(October 6, 2017 at 11:12 pm)Astonished Wrote:

(October 6, 2017 at 10:50 pm)Hammy Wrote: No being explainable isn't a requirement for existence

Such as? Example? And we're not talking about something that we just don't understand YET, we're talking about this eternally unknowable and unexplainable brouhaha (which begs the question, how the fuck do we know anything about it, i.e. whether it exists, if it's like that? Or how do we even know it's unexplainable or unknowable?)

What do you mean "example"? Example of what?

I stopped caring. Never mind.

Existence doesn't have to be explainable to be existent. Existence has to be explainable to be knowable.

(October 7, 2017 at 12:05 am)Hammy Wrote: Existence doesn't have to be explainable to be existent. Existence has to be explainable to be knowable.

Then how could the existence of something be concluded if not explainable and therefore unknowable?

(October 7, 2017 at 12:08 am)Astonished Wrote:

(October 7, 2017 at 12:05 am)Hammy Wrote: Existence doesn't have to be explainable to be existent. Existence has to be explainable to be knowable.

Then how could the existence of something be concluded if not explainable and therefore unknowable?

That's a different question. That's the point.

It's just a shortened version of the rest of the other post.

So?

My point is that... no existence doesn't have to be explainable. It has to be explainable to be knowable.

What the fuck have you two been reading???

What? I doubt he reads.

Boru

(October 6, 2017 at 2:25 am)Mathilda Wrote:

(October 5, 2017 at 9:14 pm)Godscreated Wrote: They are both around for a couple of reasons, money and the evolutionary scientist control what papers are accepted to be published, a monopoly that's afraid of creation science because they know it to be true.

Yeah it's called peer review. It means that papers need to reach a minimum standard in order to be accepted. For example, assertions need to be backed up by evidence. A difficult concept for you I know.

If creationists could provide evidence for creation science then they  would be able to publish papers stating it. But they can't. For example I'm not employed to research artificial intelligence at the moment, and the research I do in my spare time is at odds with the predominant paradigm that most follow. Yet I still publish papers because I back it up with evidence.

What's more evolutionary science is actually useful. Not only are the theories backed up by evidence but they work in practice. This would not be the case if it was incorrect. I personally use it almost every day of my life. There has been no useful application of the belief that everything was created.

And it's only non-scientists that think that you make lots of money as a scientist.

I know scientist that make 6 figures and he is a Christian. Evolutionary science has no use because it's not true, there are no proofs at all, none. I know what peer review is and I know what dishonest peer review is. Creation scientists have given much evidence for the way they see things, it goes against what the so called reviewers believe so it's rejected.

(October 3, 2017 at 1:15 pm)Godscreated Wrote: Since you do not believe in God I expect such a statement from you, being so you are not qualified to make such a statement and represent it as truth, it's nothing but an opinion you give to please the other atheist.

(October 5, 2017 at 9:14 pm)Godscreated Wrote: I do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah nor any other god is false. God said there are no other gods but Me. Since God is omniscient we have no reason to question what He says.

 

Mathilda Wrote:You are a hypocrite.

  A hypocrite how so, what I said is true. When Christians bark back at the atheist here they are called everything in the book, you all think we are to roll over and play dead, not the way I work.

GC