective empirical evidence that shows this to be the case.

For you to claim that I am arguing that these god/s are falsified -- when these words are right in front of you and they say otherwise -- is just plain delusional.

Of course that would be why you are unable to admit when you are wrong on any issue, not just here where you have so blatantly misrepresented my actual position.

Now unless you have some new evidence that just happens to be lying in your back pocket covered in dust, I believe we are done with this debate.

Message 133: We've had the debate: you've lost.

Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate

I call that unequivocal failure on your part to even begin to substantiate your assertions.

Message 128
RAZD writes:

Were your assertions lies?


No.

What the above evidence shows is that either they were lies or they were due to stupidity or delusion.

Enjoy.

bluegenes and RAZD only

Note that Great Debate participants have been asked not to participate in the Peanut Gallery threads that are for other people to comment on the Great Debate/s.

Edited by RAZD, : because you like large blinking letters so much

Edited by RAZD, : banners

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 5:31 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:44 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 137 by bluegenes, posted 03-03-2011 6:51 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 140 by bluegenes, posted 03-04-2011 4:23 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019