Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[outhouse]

I will stop replying to you

You never started.

You ignored every serious question asked out of desperation as you know you have no credible position, nor credible sources to substantiate a word you stated.

People can play in pseudo science all day long, it will never make it real.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Bible says it.
I believe it.
That settles it.
Tom

So you believe that rape, genocide, infanticide, and slavery is okay???

 

[columbus]

So you believe that rape, genocide, infanticide, and slavery is okay???

I hope you hang around RF awhile, you're fun.
If you do, you'll find that I am given to atomic sarcasm. I don't always use the smilies

What I was really saying is that is the best argument. Weak as it is.
Tom

 

[Ouroboros]

You are a sophist..

That might be debatable.

ROFLMAO!!! I want that on a T-shirt!!!

 

[Milton Platt]

I'm not a creationist, but I did stay in a holiday inn express last night, so here goes...

It's magic. It doesn't need to make sense. All we need to know is God's magic and can do it whatever way he wants, evidence be damned. Magic.

Ahh...It's all so very clear now. Thank you!!! LOL

 

[Milton Platt]

I didn't make up anything.....?

Didn't actually have an argument, either.....

 

[Milton Platt]

I find the fine-tuning of the laws governing the universe compelling evidence for an intelligent Designer. As astronomer George Greenstein stated: "as we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency- or, rather, Agency, must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?"

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???

 

[God lover]

Without alluding to evolution . . . . . . .in any way.

Or, failing that, post such a case you've read elsewhere.


.

My pitch for Creator:

I can't see this all being an accident.

 

[Skwim]

My pitch for Creator:

I can't see this all being an accident.

*sigh* My challenge wasn't, Make Your Case for a Creator, but Make Your Case for Creationism.
You do recognize the difference, don't you?

 

[God lover]

*sigh* My challenge wasn't, Make Your Case for a Creator, but Make Your Case for Creationism.
You do recognize the difference, don't you?

Oh. Not sure I know exactly what you mean. I believe the universe was created. But, I guess you mean literally reading the Genesis story. Excuse my lack of terminology knowledge. I am not a creatonist in that sense.

Do you mind if I ask, since I believe in a creator, but I also believe in human scientific research, what am I called?

*sigh* My challenge wasn't, Make Your Case for a Creator, but Make Your Case for Creationism.
You do recognize the difference, don't you?

 

[psychoslice]

So you believe that rape, genocide, infanticide, and slavery is okay???

Ha, that was a good one.

 

[Skwim]

Oh. Not sure I know exactly what you mean. I believe the universe was created. But, I guess you mean literally reading the Genesis story. Excuse my lack of terminology knowledge. I am not a creatonist in that sense.

Do you mind if I ask, since I believe in a creator, but I also believe in human scientific research, what am I called?

I'd say either a deist or theist.

 

[averageJOE]

I am not even arguing against evolution. My argument, if you pay attention, was about evolution being able to account for human consciousness (and most specifically reason). There is nothing in my argument that is against the rest of the evolutionary theory.

There are no non-question begging scientific accounts of how evolution can do this. If you believe there are then present them, and perhaps get around to actually responding to my argument above in a proper way.

Edit: Whilst I was writing this post you seem to have linked to the wiki from Plantinga's version, and quoted a passage that makes the exact same point about it not being an argument against evolution per se, but simply about an entirely naturalistic reading of evolution (especially when it comes to accounting for human reason).

I don't see what your point is when you talk about fallacious definitions.

Either way, that's not what the subject of this thread is. The title is "Make your case for creationism". Leave the subject of evolution completely out. Don't bring it up, don't refer to it at all, leave every aspect of it out. Creationism only. Go.

 

[outhouse]

I can't see this all being an accident.

No one said it was

 

[outhouse]

Do you mind if I ask, since I believe in a creator, but I also believe in human scientific research, what am I called?

Follower of Theistic evolution.

 

[God lover]

Follower of Theistic evolution.

Okay. I am a follower of theistic evolution I think mostly.

I would have to clarify that I am not convinced of the most strict evolution theories. It seems to me that things didn't necessarily come to be this way in mini steps that would be necessary if no maker had power to manipulate reality. In other words I believe supernatural steps may and or probably occurred. Science may or already does support this. (Such as the fossil records, or necessity of complex components for even the most "simple" life forms- protiens/amino acids/molecules/ dna)

In light of that, can you help me with the propper terminology of my category of thinkers? Does theistic evolution still aply?

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Are you being sarcastic here, or can you really not see the obvious advantage rationality and reason grant human beings?

 

[outhouse]

Does theistic evolution still aply?

It might not.

propper terminology of my category of thinkers?

creationist?

There are as many types of creationist refusing credible academia as wide and varied as imagination, so I would suggest what ever label you prefer works just fine.

I believe supernatural steps may and or probably occurred

But this is based on faith, not evidence.

. Science may or already does support this

It factually does not support this.

I am not convinced of the most strict evolution theories.

The problem bud, is that its not about you. Evolution has been fact for a while and all life did evolve.

To date there has never been even a semi case for credible creationist evidence. EVERY last bit of it is perceived evidence known under the label of pseudo science. It is usually based on a lack of knowledge of credible biblical history and poor interpretation of text taking it out of allegorical context.

 

[leibowde84]

Obviously, the argument I gave is about rational inference. None of the these examples shows why reliable rational inference, as required in abstract reasoning, would be required to cope with the challenges of our environment.

In fact, it is not apparent, again, why response to stimuli cannot furnish the outcomes you think come through the use of imagination, evolutionary speaking.

Where do you get the incorrect notion that it must be "required for survival" to make sense? That is not what natural selection even claims. It is about a benefit, not a requirement.

 

[God lover]

It might not.



creationist?

There are as many types of creationist refusing credible academia as wide and varied as imagination, so I would suggest what ever label you prefer works just fine.




But this is based on faith, not evidence.



It factually does not support this.




The problem bud, is that its not about you. Evolution has been fact for a while and all life did evolve.

To date there has never been even a semi case for credible creationist evidence. EVERY last bit of it is perceived evidence known under the label of pseudo science. It is usually based on a lack of knowledge of credible biblical history and poor interpretation of text taking it out of allegorical context.

Hi guys. I think reason causes me to believe that this isn't a series of accidental occurrences. To me it seems super unlikely that the incredible complexity of life could occur by accident.

A simple simple test of my reasonable opinion would be that if I took raw atomic ingredients and throw them in a warm bath and wait. I think reason would tell me that no life would ever fall into place in that bathtub. I can't test it because I will only live 80ish years. But the forces of nature break things down. Life forms survive because of reproduction. Life forms don't materialize by random meetings of complex structures.

This is my humble opinion. It seemsvery reasonable to me. Someone may comment on the philosophical strength or weekends of my argument. I don't think anyone can use scientific knowledge to refute my claim. No one has ever witnessed random assimilation of life from in organic material. Unfortunatly, it would be super hard to do so. And if it did occur in the beginning of life on this planet (or Mars or asteriods) then we can't yet go back to see it scientificly. Ourest evidences to date don't prove absolute evolution without a creator. They don't prove a creator either in many opinions. But to me it seems provable by the laws of physics that this could not have happened randomly. The mathematical odds of such a long string of chance mutations and random events is, to me, absolutely impossible.

My opinion un life thus far. I am happy to hear your input on this.

-a friend