The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[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.

.

Yes, the problem is that severely limiting god’s involvement is, de facto, still creationism. As long as this involvement is bigger than zero, you have creationism. The only difference is the ability of God to plan in advance and reduce intervention. But the substance is the same.

For instance, refuting only the natural process of abyogenesys is not enough. How does it help a teleological view of life if the genesis of life is triggerred by God, but all complex life is the result of opportunistic selection of random and unattended processes?

So, is creationism something that can be measured? Like: more than 90% percent is literalist, below 10% is liberal and scientific hip.

I don’t think so. Creationism is creationism. There are no shades of grey here that are logically consistent. There is not such a thing as God’s intervention that does not count as creationism. Even the slightest intervention of God in deciding the final outcome is creationism. Fundamentally, not dfferent than ID.

True. It is more subtle, and difficult to see. But it is the same thing.

Actually, it is worse than conservative literalism. At least, conservative literalism tries to salvage the Bible. Evolutionary theism, and the infection of teleology in natural processes, damages both the bible and science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Skwim]

Yes, the problem is that severely limiting god’s involvement is, de facto, still creationism.

"Creationism," as the word is used in opposition to evolution, asserts that god made all species as-is, as outlined in the book of Genesis. None are the result of having evolved. Of course you're free to redefine the word as you please, but I doubt many here will buy it. I don't. After all, This is the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum.

.

 

[viole]

"Creationism," as the word is used in opposition to evolution, asserts that god made all species as-is, as outlined in the book of Genesis. None are the result of having evolved. Of course you're free to redefine the word as you please, but I doubt many here will buy it. I don't. After all, This is the Evolution Vs. Creationism forum.

.

Well. I agree. If I were them, I would not buy it either. Truth can be hard to buy

Ciao

- viole

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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

Christians seemed to have dealt with the Earth moving about the Sun, so I don't see how evolution is that much of a problem.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

 

[viole]

Christians seemed to have dealt with the Earth moving about the Sun, so I don't see how evolution is that much of a problem.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Yes, and that is a survival strength. At least for a while.

By demoting to “metaphor” what is obviously false, can give you some oxygen. Until the next one, and the next one, and the next one. Gasping for air all the time and trying to survive despite all odds and by using reinterpretation acrobatics. And ad hoc solutions, like God tinkering with biology, vulcanoes, climate, asteroids, etc.

Not dissimilar from the attempts to salvage geocentrism by complicating orbits, or by salvaging the lominous ether by introducing ad hoc changes in the equatiions.

Same mantra: save a belief by complicating things. You can always do that. Even when the solution is just crystal clear, amazingly simple and just plain and simply obvious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[dfnj]

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

I was commenting more on the nature of being omnipotent than the existence of an omnipotent being. I'm not saying the Universe was creating just a few seconds ago with all our fake memories. Is just that if you believe in hard determinism then an omnipotent God can create the Universe in any particular state.

 

[dfnj]

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

I did not mean anything significant by using the work "invention". I kind of meant creation. Invent maybe in the sense God created the Universe from His imagination.

 

[dfnj]

I am not the ignorant one here. I checked out your first link and looked up the second conspiracy. You can't seem to understand that both @Audie and I admitted that there had been conspiracies in the past. The second conspiracy was about MKUltra. A real conspiracy. How was it exposed? Victims of it contacted people in the government that exposed it. Where were the conspiracy theorists on that one? The challenge was to find a time that they were right, not that there was a conspiracy in the first place.

I do not agree with your assumption all conspiracy theories are wrong. Governments commit extreme acts of evil because people are evil. Or do you think governments are incapable of doing evil?

 

[dfnj]

Wrong. I asked you for times that the conspiracy theorists were right. Go back and read the challenge again.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not agree with your assumption all conspiracy theories are wrong. Governments commit extreme acts of evil because people are evil. Or do you think governments are incapable of doing evil?

He asked for one case where the conspiracy theories were right. Can you give one?

Yes, governments commit extreme acts of evil. But they also tend to be much more incompetent than conspiracy theorists give them credit for.

 

[Audie]

I do not agree with your assumption all conspiracy theories are wrong. Governments commit extreme acts of evil because people are evil. Or do you think governments are incapable of doing evil?

He did not say that, you are disagreeing with your own
misinterpretation, which somehow comes out still wrong. Shows that two wrongs dont make a right!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

"One fact" includes that half of American believe Creation despite nearly a century of denial rhetoric. If you "can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere."

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

It's so self-evident, only a fringe minority "debate". Half of Americans believe in Creation despite a century of rhetoric against it!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

WHY do you believe God created everything? Because either you have certain reasons or it's self-evident to you, exactly what Romans 1 is "religiously asserting" in the holy scriptures.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

Because most people agree (Creation is self-evident!), showing the book yet again trumps the minority of skeptics.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

It is easy. Most people agree, Creation is self-evident. Minority splinters disagree, showing the book is again, as always, correct!

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

.

You are a skeptic, you deny Creation, supporting the Book. Thanks!

 

[dfnj]

He asked for one case where the conspiracy theories were right. Can you give one?

Yes, governments commit extreme acts of evil. But they also tend to be much more incompetent than conspiracy theorists give them credit for.

I gave several. And then he said they were all false. Then I gave him a link to google search with tons of articles on conspiracy theories turning out to be true. Why should I have any conversation with him at all if it turns into "I know you are what am I" type arguments. It's stupid. I really don't care what you or other people believe. Governments do really evil stuff. You can be pollyanna about your government as much as you like.

 

[dfnj]

He did not say that, you are disagreeing with your own
misinterpretation, which somehow comes out still wrong. Shows that two wrongs dont make a right!

I'm not interested in answering what he is asking. I thought his question was irrelevant.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is easy. Most people agree, Creation is self-evident. Minority splinters disagree, showing the book is again, as always, correct!

This is not a demonstration of your assertion. All you've done is double down and re-assert your assertion and in doing so, you've managed to completely avoid responding to my post. Oh, and you've made a logical fallacy as well (appeal to popularity). Also, not a demonstration of the truth of a claim.


So I'm forced just to repeat myself.


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?