44
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 116:
Line 116: + + + +
Talk:Essay:A Challenge to Creationists (view source)
Revision as of 16:36, June 17, 2008
, 16:36, June 17, 2008→Very well, I will explain why the burden of proof is on creationism.
:::I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that by falsifiable, you are referring to the five senses. In other words, unless one can taste, feel, smell, see, or otherwise observe with the five senses, then it cannot be true. Is that correct? If that is what you are saying, we cannot prove the concepts of truth, beauty, love, friendship, or even the concept of knowledge itself. Those concepts are not observable by the five sense, and therefore not falsifiable if I understand you correctly. And yet we recognize them to be real things. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 12:25, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Wow. So much obfuscation. I want a straight answer to this question: "True or false? If none of the creation stories on earth can be disproven, and at most one can be true, you need evidence to SUPPORT the the truth of yours, otherwise yours is no more or less valid than the other creation stories."
::::Furthermore, your comparison to truth and beauty etc. is a flawed analogy. These are constructs of the mind. Take for instance beauty. Even the most hideous of creatures are attracted to eachother. Interesting that you compare the existence of god to constructs of the human mind. :) --[[User:JackSmith|JackSmith]] 12:36, 17 June 2008 (EDT)