The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I probably am stupid

You said that, not me bwahahaha

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

This is just like Ken Ham. You would rather argue against evolution instead of for creationism.

I've done both.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

I've done both.

Likely because most creationists confuse arguing against evolution with arguing for creationism. Creationists don't argue for creationism as a general rule- probably a good call, because creationism admits of absolutely zero confirming evidence, and is contradicted by virtually ALL of the evidence we have. So creationists confine themselves to criticizing evolution- well, attempting to do so anyways; unfortunately, 100% of creationist arguments against evolution involve misrepresentations of evolutionary theory- they are arguments against strawmen. But then, if all creationist arguments are arguments against evolution and not for creationism, but their arguments against evolution are not really arguments against evolution at all, but arguments against silly strawmen of evolutionary theory, what do we call this?

I believe the phrase people use these days for such a case is "epic fail".

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I've done both.

Can you list for me some evidences for creationism that does not mention evolution?

 

[McBell]

Can you list for me some evidences for creationism that does not mention evolution?

I bet he replies with "dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats..."

 

[Parsimony]

Here's a transcript of the debate between Call_of_the_Wild and me.

It wasn't the disaster that I thought it might be. In fact, Call said some things that I found surprising. However, we ultimately ran out of our agreed-upon time limit before getting any of the issues fully resolved (not surprising).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Can you list for me some evidences for creationism that does not mention evolution?

Yes.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Consciousness
4. The Fine Tuning Argument
5. The argument based on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

 

[McBell]

Yes.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Consciousness
4. The Fine Tuning Argument
5. The argument based on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

You need to learn the difference between an argument and evidence.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Consciousness
4. The Fine Tuning Argument
5. The argument based on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

1.Argument from ignorance.
2. Circular logic based on circular logic and theories we know are false
3. Argument from ignorance. Not an actual argument.
4. Argument from ignorance and false premise as well as a complete misunderstanding of the way percentages work.
5. Not an argument but a claim. Claims are not arguments.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Consciousness
4. The Fine Tuning Argument
5. The argument based on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Only one of these is an argument for anything remotely like creationism. Neither the causal argument, the ontological argument, nor the argument from consciousness entail anything like creationism, in the sense that is opposed to evolution. I'm not even sure what you mean by 5. And, of course, none of these arguments are sound.

Worse, even if these were remotely plausible arguments (they aren't), it still wouldn't count as empirical evidence- which is what we're looking for in science. So tell me, what empirical observations (empirical evidence, not deductive arguments), corroborate creationism but tend to disconfirm evolution? Can you name one?

 

[Parsimony]

Interestingly, all five of his points are compatible with the theory of evolution.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Interestingly, all five of his points are compatible with the theory of evolution.

I guess one could try to make some version of the fine-tuning or design argument that would exclude evolution, but that's the only one, and even that's sort of a stretch. But, at the end of the day its sort of moot since the other poster was clearly asking about scientific evidence- empirical data- not deductive philosophical arguments.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

1.Argument from ignorance.
2. Circular logic based on circular logic and theories we know are false
3. Argument from ignorance. Not an actual argument.
4. Argument from ignorance and false premise as well as a complete misunderstanding of the way percentages work.
5. Not an argument but a claim. Claims are not arguments.

Care to elaborate on those, Monk?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Only one of these is an argument for anything remotely like creationism. Neither the causal argument, the ontological argument, nor the argument from consciousness entail anything like creationism, in the sense that is opposed to evolution.

These arguments are used more for naturalists/atheists.

I'm not even sure what you mean by 5.

I meant exactly what I said.

And, of course, none of these arguments are sound.

They are not sound based on what?

Worse, even if these were remotely plausible arguments (they aren't), it still wouldn't count as empirical evidence- which is what we're looking for in science.

You are assuming that empirical evidence is our only means of gaining knowledge, which it isn't. Apologists are not restricted to just empirical evidence, even though empirical evidence helps us corroborate some premises in the arguments.

So tell me, what empirical observations (empirical evidence, not deductive arguments), corroborate creationism but tend to disconfirm evolution? Can you name one?

None, because one can believe in God and evolution. I don't know how many times I have to keep saying this, ESPECIALLY TO YOU. I am saying evolution cannot be true based on NATURALISM/ATHEISM. Even I believe that the God that I worship has the POWER to create life however he wants...i just feel as if it is incompatible with Christian theism, but that is a debate for another day...which is the say thing I told Kry.

I am not repeating it the fact that my beef with evolution is for naturalist that think evolution is true, not creationist that believe in evolution. That is the last time I will say it because either you people just aren't comprehending, or you are attacking straw man

 

[Enai de a lukal]

These arguments are used more for naturalists/atheists.

Ok, but someone asked you to provide evidence for creationism. Mentioning some a priori arguments against naturalism/atheism is NOT the same as providing evidence for creationism.

I meant exactly what I said.

Ok, cool- but what does what you said mean? What argument are you referring to, specifically?

They are not sound based on what?

Um... What? They are not sound because soundness just is being logically valid and having true premises. None of those arguments meet this criteria.

You are assuming that empirical evidence is our only means of gaining knowledge, which it isn't.

No, I'm assuming that a priori deductive arguments are not empirical evidence. You were asked for evidence of creationism.

Apologists are not restricted to just empirical evidence, even though empirical evidence helps us corroborate some premises in the arguments.

In this case they are, if they are planning on answering the question that was posed to them rather than dodging it that is.

I am not repeating it the fact that my beef with evolution is for naturalist that think evolution is true, not creationist that believe in evolution. That is the last time I will say it because either you people just aren't comprehending, or you are attacking straw man

Then your "beef" is with naturalism, not evolution, and you should stop claiming to be taking issue with the latter when it is the former you are trying to criticize.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Care to elaborate on those, Monk?

Okay. 1st which is the kalam cosmological argument is nothing but an argument from ignorance. It proposes that we HAVE to have a creator just because. For us to exist something had to "start" us. This is not something we know. There is no evidence that supports it. It is simply arguing from the false premise that we think we have to have a cause and that cause is god.

2nd is the Ontological argument. It has a long history of nonsense and I cannot believe that it has continued with such intensity.

The first to really start using it was Anselm and his premise is that god exists because the concept that we have created is "most perfect" and that something that exists outside of the mind in reality would by nature alone be more perfect than something within our minds alone ergo god must exist outside of our mind.

This is flawed in several ways but was successfully rebutted and debunked by Gaunilo who pointed out that if one "thought of a most perfect Island and an Island that existed outside the mind would be more perfect than one only in the mind would mean that by his logic that Island must exist by default."

This pointed out something that should be very simple. Our minds do not have the ability to "will" things into existence and nor do we and our imaginations get to make the rules for the universe in which we live. I would also add on to my personal criticism and say that by the definition of god we cannot "know" or "conceive" of him in our minds in the first place.

David Hume stated that there is no possibility of us using priori reasoning to prove something exists. I can go on.

However the ontological argument has continued throughout the years but make the same mistakes each time. The only variation that I found moves out of the same niche is the one proposed by Mulla Sadra. His variation that stated that existence is good and has variations of perfections. And that if there is a scale of perfections then there is a cap at some point of perfection and that cap is god therefore god exists.

However he fails to provide a reason or argument for why there is a scale of perfection. How is, for example, a photon more perfect or less perfect than a hydrogen atom? Functionality and purpose is a human invention of the mind that aren't necessities in the real world. Therefore the idea of scaled perfection based on any sort of criteria has no meaning and therefore there is no god. (if we were to use this type of argument). Though the concept is muddled further than that by other arguments.

3rd. is about consciousness and how sentience is better explained by theistic answers rather than scientific ones.

Do you mean to push the argument from its inductive form or its deductive form? The inductive portion is nothing more than an appeal based on an argument from ignorance. It is a proposition that sentience is derived not from the physical and that somehow sentience is a separate form of existence than our physical bodies and matter. This is unsupported but still proposed as the argument.

Deductive form of the argument seeks to provide a list of arbitrary criteria that fail on numerous levels. The first being that there are non-physical mental states. This is an argument from ignorance as we don't fully understand the complexities of the brain. In fact it was only last week that we observed memories being formed for the first time. Memory is possibly one of the most if not the most fundamental properties that can determine sentience and the capability of thought and retrospection.

So this is the very 1st point in the list of deductive reasoning that has been debunked. There is no need to debunk it further.

4th There is no reason to assume the universe is fined tuned. Life came after the universe not vice versa. Our life is dependent on the universe. The universe and its laws are not dependent on our life or ability to live. If the universe had existed with different laws it is possible that other forms of life could have existed.

Currently if you talk about the non-universal laws and the fine tuning of just our specific planet (i.e. the distance from the sun, rotation, moon, ect) then the argument still fails. We obviously would have life where life can't form. The vast majority of the universe (by a near infinite amount actually) does NOT support life. And we have assumed even if by an incomplete equation (Drake equation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) there should be other life. So its not inconceivable or even surprising that we exist. The fine tuning argument only makes sense if you know nothing about statistics or the facts we have acquired.

5th There is literally by definition no argument here. This is just you stating something that someone told to you with no evidence. It holds no more ground than the argument for the life, testeimant and death of Muhammad or The Buddha or my little pony season 5.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The argument from Consciousness
4. The Fine Tuning Argument
5. The argument based on the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

I think what you need to do first is define what exactly it is you mean when you use the word "creationism". And then give us what you see as evidence or arguments for it. I think that would make more sense.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ok, but someone asked you to provide evidence for creationism. Mentioning some a priori arguments against naturalism/atheism is NOT the same as providing evidence for creationism.

I base my evidence on the validity and soundness of those arguments. If that isn't good enough, to bad.

Ok, cool- but what does what you said mean? What argument are you referring to, specifically?

The 5th one is the Resurrection of Jesus, right?

Um... What? They are not sound because soundness just is being logically valid and having true premises. None of those arguments meet this criteria.

Refute the arguments that I am using for evidence/reasons of why I believe in Christian theism. I am not interested in word games or semantics.

No, I'm assuming that a priori deductive arguments are not empirical evidence. You were asked for evidence of creationism.

Regardless, I have good reasons to believe in Christian theism.

Then your "beef" is with naturalism, not evolution, and you should stop claiming to be taking issue with the latter when it is the former you are trying to criticize.

My beef is with naturalists that use evolution and abiogenesis to explain the origins of life and species. It is just that simple. You guys are here over-analyzing and every time I see these vast over-analyzations, I will bring simplicity back in to the discussion and try to keep it there.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think what you need to do first is define what exactly it is you mean when you use the word "creationism". And then give us what you see as evidence or arguments for it. I think that would make more sense.

My goodness guys!!! I believe in Christian theism, the God of the Holy Bible, and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Those arguments point in the direction of a cosmic Creator and the argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus points to Christian theism.

Goodness gracious.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

My goodness guys!!! I believe in Christian theism, the God of the Holy Bible, and the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. Those arguments point in the direction of a cosmic Creator and the argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus points to Christian theism.

Goodness gracious.

What about the arguments in Judaism that says that God is singular?