The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[Earthling]

Maybe just getting replies amounts to a sort of validation,
to some people.

Yeah! Now that's the ticket! Promote ignoring the critical in the name of critical thinking.

 

[sealchan]

Really? I had no idea that "creationists" had so much pull with English-language dictionaries like the Cambridge and Oxford fellows.

I think that what we are all learning these days is that if you bravely tell a story often enough and with enough passion then people invested in that story will believe it...even if it lies. Creationism is a precursor of birtherism and its kin.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.


If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

Asking the question, "if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?" is equivalent to asking, "If your great great great grandparents looked kinda like your cousins, then why do you still have cousins?"

 

[Polymath257]

So can we say any type of science that does not have clearly testible assertions is then "junk" science.

The main example I know of for this is string theory (although some testable predictions have been made). And it is *pure* speculation at this point and certainly NOT accepted science.

If anything, the lack of good tests has diminished its credibility greatly.

 

[Earthling]

I have never seen the following minimal standard be met by a creationist...show me a peer reviewed article that describes original work that supports creationism.

All claims to creationism are substandard and not to he considered science.

Creationism isn't science. What you are saying is like saying "This banana is a substandard automobile." It doesn't mean anything.

But you're keep saying it speaks of something. . . . What is it?

 

[ChristineM]

That's funny. Did you read that on a cereal box?



Is a common sentiment of an atheist that knows very little about religion and doesn't practice science.



It doesn't matter how you define critical thinking if it isn't really practiced.

No, i saw your projection and it immediately came to mind.

Bull... You know nothing about me yet you deem to know my life and mind, how condescending of you. I've noticed and commented before about your condescending attitude, is it just to women or does anyone who disproves your nonessential diatribe qualify?

I provided a link discussing how critical thinking is important to science, you provided unsubstantiated and opinion.

 

[dfnj]

The main example I know of for this is string theory (although some testable predictions have been made). And it is *pure* speculation at this point and certainly NOT accepted science.

If anything, the lack of good tests has diminished its credibility greatly.

The thing is it is a lot of fun to take a bunch of data points and connect the dots to see some kind of picture. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time. The same is true with religion and science. Except when religious people do it it's called superstition. Human beings find meaning in everything. It's like seeing pictures in clouds. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's wrong. But I like seeing how people connect the dots. The stranger the resulting the picture I find fascinating.

For example, this banned Ted talk by Rupert Sheldrake. I don't believe everything Sheldrake says is true. But I love the way he stretches the connections outside the normal box of thinking.

By the way, the idea that a TED talk is banned makes me want to watch it!

 

[Polymath257]

The thing it is a lot of fun to take a bunch of data points and connect the dots to see some kind of picture. Conspiracy theorists do it all the time. The same is true with religion and science. Except when religious people do it it's called superstition. Human beings find meaning in everything. It's like seeing pictures in clouds. Sometimes it's right. Sometimes it's wrong. But I like seeing how people connect the dots. The stranger the resulting the picture I find fascinating.

For example, this banned Ted talk by Rupert Sheldrake. I don't believe everything Sheldrake says is true. But I love the way he stretches the connections outside the normal box of thinking.

By the way, the idea that a TED talk is banned makes me want to watch it!

Yeah, I've seen that video. Sorry, but pretty much everything he said is wrong. He's a kook.

 

[ChristineM]

Yeah! Now that's the ticket! Promote ignoring the critical in the name of critical thinking.

It is actually based on your track record here, she has used critical thinking to pigeon hole you and as usual you have no reply so instead tty to discredit the messenger.

 

[Audie]

It is actually based on your track record here, she has used critical thinking to pigeon hole you and as usual you have no reply so instead tty to discredit the messenger.

To his credit, the off topic lash-out was the best he
could do, not having understood what I said.

 

[ChristineM]

To his credit, the off topic lash-out was the best he
could do, not having understood what I said.

Pity multiple frubals are not allowed, that deserved at least 5

 

[Ostronomos]

Too many different interpretations for the Bible. Pick a view and argue for it, and you can do so.

The fact that is the supernatural cannot be tested is *exactly* why I feel justified in ignoring the possibility of such. If it cannot be tested, then it has no influence (any influence would be a potential test) and so is irrelevant to understanding.

So, yes, why bother with the supernatural?

Accessing the supernatural world is analogous to accessing the macro-Quantum world. Few are entitled. The purpose of considering the existence of the supernatural is to understand the concealed processes which produced our reality, with its appearing object/ subject split. These deeper processes give way to a new kind of understanding that unites all mankind. We were not meant to access God. Well, the vast majority anyway. That is why when one knows the supernatural one can see past deception.

 

[BilliardsBall]

is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.

In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.

I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.


If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't. Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart" but thousands and thousands of problems and anomalies with abiogenesis, rapid evolution and more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even eyes half shut with sleep will see how
you just say things. You toss out some nonsense,
and when it is disputed, off you go to start another
thread with a new batch of baseless, unsupportable
assertions.

Anyone that links to his own web page as a "source" is very rarely going to be reasonable. Especially when that person appears to have no formal education in the subject at hand at all. That sort of action can lead to what would be perceived as personal attacks since the poster will conflate attacks on his personal web page as an attack against him. I do sometimes wish that there was a rule against using one's own pages as "sources".

 

[Subduction Zone]

First you set a straw man by claiming this is our biggest argument, it isn't. Then you miss the point--it's not "one dart" but thousands and thousands of problems and anomalies with abiogenesis, rapid evolution and more.

Then what is your best argument for creationism?

And no, you have no darts when it comes to the theory of evolution. All that creationists can muster are dishonest attacks against the theory. You should know that by now.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense. What does religion have to do with science? If my two responses in this thread doesn't clarify my views on science then you aren't paying attention to me and haven't done so in previous threads on the subject as well.

Science is subject to the same weaknesses as theology. Dogmatic evolutionists who claim otherwise, proclaiming peer review, self regulation and objectivity are no different than a believer who answers God is a mystery. Either way you might as well as the cat.

This clarifies things a bit more, and now I can say I very much disagree. Science does not have the same weaknesses as theology. Science is based on a consistent foundation of Methodological Naturalism, and objective verifiable evidence. The result is in terms of the major sciences world wide scientists consistently agree on this foundation. Theology lacks this foundation, and extreme and conflicting disagreement is endemic to theology between the various churches and religions.

 

[shunyadragon]

Anyone that links to his own web page as a "source" is very rarely going to be reasonable. Especially when that person appears to have no formal education in the subject at hand at all. That sort of action can lead to what would be perceived as personal attacks since the poster will conflate attacks on his personal web page as an attack against him. I do sometimes wish that there was a rule against using one's own pages as "sources".

Well, we could call it self incrimination.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No we don't. But we do have "archaeologist", "geologist", "paleontologist", "anthropologist", etc.

Those are specific fields of study, not terms that refer to theories in practice by those fields.

 

[sealchan]

You know how some atheists do not like the argument put forth by theists that atheism is a denial of the existence of God. The same thing is true with creationism versus evolution. There are many theists who accept evolution as science fact. But still have faith in an omnipotent God is capable of creating the Universe in any amount of time. There are many theists who don't believe evolution invalidates their faith. There are even some theists who claim evolution is the Universe's way of organizing itself to be closer to God.

Just like atheism having a few sides same thing is true with Creationists. Not all Creationists are against evolution. Not all atheist deny the existence of God.

In terms of one belief system being better than the other is purely opinion. Science is good at war and creating poverty. At least religion gives people hope.

I think this whole discussion should consider and give space for science and religions differing characteristics...the standards for truth are different and the ways in which they provided value for us are different. Equating the two is an error.

Science disproves creationist interpretations. The Bible suffers when interpreted literally against the awakening that is science. Science gives us the atomic bomb without judgment, but religions are as likely to play a role in using one as any other societal factor. That is one reason religiously based literalism should not be taught in schools.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You know how some atheists do not like the argument put forth by theists that atheism is a denial of the existence of God. The same thing is true with creationism versus evolution. There are many theists who accept evolution as science fact. But still have faith in an omnipotent God is capable of creating the Universe in any amount of time. There are many theists who don't believe evolution invalidates their faith. There are even some theists who claim evolution is the Universe's way of organizing itself to be closer to God.

I am aware of that. However, it doesn't change that fact that in our modern lexicon the term "evolutionist" only appears because Creationists use it to make evolution appear to be a faith-based belief system just like their Creationist beliefs.

In terms of one belief system being better than the other is purely opinion. Science is good at war and creating poverty. At least religion gives people hope.

Poverty and war existed way before science. But science has never declared war, has never invaded a nation, or held a gun to someone's head. Science makes no assertions that everyone must abide by it, it doesn't seek to punish those who don't, and it doesn't promote the beliefs and dogma that do lead to wars. And science doesn't create poverty, but it is helping to address and solve many issues related to it. And who says science can't give people hope? Is this "no hope" why people seek cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases?