Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,157,900 members, 7,835,001 topics. Date: Tuesday, 21 May 2024 at 12:28 AM

Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? (1493 Views)

Two Creation Stories In The Book Of genesis / There Are Two Creation Stories In Genesis And Two Flood Stories / Ancient Greek Gods And Goddesses At Creation (genesis Chapter One) (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 7:03pm On Mar 24, 2022
IMAliyu:
It's simple, creation is unfalsifiable, therefore it has nothing to do with science.

The simple scientific methodology is.
1. Make an observation, or define a question.
2. Create a hypothesis, or make predictions.
3. Test the hypothesis, gather evidence, by way of experiments and/or making observations in the natural world, in a repeatable fashion.
4. Analyze data and draw conclusions.
5. Communicate findings.

Do proponents of creation follow these steps?

Here! The scientific solution to my dream Naira!
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 7:14pm On Mar 24, 2022
IMAliyu:


Science, never makes claims about things it doesn't have proof/evidence for. And is comfortable with the answer "I don't know".
No one knows what sparked the beginning of the current universe, and science does not commit the God of the gaps fallacy.

"I don't know". The beginning of the use of one's senses, as preached by a scientist called Jesus Christ the Messiah of some who advised one abandon one's misconceived beliefs and do science, as in ask and knock and seek, in order to find out; and as shown by use her own senses Eve to free herself and stupid believing Adam from ignorance and slavery and unclothedness so they could go on and populate the entire earth, so we read in a book, at least.

Pity is, it's as hard to become as a child as it is for a camel to enter through the needle's eye.

1 Like

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 7:17pm On Mar 24, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


I knew it was not directed at me but as long as at it was not True, i came to tear it to shreds!
Ok, good luck with that.


First, you are supposed to lay down the evidence you claim to have for us to see. BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION!
Ok, should I lay down the evidence and observations to see if, we could draw the conclusion of the "BigBang hypothesis" being real or not?
A yes or no is enough.


That is the question, which is "how this world began".

Thus, if your answer is "I Don't Know" (iDK) then you really can not participate in this issue.

We want people who know to speak on it.

Therefore, this answer cancels your earlier answer on Uncle Bang Bang, for you don't know.
The two premises are different, we know based on observations, how the universe began and the stages of it's formation.

We don't know what caused it to be or from what or where the BigBang originates.

Very simple, I'm trying to understand the nature of your question before going further.

And you haven't confirmed my previous enquiry, to know wether I'm correct and should address those specific quoted posts of yours or not.

Don't think I'm not observant of the fact you redirected this thread of "why scientists never look at creation myths," (which I answered with, because it's unfalsifiable) to "how did the world began", but I'll overlook it.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 7:19pm On Mar 24, 2022
IMAliyu:

The observable scientific evidence shows the universe expanded form a single point, and this is dubbed the BigBang....

A smart Christian might say, 'God said, "let there be light"', and there was a big bang and there was light.

Something had to go bang of course, and we read nowhere that a God created an explosion.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 7:28pm On Mar 24, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


INVALID RESPONSE!

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS WORLD AND THE THINGS IN IT, WHICH WE HAVE SEEN AND KNOWN.

AND NO SPACE TRAVEL TO GOD'S WORLD WHICH NO MAN HAS SEEN AND CAN KNOW!

SO, INVALID!
Thankfully, you don't exactly qualify to tell buda what is valid or not. Fact is, if no thing made itself from emptiness, God was either created by a supergod, or was not created at all.

Do note the "created". It leaves room for you to claim God was not created or was created by writers of books you believe, from nothing but their own imagination. A fete worthy of commendation, I do confess, considering both theists and atheists are here on the basis of said writings. Pity some choose to believe it though.

FOEO KnownUnknown.

2 Likes

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 7:38pm On Mar 24, 2022
IMAliyu:

Very simple, I'm trying to understand the nature of your question before going further.

The question is:
"This House popular called earth or world, that is housing all of us in it, including trees, animals, rivers etc in different rooms or parts called countries"
1) WHO MADE IT? OR

2) IF YOU SAY, "NO WHO" (THEN YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE HOW YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS A NO WHO ) THEREFORE WHAT MADE IT? (ANOTHER PROOF)

3) DO YOU THINK IT MADE ITSELF (WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE)

SO, YOU SEE, YOUR PROVINGS ARE MANY AND THEY MUST BE VALID.

IMAliyu:

And you haven't confirmed my previous enquiry, to know wether I'm correct and should address those specific quoted posts of yours or not.

I did in telling you that my answer is up above.

But only one person stays in the cross-examination box. And since you are so eager, why don't you go first. While I do the cross-examination!
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 7:46pm On Mar 24, 2022
budaatum:

Thankfully, you don't exactly qualify to tell buda what is valid or not.

Thank fully, I do and just did.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by KnownUnknown: 7:58pm On Mar 24, 2022
IMAliyu:


The two premises are different, we know based on observations, how the universe began and the stages of it's formation.

I think the above and the way the theory is colloquially described leads people to rightly think that “real time” (or as deep sight understands it) is independent of the universe such that “real time” is a sort of receptacle that the universe expands into.
I mostly blame the paucity of language but I also think it’s the scientists fault for not clarifying.

I think a better way to describe it as not as a beginning but as a an initial stage.

e.g. the primeval universe expanded from its initial stage (which could be part of something larger or has its source as something else. Or maybe it has no source. We don’t know.) and that expansion is known as the Big Bang, which gave rise to everything that we know of including time.

Just an idea. What do you think?
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 8:16pm On Mar 24, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


Thank fully, I do and just did.


Now, if only buda listened and accepted what you say or think or believe, but I guess there won't be buda if that were to happen.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 8:44am On Mar 25, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


The question is:
"This House popular called earth or world, that is housing all of us in it, including trees, animals, rivers etc in different rooms or parts called countries"
1) WHO MADE IT? OR

2) IF YOU SAY, "NO WHO" (THEN YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE HOW YOU KNOW, THAT THERE IS A NO WHO ) THEREFORE WHAT MADE IT? (ANOTHER PROOF)

3) DO YOU THINK IT MADE ITSELF (WHICH YOU ARE GOING TO PROVE)

SO, YOU SEE, YOUR PROVINGS ARE MANY AND THEY MUST BE VALID.
Ok, I'll explain, the formation of the universe, from the scientific perspective, as a result of natural processes. The who, or what made it part is up to philosophers, and religious adherents to argue, it's not the domain of science atm.
I hope, you poses basic knowledge of scientific
concepts. Else this would be like explaining how a combustion engine works to an infant.


I did in telling you that my answer is up above.

But only one person stays in the cross-examination box. And since you are so eager, why don't you go first. While I do the cross-examination!
This is a two way interaction, you're not going to avoid questions concerning any claims you'd make.

1 Like

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 8:52am On Mar 25, 2022
KnownUnknown:


I think the above and the way the theory is colloquially described leads people to rightly think that “real time” (or as deep sight understands it) is independent of the universe such that “real time” is a sort of receptacle that the universe expands into.
I mostly blame the paucity of language but I also think it’s the scientists fault for not clarifying.

I think a better way to describe it as not as a beginning but as a an initial stage.

e.g. the primeval universe expanded from its initial stage (which could be part of something larger or has its source as something else. Or maybe it has no source. We don’t know.) and that expansion is known as the Big Bang, which gave rise to everything that we know of including time.

Just an idea. What do you think?

Yeah, you're correct.
Space and time are one thing, and since we have reason to assume the bigbang was the first instance of the expansion of space, we can rightly say it was the beginning of time also.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 9:44am On Mar 25, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


A Christian would have said

Scientist: “Okay, let's look at evolution from a creationist viewpoint

Christian: Objection! The accurate question is let us look at how this world began, as far as is possible.

Scientists: can't do that, I'll be Fired!

Christian: I thought "Science" means "To know"?

Scientists: well, I don't want to know. I just want to be the one to tell the stories as my employers have directed.

Christian: then there is no "let's look" but a "hey, hear what my employers say I should tell you", which you can do to the plants in your house.

Well, what both you and work.ch just did was create a straw man of the other's perspective to argue against.

A creationist will never say "magic did it", but just make the philosophical argument of why nothing can exist without being created, by someone. Like you do. I'll further address this idea in the next post.

And no scientist will ever say "can't do that, I'll be Fired!" To the question of "let us look at how the world began as is possible".
Current working scientific theories, didn't always exists, it was generations of asking "how the world works" and "how it began" that led us here, and separated wheat from the chaff in terms of what is true about the nature of reality.
Even when some of these individuals faced prosecution by Religious institutions (e.g. Giordano Bruno, the Italian philosopher who was burned alive in Rome, in 1600, as a heretic.) and we know these theories aren't made up stories because they work. The principals and theory behind the operation of your phone, is not a made up story because then it wouldn't work, we treat malaria a deadly disease like the common cold here in Nigeria, because anti-malarias are effective, and aren't based on stories, but rigorous scientific evidence based research to produce it's cure.
And scientist isn't exactly a job description, it just means 'a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.'
Take Einstein for example, he worked as a Clark, while developing his theories before becoming employed as a physics professor.
You are welcomed to challenge any theory you think is wrong, but you'd also have to follow the scientific methods in doing so.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 1:41pm On Mar 25, 2022
IMAliyu:


You are welcomed to challenge any theory you think is wrong, but you'd also have to follow the scientific methods in doing so.

Please explain the scientific method so they know what it is.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 1:52am On Mar 26, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


And I always presented the first evidence you yourself have examined and found no fault.

Which is, "is there any thing which made itself from "emptiness" to some thing? Or is capable of making itself, by itself?

Eg. Did a mannequin make itself?

Or can a table make itself?

Oya, rebut, if you can! No invalid or Bad Evidence, No change of post, No Bad Arguments (what you people call Fallacy)
You are starting at a false premise, which is that science suggest that anyone or anything has, or can create itself from from nothing or "emptyness" as you put it.

You would have to define this "emptyness", because even a vacuum is never actually empty in the absolute sense of the word, (in quantum physics) energy fluctuations are present at every point through out space, which is not nothing.

The premise that something does create itself, in the sense of willing itself into existence from nothing, is a false and wrong premise, no part of science postulates this.
The scientific position is that something complex in the natural world (including the universe as a whole) has to have evolved/emerged from simpler forces and parts preceding it, an example of this is, say the composition of a living things, which are made-up of organs>cells>organic matter>atoms>quarks, and that such complexities can and do result as the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, weak & strong nuclear force) as we understand them play out. This includes the emergance of life and evolution of man.

[An example to help explain 'emergence' as I talked about is. We suggested that everything is made-up of atoms, so what gives them their unique behavior? like why is water and the cup that holds it not the same, since they are all made up of atoms.
Well, it's the emergent property of the proton/neutron pairing (held by the strong and weak force) that makes up the atoms, dubbed elements. A hydrogen atom is made-up of a single proton and electron pair and so it behaves in it's unique way, and an oxygen atom is made up of eight protons, eight neutrons, and eight electrons which also results in it having it's own unique properties also, these both would naturally exist in a gaseous forms on earth, but when combined form liquid water (on earth) which has a set of unique properties that are independent and mostly unpredictable, from the individual atoms/elements (H2+O) making it.
Why is that? no explanation with proof exists at the moment you are allowed to suggest it's a God(s) design or random chance that gives it those emergent properties, but we'd like to avoid a God of the gaps error, so a simple we don't know suffices.]

Essentially what I'm saying is everything that exists in the scientific view, evolved or is a result of an emergent property of the interactions of simpler things and the fundamental forces.

Now, that I hope I've cleared your misconceptions, of the scientific position.
Did a mannequin make itself, can a table make itself? No, they can not, they are artificial human creations. You suggest the universe and these manmade objects are in the same category.
We can go to a carpenter or sculptor and witness the creation of your suggested objects and similar objects to undeniably conclude they were human creations. We can not do the same for universe, we can only deduce it's formation and past from our understanding of the physical laws, evidence, observations available to us, but to witness a creation of the universe, or another universe is impossible.


A side note, If we were to say accept the creation of the universe by an entity, we'd still be stuck unable to provide proof for a specific belief's creator God, and specific mythological accounts of creation which all contradict the scientific evidence available, or other competing hypothesis like the simulation hypothesis. Different groups will be eternally arguing over which one's is true, never being willing or able to present concrete evidence for their claims, because we'd leave the realm of objectivity, the topic of an old thread.
https://www.nairaland.com/5942094/how-should-one-find-out#90930629
Just my criticism of creation.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 3:02am On Mar 26, 2022
budaatum:


Please explain the scientific method so they know what it is.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 11:30am On Mar 26, 2022
Thank you, Imaliyu. There is a reason science is taught in the first three years of secondary school. It's so people learn to use their senses to ask and knock and seek. Unfortunately, it would seem that religion has pervaded our schools such that we believe instead.

I just so love the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. While Adam chose to live in fear of death and remain naked, enslaved and ignorant, Eve boldly plucked and ate the fruit that would supposedly kill, and instead her eyes opened and she gained wisdom and freed herself from slavery and became self-employed and populated the earth, so we read. That's not the understanding given to believers though. To believers, Adam and Eve surely died upon eating the fruit that was forbidden them.

Time, I guess. The Eves will surely grow in number.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 1:38pm On Mar 27, 2022
budaatum:
Thank you, Imaliyu. There is a reason science is taught in the first three years of secondary school. It's so people learn to use their senses to ask and knock and seek. Unfortunately, it would seem that religion has pervaded our schools such that we believe instead.

I just so love the story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3. While Adam chose to live in fear of death and remain naked, enslaved and ignorant, Eve boldly plucked and ate the fruit that would supposedly kill, and instead her eyes opened and she gained wisdom and freed herself from slavery and became self-employed and populated the earth, so we read. That's not the understanding given to believers though. To believers, Adam and Eve surely died upon eating the fruit that was forbidden them.

Time, I guess. The Eves will surely grow in number.

Your understanding of the Adam and Eve story reminds me of the Gnostic interpretations a bit.
Which believes the snake that that convinced Adam and Eve to eat the fruit, was sent by the True perfect God, the Monad, to have them partake in knowledge. To rebel in a sense against the imperfect lesser divinity, the Demiurge and Eve was somehow a teacher to Adam.
Where Jesus was the son of the Monad and not the mistaken Jewish God, which is evident in the contradicting message of love from him compared to the wrathful and cruel YHWY.

A fascinating version of the story and from one of the earlier versions of Christianity at that.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 9:27pm On Mar 27, 2022
IMAliyu:


Your understanding of the Adam and Eve story reminds me of the Gnostic interpretations a bit.
Which believes .........

Gnostics (and scientists, and learners, and Eve) can not believe because they never stop asking and knocking and seeking knowledge they know they don't know.

To believe is to assume that all one knows is all there is to know.

Seriously, I can't understand why people understand that story any other way, though I actually do understand. It's hard to resist what most received in breast feed.

IMAliyu:
and Eve was somehow a teacher to Adam.
That's what it says in the Bible too. She gave ignorant believing he would die Adam the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to eat and his eyes opened.

Go read it please, IMAliyu. I am deprived of minds capable of its analysis. Damn! I am deprived of eyes that see!
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 7:08am On Apr 01, 2022
IMAliyu:

You are starting at a false premise, which is that science suggest that anyone or anything has, or can create itself from from nothing or "emptyness" as you put it.

You are so crooked, that you are not able to be straight anymore.
You demanded to know my stand. here and I have laid it again before and rather than directly rebut, you are changing it from what it is, to what you wish to address. "Science suggest".

Clearly, you are not able to rebut, so you got no thing.!

Obiter! it would be an horror that you graduated from regular school (excluding your Islamic schools, maybe it is allowed to change questions there) for surely it is supposed to be impossible to pass exams when you change the questions before you.

IMAliyu:

Did a mannequin make itself, can a table make itself? No, they can not, they are artificial human creations.Now, that I hope I've cleared your misconceptions, of the scientific position.
Did a mannequin make itself, can a table make itself? No, they can not,...

Thank you for proving my case! grin

IMAliyu:

. You suggest the universe and these manmade objects are in the same category.We can go to a carpenter or sculptor and witness the creation of your suggested objects and similar objects to undeniably conclude they were human creations.

The carpenter and sculpturist are your mates (in Nigerian parlance) exactly as one mannequin to another mannequin AND THEREFORE, YOU CAN GO TO IT.

BUT THE TABLE CAN NOT GO TO THE CARPENTER NOR THE SCULPTURE, THE SCULPTOR.

BUT THE CARPENTER CAN ALWAYS ALWAYS GO TO THE TABLE AND THE SCULPTOR, HIS SCULPTURES.

So unless you go to the mannequin, it would never see nor know how it was made nor how the boutique it lives in was made.

So, you fall!

IMAliyu:

We can not do the same for universe we can only deduce...

And that is your death blow! The only way you living mannequins can ever validly know is to Go to God, The Creator or Listen to What He has Said. Exactly as your mannequin must come to you and listen to what you say!

No conjectures, no deductions, no calculations, no speculations, ONLY TRUTH!

IMAliyu:

A side note, If we were to say accept the creation of the universe by an entity, we'd still be stuck unable to provide proof for a specific belief's creator God

Not True! Among all the billions of people in the world, the thief, murderer, adulteress and adulterer is known and discovered, how then is it impossible for any to find He, Who is God, if he so truly wants to?
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 9:56am On Apr 01, 2022
IMAliyu:

Well, what both you and work.ch just did was create a straw man of the other's perspective to argue against.

Every person is free to set and determine his Area of interest and an opponent can run on it.

And the police against fallibilities usually comes in only after an opponent has contended against the person setting the ground of contention.

Therefore, you are free to raise your own thread and set your own ground of interest but this was workchs interest and he exercised his right on how he intended to display his interest.

So, you can do your own, your own way.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 6:02pm On Apr 15, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


You are so crooked, that you are not able to be straight anymore.
You demanded to know my stand. here and I have laid it again before and rather than directly rebut, you are changing it from what it is, to what you wish to address. "Science suggest".

Clearly, you are not able to rebut, so you got no thing.!
And your stance is wrong, your stance that the opposing position (science) claims that something emerges from emptyness, or of something being capable of willing itself into existence from emptyness, is a false one.

Don't be creating a false or straw man position so you can argue against that. If you don't know the what an opposing position says you can just simply ask or look it up. That's what I was correcting


Obiter! it would be an horror that you graduated from regular school (excluding your Islamic schools, maybe it is allowed to change questions there) for surely it is supposed to be impossible to pass exams when you change the questions before you.
There is such a thing as a wrong question.


The carpenter and sculpturist are your mates (in Nigerian parlance) exactly as one mannequin to another mannequin AND THEREFORE, YOU CAN GO TO IT.
In the equivalency you draw, would you be willing to concede there are multiple creators who are mates?
And as a table is created by a carpenter as a passing project to possibly be sold or for the purpose of improving their skills, would you be willing to draw that equivalency to the world also?


BUT THE TABLE CAN NOT GO TO THE CARPENTER NOR THE SCULPTURE, THE SCULPTOR.

BUT THE CARPENTER CAN ALWAYS ALWAYS GO TO THE TABLE AND THE SCULPTOR, HIS SCULPTURES.


So unless you go to the mannequin, it would never see nor know how it was made nor how the boutique it lives in was made.

So, you fall!

Are tables and mannequins alive and conscience? Do they hear and speak? Do they wonder about their existence and origin?
You're in error here in the false equivalency you draw.

We've had this argument sometime in the past, I doubt it's going to be any different now.


And that is your death blow! The only way you living mannequins can ever validly know is to Go to God, The Creator or Listen to What He has Said. Exactly as your mannequin must come to you and listen to what you say!

No conjectures, no deductions, no calculations, no speculations, ONLY TRUTH!
In the fact that you agree non has or can witness such (creation).
That is a consequence of the limitations of the equivalence you make, also I'd make the exception in that a General Intelligence AI (if sentient) would be fully capable of witnessing the creation of another like it, and would have the ability to go through the generations of documentations in the research of AI done by humans, and it's own coding and draw it's own conclusions on its origins.

And also since non of us can or have witnessed creation (in the sense of divine being creating a living thing or the universe), a phenomena that can not be observed nor can it be deduced from the evidence available. Can you in honesty claim your position is more than speculation, which you happen to have reason to hold conviction in?


Not True! Among all the billions of people in the world, the thief, murderer, adulteress and adulterer is known and discovered, how then is it impossible for any to find He, Who is God, if he so truly wants to?
This topic
https://www.nairaland. com/5942094/how-should-one-find-out#90930629
is still open fam. Just drop your methodology.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 7:59pm On Apr 15, 2022
IMAliyu:

Don't be creating a false or straw man position so you can argue against that. If you don't know the what an opposing position says you can just simply ask or look it up. That's what I was correcting

And your correction is invalid! The opponent presented his case, I interpreted it and laid the interpretation before him and he never raised that my interpretation was wrong. Therefore, I was correct.

And you can not correct that which was already correct..

IMAliyu:

In the equivalency you draw, would you be willing to concede there are multiple creators who are mates?

Change of Post and Shifting the burden of Proof! You are supposed to rebut if you have any reasonable rebuttal to give!

IMAliyu:

Are tables and mannequins alive and conscience? Do they hear and speak? Do they wonder about their existence and origin?

Change of Post! The issue is not about their hearing, speaking, conscience etc. But about the Imagery created, which you got.
So, You are supposed to rebut if you have any reasonable rebuttal to give.

IMAliyu:

In the fact that you agree non has or can witness such (creation).
That is a consequence of the limitations of the equivalence you make, also I'd...

Change of Post and giving testinony, Instead of giving a Rebuttal.

SO, IN THE END, YOU GAVE NO VALID REBUTTAL.

YOU RESPONSE WAS JUST ATTEMPTS TO SEVERALLY DEPART FROM THE ISSUE IN FOCUS OR YOU ATTEMPTED RAISING FRESH ISSUES!

CLEARLY SHOWING AND PROVING, YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID REBUTTAL!
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 8:26pm On Apr 15, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


And your correction is invalid! The opponent presented his case, I interpreted it and laid the interpretation before him and he never raised that my interpretation was wrong. Therefore, I was correct.

And you can not correct that which was already correct..
sigh... You do you. Just hope you don't repeat such a thing in the future.


Change of Post and Shifting the burden of Proof! You are supposed to rebut if you have any reasonable rebuttal to give!

Change of Post! The issue is not about their hearing, speaking, conscience etc. But about the Imagery created, which you got.
So, You are supposed to rebut if you have any reasonable rebuttal to give.

Change of Post and giving testinony, Instead of giving a Rebuttal.
Nope, still on my point.
My rebuttal is you made a false equivalency, comparing things that are not alike, an equivalency drawn from an unprovable premise. Thus Making your point void.

My question were to examine the extent of the equivalence you were willing to draw, to display its absurdity.


SO, IN THE END, YOU GAVE NO VALID REBUTTAL.

YOU RESPONSE WAS JUST ATTEMPTS TO SEVERALLY DEPART FROM THE ISSUE IN FOCUS OR YOU ATTEMPTED RAISING FRESH ISSUES!

CLEARLY SHOWING AND PROVING, YOU ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE AND VALID REBUTTAL!
You have a nack for avoiding being examined. So I guess this conversation dies here.

I'll let the Judges decide on that.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 9:05pm On Apr 15, 2022
IMAliyu:

My rebuttal is you made a false equivalency, comparing things that are not alike, an equivalency drawn from an unprovable premise.

That is not a rebuttal, that is a complaint because you saw it was impossible for you to directly and vaidly rebut it.

So, it was your attempt to cross over to my side of the bench to tell me to change my case because you could not validly challenge it.

I did not cross over to your side to tell you how you are going to present your case, therefore, you can not cross over to my side tell me how I should present my case.

So you either have a rebuttal or you don't.

And in this case, you obviously don't!
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by budaatum: 12:52pm On Apr 16, 2022
IMAliyu:

a General Intelligence AI (if sentient) would be fully capable of witnessing the creation of another like it, and would have the ability to go through the generations of documentations in the research of AI done by humans, and it's own coding and draw it's own conclusions on its origins.
Keyword, "intelligence" - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills, which you superboost with "sentient", as in, being able to perceive or feel things, with implied sense use. You added "ability" in case it is not already recognised, with "research", implying 'sense use' again, along with the depth of "generations" one needs to go seeking with them.

Basically, use all your senses to ask and knock and seek.

IMAliyu:

If you don't know the what an opposing position says you can just simply ask or look it up.
Can you therefore see why it amuses that you say "look" to those who cover their eyes so they may not see because they have already seen.

Now, if only such people could learn from their Messiah.

IMAliyu:
sigh...
I'll let the Judges decide on that.
The evidence is on display!
https://www.nairaland.com/6547175/see-how-young-deception-began#101557777

Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by IMAliyu(m): 11:55am On Apr 17, 2022
Dtruthspeaker:


That is not a rebuttal, that is a complaint because you saw it was impossible for you to directly and vaidly rebut it.

So, it was your attempt to cross over to my side of the bench to tell me to change my case because you could not validly challenge it.

I did not cross over to your side to tell you how you are going to present your case, therefore, you can not cross over to my side tell me how I should present my case.

So you either have a rebuttal or you don't.

And in this case, you obviously don't!

Think what you want.

My point is the same, and I gave you reasons why your comparison as an argument doesn't stand. Simple as that.
Re: Why Scientist Never Look At Creation Stories/myths? by Dtruthspeaker: 1:02pm On Apr 17, 2022
IMAliyu:

Think what you want.

My point is the same, and I gave you reasons why your comparison as an argument doesn't stand. Simple as that.

And your reasons are completely invalid. I have a right to use things naturally seen in nature to explain an event or point exactly as when we were taught 1,2,3... The teacher used apples and oranges and sticks (nature) to explain counting. And that was very very valid illustration.

So just say you are not able to counter the natural Truth I presented

(1) (2) (Reply)

Has Online Preaching Or Arguments Helped Anyone To Get Saved? / Where is Father X-mas ? / 1995 Illuminati "game"?

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 120
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.