Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Desert Snake]

Stop trolling. Can you show at least a bit of respect and address my point. WE, meaning human beings, already understand how these things form in nature. So, why did you mention these things?

First of all, I'm not trolling, and your comments in various threads in response to my comments do not show any more ''respect''. It isn't about respect, it's about the facts. 'We', do not know why these things formed. We observe them, and we observe how they interact with nature. We don't have a clue in the scientific sense how the cosmic goop developed into these organisms, etc. You are conflating knowledge of a thing, like a plant, etc., with origin or ''reason'' for their existence.

 

[leibowde84]

First of all, I'm not trolling, and your comments in various threads in response to my comments do not show any more ''respect''. It isn't about respect, it's about the facts. 'We', do not know why these things formed. We observe them, and we observe how they interact with nature. We don't have a clue in the scientific sense how the cosmic goop developed into these organisms, etc. You are conflating knowledge of a thing, like a plant, etc., with origin or ''reason'' for their existence.

So, are you asking how life began? Because, evolution doesn't make any claims about that. It is a scientific theory as to how life "evolved" into the various species we see today (and a plethora of species that died out along the way).

 

[Desert Snake]

So, are you asking how life began?

No, I'm not.

Because, evolution doesn't make any claims about that. It is a scientific theory as to how life "evolved" into the various species we see today (and a plethora of species that died out along the way).

Great.

 

[leibowde84]

No, I'm not.

Great.

So, you agree then?

 

[Desert Snake]

So, you agree then?

Agree with what? That evolution posits various theories? Sure, if we are on the same page as to what that means.

 

[leibowde84]

Agree with what? That evolution posits various theories? Sure, if we are on the same page as to what that means.

The following is what "evolution" is:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 

[Desert Snake]

The following is what "evolution" is:

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Back to my original point, what does this have to do with Creationism?

 

[leibowde84]

Back to my original point, what does this have to do with Creationism?

That they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[Desert Snake]

That they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm taking into consideration all of the available evidence I have, and reaching the conclusion that Creationism is the best option or theory. Whether various theories are affecting that belief, simply depends on the context of the information etc.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm taking into consideration all of the available evidence I have, and reaching the conclusion that Creationism is the best option or theory. Whether various theories are affecting that belief, simply depends on the context of the information etc.

Can you define "creationism" for me, just so I know where you are coming from? Also, what evidence do you have that supports this as being accurate?

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you define "creationism" for me, just so I know where you are coming from? Also, what evidence do you have that supports this as being accurate?

An intelligent creation, ie a Deity in my beliefs. It isn't my intention to present evidence, I only commented in the thread in the context of how evolution theory relates to creationism.

 

[leibowde84]

An intelligent creation, ie a Deity in my beliefs. It isn't my intention to present evidence, I only commented in the thread in the context of how evolution theory relates to creationism.

Hold up ... if you don't want to present evidence, why did you claim the following:

"I'm taking into consideration all of the available evidence I have, and reaching the conclusion that Creationism is the best option or theory."

I'm just asking what evidence you are basing this conclusion on.

 

[leibowde84]

An intelligent creation, ie a Deity in my beliefs. It isn't my intention to present evidence, I only commented in the thread in the context of how evolution theory relates to creationism.

So, why does this discount evolution? Couldn't a deity have used evolution as a tool, as evolution does not speak to how it was initiated or life began in general.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, why does this discount evolution? Couldn't a deity have used evolution as a tool, as evolution does not speak to how it was initiated or life began in general.

It wouldn't necessarily, but that depends on ones ideas concerning Creationism. So, it will discount evolution for some people, not for others.

 

[Desert Snake]

Hold up ... if you don't want to present evidence, why did you claim the following:

"I'm taking into consideration all of the available evidence I have, and reaching the conclusion that Creationism is the best option or theory."

I'm just asking what evidence you are basing this conclusion on.

Is there evidence that Creation did not occur? I'm not aware of it. Can you present evidence that Creationism is incorrect?

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I was just pointing out that there is no necessity for a change to be "required" by any way shape or form. Natural selection is based on benefit, not requirements.

Okay. I wasn't really referring to this. I was talking about the relationship between the development between our cognitive faculties and our evolutionary development. If anything, what you say underscores the fact it is far from certain the latter is likely to have lead to reliable instances of the former.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Again, you keep on saying "I don't think it's necessary", but that is merely a straw man. No one in evolutionary science has every claimed that improvements must be "necessary" in order to make sense.

I have no idea how this is a response to my argument. I am not sure you understand the argument.

And, our ability to reason makes it much easier to hunt, grow food, provide shelter, etc. It separates us from every other species.

Well this is the same assertion you made earlier. You need to make a proper argument that there must be a strong relationship between our evolutionary development and the development of reliable reason, especially abstract reason, not just point meekly at a few possible benefits. Naturalism and naturalistic evolution are based on abstract and speculative reason. We need a good reason to think, therefore, if we are going to suggest our reason developed through evolution, that this process led to reliable reason.

One response to what you wrote is why would response to stimuli not account for what you describe just as well? As I said, when we withdraw our finger from a hot stove, we do not rely on reason, but a response to stimuli. And this response to stimuli is not the same as reason. Why could it not just as easily account for the survival of early and proto-humans?

Another response is that it seems possible that our faculties could be unreliable and still help us to survive in our environment, if they still worked to lead to our survival. It is not the accuracy of our cognitive faculties that is what makes them necessarily useful for survival, but simply that in our environment, with the rest of our needs, they happen to lead to survival. There has been no real link provided simply by saying reason might be useful for the situations you bring up.

Finally, naturalism and naturalistic evolution as theories are not supported only by the sort of reason needed to hunt. They are supported by an abstract, speculative reason that goes far beyond the apparent character of the world. It is one thing to talk about cognitive faculties reliable for hunting or making shelters, another to talk about those reliable for scientific and philosophical speculation. There seems nothing in your point that would provide a strong link between the reasoning you refer to and the sort of reliable speculative and abstract reason required.

 

[leibowde84]

It wouldn't necessarily, but that depends on ones ideas concerning Creationism. So, it will discount evolution for some people, not for others.

What do you believe personally?

 

[leibowde84]

Is there evidence that Creation did not occur? I'm not aware of it. Can you present evidence that Creationism is incorrect?

That is a ridiculously unreasonable request. Creationism has the burden of proof, as I am not claiming that creationism is impossible. I'm merely asking that you support your claim.

It is absurd to ask someone for evidence against a theory that hasn't even been sufficiently expressed and defined.

 

[Desert Snake]

That is a ridiculously unreasonable request. Creationism has the burden of proof, as I am not claiming that creationism is impossible. I'm merely asking that you support your claim.

It is absurd to ask someone for evidence against a theory that hasn't even been sufficiently expressed and defined.

So, my belief, ie /1/, has the burden of proof against against.../0/? Sorry, that doesn't make sense. /0/ is not an applicable position or stance to warrant burden of proof against.