The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[shunyadragon]

You may not know this but many people use the word God to represent the idea of what caused creation of the Universe. This is not my idea.

I believe in God and Creation. It was the use of 'invent' or 'invention' in terms of God,

 

[gnostic]

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

Except these here are actual professions.

Evolutionist isn’t a profession.

If you want to indicate someone profession that include knowledge on evolution, then call them “biologist” or “molecular biologist”.

And if they work solely on animals other than humans, then you would call them “zoologist”, and those who work on plants, “botanist”.

Evolution is too wide a field, where people should be called evolutionists, and evolution underpinned the studies of many different biological fields.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

What do you mean, "my best argument for creationism"? Creation is self-evident to everyone not a skeptic in denial, according to Romans 1!

 

[ecco]

An omnipotent God not only created all the energy in the Universe but invented the laws of physics and defined the Universal constant values to be optimal in supporting life. I would assume an omnipotent God is well versed in molecular programming the same way we create virtual reality with computers. Can you imagine what God's mental bus speeds and CPU bandwidth might be to be able to simulate and imagine every possibility before He creates the one reality He wishes to observe. Maybe reality is just a dream in God's mind.

An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time exactly as it is described in the Bible including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.

Too many people in this thread are not giving enough respect to the just how powerful an omnipotent being would be.

And he did it all Last Thursday. Don't you agree?

 

[Audie]

What do you mean, "my best argument for creationism"? Creation is self-evident to everyone not a skeptic in denial, according to Romans 1!

Now, if there just were at least one fact out there,
to support it.
If it were true, it does seem almost as if all the actual
facts would be for, not against.

"skeptic in denial" indeed.

You'd love your method in practice. You are on
trial, tho innocent; prosecution says guilt is self evident.

Judge points out to the jury that anyone who disagrees
is a skeptic in denial.

 

[BilliardsBall]

[

Actually I said it's "The" argument." And, thee argument that creationism is right is that Evolution Is Wrong. Aside from the sotto voce "The Bible tells us so," which is rarely if ever brought up, all else is an attack on evolution.


No it isn't, and if you go back and carefully reread what I said you will see I said "darts," the plural of "dart," which signifies more than one.

.

That's not the argument, that evolution is wrong. I BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

One key argument is this--the act of Creation is evident to the vast majority of persons, except for those skeptics who suppress the truth they have (to foster their propensity to sin). See Romans 1 for more on that argument.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good, good, the oh-so-cute use of the word "problem".

Guess what. You have problems. The USA has millions of problems.

So what?

With all these "problems" with evolution, why dont you
just pick one "dart".

A a really super duper good one.

One that disproves ToE.

Otherwise you may as well claim that a flooded subway track
is a problem that disproves NYC.

Coz you are getting zero respect or credibility with your
claim so far.

Straw men, still, Audie, really? I BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

The better "argument" is the fact that, per Romans 1, every person ever finds the act of Creation evident, except for a few skeptics who suppress truth to further sinful lifestyles (libertines flaunting their ability to escape the righteous judgment of God).

 

[Subduction Zone]

What do you mean, "my best argument for creationism"? Creation is self-evident to everyone not a skeptic in denial, according to Romans 1!

If it was self evident there would be no debate. Relying upon a book of myths seems to be all that you have.

 

[Audie]

Straw men, still, Audie, really? I BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

The better "argument" is the fact that, per Romans 1, every person ever finds the act of Creation evident, except for a few skeptics who suppress truth to further sinful lifestyles (libertines flaunting their ability to escape the righteous judgment of God).

Were you the one identifying "problems"? If not my post was misdirected.

But never mind that, you came up with enough nonsense with your "suppress truth' and
falsehoods about sinful lifestyle.

 

[Audie]

If it was self evident there would be no debate. Relying upon a book of myths seems to be all that you have.

What is"manifestly" (to use a word the believers
love so) evident is that BB, like all the others
here who say they believe the bible really
just believe themselves.

For lo, each and every one of them has his own
tailored version of what the bible says and means.

Their "faith" is entirely self centered.

 

[shunyadragon]

What do you mean, "my best argument for creationism"? Creation is self-evident to everyone not a skeptic in denial, according to Romans 1!

I believe in God and God Created everything, but your reference does not justify how Creation took place other than your religious assertion.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

What do you mean, "my best argument for creationism"? Creation is self-evident to everyone not a skeptic in denial, according to Romans 1!

"Because a book says so" is your best argument?

 

[Audie]

"Because a book says so" is your best argument?

That is "self evident". Not a datum point ever seen
to suggest anything else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That's not the argument, that evolution is wrong. I BELIEVE EVOLUTION IS TRUE.

One key argument is this--the act of Creation is evident to the vast majority of persons, except for those skeptics who suppress the truth they have (to foster their propensity to sin). See Romans 1 for more on that argument.

That's not an argument, it's an assertion.

Why should anyone take seriously what Romans 1 has to say about it?

If "the act of creation" is so evident, why are we still waiting for someone to demonstrate that some creator (in this case, the exact creator you believe in and worship) created it that way after all this time? Why has nobody ever been able to actually show that, and instead have to resort to quoting some old book as an authority on the subject? Shouldn't that be really, really easy?

 

[Skwim]

That's not the argument, that evolution is wrong.

But it is. That you think there's some other argument that is more commonly used to support creationism only brings up the challenge: Present it!

One key argument is this--the act of Creation is evident to the vast majority of persons, except for those skeptics who suppress the truth they have (to foster their propensity to sin). See Romans 1 for more on that argument.

As SkepticThinker so rightly points out, that's not an argument, it's an assertion.

.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But it is. That you think there's some other argument that is more commonly used to support creationism only brings up the challenge: Present it!


As SkepticThinker so rightly points out, that's not an argument, it's an assertion.

.

Just as the existence of leprechauns and their effects on rainbows is obvious. You don't need to present evidence for leprechauns because it is self evident. There is also the existence of invisible pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of which are self evidence.

Boy, debates are a lot easier when you can just say "it's self evident" and be done with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just as the existence of leprechauns and their effects on rainbows is obvious. You don't need to present evidence for leprechauns because it is self evident. There is also the existence of invisible pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of which are self evidence.

Boy, debates are a lot easier when you can just say "it's self evident" and be done with it.

The FSM was self evident at my house last night. Pasta with pesto proved his existence. Wow! I have more evidence for my beliefs than BB has for his.

 

[Audie]

Just as the existence of leprechauns and their effects on rainbows is obvious. You don't need to present evidence for leprechauns because it is self evident. There is also the existence of invisible pink unicorns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, both of which are self evidence.

Boy, debates are a lot easier when you can just say "it's self evident" and be done with it.

Sure is an easy "win".

Like our recent bug-out friend with the
long name, who said we are left licking
our wounds.

 

[viole]

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.

Honestly, I think Creationists are justified to do that. I believe all Christians should do that, if they were logically coherent. I probably would if I were a Christian, again. For there are very few things that are more detrimental than evolution for the belief of a bible style god.

Actually, evolution by natural selection and belief in a God like the Abrahamic one, are logically mutually contradictory. So, it is untenable to hold them both true.

True, they do not prove creationism , but gettng rid of one huge defeater of their belief system is surely worthy to try, first.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Honestly, I think Creationists are justified to do that. I believe all Christians should do that, if they were logically coherent. I probably would if I were a Christian, again. For there are very few things that are more detrimental than evolution for the belief of a bible style god.

Actually, evolution by natural selection and belief in a God like the Abrahamic one, are logically mutually contradictory. So, it is untenable to hold them both true.

True, they do not prove creationism , but gettng rid of one huge defeater of their belief system is surely worthy to try, first.

Ciao

- viole

Well, some Christians do believe in both, but severely limit god's involvement. Because the Bible is pretty much a pick-and-choose source of belief, these Christians typically posit god as the creator of life at the point where the disbeliever asserts abiogenesis. From then on they feel god let evolution take its course. And, this is quite alright with non-Christian evolutionists. Origins are a whole other matter from evolution.

.