Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

brunumb wrote: On the one hand we have millions of pages from countless known sources with data and observations all converging on the conclusion that is the theory of evolution.
All of the data/observations we have; is based upon the observational FACT that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

Anything beyond that is pure naturalistic speculation.
brunumb wrote: On the other hand we have a few paragraphs in an ancient collection of fanciful tales from anonymous authors saying that a magical being made it all.
"They (each animal) will bring forth after its kind". Translation? "Dogs will produce dogs, cats will produce cats, fish will produce fish".

Have you ever seen any exception to this? No, you haven't.
brunumb wrote: Nothing about creation passes any so-called eyeball test and it doesn't even pass muster in any credibility test.
Yeah and creationism doesn't have a methodology that is based upon observation, either. Science does.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 200 by For_The_Kingdom]
"They (each animal) will bring forth after its kind". Translation? "Dogs will produce dogs, cats will produce cats, fish will produce fish".
So says the anonymous author of a book of fantastic tales who could not have observed anything that takes countless human generations to occur. At the same time the author could not have observed the initial creation of any of those animals either. It's all just an imaginary concoction by ignorant people trying to explain the world around them.
Yeah and creationism doesn't have a methodology that is based upon observation, either. Science does.
"Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity."
All of our observations lead inexorably to the theory of evolution as accounting for the diversity of life on our planet. There is absolutely nothing to show that a magical being had anything to do with it.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 200 by For_The_Kingdom]
"They (each animal) will bring forth after its kind". Translation? "Dogs will produce dogs, cats will produce cats, fish will produce fish".
So says the anonymous author of a book of fantastic tales who could not have observed anything that takes countless human generations to occur.
By the time the book (Genesis) was written, "countless" of human generations had occurred..but the fact of the matter still remained; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

With no observable exceptions to the rule.
brunumb wrote: At the same time the author could not have observed the initial creation of any of those animals either.
Neither could naturalists, but that don't stop them from believing in abiogenesis.
brunumb wrote: It's all just an imaginary concoction by ignorant people trying to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy.
brunumb wrote: "Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity."
Cool. And I am saying the "data collected during any x-scientific activity" does not lead me to believe that a reptile evolved into a bird some x-million years ago.
brunumb wrote: All of our observations lead inexorably to the theory of evolution as accounting for the diversity of life on our planet.
I simply disagree. Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. If there is any exception to this, I haven't seen it yet.
brunumb wrote: There is absolutely nothing to show that a magical being had anything to do with it.
Well, I don't see the evidence that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 200 by For_The_Kingdom]
"They (each animal) will bring forth after its kind". Translation? "Dogs will produce dogs, cats will produce cats, fish will produce fish".
So says the anonymous author of a book of fantastic tales who could not have observed anything that takes countless human generations to occur.
By the time the book (Genesis) was written, "countless" of human generations had occurred..but the fact of the matter still remained; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

With no observable exceptions to the rule.
brunumb wrote: At the same time the author could not have observed the initial creation of any of those animals either.
Neither could naturalists, but that don't stop them from believing in abiogenesis.
brunumb wrote: It's all just an imaginary concoction by ignorant people trying to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy.
brunumb wrote: "Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity."
Cool. And I am saying the "data collected during any x-scientific activity" does not lead me to believe that a reptile evolved into a bird some x-million years ago.
brunumb wrote: All of our observations lead inexorably to the theory of evolution as accounting for the diversity of life on our planet.
I simply disagree. Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. If there is any exception to this, I haven't seen it yet.
brunumb wrote: There is absolutely nothing to show that a magical being had anything to do with it.
Well, I don't see the evidence that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
brunumb wrote: [Replying to post 200 by For_The_Kingdom]
"They (each animal) will bring forth after its kind". Translation? "Dogs will produce dogs, cats will produce cats, fish will produce fish".
So says the anonymous author of a book of fantastic tales who could not have observed anything that takes countless human generations to occur.
By the time the book (Genesis) was written, "countless" of human generations had occurred..but the fact of the matter still remained; dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish.

With no observable exceptions to the rule.
brunumb wrote: At the same time the author could not have observed the initial creation of any of those animals either.
Neither could naturalists, but that don't stop them from believing in abiogenesis.
brunumb wrote: It's all just an imaginary concoction by ignorant people trying to explain the world around them.
Genetic fallacy.
brunumb wrote: "Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source. In living beings, observation employs the senses. In science, observation can also involve the recording of data via the use of scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during the scientific activity."
Cool. And I am saying the "data collected during any x-scientific activity" does not lead me to believe that a reptile evolved into a bird some x-million years ago.
brunumb wrote: All of our observations lead inexorably to the theory of evolution as accounting for the diversity of life on our planet.
I simply disagree. Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. If there is any exception to this, I haven't seen it yet.
brunumb wrote: There is absolutely nothing to show that a magical being had anything to do with it.
Well, I don't see the evidence that the animals of yesterday were able to do things that the animals of today have NEVER been observed to do.

So you didn't witness/observed the evolution of reptile into birds. So what? :)))
It does not mean it did not happened.

You did not witness or observed that Yahweh created the universe, yet you still believe this to be true.

No human can observe an event that takes millions of years for a human lives only a few decades.

I don't why do you keep insisting with this nonsensical idea of yours. :-s :?

Maybe you are just trolling.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote:
So you didn't witness/observed the evolution of reptile into birds. So what? :)))
It does not mean it did not happened.
No, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But when I don't see any convincing evidence for it, and at the same time see convincing evidence against it..

That is enough to conclude (at least for me) that it didn't happen. I am open to the evidence, because believing in evolution does not negate the existence of God anyway.

I just simply demand convincing evidence and no, I don't have to accept what the guy in the white lab coat tells me...just like you don't have to accept what the preacher in the pulpit tells you.
alexxcJRO wrote: You did not witness or observed that Yahweh created the universe, yet you still believe this to be true.
True, but again; my belief in Yahweh isn't based on a methodology which is based upon OBSERVATION.
alexxcJRO wrote: No human can observe an event that takes millions of years for a human lives only a few decades.
Look everyone; the ole "given enough time, anything can happen" routine. :D
alexxcJRO wrote: I don't why do you keep insisting with this nonsensical idea of yours. :-s :?

Maybe you are just trolling.
Me? A troll? Nawww. Seriously...naw. :D

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: No, it doesn't mean that it didn't happen. But when I don't see any convincing evidence for it, and at the same time see convincing evidenceagainst it..

That is enough to conclude (at least for me) that it didn't happen. I am open to the evidence, because believing in evolution does not negate the existence of God anyway.

I just simply demand convincing evidence and no, I don't have to accept what the guy in the white lab coat tells me...just like you don't have to accept what the preacher in the pulpit tells you.
Look everyone; the ole "given enough time, anything can happen" routine
Common sir.

You are just embarrassing yourself demanding direct evidence(“eyeball test�) for an event that takes millions of years. :))

For_The_Kingdom wrote: True, but again; my belief in Yahweh isn't based on a methodology which is based upon OBSERVATION.
Me? A troll? Nawww. Seriously...naw.
Please do not straw-man. It looks really bad.

I specifically talked about a specific thing, mostly the creation of the universe by Yahweh, not your overall belief in Yahweh.

Nor you nor any human has observed the creation of the universe by Yahweh. There is no direct evidence (“eyeball test�) for this supposed event.

So it’s kind of hypocritical, dishonest, comical and illogical that way you behave, arrogantly dismissing an event that takes millions of years because there is no direct evidence(which is impossible) while believing yourself that an event happened without any direct evidence.

The comedy is beyond imagination. :)

So it’s either a case of extreme trolling or a case of extreme , chronic stupidity.

Take your pick. 8-)
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote: Common sir.

You are just embarrassing yourself demanding direct evidence(“eyeball test�) for an event that takes millions of years. :))
Direct evidence/Indirect evidence...doesn't matter...the evidence is lacking either way. Second, "it takes millions of years" is begging the question. Prove that it happened in the first place before you start talking about how long it takes to happen.

Cart before the horse fallacy.

alexxcJRO wrote:
Please do not straw-man. It looks really bad.

I specifically talked about a specific thing, mostly the creation of the universe by Yahweh, not your overall belief in Yahweh.

Nor you nor any human has observed the creation of the universe by Yahweh. There is no direct evidence (“eyeball test�) for this supposed event.
Did you not understand what I said? I said; my belief in Yahweh is NOT based upon observation, by my belief in science/nature IS based on observation (along with experiment, and prediction).

The methodology is different. Now, I don't know what part of that you don't understand, but certainly no straw man was committed so I don't know what you are talking about.
alexxcJRO wrote: So it’s kind of hypocritical, dishonest, comical and illogical that way you behave, arrogantly dismissing an event that takes millions of years because there is no direct evidence(which is impossible) while believing yourself that an event happened without any direct evidence.
I have convincing evidence that there must be a God. Point blank, period. No, the evidence is not "direct", but no one is claiming that it is.

I have evidence for the existence of God, and no evidence against the existence of God...enough for me to conclude; God must exist.

My evidence can always be debunked, and if you feel you can do so...no one is stopping you.

Second, again; "given enough time, anything can happen" is simply a con. Ok, I will pay that game, too...

"Given enough time, there will exist a supernatural being who will create the universe".


There, given enough time, anything can happen. I can play that game too.
alexxcJRO wrote: The comedy is beyond imagination. :)

So it’s either a case of extreme trolling or a case of extreme , chronic stupidity.

Take your pick. 8-)
I will take chronic stupidity :D

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Direct evidence/Indirect evidence...doesn't matter...the evidence is lacking either way. Second, "it takes millions of years" is begging the question. Prove that it happened in the first place before you start talking about how long it takes to happen.

Cart before the horse fallacy.
Second, again; "given enough time, anything can happen" is simply a con. Ok, I will pay that game, too...

"Given enough time, there will exist a supernatural being who will create the universe".

There, given enough time, anything can happen. I can play that game too.

But sir it's irrelevant to my argument if evolution happened or not.

Let's admit for sake of argument that it did not happened.

One brings forth the hypothesis that "over millions of years the reptiles evolved into birds".

What you are doing is still moronic/dishonest, asking for direct evidence("eyeball test") for an proposed event that it supposed to take millions of years.

Your correct to ask for evidence for a claim/hypothesis but to ask for evidence that can't be brought forth is just stupid/dishonest.

It's like one makes the claim: "a deist god exists".
And you come and demand a specific kind of evidence: “that God intervenes in the universe, in human affairs.�
That sir is stupid/dishonest for the hypothesis is that: "a deist god does not intervene in the universe, in human affairs.�

Here a dialog to be better show the chronic stupidity:

One man: A deist god exist.
You: Do you have evidence that this god cures people, punishes others, brings calamities upon others?
The man: No because it is indifferent to what happens, does not care.
You: Haha, then I do not believe it does exist.

Q: Isn't that just plainly stupid, huh? :eyebrow:
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Did you not understand what I said? I said; my belief in Yahweh is NOT based upon observation, by my belief in science/nature IS based on observation (along with experiment, and prediction).
The methodology is different. Now, I don't know what part of that you don't understand, but certainly no straw man was committed so I don't know what you are talking about.
I misunderstood "isn’t based" with "is based".
My mistake.
Still.

Q: Why make a special case for God?

Q: Why then do you need direct evidence("eyeball test") for evolution but not for God? Why the inconsistency? Is your God not a personal one, one that has a personal relationship with humans, one that intervenes in the universe: listens to prayer, heals humans, bring calamities over others and so one? Can you not make experiments to prove God’s interventions in the universe? Can you not ask God for direct evidence(“eye ball test�)?
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote:
But sir it's irrelevant to my argument if evolution happened or not.
I thought that was kinda the discussion..
alexxcJRO wrote: Let's admit for sake of argument that it did not happened.
I'm always down for that.
alexxcJRO wrote: One brings forth the hypothesis that "over millions of years the reptiles evolved into birds".
Bringing forth the hypothesis that reptiles evolved into birds, would contradict admitting for sake of argument that evolution did not happen.
alexxcJRO wrote: What you are doing is still moronic/dishonest, asking for direct evidence("eyeball test") for an proposed event that it supposed to take millions of years.
Show me evidence that it occurred at all before we talk about how long it takes to occur.
alexxcJRO wrote: Your correct to ask for evidence for a claim/hypothesis but to ask for evidence that can't be brought forth is just stupid/dishonest.
Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, snakes/snakes. I don't see any evidence contrary to these observations...and if you have evidence, I am here.
alexxcJRO wrote: It's like one makes the claim: "a deist god exists".
And you come and demand a specific kind of evidence: “that God intervenes in the universe, in human affairs.�
Um, no. I would ask for evidence that God exists at all, before I go about asking whether or not this yet to be proven God gets involved in human affairs.

See how that works? I don't put the cart before the horse. That is how we (Christian apologists) actually do apologetics...we build a cumulative case for Christian theism..first, we prove that God exists...and THEN we prove how/why we believe that this recently proved God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.

See how that works?
alexxcJRO wrote: That sir is stupid/dishonest for the hypothesis is that: "a deist god does not intervene in the universe, in human affairs.�

Here a dialog to be better show the chronic stupidity:

One man: A deist god exist.
You: Do you have evidence that this god cures people, punishes others, brings calamities upon others?
The man: No because it is indifferent to what happens, does not care.
You: Haha, then I do not believe it does exist.

Q: Isn't that just plainly stupid, huh? :eyebrow:
All of that is irrelevant, considering your analogy does not mirror how I think/operate. So, your analogy was useless and a waste of time; is what I am trying to say.

:D
alexxcJRO wrote: Still.

Q: Why make a special case for God?

Q: Why then do you need direct evidence("eyeball test") for evolution but not for God? Why the inconsistency?
*Sigh* It isn't an inconsistency, it is a different methodology altogether (3rd time saying it).
alexxcJRO wrote: Is your God not a personal one, one that has a personal relationship with humans, one that intervenes in the universe: listens to prayer, heals humans, bring calamities over others and so one?
Yup. Fits the bill.
alexxcJRO wrote: Can you not make experiments to prove God’s interventions in the universe? Can you not ask God for direct evidence(“eye ball test�)?
I have what I believe to be convincing evidence that God exists, which is more than I can say about evolution.

Post Reply