The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

You do realize that most people in the world do not follow your religion, right? It's not as self-evident as you seem to think.

When I was five years old, I didn't make up a God to explain what I saw through a telescope. I said, "Gee that's cool."
God beliefs are taught.

Besides that, we are grown adults here. I hope you're not comparing your intellect to that of a 5-year-old.


My whole entire point is that if it is so self-evident, it should be incredibly easy to demonstrate. And yet you've demonstrated that it is not easy to demonstrate at all. So your claim that it is self-evident doesn't really pan out.

To me, it's self-evident that the Christian god most likely does not exist. So do I just get to keep saying that and it just makes it so? That's what you're doing.

Using yourself for an anecdote, "I personally never felt God is self-evident," is just that--anecdotal. The vast majority of persons continue to disagree with you.

Is there anything else besides Creation that is thousands to millions or billions of years old that should be incredibly easy to demonstrate?

Why didn't the ancients understand macro-evolution that is millions of years old, for example? That should be incredibly easy to demonstrate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is an argument from popularity. That is a logical fallacy. At one time, the most highly educated people all agreed that the Sun moved about the Earth. That didn't make it true.

Feel free to address what I actually wrote:

It's not an ad populum, it's showing the Bible used the present tense for the universality of believing in a Creator God. An argument from prescience since most people, the most highly educated people as well, agree, and concur God is self-evident.

Currently, as the Bible prophesied, educated people CONTINUE to disagree with you, and near-universally.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is religious claim, OK, but not based on science.

You have not addressed the question of what the objective verifiable evidence and science is able to demonstrate and what science cannot demonstrate to support a religious agenda,

What about your faith means there is a necessity to prove it via scientific testing--in this case, of a long-ago past event science cannot duplicate (creation)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is is only self-evident is one believes it so, This is 'begging the question,' unless one considers the objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate your asssertions based on belief and scripture. This line of reasoning is only meaningful for those who believe.



This is indeed an argument 'ad populum,' and lacks references to demonstrate, who most people are, those who you claim are 'highly educated.' This argument is therefore meaningless.

As far as the polls for a number of years indicate is that the higher the education level the more likely they will accept the scientific explanation for the nature of our existence and evolution.

From: Chapter 4: Evolution and Perceptions of Scientific Consensus

Views on Human Evolution, based on Education and Science Knowledge

Education and Knowledge

Three-quarters (75%) of all college graduates and fully 81% of those with a postgraduate degree believe that humans have evolved over time. By comparison, 56% of those with a high school diploma or less say evolution has occurred.

There are sizeable differences in views about evolution between those with more and less general knowledge about science. About three-quarters (76%) of those with more science knowledge say that humans have evolved, compared with 54% among those with less science knowledge.

Not ad populum if you read what I wrote--the Bible is prescient, never wrong, and claims that Creation is self-evident except to the wicked skeptics. Scratch a skeptic and you'll find a sinner, per the Bible. No skeptics I know honor God, the Sabbath, etc. and are sinners IMHO.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It would be prescient of the ancients said we breathe oxygen centuries before we knew what oxygen is. You made a good example.

That doesn't even make sense. What did these people predict, specifically, which wasn't even known to exist? Predicting the existence of theism is no different to me, now, predicting the continued existence of oxygen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not ad populum if you read what I wrote--the Bible is prescient, never wrong,

False. The Bible is wrong a number of times in the first few paragraphs alone. For example, it says the earth, its islands and its ocean are all older than the sun and the stars, and that birds pre-date land animals.

and claims that Creation is self-evident except to the wicked skeptics.

And you don't find it at all convenient that the book attempting to convince you of its truth specifically tells you that if you don't accept it's claims you must be "wicked"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

All you're trying to imply to lurkers--who all know better--is that physics has solved all these issues including all being created from nothing.

No, the lurkers can easily see that you have no knowledge of physics too. They don't need my help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you're done accusing me of lying--skeptics' old dodge when Christians provide them things they are unable to fact find against, feel free to address what I actually wrote!

No, you are merely extremely ignorant and refuse to even try to learn. No dodge and you have not provided anything.

 

[Polymath257]

You are asking me what problem of infinite regression I see for everything that exists? How is that not a moot question. You believe in an eternal universe, one that also currently disallows its own creation!

Why is it a moot question? it seems like a very possible alternative.

I don't necessarily believe such is the case. We don't have evidence one way or the other. But I certainly don't see it as obviously contradictory.

 

[Polymath257]

All you're trying to imply to lurkers--who all know better--is that physics has solved all these issues including all being created from nothing.

No, physics has *not* solved all these issues. But there are proposals that do deal with these issues. They are not yet accepted because the underlying theories need to be tested. That's how science works: someone makes a hypothesis. And that hypothesis is tested before it is accepted.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Using yourself for an anecdote, "I personally never felt God is self-evident," is just that--anecdotal. The vast majority of persons continue to disagree with you.

It's just as anecdotal as your assertion. You keep saying that the existence of the specific God you believe in is self-evident and therefore you do not need to present any actual evidence for this God's existence. Well, I say it's not self-evident to me. And it definitely isn't self-evident to millions of others, including those who worship may other Gods (not to mention the countless people who have believed in countless other gods throughout the centuries). So your claim doesn't hold up.

This is, of course, why I keep asking for actual evidence.

Is there anything else besides Creation that is thousands to millions or billions of years old that should be incredibly easy to demonstrate?

Yes, lots of things. Evolution for one. Big Bang for another.

I see you added "incredibly easy" to demonstrate, for some reason. Let's remember here, you're the one claiming that it's "self-evident" that the God you believe in exists and created the universe.

Why didn't the ancients understand macro-evolution that is millions of years old, for example? That should be incredibly easy to demonstrate.

Many of them speculated about various aspects of evolution for centuries. Anixamender of Miletus was one such person.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not all biologists support CD. Lol.

I'd like to read the work of a Biologist who doesn't agree with common descent...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'd like to read the work of a Biologist who doesn't agree with common descent...

There are a few, but in any large enough group there will always be a few loons. The work that they have published is not peer reviewed. In fact it is far from it.

What I would like to see is some actual scientific work that attempts to come up with an alternate explanation to common descent. But besides being demonstrably wrong creationists also tend to be cowards when it comes to their beliefs and the peer review process.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There are a few, but in any large enough group there will always be a few loons. The work that they have published is not peer reviewed. In fact it is far from it.

Yeah, that's what I'm hoping to eventually point out.

If people were more open with their citations and evidences, it would easier to show them for what they really are...

Biology of all fields... It's single most unifying tenet is arguably common descent. Mind boggling.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Feel free to address what I actually wrote:

It's not an ad populum, it's showing the Bible used the present tense for the universality of believing in a Creator God. An argument from prescience since most people, the most highly educated people as well, agree, and concur God is self-evident.

Currently, as the Bible prophesied, educated people CONTINUE to disagree with you, and near-universally.

It is an argument from popularity. It is a logical fallacy.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I'd like to read the work of a Biologist who doesn't agree with common descent...

Douglas Axe, “Undeniable”
Mike Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box”
(Et.al.)
You’ve never heard of them?

You said you’d “like to”. Hope you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Douglas Axe, “Undeniable”
Mike Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box”
(Et.al.)
You’ve never heard of them?

You said you’d “like to”. Hope you do.

Yes, none of It peer reviewed. In other words, not worth the paper it is printed on.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Douglas Axe, “Undeniable”
Mike Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box”
(Et.al.)
You’ve never heard of them?

You said you’d “like to”. Hope you do.

That's about what I expected.
I've read Behe and Meyer.
What you cited from Axe seems like similar to the other two; he cites Darwin's own words (from the 1800's...) and then argues that chemical or protein changes aren't gradual changes, therefore gradual changes in species don't occur, therefore evolution is broken.

To be fair, at least Axe has done some real field work.

I can see how these arguments sound good, if you have a particular aversion to Evolutionary Theory in the first place - but swirling opinion in with your handful of facts does not a scientific paper make, which are why his real intentions are found in books, and not his papers on protein functions.

 

[Audie]

Douglas Axe, “Undeniable”
Mike Behe, “Darwin’s Black Box”
(Et.al.)
You’ve never heard of them?

You said you’d “like to”. Hope you do.

Two books, all full of words, and out of it all
emerges not one fact that serves to disprove
ToE.

What a freakin' waste of time.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That doesn't even make sense. What did these people predict, specifically, which wasn't even known to exist? Predicting the existence of theism is no different to me, now, predicting the continued existence of oxygen.

And . . . your analogy shows you likewise see theism as natural, normal.