An Open Challenge To Creationists

[McBell]

Again your "best" is free-floating as it stands and thus subjective.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
So unless you can show a scientific standard as applied to the supernatural, for which science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations, then what is your standard for "best"?

He is not asking for HIS best, he is asking for what others consider the best.

That you prefer chasing your own tail over answering the question has been most comical.
But it only reveals the lengths you are willing to go to to avoid addressing the OP whilst rambling on and on...
As if you really like the sound of your own voice over everything else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is not asking for HIS best, he is asking for what others consider the best.

But unless he has an objective scientific standard of best for the supernatural, he will end up using his own subjective standard of best against another subjective standard for best. We are playing metaphysics here and there is no objective standard for that.

 

[McBell]

But unless he has an objective scientific standard of best for the supernatural, he will end up using his own subjective standard of best against another subjective standard for best. We are playing metaphysics here and there is no objective standard for that.

Your fear of presenting your best is a you problem.
That you much prefer to chase your own tail is merely comic relief for me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your fear of presenting your best is a you problem.
That you much prefer to chase your own tail is merely comic relief for me.

My best is that I don't know what reality really is. There, that was easy. I am a general skeptic and I don't do whether reality really is natural or from God as knowledge.

I am religious of this kind:
Unitarian Universalist Association
So theism and creationism doesn't apply to me, nor philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism.

 

[McBell]

My best is that I don't know what reality really is. There, that was easy. I am a general skeptic and I don't do whether reality really is natural or from God as knowledge.

I am religious of this kind:
Unitarian Universalist Association
So theism and creationism doesn't apply to me, nor philosophical naturalism/physicalism/materialism.

Thus the reason it appears you like the sound of your own voice.
You go on and on about how the OP does not apply to you and yet here you are posting ad nausem in a thread you flat out claim is irrelevant to you.

So now all you need do is explain why you are here in this thread wasting every ones time?

Though dont get me wrong.
I personally find it entertaining watching you chase your tail.

 

[Skwim]

Again your "best" is free-floating as it stands and thus subjective.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
So unless you can show a scientific standard as applied to the supernatural, for which science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations, then what is your standard for "best"?

If your post was anywhere near relevant I might respond, but in as much as it isn't . . . . . . . .

.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If your post was anywhere near relevant I might respond, but in as much as it isn't . . . . . . . .

.

Relevance is subjective.
"If your post was anywhere near relevant to me as I subjectively understand reality I might respond, but in as much as it isn't . . . . . . . ."
You maybe didn't post the complete reason.

Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:
(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;
(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

So if you can draw a conclusion about the supernatural as the supernatural, you are not doing science.
Now if your point is that young earth creationism is not science, I agree.

 

[McBell]

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

View attachment 37461

I can't figure that one out. Help me.

 

[Rise]

.

.

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


.

It's not clear what you're trying to argue.
As such, it's not clear what someone is suppose to argue against.

Are you trying to claim that creationism needs evolution to prove it's case?
Or are you trying to claim that creationism only exists in opposition to evolution and can't prove it's case on it's own merits?
Or are you trying to claim something else entirely?

We need to know exactly what you are claiming before we can begin to disprove your claim.

 

[McBell]

It's not clear what you're trying to argue.
As such, it's not clear what someone is suppose to argue against.

Are you trying to claim that creationism needs evolution to prove it's case?
Or are you trying to claim that creationism only exists in opposition to evolution and can't prove it's case on it's own merits?
Or are you trying to claim something else entirely?

We need to know exactly what you are claiming before we can begin to disprove your claim.

Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

So this thread isn't about proving the OP right or wrong.

It is about creationists, or anyone else for that matter, to present a case for creationism that does not require the fall of evolution.

 

[Rise]

Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

So this thread isn't about proving the OP right or wrong.

It is about creationists, or anyone else for that matter, to present a case for creationism that does not require the fall of evolution.

You make the presumption that creationist conclusions about the world can't stand on their own, but your presumption is not a proven fact. You haven't even given a logical argument or factual basis for why you think that claim could be true.

The onus is on you to first prove your claim is true, so that it can then be rebutted properly with specific information.

 

[McBell]

You make the presumption that creationist conclusions about the world can't stand on their own, but your presumption is not a proven fact. You haven't even given a logical argument or factual basis for why you think that claim could be true.

The onus is on you to first prove your claim is true, so that it can then be rebutted properly with specific information.

Ah, so then you agree Creation cannot stand on its own?

 

[Rise]

Ah, so then you agree Creation cannot stand on its own?

What wasn't clear about what I said?

I'll try saying it again, but in simpler language:

You just claimed that Creationism can't stand on it's own.

Because you made the claim you are now required to prove your claim is true.

It's not my job to prove your claim isn't true. That's not how logic or debate works. It's called the "Burden of Proof". Google that phrase if you need to.

Only after you've tried to prove your claim is true am I then required to disprove the logical arguments or facts you used. If I can't do that then you win the debate.

I don't know how you read any of that as "you're right".

 

[tas8831]

It's not clear what you're trying to argue.
As such, it's not clear what someone is suppose to argue against.

Are you trying to claim that creationism needs evolution to prove it's case?
Or are you trying to claim that creationism only exists in opposition to evolution and can't prove it's case on it's own merits?
Or are you trying to claim something else entirely?

We need to know exactly what you are claiming before we can begin to disprove your claim.

TRANSLATION:
I cannot provide any kind of evidence in favor of creation, so I will obfuscate.

 

[McBell]

What wasn't clear about what I said?

I'll try saying it again, but in simpler language:

You just claimed that Creationism can't stand on it's own.

Because you made the claim you are now required to prove your claim is true.

It's not my job to prove your claim isn't true. That's not how logic or debate works. It's called the "Burden of Proof". Google that phrase if you need to.

Only after you've tried to prove your claim is true am I then required to disprove the logical arguments or facts you used. If I can't do that then you win the debate.

I don't know how you read any of that as "you're right".

The dishonesty required to be a Creationist is astounding.
Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
Either you can, or you cannot.
Thus far it appears you cannot.
Perhaps you can get your head out of your backside long enough to pay attention this time?

 

[Rise]

TRANSLATION:
I cannot provide any kind of evidence in favor of creation, so I will obfuscate.

Logical fallacy, "Strawman".
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"

I asked a clarifying question so that I can accurately answer what the OP is asking for, not to avoid answering him.

How you misread my post to come up with the exact opposite of my intention, I don't know.

 

[Rise]

The dishonesty required to be a Creationist is astounding.
Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
Either you can, or you cannot.
Thus far it appears you cannot.
Perhaps you can get your head out of your backside long enough to pay attention this time?

Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof".
You were the one who made the claim that creation viewpoints can't exist on their own, but are only based on disproving evolution. I asked you to prove your claim.

Here were the claims you made:
Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

You claim that creationism can't stand on it's own, that no one attempts to do it, and creationists only try to disprove evolution to prove creationism.

So, where's proof or evidence of your claim?

It's not established to be true just because you claim it is. That would be the fallacy of "argument by assertion".


Additionally, you are committing the logical fallacy of "ad hominem." You're also resorting to personal attacks to try to distract from having to prove your claim.


Your response is also the fallacy of a "red herring", because you are trying to ignore the challenge to prove your claim by shifting into asking a question instead.
You made at least three claims of something being true. You didn't ask if they were true. You asserted they were true.

For you to get away from having to prove your claims are true, you'd have to withdraw them and admit you don't have any evidence to make that claim. Then you'd be free to ask the question you're trying to ask.

 

[McBell]

Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof".
You were the one who made the claim that creation viewpoints can't exist on their own, but are only based on disproving evolution. I asked you to prove your claim.

Here were the claims you made:
Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

You claim that creationism can't stand on it's own, that no one attempts to do it, and creationists only try to disprove evolution to prove creationism.

So, where's proof or evidence of your claim?

It's not established to be true just because you claim it is. That would be the fallacy of "argument by assertion".


Additionally, you are committing the logical fallacy of "ad hominem." You're also resorting to personal attacks to try to distract from having to prove your claim.


Your response is also the fallacy of a "red herring", because you are trying to ignore the challenge to prove your claim by shifting into asking a question instead.
You made at least three claims of something being true. You didn't ask if they were true. You asserted they were true.

For you to get away from having to prove your claims are true, you'd have to withdraw them and admit you don't have any evidence to make that claim. Then you'd be free to ask the question you're trying to ask.

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?

Seems you are unable to get your head out of your *** long enough to.
No surprise though.
Just more of the typical creationist dishonesty.

 

[Rise]

You have commited the same three logical fallacies again, merely repeating yourself.
That makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument ad nauseam". Merely repeating yourself doesn't make your invalid arguments suddenly valid.

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?

Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof" and "red herring".

You were the one who made a claim, not me. You are required, as the one making a claim, to prove your claim or withdrawn you claim and admit you can't prove it.
It's not my responsibility to prove your claim isn't wrong. when you haven't first even attempted to give any facts or arguments to support the supposed truth of your claim.

Here were the claims you made:
Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

You are trying to distract from having to prove your claims by shifting the topic to something else , which makes you guilty of committing a "red herring" offense.

Seems you are unable to get your head out of your *** long enough to.
No surprise though.
Just more of the typical creationist dishonesty.

Logical fallacy, "ad hominem". Being unable to prove your claim, you want to distract from your inability to do so by resorting to personal attacks.