Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[outhouse]

To me it seems super unlikely that the incredible complexity of life could occur by accident.

No one said it was accident, just you

 

[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

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.

I would not refute any scientific evidence. It just doesn't seem like like there is concrete proof about many aspects of evolution theory.

Very interesting conversation. I have to go to work. Talk later.

 

[outhouse]

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.

Life would not form in your experiment because it is FACTUALLY not the same environment abiogenesis took place in.

Ancient seas were a chemical soup, that chemically created energy converters due to heat, cold, and electricity and solar. Basically energy existed in all types in the oceans, and life simple is a chemical energy converter.

. I don't think anyone can use scientific knowledge to refute my claim

You don't understand how much science knows about this very topic it seems.

 

[outhouse]

It just doesn't seem like like there is concrete proof about many aspects of evolution theory.

Then you need to study biology and learn the many many facts in place supporting evolution, to the point it is now fact itself.

 

[outhouse]

Very interesting conversation. I have to go to work. Talk later.

Sound good bud.

Thanks for the civil debate despite our different beliefs and knowledge

 

[leibowde84]

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

If your bath tub was the size of the Cosmos and you had all of the matter in the universe, then it might work. That would be some bathtub, though. In other words, the Cosmos is not a closed system like your bathtub would be.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

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.

I'm not sure what your claim is here.

The EAAN, like all versions of the argument from reason I know of, is based on the necessity for naturalism, or a completely naturalist reading of evolution (especially of human reason), for valid rational inference. AfR then attempt to show that naturalism, or one aspect of naturalism, implies we cannot have access to rational inference, and therefore naturalism is self-defeating.

The EAAN is a probabilistic variant of the AfR. Unlike most versions, it is only meant to show that we have good reasons not to accept an entirely naturalistic account of evolutionary, specifically when it comes to our reason and cognitive faculties, not that naturalistic absolutely must undermine rational inference. What it points out is that if there is no strong correlation between evolutionary accounts and the reliability of faculties, then we don't have a good reason for trusting said faculties, and hence for trusting them when they are used to argue for naturalism and entirely naturalistic evolution.

So, what needs to be shown is a strong link, which vague talk of some benefits reason might have for evolutionary survival doesn't seem to accomplish. It especially abstract or speculative reason that the philosophy and science of the naturalist and believer in entirely naturalistic evolution requires to support his case. And it is hard to see how proto- and early humans required or even are especially likely to have developed to have been able to survive. Besides, as I noted, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, evolutionary speaking, surely response to stimuli can supply all that reason could for our survival.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

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

This isn't really an argument. What is needed is a strong correlation between reason and evolutionary survival, especially speculative reason. Response to stimuli, for example, will often do just as well as reason. When we touch a hot stove and quickly withdraw our finger, we do not reason about this. We do it as a response to stimuli. It is hard to see why we couldn't survive just as easily by always relying on response to stimuli and not reason.

I don't think that it was necessary for proto- and early humans to have reliable cognitive faculties to survive. These faculties could be severely faulty and yet, if they still operated in a way that aided our survival, they could still allow us to survive well without reliable rational inference. There seems nothing in evolutionary theory alone to give us reason to think they are probably reliable. Besides, it is especially on speculative and abstract reason that naturalism and naturalistic evolution rely. It is even harder to see how the naturalistic evolutionary account can give a strong reason why we would develop reliable reason when it comes to speculative and abstract reasoning that went beyond the nonapparent aspects of our environment (its molecular structure and so on).

 

[Desert Snake]

Facepalm. Gotta love how people don't realize it when they put complete unsubstanciated theoretical ideas into their claims.

 

[Desert Snake]

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

Sure you know everything lol.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This isn't really an argument. What is needed is a strong correlation between reason and evolutionary survival, especially speculative reason. Response to stimuli, for example, will often do just as well as reason. When we touch a hot stove and quickly withdraw our finger, we do not reason about this. We do it as a response to stimuli. It is hard to see why we couldn't survive just as easy by always relying on response to stimuli and not reason.

I don't think that it was necessary for proto- and early humans to have reliable cognitive faculties to survive. These faculties could b severely faulty and yet, if they still operated in a way that aided our survival, they could still allow us to survive well without reliable rational inference. Besides, it is especially speculative and abstract reason that naturalism and naturalistic evolution rely. It is even harder to see how the naturalistic evolutionary account can give a strong reason why we would develop reliable reason when it comes to speculative and abstract reasoning that went beyond the nonapparent aspects of our environment (its molecular structure and so on).

I'd agree, the very fact that we are the only species out of millions that could ever ponder these questions, demonstrates that it's obviously not the sort of thing 'evolution' tends to achieve.

We can see the advantage intelligence would have given dinosaurs also, who dominated for millions of years without ever 'accidentally' gaining what humans acquired in a geological instant.

creating any significant physical design improvement by a fluke mutation is problematic enough, far less sentience

 

[outhouse]

What is needed is a strong correlation between reason and evolutionary survival

To me it is ludicrous to think one could survive without reason.

You think a being without reason wont walk into the mouth of another animal?

You think a being without reason wont walk off a cliff?

 

[God lover]

If your bath tub was the size of the Cosmos and you had all of the matter in the universe, then it might work. That would be some bathtub, though. In other words, the Cosmos is not a closed system like your bathtub would be.

Well, it was a spur of the moment example.

Basically I don't see this all happening by accident. But maybe that isn't what evolutionists believe. Does evolution claim this is all an accident? Looking for opinions here!

 

[outhouse]

I'd agree, the very fact that we are the only species out of millions that could ever ponder these questions, demonstrates that it's obviously not the sort of thing 'evolution' tends to achieve.

Which is based on willful academic ignorance in the field of biology that has facts supporting it.

Because you don't know the facts, and refuse facts, refutes nothing.

 

[outhouse]

. Does evolution claim this is all an accident?

Nope.

And evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

 

[outhouse]

This is the current state of academia.

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Now if you disagree with any aspect, please provide credible sources that refutes a single word above.

 

[God lover]

Nope.

And evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

So you mean evolution starts once the first organism lived. But before that was abiogenesis?

 

[God lover]

This is the current state of academia.

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Now if you disagree with any aspect, please provide credible sources that refutes a single word above.

Nothing I would refute here. Excellent summery! Amazing actually. Glorious, I'd say.

 

[Skwim]

This is the current state of academia.

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

Now if you disagree with any aspect, please provide credible sources that refutes a single word above.

Got a source for this?

 

[leibowde84]

I'm not sure what your claim is here.

The EAAN, like all versions of the argument from reason I know of, is based on the necessity for naturalism, or a completely naturalist reading of evolution (especially of human reason), for valid rational inference. AfR then attempt to show that naturalism, or one aspect of naturalism, implies we cannot have access to rational inference, and therefore naturalism is self-defeating.

The EAAN is a probabilistic variant of the AfR. Unlike most versions, it is only meant to show that we have good reasons not to accept an entirely naturalistic account of evolutionary, specifically when it comes to our reason and cognitive faculties, not that naturalistic absolutely must undermine rational inference. What it points out is that if there is no strong correlation between evolutionary accounts and the reliability of faculties, then we don't have a good reason for trusting said faculties, and hence for trusting them when they are used to argue for naturalism and entirely naturalistic evolution.

So, what needs to be shown is a strong link, which vague talk of some benefits reason might have for evolutionary survival doesn't seem to accomplish. It especially abstract or speculative reason that the philosophy and science of the naturalist and believer in entirely naturalistic evolution requires to support his case. And it is hard to see how proto- and early humans required or even are especially likely to have developed to have been able to survive. Besides, as I noted, as C.S. Lewis pointed out, evolutionary speaking, surely response to stimuli can supply all that reason could for our survival.

I was just pointing out that there is no necessity for a change to be "required" by any way shape or form. Natural selection is based on benefit, not requirements.