Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Okay, now, where is all of this spite coming from? I don't get it ...

I do hope you know that your idea of empathy can very easily be considered condescending, a different form of looking down one's nose at others.

Of course it can. Christians and Muslims, on the other hand, feel "empathy" or "compassion" for me for not believing and for not experiencing the world as they experience the world. Those not of their faith consider this equally condescending. I don't. They truly believe what they say and I have experienced their grief at looking to a fellow human being while believing that human being is destined to eternal suffering. Their compassion is real and should not be taken lightly or ridiculed. If it is taken as condescending; that isn't my intent and it isn't my responsibility.

And considering I've spent a great deal of my youth jealous of those I perceived as ignorant, I'd disagree that ignorance is darkness and knowledge is light. In my experience, knowledge is a burden.

With knowledge, is power. I agree to the extent that knowledge does present the burden on how to use that knowledge; or the burden on how to deal with the reality of that knowledge. I, for one, have never been jealous of those more ignorant than myself. I hate it when people withhold things from me or try to "ease" bad news on me. Before I can effectively cope or respond to any situation, I need to know what it is I need to cope with or respond to. Just lay it on me and I'll work the rest out. I am rather jealous of those who know more than I. Ignorance is as much a burden, if not more, than knowledge itself. It is in ignorance that we make seemingly good decisions but find disastrous results on the other side. I simply can not relate to your philosophy. Not knowing why volcanoes erupt, or how to treat otherwise deadly illnesses left mankind in the darkness of fear and powerlessness.

And I don't mean to crap on your philosophical beliefs ...

I am perceiving that you do, indeed, mean to do exactly that. Which is okay with me. And I reserve the right to admit that my perceptions may be in error and that I may be incorrect.

... but is a momentary feeling of awe really worth.... like.... anything?

Interesting question. Maybe; maybe not. For me, I find it to be an experience worth experiencing; but nothing to base one's life on, if that makes any sense.

I don't agree with YEC's or any fundamentalist doctrine but I mean.. atleast they've got something going on.

I was once a YEC; remember? I stridently disagree with this. There is no value whatsoever to an individual or to society as a whole in chosen ignorance.

 

[Thana]

Okay, now, where is all of this spite coming from? I don't get it ...

Spite? I don't feel spiteful at all, I'm sorry if that's what has come across.

With knowledge, is power. I agree to the extent that knowledge does present the burden on how to use that knowledge; or the burden on how to deal with the reality of that knowledge. I, for one, have never been jealous of those more ignorant than myself. I hate it when people withhold things from me or try to "ease" bad news on me. Before I can effectively cope or respond to any situation, I need to know what it is I need to cope with or respond to. Just lay it on me and I'll work the rest out. I am rather jealous of those who know more than I. Ignorance is as much a burden, if not more, than knowledge itself. It is in ignorance that we make seemingly good decisions but find disastrous results on the other side. I simply can not relate to your philosophy.

Hah, likewise. I can't relate to your philoshophy either.
I may be somewhat jaded, but I recognize that I am that way because of knowledge

I am perceiving that you do, indeed, mean to do exactly that. Which is okay with me. And I reserve the right to admit that my perceptions may be in error and that I may be incorrect.

You may be right, I haven't really examined my motives in regards to this debate.

Interesting question. Maybe; maybe not. For me, I find it to be an experience worth experiencing; but nothing to base one's life on, if that makes any sense.

I was once a YEC; remember? I stridently disagree with this. There is no value whatsoever to an individual or to society as a whole in chosen ignorance.

Well if I wasn't a Christian I'd be a pretty hardcore Nihilist, I can't help but see no value whatsoever in anything. Being a killer or a saint would have the same end result, and morality is essentially peer pressure in my mind.

But like I said in my original post you and yours seem to focus heavily on the crime of ignorance for some reason.

 

[Bunyip]

Spite? I don't feel spiteful at all, I'm sorry if that's what has come across.



Hah, likewise. I can't relate to your philoshophy either.
I may be somewhat jaded, but I recognize that I am that way because of knowledge



You may be right, I haven't really examined my motives in regards to this debate.



Well if I wasn't a Christian I'd be a pretty hardcore Nihilist, I can't help but see no value whatsoever in anything. Being a killer or a saint would have the same end result, and morality is essentially peer pressure in my mind.

Wow! So you are a sociopath?

But like I said in my original post you and yours seem to focus heavily on the crime of ignorance for some reason.

 

[Thana]

Wow! So you are a sociopath?

No, I'm a Christian.
But If I wasn't then... probably.

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm a Christian.
But If I wasn't then... probably.

Stay in church then please.

 

[Thana]

Stay in church then please.

Cute, but I don't go to church.

And I don't think being a Nihilist makes one a sociopath. One can find morality meaningless but still be empathetic.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have never seen a flower being painted by a human being*, nor have I seen a factory that produced trees, no one holds the patent rights to a child. I have never seen someone make a planet or a star. It is hard to believe in a star-maker when we know how stars form.
Generally roses don't need a painter.

It's the Mister Entitlement view of reality.

That everything just sort of automatically forms, and then only you get honored for your effort to pick the apples from an appletree, and bring them to your family for consumption.

You get money automatically from the government, and only you are honored for doing the chore of buying the groceries, and bringing them to your family for consumption.

The logic of subjectivity says that the painting is beautiful is equally logically valid to the conclusion the painting is ugly. And it is equally logically valid to say that scientists have no emotions, as it is to say they have emotions. How about we deny the human spirit of scientists for a while, as they deny God the holy spirit all the time? Deny their efforts are real, and that the technology just sort of automatically forms.

 

[Deathbydefault]

No it is seeing morality as peer pressure that makes you a sociopath, most people have what we call a 'moral compass'.

I do have a moral compass, it's just not nearly as fleshed out as most peoples.
That and I recognize and follow what is considered morally correct and beneficial to society

How about we deny the human spirit of scientists for a while, as they deny God the holy spirit all the time? Deny their efforts are real, and that the technology just sort of automatically forms.

Lets not. While almost all of the scientific community is atheist, 'almost all' isn't 'all' by itself.
You are generalizing a group of people based on backhanded knowledge.
Also, without these scientists the world would be a much bleaker and more deadly place for the masses.
With all the scientific community has done, in terms of progress, they've earned some respect.

I could have interpreted your message here incorrectly, as your way of constructing sentences forms multiple pictures.
But I basically got,
"let's disrespect the efforts of scientists because creationism is obviously better and more plausible if you just think about it!"
out of what you said.

I apologize if that is not what you meant.

 

[leibowde84]

Ignorance? The fine-tuning of the laws governing the universe are scientific facts, only recently understood. This "God of the gaps" argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors, IMO. The so-called gaps in science's understanding of the universe are more like grand canyons. To claim otherwise, IMO, is deception, either of self or others or both.

I agree that our lack of scientific understanding is huge, which is why arguments from ignorance (using God to fill in those gaps) is fraudulent/flawed.

 

[rusra02]

I agree that our lack of scientific understanding is huge, which is why arguments from ignorance (using God to fill in those gaps) is fraudulent/flawed.

I believe the evidence for intelligence, purpose, and design are evident what can be observed and studied. (Hebrews 13:4)

 

[leibowde84]

I believe the evidence for intelligence, purpose, and design are evident what can be observed and studied. (Hebrews 13:4)

This is incredibly vague. What do you mean specifically? What evidence in particular?

 

[jonathan180iq]

I do have a moral compass, it's just not nearly as fleshed out as most peoples.
That and I recognize and follow what is considered morally correct and beneficial to society

Lets not. While almost all of the scientific community is atheist, 'almost all' isn't 'all' by itself.
You are generalizing a group of people based on backhanded knowledge.
Also, without these scientists the world would be a much bleaker and more deadly place for the masses.
With all the scientific community has done, in terms of progress, they've earned some respect.

I could have interpreted your message here incorrectly, as your way of constructing sentences forms multiple pictures.
But I basically got,
"let's disrespect the efforts of scientists because creationism is obviously better and more plausible if you just think about it!"
out of what you said.

I apologize if that is not what you meant.

There have actually been studies done to determine how big of a role religion plays in the minds of the world's leading evolutionists...

Advised by Will Provine of Cornell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Provine

"Only 10% of evolutionary biologists believe that Religion and Evolution are incompatible..."

So, you're totally right...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I do have a moral compass, it's just not nearly as fleshed out as most peoples.
That and I recognize and follow what is considered morally correct and beneficial to society



Lets not. While almost all of the scientific community is atheist, 'almost all' isn't 'all' by itself.
You are generalizing a group of people based on backhanded knowledge.
Also, without these scientists the world would be a much bleaker and more deadly place for the masses.
With all the scientific community has done, in terms of progress, they've earned some respect.

I could have interpreted your message here incorrectly, as your way of constructing sentences forms multiple pictures.
But I basically got,
"let's disrespect the efforts of scientists because creationism is obviously better and more plausible if you just think about it!"
out of what you said.

I apologize if that is not what you meant.

A genuine believer scientist would see the problem in science and understand that measures must be taken to make the scientific community civilized.

And in any case, a believer scientist would be self-respecting, believing in himself, so wouldn't suffer that much from his efforts being denied by others.

 

[Deathbydefault]

A genuine believer scientist would see the problem in science and understand that measures must be taken to make the scientific community civilized.

And in any case, a believer scientist would be self-respecting, believing in himself, so wouldn't suffer that much from his efforts being denied by others.

So, I was not incorrect.
Therefore, I do not apologize.

You are fighting enemies that do not exist.
Whatever concept you have of the scientific community is obviously incorrect.
As well as, you seem unable to understand the magnitude of what science has done for us.

If you wish to disrespect the scientific community then I feel as though you shouldn't have access to the fruits of it's labor.

 

[rusra02]

This is incredibly vague. What do you mean specifically? What evidence in particular?

Take your pick: DNA, sexual reproduction, photosynthesis, and the list continues infinitely. I believe all these give evidence of design, purpose, and the intellect of "the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it." ( Revelation 10:6)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Take your pick: DNA,

How is DNA evidence of intelligent design?

sexual reproduction,

How is sexual reproduction evidence of intelligent design?

photosynthesis,

How is photosynthesis evidence of intelligent design?

and the list continues infinitely.

How is anything evidence of intelligent design?

I believe all these give evidence of design, purpose, and the intellect of "the One who lives forever and ever, who created the heaven and the things in it and the earth and the things in it and the sea and the things in it." ( Revelation 10:6)

How do they do that?

 

[rusra02]

How is DNA evidence of intelligent design?


How is sexual reproduction evidence of intelligent design?


How is photosynthesis evidence of intelligent design?


How is anything evidence of intelligent design?


How do they do that?

How is a book evidence of intelligent design?

How is cloning evidence of intelligent design?

How is a light bulb evidence of intelligent design?

"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." (Romans 1:20)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

How is a book evidence of intelligent design?

DNA isn't a book, it is a form of naturally occurring molecule.

How is cloning evidence of intelligent design?

Reproduction isn't "cloning", it's a natural, reproductive process.

How is a light bulb evidence of intelligent design?

Photosynthesis isn't a light bulb, it is a way that organisms process light and turn it into energy.

Let's make this crystal clear: comparing these naturally occurring phenomenon to things humans can make doesn't mean a thing. It certainly doesn't mean that they were "made". If these things are evidence of creation, then you should be able to specifically explain how and why they are necessarily the result of intelligence rather than nature. Can you do that?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm bored and tired enough to make a case I don't believe (not atypical for me). So, for starters:
1) The greatest logician of all time contributed to a string of proofs going back centuries that haven't as yet been refuted which require that the universe have a creator: the cosmological argument(s).
2) Modern physics suggests that the universe was made for us. Even ardently atheistic physicists like Susskind (one of the founders of string theory) have demonstrated this, while others (e.g., Barrow & Tipler) have demonstrated the necessity of a "fine-tuner" for the universe.
3) Evolutionary theory lacks any direction, in that there is no need for any evolutionary process to select for any trait that results in increasing complexity. The simplest organisms that have ever existed continue to exist, and thus according to evolutionary theory are the "fittest" organisms that exist. Thus, there is no evolutionary mechanism or "reason" for the development and selection of traits such that more complex organisms should have ever evolved, still less continued to have existed to evolve into even more complex organisms.
4) Fred Hoyle disparaged the theory that the entirety of the universe somehow sprung into existence by calling this theory "the big bang". This theory is now the standard, accepted theory among physicists and cosmologists. It suggests that reality was cast into existence in the same way that the Koran, OT, and Bible suggest.


5) I can't do this anymore. Yes, there are more arguments, but my boredom-to-arguments-I-wish-to-refute-yet-promote ratio has been expended.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm bored and tired enough to make a case I don't believe (not atypical for me).

Ooh, fun! Let's do this.

So, for starters:
1) The greatest logician of all time contributed to a string of proofs going back centuries that haven't as yet been refuted which require that the universe have a creator: the cosmological argument(s).

As far as I am aware, the cosmological argument has been refuted. Then again, there are now so many revisions to the argument that it's hard to keep up with which versions have been refuted and which may have not. Ultimately, I believe the cosmological argument always tends to fail on at least two grounds: Firstly, it asserts the universal constance and application of physical laws and forced (in particular the laws of cause and effect and time) to an event which doesn't necessarily conform to those laws, and secondly it forms its own internal logical fallacy by asserting the necessity of all things to have a beginning by inventing something that has no beginning.

2) Modern physics suggests that the universe was made for us. Even ardently atheistic physicists like Susskind (one of the founders of string theory) have demonstrated this, while others (e.g., Barrow & Tipler) have demonstrated the necessity of a "fine-tuner" for the universe.

I've never heard these suggestions or demonstrations. Care to break them down for us?

3) Evolutionary theory lacks any direction, in that there is no need for any evolutionary process to select for any trait that results in increasing complexity. The simplest organisms that have ever existed continue to exist, and thus according to evolutionary theory are the "fittest" organisms that exist. Thus, there is no evolutionary mechanism or "reason" for the development and selection of traits such that more complex organisms should have ever evolved, still less continued to have existed to evolve into even more complex organisms.

Yeah, another flawed one that assumes an axiom that has no basis. Evolution only seeks to replicate more efficiently and more reliably, and if that requires the evolution of better organelles for survivability then that is what tends be naturally selected. There's no reason to assume mutations could not result in more complex organs or organisms forming, and indeed this has been observed.

4) Fred Hoyle disparaged the theory that the entirety of the universe somehow sprung into existence by calling this theory "the big bang". This theory is now the standard, accepted theory among physicists and cosmologists. It suggests that reality was cast into existence in the same way that the Koran, OT, and Bible suggest.

5) I can't do this anymore. Yes, there are more arguments, but my boredom-to-arguments-I-wish-to-refute-yet-promote ratio has been expended.

Yeah, I could tell you were struggling by number 4, to be honest. Still, a better effort than most, I would say!