The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness

[BilliardsBall]

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 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"?

I don't wish to argue solar system cosmology with you, though I would point out that claims that we can see similar systems forming now are observations lasting decades, not millions of years of observations, nor will I present young Sun defenses here, now.

Where in the Bible does it say if you're an atheist or disagree with God you're "wicked"? It says that all persons have sin, and need Christ as Savior. Do you disagree? Are you ready to live as a perfect moral member of a perfect utopia, without transformation first?

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I understand you "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with a universe existing despite the impossibility of matter and energy being created. I understand you likewise "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with saying the universe is eternal.

I urge you to find firmer convictions on these issues, somewhere, from someone.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I understand. We don't know how everything was created from nothing, but we reject any non-science book that says so millennia before modern cosmology and physics were established. That's "coincidence".

 

[ImmortalFlame]

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

Why are you willfully missing the point?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't wish to argue solar system cosmology with you,

That's convenient for you, considering cosmology utterly refutes your claim that the Bible contains no errors.

Where in the Bible does it say if you're an atheist or disagree with God you're "wicked"?

You claimed it did:

Post #204:
"the Bible is prescient, never wrong, and claims that Creation is self-evident except to the wicked skeptics."

It says that all persons have sin, and need Christ as Savior. Do you disagree?

Yes.

Are you ready to live as a perfect moral member of a perfect utopia, without transformation first?

I don't expect either is possible and I don't waste time deluding myself with wishful fantasies.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.


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.


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

You are misquoting me, perhaps unintentionally, by saying I "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."

I disagree, and am not shy about apologetics for God's existence in a variety of fields. Rather, I'm asserting that the idea of creationists lack weapons in the evolution debate (whether biological or cosmological evolution, etc.) is a moot straw man. To me, like most every person ever, God is self-evidently Creator.

Maybe we should start there, so you crawl then walk, then, I hope, run!

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

Michael Behe accepts common descent.

"I want to be explicit about what I am, and am not, questioning. The word "evolution" carries many associations. Usually it means common descent -- the idea that all organisms living and dead are related by common ancestry. I have no quarrel with the idea of common descent, and continue to think it explains similarities among species. By itself, however, common descent doesn't explain the vast differences among species."

Darwin Under the Microscope: Behe, Michael

 

[Audie]

Why are you willfully missing the point?

In the event, that something is normal n natural
hardly makes it a good thing.

Greed and malice, say. Oh, and superstition.
Religion is codified superstition.

But, hey, it is normal.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

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.

None of those are peer reviewed scientific articles that were published in a legitimate scientific journal. Peer reviewed articles in a real journal is what counts in science, not books.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

To me, like most every person ever, God is self-evidently Creator.

Do you understand why that is not a very compelling argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I understand you "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with a universe existing despite the impossibility of matter and energy being created. I understand you likewise "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with saying the universe is eternal.

I urge you to find firmer convictions on these issues, somewhere, from someone.

What you call an "impossibility" is merely your misunderstanding of physics.

Do you realize that the total energy of the universe has been measured fairly accurately and that that energy is zero? That means that energy was not "created". Your problem is that you are trying to take concepts that apply locally and are applying them incorrectly to the universe as a whole.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are misquoting me, perhaps unintentionally, by saying I "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."

I have quoted your posts, word for word, in my responses. What is it that you are claiming is self-evident then?

You keep saying Creation is self-evident. What creation? By whom or what? Do you not believe that the specific god you believe in created the universe?

I disagree, and am not shy about apologetics for God's existence in a variety of fields. Rather, I'm asserting that the idea of creationists lack weapons in the evolution debate (whether biological or cosmological evolution, etc.) is a moot straw man. To me, like most every person ever, God is self-evidently Creator.

Here you go again claiming that "God is self-evidently Creator." You have a problem where you repeatedly just assert a claim(s) as truth without ever providing any evidence. And when asked for evidence you say it's "self-evident." This was the EXACT point that I used to kick off this discussion between us. If it's so self-evident it should be incredibly easy to demonstrate! And yet you've demonstrated here that it is not easy to demonstrate, or else you would have done so by now. You've had enough opportunities by now.

Maybe we should start there, so you crawl then walk, then, I hope, run!

Maybe you could start by actually addressing the point, for once.

 

[Audie]

None of those are peer reviewed scientific articles that were published in a legitimate scientific journal. Peer reviewed articles in a real journal is what counts in science, not books.

Those are like counterparts to, say, "The God Delusion".

Peer reviewed articles in a real journal is what counts in science,

And what counts even more, at least in the long run,
is data. Facts.

If someone ever actually found something to disprove ToE
it would get out.

Publish it in the Enquirer if you want someone else to get
the Nobel.

All of these videos and chick tracts and books and website
showing ToE to be false have one thing in common:

Nothing. As in, not datum point one. Just talk.

 

[Audie]

What you call an "impossibility" is merely your misunderstanding of science.

Do you realize that the total energy of the universe has been measured fairly accurately and that that energy is zero? That means that energy was not "created". Your problem is that you are trying to take concepts that apply locally and are applying them incorrectly to the universe as a whole.

Misunderstanding AND selective reading.

Science is TRUE, an eternal verity when it
seems to say what the creationist wants.

When it does not, it is wrong.

Simple!

 

[Polymath257]

I understand you "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with a universe existing despite the impossibility of matter and energy being created. I understand you likewise "don't necessarily believe" that there are problems with saying the universe is eternal.

I urge you to find firmer convictions on these issues, somewhere, from someone.

I suggest instead that we wait for the evidence to give an answer one way or the other.

We know 'creation' isn't a violations of the laws we know...so why do you think it impossible?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand. We don't know how everything was created from nothing, but we reject any non-science book that says so millennia before modern cosmology and physics were established. That's "coincidence".

Yes, of course it is. It gave no details concerning the applicable laws of physics. It gave no description of the early universe that matches reality. It is as much of a coincidence as the Greek atomists being right about atoms.

Besides, the non-science book *doesn't* describe the creation from nothing. There was already a deity and a 'deep'.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's convenient for you, considering cosmology utterly refutes your claim that the Bible contains no errors.


You claimed it did:

Post #204:
"the Bible is prescient, never wrong, and claims that Creation is self-evident except to the wicked skeptics."


Yes.


I don't expect either is possible and I don't waste time deluding myself with wishful fantasies.

I said "wicked skeptics", not all skeptics are wicked. The wicked ones tend to crop up in large numbers in online forums.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you understand why that is not a very compelling argument?

Not in the slightest. You have the burden of proof, since you claim education removes the delusions of theism. Most persons, when looking at facts and logic, reject a flat Earth and hoaxed Moon landings. Yet you make an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence--that the vast, overwhelming majority of persons, I would say over 95% of persons, are in touch with the numinous, even though education should destroy their delusions, making the God Delusion the ONLY delusion that nearly ALL educated persons believe. That's ridiculous on its face.

And further, almost every person I know finds religious skeptics on religious forums excessively useless and annoying with their stubborn perspectives--except their fellow skeptics, IMHO. I find almost nothing you say "very compelling" as you wrote, because you and the others are incredibly closed-minded. Often, your group comes from a religious home, and you turn past abuse (unfortunate, I'm sorry) or parent-hating issues into Internet trolling. That's awful, and respectfully, I recommend Christian counseling rather than attacking good servants of God like me on forums.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I said "wicked skeptics", not all skeptics are wicked. The wicked ones tend to crop up in large numbers in online forums.

You said that creation was "self-evident" except to "the wicked skeptic", meaning any skeptic who doesn't think creation is "self-evident" (I.E: atheists) are wicked.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What you call an "impossibility" is merely your misunderstanding of physics.

Do you realize that the total energy of the universe has been measured fairly accurately and that that energy is zero? That means that energy was not "created". Your problem is that you are trying to take concepts that apply locally and are applying them incorrectly to the universe as a whole.

1. Is the total sum of matter/mass zero also?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, does that mean you have neither matter nor energy and do not exist? Or will you admit that since there is no energy in the universe, your energy/fighting against inertia is spiritual/metaphysical?

3. Do you have answers for apologetics other than the usual "you don't understand X realm of science"? If not, why do you persist on this forum?

4. Are you saying that if you learn God Created All, you would trust Jesus for salvation?

5. Since you have trouble understanding the evidence as revealed, are you saying God didn't Create this universe your way, so God must be wrong?

6. Why didn't you address the shortcomings in your view before debating my beliefs?