Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

At the moment, this is the only counter that I have the patience or mental ability to respond to, because it requires none (and because, of course, I disagree with all of my arguments). Also, thankfully, the counter takes care of counters:

 

[leibowde84]

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)

Again, I understand this. You've already stated this. What you have failed to do is provide your reasoning for thinking that these examples MUST have been designed by a conscious being. For example, why do you think that it would be impossible for DNA to come about without God?

 

[leibowde84]

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)

I understand that these examples are amazing feats of nature which make life possible, most probably throughout the cosmos (we are just too far away from any other solar system to know yet). But, I've never thought it necessary to jump to the conclusion of God rather than chalking it up to our currently extremely limited scientific understanding of the Universe. So, why do you feel it necessary to make this jump? Isn't it more reasonable to just assume that we haven't figured out how these things came about?

For example, the rings of Saturn perplexed scientists since they were seen via telescope. It wasn't until fairly recently that we finally figured out what they were and how they were formed. What reason do you have for assuming that we won't one day find natural causes for all of these things? Our scientific understanding of our universe is so limited that it seems ludicrous to assume anything we can't explain is God, right?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

You certainly have a point here, but I think you are missing an extremely important factor. Namely, that science is a practice without authority, and religion is a practice based solely on one authority (God). Just because a scientist comes out with a theory about something, doesn't mean that they are right or that they in any way represent the views of other scientists. And, more importantly, science has no issue with being wrong, whereas religion does. Science thrives on the notion that our understanding of the universe might seem correct now, but, later on, might be proved wrong. That, imho, is a beautiful thing.

 

[leibowde84]

"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)

But, this is merely a baseless claim. There is nothing supporting this claim. Paul just expects his followers to accept it, which, at that time, wasn't much of a stretch. But, now, we have a much better understanding of how the cosmos works (albeit, still very limited), so it is not as easy to accept Paul's claim.

Can you support his claim at all? Why would not knowing how DNA came about act as evidence for an intelligent designer rather than merely an indication that our scientific understanding is limited?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

And yet you just stuff your mouth full of food, and just sort of imagine that it all forms automatically by the laws of nature, except for what man did to it.

Certainly the technology forms automatically, as by equal and reasonable judgement scientists cannot be said to have any spirit or soul. They are sophisticated machines, producing very less sophisticated machines.

 

[leibowde84]

And yet you just stuff your mouth full of food, and just sort of imagine that it all forms automatically by the laws of nature, except for what man did to it.

Certainly the technology forms automatically, as by equal and reasonable judgement scientists cannot be said to have any spirit or soul. They are sophisticated machines, producing very less sophisticated machines.

We already know how and why fruit, vegetables, animals, etc. Form. What's your point?

 

[Deathbydefault]

And yet you just stuff your mouth full of food, and just sort of imagine that it all forms automatically by the laws of nature, except for what man did to it.

Certainly the technology forms automatically, as by equal and reasonable judgement scientists cannot be said to have any spirit or soul. They are sophisticated machines, producing very less sophisticated machines.

Either way, to disrespect and take advantage of their hard work, you shouldn't have access to anything they have produced.

 

[Unification]

As I said "The Abrahamic god." If you need more explanation then that I suggest to get in contact with a Christian or a Jew. If that isn't good enough then perhaps you should take your silliness elsewhere. Your pedantry has become childish.


.

The Abrahamic god has billions of outward meanings through fundamentalism, literal and historical interpretations that create religion through myths. The preconceived notions of what you have are all of these. Man's mind, eyes, reading, are all outward, literal, historical. This creates endless amounts of religions, doctrines, theology, and division.

Like the myth of Adam and Eve. Man's mind takes that outwardly and literally.
Sex. When in reality, it is the Adam(conscious) impregnating the Eve(subconscious) with a seed of knowledge.(child) The tree is the brain, where knowledge resides. Tree-dendrites. Child: neuron. Impregnating the subconscious gives rise to the ego/unconscious, reptilian complex(snake). This is objective, as every individual has a brain and a mind. The snake, reptilian complex, or ego of mankind is an individual's worst enemy, as it deceives and causes one to be asleep/unconscious to reality and truth. To truly know oneself within.

The God of Abraham, Isaaic, and Jacob, internally means "the life force of the neocortex, limbic, and R-complex brain. Or the life force of the conscious, subconscious, and ego/unconscious.

In turn, the God of Abraham or Brahma(same thing) is "the life force of the neocortex," speech and sound.
This is also objective, as every individual has a neocortex.

Much less fancy words thousands of years ago, as well as technology for the neocortex to be advanced and evolved enough to have the word "neocortex" for the "neocortex." Or conscious for the conscious.

In other texts, it is no different.

 

[rusra02]

I understand that these examples are amazing feats of nature which make life possible, most probably throughout the cosmos (we are just too far away from any other solar system to know yet). But, I've never thought it necessary to jump to the conclusion of God rather than chalking it up to our currently extremely limited scientific understanding of the Universe. So, why do you feel it necessary to make this jump? Isn't it more reasonable to just assume that we haven't figured out how these things came about?

For example, the rings of Saturn perplexed scientists since they were seen via telescope. It wasn't until fairly recently that we finally figured out what they were and how they were formed. What reason do you have for assuming that we won't one day find natural causes for all of these things? Our scientific understanding of our universe is so limited that it seems ludicrous to assume anything we can't explain is God, right?

I think a child walking through the woods with his Father, upon seeing a modest but well-kept cottage, would conclude that someone made the cottage. (Hebrews 3:4) Your claim that since science cannot explain life's origin, that we should not assume a supreme Intelligence caused life on earth, is unconvincing to me. Nothing happens without a cause, and certainly not DNA. The true God has affirmed that he is our Creator, and I believe him.(Isaiah 45:18)

 

[viole]

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

The question is why God designed the dinosaurs to just wipe them out a few millions later. Not to speak of the 99% failed designs that got extinct.

I would say a human designer with that success rate will never get a job.

Ciao

- viole

 

[rusra02]

The question is why God designed the dinosaurs to just wipe them out a few millions later. Not to speak of the 99% failed designs that got extinct.

I would say a human designer with that success rate will never get a job.

Ciao

- viole

Because a plant or animal is now extinct does not mean they are "failed designs". Mankind is responsible for many animal extinctions. As to dinosaurs, I believe God created them for a purpose. What that purpose is subject to study and conjecture.

 

[viole]

Because a plant or animal is now extinct does not mean they are "failed designs". Mankind is responsible for many animal extinctions. As to dinosaurs, I believe God created them for a purpose. What that purpose is subject to study and conjecture.

Study and conjecture? What are the preliminary results?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shad]

So you read your confirmation bias into everything. That is poor thinking.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I think there are good arguments against the evolutionary nature of consciousness.

One is EAAN, or the evolutionary argument against naturalism, it is essentially a version of C. S. Lewis's profound argument from reason, but is more probabilistic. He is Victor Reppert's version:

1. If naturalism is true, then we should expect our faculties not to be reliable indicators of the nonapparent character of the world.

2. But our faculties do reliably reveal the nonapparent character of the world. (presupposition of rational inference)

3. Therefore, naturalism is false.

The argument for (1) is that natural selection is based on helping us to survive in our environments. It is hard to see why this would require us to develop reliable rational faculties, at least so far as it comes to understanding our immediate environments.

 

[outhouse]

I think there are good arguments against the evolutionary nature of consciousness.

Well keep thinking, but there are no credible arguments against how consciousness evolved. It factually did.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Well keep thinking, but there are no credible arguments against how consciousness evolved. It factually did.

This is not an argument. In fact it is just brazen question begging, especially as I just gave an argument against the evolution of consciousness. One could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that in some cases it hasn't evolved enough.

Before you try to make the point, science has little to say on this (when it doesn't trespass on the grounds of philosophy or isn't blatantly question begging).

If consciousness evolved, why would we think it would give us reliable cognitive faculties, especially as regards abstract reasoning? These don't seem to be required for our survival.

 

[Bunyip]

This is not an argument. In fact it is just brazen question begging, especially as I just gave an argument against the evolution of consciousness. One could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that in some cases it hasn't evolved enough.

Before you try to make the point, science has little to say on this (when it doesn't trespass on the grounds of philosophy or isn't blatantly question begging).

If consciousness evolved, why would we think it would give us reliable cognitive faculties, especially as regards abstract reasoning? These don't seem to be required for our survival.

Of course they are required for our survival. And of course the evidence is there to show that it did evolve.

 

[dust1n]

The argument for (1) is that natural selection is based on helping us to survive in our environments. It is hard to see why this would require us to develop reliable rational faculties, at least so far as it comes to understanding our immediate environments.

You don't see how developing reliable rational faculties would help us survive in our environment? Wouldn't "understanding our immediate environment" help an individual or a population "survive in our environments", and wouldn't "develop[ing] reliable rational faculties" help an individual "understand [their] immediate environment" thus helping an individual or a population "survive in their environment", and better yet, reproduce?

It's not a matter of being required to do so.

 

[outhouse]

If consciousness evolved, why would we think it would give us reliable cognitive faculties, especially as regards abstract reasoning?

We have the most intellect out of any animal, and we are still primates, so we don't expect some imaginative amount of intellect you think should be required for this factual evolution of consciousness.

These don't seem to be required for our survival

They are all factually required for survival. You just refuse to address the issue or are totally ignorant of the reasons. Either way its a personal issue on your part for not understanding why conscious is factually required for survival