An Open Challenge To Creationists

[Dan From Smithville]

That's just one example. Maybe he says he's Christian but believes in the Hindu gods. And by this time, I'm shrugging one shoulder and thinking, who cares? If you believe he could meet the qualifications of what the Bible sets forth for Christ's followers, but prays to Hindu gods and still says he's a Christian, all I can say at this point is: ok and oh well. And, of course, have a good evening.

Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; John 3:16-17; and John 14:6 all relate what it takes to be Christian and none of them say anything about a literal interpretation of the Bible or disavowing acquired knowledge of the natural world.

 

[dfnj]

You make some interesting points and there is one in particular that I'd like to address, that is your statement that God is responsible for every facet of His creation. Here is where I'd like to discuss that (and here is where I believe free will comes in): I think we will agree that if an all-powerful God creates someone without defect (like Adam and Eve), but as the Ultimate Creator, makes them subject to His will, not their own, yet gives them the right to disobey Him, not programming them in advance to disobey, but gives them the right to exercise their free will (with caveats, instructions, and limitations), would you think that mean He is responsible for every bad decision they henceforth make? I'll leave it there for the moment, because you do bring up some interesting points and just writing about it in response to your post gives me occasion to ponder this. (So thanks...)

I appreciate your thoughtful response. God is not directly responsible for bad decisions people make. God is responsible for creating creatures capable of making bad decisions.

I'm not sure I agree with you on the free-will part. I somewhat agree with you about the part of programming them in advance. However, the problem with free-will is we do not get to choose the list of choices we get to choose from. Unless we have omnipotent powers, our true morality is never tested. Many times we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils. Many times the stresses of modern living push over edges we would not otherwise go under more favorable conditions.

God could have created us with omnipotent powers but He did not. Maybe God did not put too much thought into the Universe He created. Rather than conscious effort maybe all the matter and energy in the Universe came from an overflowing abundance coming out of God. God is perfect and whole. The Universe is not God and full of imperfections. I think it is these imperfections that are the source of all the evil in the World.

And finally, the idea "subject to His will" is difficult for me to accept. As I said and omnipotent God has no needs or desires. It seems to me the idea of being subject to His will is really the idea of the divine rights of kings:

Divine right of kings - Wikipedia

"His will" is not God's will but the human king on Earth supposedly representing God. The Bible is promoting a particular type of government call monarchy. I think the Bible was written by men so the men in power can use it to condition the masses to be obedient to authority. King James was not a nice person:

The True Law of Free Monarchies - Wikipedia

I think the act of sharing with others brings us closer to our God and our God's true nature rather than being obedient to authority or worshiping the words in the Bible a particular way.

 

[Rise]

Please be so kind as to present the claims you claim I claimed.

I already did, several times. But I will repost it for you and try to be even more clear for you to understand what you did:

Your quote:

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 claim here that the only thing creation scientists can present is trying to discredit or poke holes in evolutionism, and claim that they have no affirmative evidence in support of the creation narrative on it's own.
But your assertion is unproven, and cannot be accepted as an established fact.
You haven't given us any reason to believe your assertion is true that creation science has never a made a case that can stand on it's own.

You could do that by citing an individual who advocates for creation science but fails to do anything but try to discredit evolutionism. I don't believe you will find a single professional or semi-professional advocate of creation science that takes that approach. I have certainly never seen any of them do what you claim, and I've read/listened to many of them.

If you are unable to do that then you'd have to admit your claim is baseless and just an assertion, not a statement of fact, but merely a statement of your opinion.

And if your assumption is just your opinion, and has no basis in fact, then you can't make the claim that creation science is required to meet this challenge because you haven't first established that there even exists a need for such a challenge to be met.

 

[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


.

There's actually a very quick and simple way to expose the flaw inherent in the way you've presented this challenge, which invalidates any claim of scientific legitimacy, logical consistency, or intellectual integrity you might try to ascribe to your challenge...

I can do this by asking you one simple question:
Can you give us a reason why we should try to meet your challenge?

Your response, or lack of response, will prove why your challenge was logically invalid to begin with, and why you were intellectually dishonest by presenting a challenge you weren't actually willing to engage in a good faith debate over.

 

[McBell]

I already did, several times. But I will repost it for you and try to be even more clear for you to understand what you did:

Your quote:


You claim here that the only thing creation scientists can present is trying to discredit or poke holes in evolutionism, and claim that they have no affirmative evidence in support of the creation narrative on it's own.
But your assertion is unproven, and cannot be accepted as an established fact.
You haven't given us any reason to believe your assertion is true that creation science has never a made a case that can stand on it's own.

You could do that by citing an individual who advocates for creation science but fails to do anything but try to discredit evolutionism. I don't believe you will find a single professional or semi-professional advocate of creation science that takes that approach. I have certainly never seen any of them do what you claim, and I've read/listened to many of them.

If you are unable to do that then you'd have to admit your claim is baseless and just an assertion, not a statement of fact, but merely a statement of your opinion.

And if your assumption is just your opinion, and has no basis in fact, then you can't make the claim that creation science is required to meet this challenge because you haven't first established that there even exists a need for such a challenge to be met.

"does not seem to be"

One wonders why that particular phrase is so difficult for you.

Perhaps it has to do with your Kool-Aid Man approach to fallacy waving?

 

[Rise]

"does not seem to be"

So you're admitting then you have no evidence to support your claim but it's merely just your opinion? I'm not trying to strawman what you're saying, I'm just clarifying to be sure that's what you're doing.

If so, great, because now we're getting somewhere.

Because if your claim is indeed just a baseless opinion then that takes us back to the end of my post which you quoted but ignored:

"And if your assumption is just your opinion, and has no basis in fact, then you can't make the claim that creation science is required to meet this challenge because you haven't first established that there even exists a need for such a challenge to be met."

So if your original claim is just a baseless opinion then your opinion does not establish a logical need for creation science advocates to prove to you that there are arguments they make which don't just rely on discrediting evolutionism.

You have no basis for declaring that creation science advocates need to prove they don't only use discrediting evolution as proof for their conclusions if you can't first establish any reason why we should believe your claim about creation scientists is even true.

It is a violation of logic for you to try to put the burden on creation scientists to prove something that you can't show they ever claimed was true. You can't show that they ever claimed the creation narrative is true solely on the basis of poking holes in evolutionism. So you have no logical basis to legitimately put the burden of proof on them to prove they can do otherwise.

 

[McBell]

So you're admitting then you have no evidence to support your claim but it's merely just your opinion? I'm not trying to strawman what you're saying, I'm just clarifying to be sure that's what you're doing.

If so, great, because now we're getting somewhere.

Because if your claim is indeed just a baseless opinion then that takes us back to the end of my post which you quoted but ignored:

"And if your assumption is just your opinion, and has no basis in fact, then you can't make the claim that creation science is required to meet this challenge because you haven't first established that there even exists a need for such a challenge to be met."

So if your original claim is just a baseless opinion then your opinion does not establish a logical need for creation science advocates to prove to you that there are arguments they make which don't just rely on discrediting evolutionism.

You have no basis for declaring that creation science advocates need to prove they don't only use discrediting evolution as proof for their conclusions if you can't first establish any reason why we should believe your claim about creation scientists is even true.

It is a violation of logic for you to try to put the burden on creation scientists to prove something that you can't show they ever claimed was true. You can't show that they ever claimed the creation narrative is true solely on the basis of poking holes in evolutionism. So you have no logical basis to legitimately put the burden of proof on them to prove they can do otherwise.

*yawn*
It is not any fault of mine that you are unable to even attempt the challenge.

So, are you gong to attempt the challenge or are you content with continuously wasting the threads time with all your whining and excuses to not even attempt it?

 

[Rise]

*yawn*

You are committing the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule". Unable to answer the argument I made which refuted your position, you can only try to ridicule and dismiss my argument without actually addressing it's substance.

It is not any fault of mine that you are unable to even attempt the challenge.

So, are you gong to attempt the challenge or are you content with continuously wasting the threads time with all your whining and excuses to not even attempt it?

You are committing the Logical fallacy of "Red Herring".
You are unable to refute the argument I presented, so rather than admit that you try to distract from it by attempting to change the topic.


I have conclusively demonstrated that you have no basis for claiming the challenge needs to even be attempted, because your claim that the challenge was necessary to be completed was based only on your unproven opinion - not based on a demonstrable need using facts and logic.

If you want to insist that the challenge should be undertaken, then I will propose the same question to you that I did to skwim: For what reason does this challenge need to be undertaken and completed?

And, if you can't give an answer, then why do you think anyone should waste a considerable amount of time doing so?

Every challenge carries with it an implication that the person has a reason to meet that challenge. If you can't give someone a reason they need to meet the challenge then why would they bother? You yourself, as the one posing the challenge, can't give them a reason to bother expending the time and effort to do so. So why then would you expect them, as the one being challenged, to invent that reason for you and then decide to do the challenge anyway?

 

[Polymath257]

There's actually a very quick and simple way to expose the flaw inherent in the way you've presented this challenge, which invalidates any claim of scientific legitimacy, logical consistency, or intellectual integrity you might try to ascribe to your challenge...

I can do this by asking you one simple question:
Can you give us a reason why we should try to meet your challenge?

Because we seekers for the truth.

I already did, several times. But I will repost it for you and try to be even more clear for you to understand what you did:

Your quote:

You claim here that the only thing creation scientists can present is trying to discredit or poke holes in evolutionism, and claim that they have no affirmative evidence in support of the creation narrative on it's own.
But your assertion is unproven, and cannot be accepted as an established fact.
You haven't given us any reason to believe your assertion is true that creation science has never a made a case that can stand on it's own.

You could do that by citing an individual who advocates for creation science but fails to do anything but try to discredit evolutionism. I don't believe you will find a single professional or semi-professional advocate of creation science that takes that approach. I have certainly never seen any of them do what you claim, and I've read/listened to many of them.

Interesting. I have yet to see any creationist that did anything else. But, if you want, I can give some specific examples. They are in my library, so I have some familiarity with them.

'Defeating Darwinism' by Johnson.

'Refuting Evolution' by Sarfati.

Anything by Gish.

If you are unable to do that then you'd have to admit your claim is baseless and just an assertion, not a statement of fact, but merely a statement of your opinion.

I'll make a counter challenge. Find *one* creationist that actually supports their viewpoint based on evidence. I have seen a LOT of speculation collapses under the slightest scrutiny (laminar flow, anyone?, or how about the attempts to merge with general relativity?). But not *one* that can actually support anything they say with evidence. Instead, they pretty much uniformly attack evolution and other sciences (Big Bang is also a favorite target) without anything positive for their positions.

I'll go further. In their attacks, a primary tool is the 'quote mine'. They like to take legitimate scientific articles out of context and twist them to say exactly what they did not say. I recall an example I looked up where they claimed dating methods are unreliable. But, when I actually went to the source, that was not at all what the original paper said. Instead, it was looking at *when* the methods are reliable and what cautions need to be taken.

 

[McBell]

You are committing the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Ridicule". Unable to answer the argument I made which refuted your position, you can only try to ridicule and dismiss my argument without actually addressing it's substance.



You are committing the Logical fallacy of "Red Herring".
You are unable to refute the argument I presented, so rather than admit that you try to distract from it by attempting to change the topic.


I have conclusively demonstrated that you have no basis for claiming the challenge needs to even be attempted, because your claim that the challenge was necessary to be completed was based only on your unproven opinion - not based on a demonstrable need using facts and logic.

If you want to insist that the challenge should be undertaken, then I will propose the same question to you that I did to skwim: For what reason does this challenge need to be undertaken and completed?

And, if you can't give an answer, then why do you think anyone should waste a considerable amount of time doing so?

Every challenge carries with it an implication that the person has a reason to meet that challenge. If you can't give someone a reason they need to meet the challenge then why would they bother? You yourself, as the one posing the challenge, can't give them a reason to bother expending the time and effort to do so. So why then would you expect them, as the one being challenged, to invent that reason for you and then decide to do the challenge anyway?

This thread is about creationists making a case for creation that does not depend upon evolution.

You would rather whine and complain about the challenge instead of actually attempting the challenge.

All your fluff and window dressing does not distract me from the fact that the only thing you have attempted in this thread is try to distract from the fact that you refuse to even attempt the challenge.

That you try to twist it so that it is somehow every one elses fault other than yours is most comical.
Or it was at first.
Now you are just being boring.

Your fear of the challenge has been noted.
Repeatedly.

 

[Polymath257]

all rightee...

In other words, you have no response?

To be a Christian, at least since the mid 4th century, means to accept the Nicene Creed. Of course, there were other Christian sects that didn't accept it, but the orthodox merely claimed them to be heretical. But then the other sects declared the orthodox to be heretical, so it goes both ways. In particular, the Nestorian Christians have a long tradition that disagrees with the Nicene creed.

Even at the earliest times of Christianity, there was widespread disagreement as to whether Jesus was God incarnate. Many Christians did not believe that to be the case. Remember that the Bible as we know it wasn't assembled until fairly late and many Christians simply based their beliefs on different texts and different traditions. Some believed him to have not been human. Some believed him to not be a deity. Some believed him to be a messenger from a true deity that was not the one that created the Earth.

Today, the usual definition of 'being a Christian' is that someone agrees with the Nicene creed. And that has been the primary definition of the term 'Christian' for well over 1500 years.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You make the presumption that creationist conclusions about the world can't stand on their own, but your presumption is not a proven fact.

Yet the presumption seems rather justified considering the many years creationists have been spreading their propaganda, while no creationist ever presented a case for creationism that could stand on its own merrits.

Not to my / our knowledge, anyway

You haven't even given a logical argument or factual basis for why you think that claim could be true.

The mere observation of no creationist being able (or willing) to present such a case, seems enough justification. In fact, it's the only justification that is logically possible. In such a case, the absence of evidence IS the evidence of absence.

That's always the case with such negative claims. In this case, the claim would be that no such creationist case exists. Consider the claim that unicorns don't exist. You can't demonstrate or support that with positive evidence. One can only point to the complete absence of evidence to the contrary.

So to disprove the claim, all it takes is to show a unicorn, or come up with positive evidence to support the unicorn case. And the same goes for the creationist case.

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

Maybe you should first consider what the claim actually is, before aking silly demands.

One does not prove negative claims.
This is why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

The positive claim would be that there IS a case in support for creationism that CAN stand on its own merrits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Maybe you should google it instead and learn about how the burden of proof is on the POSITIVE claim.
Now read the claim you are talking about and ask yourself what the word "NOT" in "can not stand on it's own" means.

The positive version of that claim, is that it CAN stand on its own. That it can NOT, is the negative claim.

As I explained in the previous post, the only way you can support such a negative claim, is by pointing at the absence of evidence for the contrary.

Existance is what needs to be demonstrated.
Non-existance is, for all practical intents and purposes, assumed until existance is demonstrated.
Just like court. A person is considered innocent until demonstrated otherwise.

I find the "creationist case" not guilty of "being able to stand on its own". It's the default.

 

[ecco]

I have conclusively demonstrated...

Let's simplify.

Present evidence for Creationism.


Note: Nonsense comments like "Look at any tree" will not suffice.

 

[McBell]

Let's simplify.

Present evidence for Creationism.


Note: Nonsense comments like "Look at any tree" will not suffice.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Let's simplify.

Present evidence for Creationism.


Note: Nonsense comments like "Look at any tree" will not suffice.

Please explain the difference between proof as in metaphysical naturalism and evidence as in methodological naturalism. How come science uses methodological naturalism and not metaphysical naturalism?
Evidence as you use it; i.e. methodological naturalism says nothing about creationism.
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.
...Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature...
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science starts with the unprovable assumption that the universe is natural, where as Creationism starts with the unprovable assumption of a creator God.
There is no way to settle that, because there is apparently no proof possible for what the universe is. There are in practice different assumptions and evidence, as you use it, starts with the assumption, that the universe is natural.
So there is no other evidence possible, because of how evidence works in science.

Now if you can prove metaphysical naturalism, I am willing to listen to you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Sandra Jayne]

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

I have read posts on this debate on this forum and others and nothing is ever resolved, both arguments have their strengths and weakenesses but the truth is we don't know, I'm certainly unsure, wish I wasn't.

However, I read something once that have always stayed with me and I often reflect on it.
"Are we really just a chemical anomaly, the profundity of human suffering begs the question, is this it?

 

[Heyo]

I have read posts on this debate on this forum and others and nothing is ever resolved, both arguments have their strengths and weakenesses but the truth is we don't know, I'm certainly unsure, wish I wasn't.

No, you don't.
(Or you have never been given the tools to reason and experiment towards a conclusion, i.e. a science education.)
"You want the truth? You can't handle the truth" - Colonel Nathan R. Jessup
If you believe something, you don't want to find out that you are wrong. That's what this thread is all about. Do creationists have a case? The answer is: No. But they have a lot of excuses why they don't accept the answer.

However, I read something once that have always stayed with me and I often reflect on it.
"Are we really just a chemical anomaly, the profundity of human suffering begs the question, is this it?

Such questions are a tool to sidetrack from the question at hand. A great method of not having to face the truth.

 

[ecco]

Let's simplify.
Present evidence for Creationism.

Note: Nonsense comments like "Look at any tree" will not suffice.

Please explain the difference between proof as in metaphysical naturalism and evidence as in methodological naturalism. How come science uses methodological naturalism and not metaphysical naturalism?
Evidence as you use it; i.e. methodological naturalism says nothing about creationism.
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations.
...Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature...
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science starts with the unprovable assumption that the universe is natural, where as Creationism starts with the unprovable assumption of a creator God.
There is no way to settle that, because there is apparently no proof possible for what the universe is. There are in practice different assumptions and evidence, as you use it, starts with the assumption, that the universe is natural.
So there is no other evidence possible, because of how evidence works in science.

Now if you can prove metaphysical naturalism, I am willing to listen to you.

Regards
Mikkel

So, bottom line, you can present no evidence for creationism. I didn't think so and neither did the peanut gallery.

There have been many threads like this one over the years and in all that time no one has ever been able to present any evidence for creationism. Your tap dance was no better or worse than any of the others. Sad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, bottom line, you can present no evidence for creationism. I didn't think so and neither did the peanut gallery.

There have been many threads like this one over the years and in all that time no one has ever been able to present any evidence for creationism. Your tap dance was no better or worse than any of the others. Sad.

But that doesn't mean that evolution is neither true nor false. It means that evolution is conditional on the universe is as it appears to humans. That assumption is unprovable, thus neither true nor false, but conditional e.g. on that no god created the universe e.g. 6000 years ago or e.g. that you are not in a Boltzmann Brain universe.

Further evolution is what makes religion natural. Religion is not wrong in natural terms as per biology, it is a natural human behavior. You can't with science say that religion is wrong. You can only say this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

So that there is no evidence against evolution doesn't solve anything, because religion is a natural behavior.

Regards
Mikkel