Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Desert Snake]

You are innately a creationist? If you were born in a different place with different beliefs you would innately still believe as you do now? What part is innate and what part is not-innate?

Yes, I am innately a Creationist.
That is an unanswerable question, therefore irrelevant.
Creationism is innate, I'm not sure what you mean, by, 'and what part is not innate'.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Yes, I am innately a Creationist.
That is an unanswerable question, therefore irrelevant.
Creationism is innate, I'm not sure what you mean, by, 'and what part is not innate'.

If you are referring to beliefs, whatever beliefs are innate to us, we /theoretically/, believe as a default.
What we are taught, infer, learn, etc., would /theoretically/, follow the same guidelines.
What you seem to be postulating, is that I cannot tell what I believe, innately. This is a purposeless stance, because one assumes that a person would logically know what they think is the truth, etc. If someone states that they are a non-creationist, I am assuming that they actually hold that position, and are not either , /lying/, or are unable to determine that they hold that position.

I have postulated that you and I may mean very different things when we say "innate". I don't think any learned behavior is innate at all. Any knowledge we have is also not innate.

What you mean to say is that to you, you feel that your beliefs are natural and normal. You feel like you are like this always without ever having been different. But what you believe is still learned. That is what I mean.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes, I have expressed that i'm a Creationist. That is what I believe, and it is my ''default'' position. So, anything beyond that is merely taking us off topic. In order for me to be convinced of your position, your going to have to present evidence.

Creationism means different things to different people so can you explain what you believe specifically?

 

[rusra02]

You have no dea how fne tuned the laws are because you only have one universe to examine Maybe there is another universe or used to be another universe which was even better suited for life. What percentage of this univerese is suited to life as we know it???

I believe we should follow the evidence, don't you? There is zero evidence for the multi universe theory. There is abundant evidence, IMO, that this universe was designed by an infinitely powerful and intelligent Creator.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe we should follow the evidence, don't you? There is zero evidence for the multi universe theory. There is abundant evidence, IMO, that this universe was designed by an infinitely powerful and intelligent Creator.

Beyond "making sense to you" (not real evidence, as it is merey subjective) and speculation as to "the universe coming from nothing", "life coming from non-life", etc. What evideence do you have to support creationism?

 

[Yorutenchi]

I believe we should follow the evidence, don't you? There is zero evidence for the multi universe theory. There is abundant evidence, IMO, that this universe was designed by an infinitely powerful and intelligent Creator.

In science there are many levels a theory can be held on. Some are considered true and some are considered possible. Some are even considered merely to be speculation. Not all theories are equal. The multiverse theory is an interesting theory and it appeals to many people. However we don't know it to be true and it isn't considered to be a fact in science.
I would not be equal to compare it to ID which claims to be true. What is the evidence that this universe is designed? I have seen speculation but no evidence.

 

[leibowde84]

In science there are many levels a theory can be held on. Some are considered true and some are considered possible. Some are even considered merely to be speculation. Not all theories are equal. The multiverse theory is an interesting theory and it appeals to many people. However we don't know it to be true and it isn't considered to be a fact in science.
I would not be equal to compare it to ID which claims to be true. What is the evidence that this universe is designed? I have seen speculation but no evidence.

It is based on the erroneous "we know a watch is designed ... and look how complex the universe is" argument. It is PURE SPECULATION literally depending on our lack of scientific understanding, and is an example of the logically flawed "God of the gaps" argument.

 

[outhouse]

The multiverse theory is an interesting theory

I thought it was just a hypothesis. It has a long way to go before being considered a theory.

 

[Skwim]

I thought it was just a hypothesis. It has a long way to go before being considered a theory.

Yeah, although commonly called a theory it lacks falsifiability, the hallmark of a theory.

 

[Yorutenchi]

I thought it was just a hypothesis. It has a long way to go before being considered a theory.

It is still refereed to as a theory. I do not think there are any real practical differences between hypothesis and theories. They are sometimes used, I think, interchangeably? I am not fully sure of the difference between the two but I do know that the Multiverse is considered a theory.

 

[outhouse]

I am not fully sure of the difference between the two but I do know that the Multiverse is considered a theory.

Sorry bud but in science a theory is something that passes peer review similar to a fact. It would be accepted as what is if it was a theory.

It is a known hypothesis. Meaning educated guess.

The physics community continues to fiercely debate the multiverse hypothesis. "wiki"

 

[Skwim]

It is still refereed to as a theory. I do not think there are any real practical differences between hypothesis and theories. They are sometimes used, I think, interchangeably? I am not fully sure of the difference between the two but I do know that the Multiverse is considered a theory.

There's a very real difference.

"A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science, a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence.
source​

 

[rusra02]

It is based on the erroneous "we know a watch is designed ... and look how complex the universe is" argument. It is PURE SPECULATION literally depending on our lack of scientific understanding, and is an example of the logically flawed "God of the gaps" argument.

When an ancient ruin is uncovered in the jungle, would it be scientific to say, "it is PURE SPECULATION to assume this place had an intelligent designer? We simply lack scientific understanding as to how such a structure could develop. Eventually, we will discover how this was possible to exist without a designer." As Romans 1:20 says; "For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny God] are inexcusable."

 

[Yorutenchi]

When an ancient ruin is uncovered in the jungle, would it be scientific to say, "it is PURE SPECULATION to assume this place had an intelligent designer? We simply lack scientific understanding as to how such a structure could develop. Eventually, we will discover how this was possible to exist without a designer." As Romans 1:20 says; "For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they [who deny God] are inexcusable."

No one would say it was pure speculation. Humans create buildings. Buildings do no spawn in forests. If we find something known to have been made by men and it does not occur normally on its own we would assume someone built it. But what about things men do not make? What about the forest? No one planted those seeds. We do not assume they are designed.

 

[rusra02]

No one would say it was pure speculation. Humans create buildings. Buildings do no spawn in forests. If we find something known to have been made by men and it does not occur normally on its own we would assume someone built it. But what about things men do not make? What about the forest? No one planted those seeds. We do not assume they are designed.

How do you assume they got there?

 

[Yorutenchi]

How do you assume they got there?

They grew from the seeds that came from the tree's before it. This is a cycle that goes back to the development of the trees themselves. All life had a single ancestor long long ago. And most likely abiogensis out of the chemical processes of this planet created the first life. This process can be taken back all the way to the big bang. Before that we don't know what happened. But from that point to now there is no need for a god to explain what we have. And if it is an unknown there is no need to have god explain that either.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How do you assume they got there?

Is this the evidence you have? What's you single BEST evidence for creationism, is it this, or do ou have an actual piece of evidence?

 

[First Baseman]

Looking for evidence?

Romans 1:20 basically says that it is so obvious that God created that those who think otherwise are without excuse if they do not believe it. Proof in the scientific sense is unnecessary since it cannot be proved God did not create.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Looking for evidence?

Romans 1:20 basically says that it is so obvious that God created that those who think otherwise are without excuse if they do not believe it. Proof in the scientific sense is unnecessary since it cannot be proved God did not create.

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

So, you're using the Bible, which is the source of the claim of creationism, as proof for creationism...
So you're fine with having a claim act as it's own proof.
In that case, what do you have to show the Bible is a valid source?

 

[Desert Snake]

Creationism means different things to different people so can you explain what you believe specifically?

I'm not sure why specifics of such are relevant to the debate. You either are a Creationist, or you aren't.