An Open Challenge To Creationists

[Skwim]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

 

[shmogie]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.



.

Are you sure you represent the creationist position when you state, " all living things were created, substantially as they now exist................and not gradually evolved or developed'.

I have no interest in your challenge, but at least be sure you represent the creationist view, properly.

 

[Skwim]

Are you sure you represent the creationist position when you state, " all living things were created, substantially as they now exist................and not gradually evolved or developed'.

I have no interest in your challenge, but at least be sure you represent the creationist view, properly.

I amended the OP to show the source of the definition. And even if I had not used a formal definition I would have worded it very similarly.

.

 

[robocop (actually)]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

What difference does it make if I don't?

 

[Heyo]

What difference does it make if I don't?

It gives @Skwim the right to claim that creationists can't make a case for their doctrine.

 

[sun rise]

I actually talked with someone once who believed in the creation myths. His explanation was that God created everything just like the Bible says and then changed the laws of the universe to make it appear that the Bible was wrong as a test of faith.

I did not agree, of course, but at least he did not ignore the evidence. Rather he just waved a logical magic wand to dismiss it as being false.

 

[Skwim]

It gives @Skwim the right to claim that creationists can't make a case for their doctrine.

Not without reference to evolution, anyway.

.

 

[We Never Know]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

That's pretty much a hand picked definition be most definitions have it simply as "Creationism is the religious belief that nature, and aspects such as the universe, Earth, life, and humans, originated with supernatural acts of divine creation."

 

[McBell]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

Perhaps you should have let each creationist provide their own definition of creation and make their case for their own individual version of creation?

I suggest this simply because all they want to do is whine about the OP definition.

My experience has been that just like the definitions of "god" and "soul" and even "Christianity" there are as many definitions of "creation" as there are creationists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

Sure, I can do that.
There is a problem, you haven't set the standard for best case.
Now I suppose you mean best in an objective sense.
That is not possible, because of cognitive relativism.

Now you are in all likelihood going to demand that I explain that using science?!! I can't, because science as a form of knowledge is limited, so I can't explain it. I can inform you how the universe works, but because of cognitive relativism, I can't explain it in the best objective sense, because there is no best objective sense.

So here it goes for 3 different subjective versions of the universe:
Someone: The universe is natural.
Someone else. No, the universe is from God.
Me: Nobody can explain the universe in the best sense, because nobody can explain it solely objectively. The next best thing is to inform that it can't be done objectively and we are all subjective when it comes to what the universe really is.

That is how, you understand this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

And that is how, that I can't explain it using science. I have to use philosophy as general skepticism and in the end I have to inform you how it works and not explain it, because explaining is limited.

You can believe that the universe is natural and get away with it.
A believer in metaphysical idealism can believe in that and get away with it
And a general skeptic like me can believe that I don't know and and get away with it.

That is cognitive relativism in practice. Now I have informed you about how it works in practice.
What you do with that is your problem as you do it and not mine.

So the best explanation is that God created the universe around 10000 years ago and as above are testing our faith,
It is the subjectively best one for some people and you have another subjectively best one. I can just inform that it is so and you can still subjectively believe that yours is the best objectively.
But that is not any different than anybody else who subjectively claim that they have the best objective explanation.

Sorry, you haven't gotten the memo, but your version of science was discovered around the 1940's not to work.

 

[Heyo]

Sure, I can do that.
There is a problem, you haven't set the standard for best case.
Now I suppose you mean best in an objective sense.
That is not possible, because of cognitive relativism.

Now you are in all likelihood going to demand that I explain that using science?!! I can't, because science as a form of knowledge is limited, so I can't explain it. I can inform you how the universe works, but because of cognitive relativism, I can't explain it in the best objective sense, because there is no best objective sense.

So here it goes for 3 different subjective versions of the universe:
Someone: The universe is natural.
Someone else. No, the universe is from God.
Me: Nobody can explain the universe in the best sense, because nobody can explain it solely objectively. The next best thing is to inform that it can't be done objectively and we are all subjective when it comes to what the universe really is.

That is how, you understand this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

And that is how, that I can't explain it using science. I have to use philosophy as general skepticism and in the end I have to inform you how it works and not explain it, because explaining is limited.

You can believe that the universe is natural and get away with it.
A believer in metaphysical idealism can believe in that and get away with it
And a general skeptic like me can believe that I don't know and and get away with it.

That is cognitive relativism in practice. Now I have informed you about how it works in practice.
What you do with that is your problem as you do it and not mine.

So the best explanation is that God created the universe around 10000 years ago and as above are testing our faith,
It is the subjectively best one for some people and you have another subjectively best one. I can just inform that it is so and you can still subjectively believe that yours is the best objectively.
But that is not any different than anybody else who subjectively claim that they have the best objective explanation.

Sorry, you haven't gotten the memo, but your version of science was discovered around the 1940's not to work.

Reading comprehension fail. Nowhere did @Skwim even use the word "science". He even excluded a specific part of science.
And, even though I don't know exactly what Skwim meant by "best case", I'd say you try what you deem to be most convincing and let the jury decide if your approach was the "best".

 

[ratiocinator]

That is how, you understand this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

In what way are any of those things relevant to the problem of creationism (in the sense of the OP) which is exactly the sort of thing science does do.

Of course, you can always believe in a lying god who plants false evidence but that can only ever be blind faith - despite the science and evidence.

Sorry, you haven't gotten the memo, but your version of science was discovered around the 1940's not to work.

Nonsense. It answers questions about the world using intersubjectively verifiable evidence - and its results work for everybody whether they believe it or not - hence your computer, phone, GPS, and the internet all work for you too.

 

[Skwim]

Perhaps you should have let each creationist provide their own definition of creation and make their case for their own individual version of creation?

Nope!

I suggest this simply because all they want to do is whine about the OP definition.

This is the Evolution Vs Creationism forum and as such "creationism" as used here stands in opposition to evolution, which deals with the process by which the variety life arose on Earth. So this is what I'm looking for; the best case for the contention that all living things were created by god, substantially as they now exist (the account as given in Genesis and argued for), and not gradually evolved.

And this was stated up front to forestall any misunderstanding. So if anyone whines about it I can only assume it's because they can't present a reasonable case as asked for.


.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Reading comprehension fail. Nowhere did @Skwim even use the word "science". He even excluded a specific part of science.
And, even though I don't know exactly what Skwim meant by "best case", I'd say you try what you deem to be most convincing and let the jury decide if your approach was the "best".

I took "best" for a reductio ad absurdum. There is no one single, universal "best " for all of everything.
Someone: I can do a single, universal best for all of everything.
Me: No, because in some cases I can do it differently.

Creationism is the best explanation, there is based on some assumptions.
Evolution is the best explanation, there is based on some other assumptions.
There is no objective standard for comparing the 2, because all standards rest on some subjective assumptions, including mine.
Any version of "best" is based on subjective assumptions.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is no objective standard for comparing the 2,...

Yes, there is, it's called "intersubjectively verifiable evidence".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Nonsense. It answers questions about the world using intersubjectively verifiable evidence - and its results work for everybody whether they believe it or not - hence your computer, phone, GPS, and the internet all work for you too.

Yet, it has a limit:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Including that science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

Everything is the world can be answered in the strong positive sense using intersubjectively verifiable evidence!!!
I have tested that claim long ago and the answer is no.
No, everything can't be explained using intersubjectively verifiable evidence!!! Some things can, but not all.

Nobody in the record history of knowledge have solved that one. I.e. a single methodology for everything, which always provides positive answers. Neither in religion, philosophy nor science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, there is, it's called "intersubjectively verifiable evidence".

No, because if that was so, I couldn't be different from you in a limited subjective sense and nor could you be different.

Yes, as some religions can't explain how God is one, yet humans are different, your methodology can't explain single subjectivity. You operate with an universal "we" for everything. That "we" is not universal as for everything, because everything is not just intersubjective. Something is differently subjectively.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope!


This is the Evolution Vs Creationism forum and as such "creationism" as used here stands in opposition to evolution, which deals with the process by which the variety life arose on Earth. So this is what I'm looking for; the best case for the contention that all living things were created by god, substantially as they now exist (the account as given in Genesis and argued for), and not gradually evolved.

And this was stated up front to forestall any misunderstanding. So if anyone whines about it I can only assume it's because they can't present a reasonable case as asked for.
.

Always find the subjective assumptions. You assume an objective reasonable case. That is not possible and you assume objective knowledge for all of the world. That is also not possible.
You have a subjective world-view based on some assumptions. I have other assumptions. In some cases our assumptions overall, but not for what the world really is.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yet, it has a limit:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Including that science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.

Everything is the world can be answered in the strong positive sense using intersubjectively verifiable evidence!!!
I have tested that claim long ago and the answer is no.
No, everything can't be explained using intersubjectively verifiable evidence!!! Some things can, but not all.

Nobody in the record history of knowledge have solved that one. I.e. a single methodology for everything, which always provides positive answers. Neither in religion, philosophy nor science.

I really don't know why you're so obsessed with linking to the rather banal article about what science doesn't do. I'm not actually making a claim about everything but science and intersubjective evidence is highly relevant to the question at hand.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, because if that was so, I couldn't be different from you in a limited subjective sense and nor could you be different.

Yes, as some religions can't explain how God is one, yet humans are different, your methodology can't explain single subjectivity. You operate with an universal "we" for everything. That "we" is not universal as for everything, because everything is not just intersubjective. Something is differently subjectively.

Again, we aren't talking about everything. Science and hence technology works, literally, for everybody, regardless of their beliefs, and similarly the "real", intersubjective world has the same rules and contains the same intersubjectively verifiable evidence about its past for everybody.