Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Shad]

Just reading what was written, I would say this guy is just cutting and pasting from a creationist article and is not interested in reading the scientific literature to see what the current consensus actually is.

Most of the post is directly copied from JW nonsense (books) they pawn off on their members to keep them under control and ignorant.

 

[First Baseman]

Logically defensible inferences or deductions given data. These need not involve testimony.

These are also often wrong.

 

[First Baseman]

it is historically and scientifically inaccurate. It is also full of contradictions. Nothing suggest the bible is valid. Finally the bible is filled with absolutely horrible things.

On the contrary you are wrong on all counts. It is historically and scientifically very accurate. There are no contradictions. Everything suggests the Bible is the most accurate 66 books ever written. The Bible contains truth, some of that truth just doesn't sit well with you so you mock it.

 

[First Baseman]

Abiogenesis is necessary for evolution to occur without a creator. Therefore you must either have a creator or abiogenesis if you are a macroevolutionist. Abiogenesis is unavoidable for you since it is mandatory for evolution to have any credence at all, which, quite frankly, it has none as it is now since there is no generally accepted viable abiogenesis theory.

Good day to you and God bless you.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

How can someone show you whether or not there was a creation? No one can. You must examine all of the evidence and decide for yourself based on whomsoever you choose to believe.

The Holy Spirit has convinced me the Bible is God's word. The Holy Spirit indwells all Christians.

So, to sum up, My posts have constantly been "What are the evidence"
and your responses are "just look... all this evidence I'm not going to actually show, but I'll mention it repeatedly. evidence..."

I've asked what evidence, I've asked what led you to believe the bible is valid, and all you offer is, literally, the word "evidence".
..that's not how evidence works, you don't just say the word.. it's actually supposed to be a thing you show, or at least explain. You're just... saying the word over and over.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I already presented evidence in a previous post. I was asking a question here.

My apologies, I probably missed it.. Posting while working, too.
Could you tell me the post# you gave evidence in, them, if you would be so kind?

 

[Desert Snake]

My apologies, I probably missed it.. Posting while working, too.
Could you tell me the post# you gave evidence in, them, if you would be so kind?

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Asking for ''evidence''. is vague and not very descriptive.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Asking for ''evidence''. is vague and not very descriptive.

Preferably any verifiable claim, testable hypothesis, could be on a related subject, like "prayer works, here's someone who went to the doctor with X ailment, and with nothing other than prayer, here's the documented results which are far outside normal statistical chance." Or "The evidence I find for creationism, is X data, taken from nature, which points to a god with X properties, and cannot be shown to be simply ambiguous or naturally occurring, or that I'm pushing the data toward a predetermined answer I wanted."
I'm pretty open to most evidence, love verifiable, replicatable data that can be shown to others as something more than personal testimony, or "you gotta just believe, and then you'll believe"

Pretty accepting of most evidence, what do ya have?

 

[outhouse]

On the contrary you are wrong on all counts

False and your lack of knowledge on this topic limits your ability which focusses on your complete failure to debate.

. It is historically and scientifically very accurate

Factually false

There are no contradictions

Factually false

. Everything suggests the Bible is the most accurate 66 books ever written

Factually false

The Bible contains truth

True, it does

 

[outhouse]

What sort of evidence are you looking for? Asking for ''evidence''. is vague and not very descriptive.

NO

That sis just your desperate rhetoric in light if having nothing outside mythology and imagination to place forward as what you define evidence.

You may define evidence in such vague terms, because evidence is not what you base belief on.


You have always showed a direct refusal of facts and credible evidence, and this post confirms your weakness to supply credible evidence, as you cannot even define in context what credible evidence is when asked in a very patient manner.

 

[Desert Snake]

Preferably any verifiable claim, testable hypothesis, could be on a related subject, like "prayer works, here's someone who went to the doctor with X ailment, and with nothing other than prayer, here's the documented results which are far outside normal statistical chance." Or "The evidence I find for creationism, is X data, taken from nature, which points to a god with X properties, and cannot be shown to be simply ambiguous or naturally occurring, or that I'm pushing the data toward a predetermined answer I wanted."
I'm pretty open to most evidence, love verifiable, replicatable data that can be shown to others as something more than personal testimony, or "you gotta just believe, and then you'll believe"

Pretty accepting of most evidence, what do ya have?

I don't have a formatted argument. If I think of something relevant, i'll post it. My position is one of practicality, ie, the earth seems created, etc. I don't have many options for anything other than creationism, because I don't buy the proposed theories.

 

[outhouse]

My position is one of practicality, ie, the earth seems created

creation mythology is anything but practical

I don't have many options for anything other than creationism, because I don't buy the proposed theories.

Oh so the old "ill stay willfully ignorant" because its comfortable is your excuse for not having a shred of credible evidence ???

 

[Desert Snake]

creation mythology is anything but practical



Oh so the old "ill stay willfully ignorant" because its comfortable is your excuse for not having a shred of credible evidence ???

You havn't presented anything credible. I have more ''evidence'' than you, and far more of a logical basis. Go ahead and present your theory, we're waiting.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

These are also often wrong.

So you propose illogical inferences or deductions given data? Or logical inferences or deductions without data? Or what? After all, testimony is data. It's just data that is subject to more removed from "objective fact" than is e.g., measurement/observation of that which testimony testifies to. Or course, with the bible, you don't even have testimony of the texts within it (and, unless you can read Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic- although Greek and Hebrew suffices for almost all Biblical texts- you don't even have that; you have interpretations of reconstructions given inconsistent datasets of the original biblical texts). And "examination" bereft of logic is mere speculation. There is no conclusion that is more or less warranted by examination of testimony or other data without logic as there is not even so much as a consistent method of determining likelihood, excluding impossibilities as unlikely (or even determining what may or may not be possible), etc. Such examinations are capable of yielding any conclusions without bounds or constraints, and incapable of any rational evaluation of distinct conclusions.

 

[Shad]

You havn't presented anything credible. I have more ''evidence'' than you, and far more of a logical basis. Go ahead and present your theory, we're waiting.

You have zero evidence otherwise your views would be taught in every university on the planet. It is not.

 

[Desert Snake]

You have zero evidence otherwise your views would be taught in every university on the planet. It is not.

Lol no that's incorrect. If I had zero evidence for my beliefs, I wouldn't believe them. The problem is that I do have evidence, and it goes against what you would propose. Ie, I can't entertain your theories until you come up with better ones.

 

[Shad]

Lol no that's incorrect. If I had zero evidence for my beliefs, I wouldn't believe them.

You definition of evidence is subjective then not objective.

The problem is that I do have evidence, and it goes against what you would propose. Ie, I can't entertain your theories until you come up with better ones.

Your evidence toss not topple current theories thus it is not evidence but wishful thinking.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I don't have a formatted argument. If I think of something relevant, i'll post it. My position is one of practicality, ie, the earth seems created, etc. I don't have many options for anything other than creationism, because I don't buy the proposed theories.

Seems created, ok. What suggests creation, and how does that point to anything?
Does "seems created" even point to anything other than "i just have a feeling that.."

 

[Desert Snake]

Seems created, ok. What suggests creation, and how does that point to anything?
Does "seems created" even point to anything other than "i just have a feeling that.."

I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. The only reason that I commented in this thread is to bring up the logical inconsistency of 'proving' a belief , hence /1/, against what is essentially a non-position, /0/. There is no need to 'make your case', against /0/.

 

[Skwim]

I don't have a formatted argument. If I think of something relevant, i'll post it. My position is one of practicality, ie, the earth seems created, etc. I don't have many options for anything other than creationism, because I don't buy the proposed theories.

As far as I can see, this should end the discussion. Seemingly trumps evidence. Creationism isn't right based on its merits, but because there's nothing else around that looks good.