The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[Ouroboros]

My brain hurt after just reading the rules

Haha.

Well, I'm old school. It's a game we played a lot as a kid.

 

[Skwim]

JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT THIS THREAD SHOULD BE ABOUT ('cause I'd still like to see a decent attempt . . . . one is all I ask, just one*

)

TITLE: The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

THE CHALLENGE: Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.



​

* Although, I guess Kilgore Trout's "God did it" in post 23 does qualify.

​

 

[Etritonakin]

JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT THIS THREAD SHOULD BE ABOUT ('cause I'd still like to see a decent attempt . . . . one is all I ask, just one*

)

TITLE: The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

THE CHALLENGE: Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.



​

* Although, I guess Kilgore Trout's "God did it" in post 23 does qualify.

​

God wrote -then ran -Universe.exe (Big Bang)

God also changes the code from time to time while the program is running -writes programs/subroutines within the main program....wrote artificial intelligence programs of various complexity within it

The Big Bang is similar to a seed (OrangeTree.exe, for example)

 

[Skwim]

God wrote -then ran -Universe.exe (Big Bang)

God also changes the code from time to time while the program is running -writes programs/subroutines within the main program....wrote artificial intelligence programs of various complexity within it

The Big Bang is similar to a seed (OrangeTree.exe, for example)

The wordy version of "God did it," but thanks for the attempt.

 

[Etritonakin]

The wordy version of "God did it," but thanks for the attempt.

Anything referring to creation would boil down to "God did it." There is really only that or God didn't do it.

 

[Skwim]

Anything referring to creation would boil down to "God did it." There is really only that or God didn't do it.

Then why couldn't god have used evolution to create the huge variations in life we have? The fact is, there are many evolutionists who believe just this. After all, the bone of contention with creationists is that even if god is behind this diversity he didn't do it through evolution. So, if one rejects evolution they're still stuck with explaining the process. Saying that "god did it" doesn't resolve anything.

 

[Etritonakin]

Then why couldn't god have used evolution to create the huge variations in life we have? The fact is, there are many evolutionists who believe just this. After all, the bone of contention with creationists is that even if god is behind this diversity he didn't do it through evolution. So, if one rejects evolution they're still stuck with explaining the process. Saying that "god did it" doesn't resolve anything.

Well -I'm not a creationIST -and I do see your point. CreationISTS do tend to get stuck on one incorrect point and try to make everything else fit.

If God did all of this, then anything we can learn would serve to explain how he did it.

I don't believe that any "thing" is truly random, or it would be completely unknowable/unpredictable -it would be "magic".
Therefore I believe that everything that happened after the big bang was the inevitable result of the big bang -and could not have happened any other way.
That is -unless it was altered somewhere along the way by decision (which I believe to be the closest possible thing to truly random -as one can decide to make a decision that is illogical).

So -I believe that the entire course of the universe and eventually evolution could not have happened any other way, until the point that it could be knowingly and consciously altered (by man, for example) -or unless one was able to knowingly and consciously alter things before and after the big bang (God).

So -cells, multi-celled life, aquatic life, land life, dinosaurs..... all would have been contained in and have unfolded from the event we call the big bang -unless added later by decision.

God could have designed evolution rather than making it necessary to make every last change personally -but adding an all-powerful and all-knowing intellect and creator into the mix can make evolution very different than is generally accepted.

If there was no intellect or creativity before life on earth, then evolution -even if inevitable -is not predictable by us because we cannot know all things. We might learn how things would act under various conditions, but could not predict all conditions.
Even if we continue to self-evolve, we are still at the mercy of forces and events beyond our knowledge and control.

If God is considered, then he could make changes to evolution by altering environment or tweaking the code of species at any point without leaving much evidence -if any.
Evolutionary code could have been purposefully written to branch out into a generally-predetermined group of different types of species over time -but which also adapted to environment.

We tend to look at DNA as code (but it is not accepted to be written/intended code) -and the universe as the product of some random accidental event from which DNA accidentally formed.

If God created all things we can experience, then everything would be part of the code.
It is said we are made of the dust of the stars -so they could be seen as life factories, for example.

I forgot the original point I was trying to make.

Perhaps.... that I don't see how the inevitable could have produced that which could eventually change the inevitable by decision (us)...... unless it was made inevitable by prior decision (God).

 

[Skwim]

Well -I'm not a creationIST -and I do see your point. CreationISTS do tend to get stuck on one incorrect point and try to make everything else fit.

If God did all of this, then anything we can learn would serve to explain how he did it.

I don't believe that any "thing" is truly random, or it would be completely unknowable/unpredictable -it would be "magic".
Therefore I believe that everything that happened after the big bang was the inevitable result of the big bang -and could not have happened any other way.
That is -unless it was altered somewhere along the way by decision (which I believe to be the closest possible thing to truly random -as one can decide to make a decision that is illogical).

So -I believe that the entire course of the universe and eventually evolution could not have happened any other way, until the point that it could be knowingly and consciously altered (by man, for example) -or unless one was able to knowingly and consciously alter things before and after the big bang (God).

So -cells, multi-celled life, aquatic life, land life, dinosaurs..... all would have been contained in and have unfolded from the event we call the big bang -unless added later by decision.

God could have designed evolution rather than making it necessary to make every last change personally -but adding an all-powerful and all-knowing intellect and creator into the mix can make evolution very different than is generally accepted.

If there was no intellect or creativity before life on earth, then evolution -even if inevitable -is not predictable by us because we cannot know all things. We might learn how things would act under various conditions, but could not predict all conditions.
Even if we continue to self-evolve, we are still at the mercy of forces and events beyond our knowledge and control.

If God is considered, then he could make changes to evolution by altering environment or tweaking the code of species at any point without leaving much evidence -if any.
Evolutionary code could have been purposefully written to branch out into a generally-predetermined group of different types of species over time -but which also adapted to environment.

We tend to look at DNA as code (but it is not accepted to be written/intended code) -and the universe as the product of some random accidental event from which DNA accidentally formed.

If God created all things we can experience, then everything would be part of the code.
It is said we are made of the dust of the stars -so they could be seen as life factories, for example.

I forgot the original point I was trying to make.

Perhaps.... that I don't see how the inevitable could have produced that which could eventually change the inevitable by decision (us)...... unless it was made inevitable by prior decision (God).

Nice post.

Determinism, which is what you've been outlining here, is the only rational mechanism that explains change, the alternative, utter randomness, just doesn't cut it.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT THIS THREAD SHOULD BE ABOUT ('cause I'd still like to see a decent attempt . . . . one is all I ask, just one*

)

TITLE: The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

THE CHALLENGE: Make your case for creationism WITHOUT alluding to evolution or its principles.



​

* Although, I guess Kilgore Trout's "God did it" in post 23 does qualify.

​

I already provided an explanation how things are created in msg 135.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I already provided an explanation how things are created in msg 135.

I re-read it and found it was just a bunch of word salad without any kind of verified meaning.

 

[Skwim]

I already provided an explanation how things are created in msg 135.

As Sapiens pointed out in the following post, #136, there is no such thing as creation science. This plus the fact that your very first point "0. the logic of how choosing works" implies a chooser, which you didn't establish, led me to dismiss the rest of your post without further comment. But because you've brought it up again, I will comment. Creationism, which I take as Christian creationism because you didn't indicate otherwise, is "the belief that the Universe and diversity of Life originate from specific acts of divine creation.

You don't address this, but make assertions concerning decisions, none of which bear on the validity of creationism. Then there are your rather odd remarks such as "It is basically the only credible theory how an organism can develop into adulthood. It seems inconceivable that an organism can develop into adulthood, without a direct representation of the finished product. And such a representation of the finished product would strongly indicate the existence of a complete world of representations." Therefore I don't see your post as a case for creationism.

However, if you insist that your post is exactly that, then I will grant it a place on the list, right after "God did it."

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

As Sapiens pointed out in the following post, #136, there is no such thing as creation science. This plus the fact that your very first point "0. the logic of how choosing works" implies a chooser, which you didn't establish, led me to dismiss the rest of your post without further comment. But because you've brought it up again, I will comment. Creationism, which I take as Christian creationism because you didn't indicate otherwise, is "the belief that the Universe and diversity of Life originate from specific acts of divine creation.

You don't address this, but make assertions concerning decisions, none of which bear on the validity of creationism. Then there are your rather odd remarks such as "It is basically the only credible theory how an organism can develop into adulthood. It seems inconceivable that an organism can develop into adulthood, without a direct representation of the finished product. And such a representation of the finished product would strongly indicate the existence of a complete world of representations." Therefore I don't see your post as a case for creationism.

However, if you insist that your post is exactly that, then I will grant it a place on the list, right after "God did it."

It is a viable theory, development into adulthood, guided by a representation of the finished product, chosen in the DNA world.

If not creationism, what would you call it then, theories which describe in terms of the decisions by which things, like organisms, come to be?

Ofcourse in Christianity, as well as Islam, the existence of God is a matter of faith not fact. Your whole idea about creationism as providing scientific proof that God exists, is a nonsense.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I re-read it and found it was just a bunch of word salad without any kind of verified meaning.

That's just because you are completely prejudiced. It is a viable theory, and there is no way that an organism can develop into adulthood, develop into the coherent whole that we see, without a representation of the finished product to guide the development.

 

[Skwim]

If not creationism, what would you call it then, theories which describe in terms of the decisions by which things, like organisms, come to be?

Idea: 56435F.

If your idea here isn't meant to address Christian creationism, fine, but I have to ask, who is this decision maker, god? If so, this is merely another "god did it" assertion, which many evolutionists also assert as the explanation for evolution.

Of course in Christianity, as well as Islam, the existence of God is a matter of faith not fact. Your whole idea about creationism as providing scientific proof that God exists, is a nonsense.

Err, I think you've got your discussions mixed up here. I've never mentioned any such thing. Might want to review your notes before continuing.

 

[Ouroboros]

My brain hurt after just reading the rules

Here's a link to an online version of the game: Yahtzee

Click "roll dice". Pick the dice you want to keep. Roll again. And you hold and roll again one more time. Then pick which place you want to put your score.

Bill (the computer) won over me .

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Idea: 56435F. If your idea here isn't meant to address Christian creationism, fine, but I have to ask, who is this decision maker, god? If so, this is merely another "god did it" assertion, which many evolutionists also assert as the catalyst of evolution.

Err, I think you've got your discussions mixed up here. I've never mentioned any such thing. Might want to review your notes before continuing.

It seemed to me you wanted a scientific theory of creationism, to contrast with evolution theory. Exactly, one could just as well say God evolved things, so there is no distinction between creation and evolution on that point. But the facts posited in creationism and evolution are very different.

I limited myself to the fact part of creationism. The opinion part about the identity of the creator I left out, in order to better contrast with the facts of evolution.

What you say is merely disengenious evolutionist debating games. Choosing is the mechanism of creation, that is accepted in Christianity, as well as in Islam.

It is totally bogus that you discard freedom as some kind of irrelevance in the universe, as idea nr 5432f. That is total intellectual and moral bankrupcy if you ask me. How can you say to yourself you take facts seriously, when you completely ignore freedom?

 

[Skwim]

It seemed to me you wanted a scientific theory of creationism, to contrast with evolution theory.

Can't figure out why. I certainly didn't imply it in my OP.

But the facts posited in creationism and evolution are very different.

The assertions are very different. I've yet to see any creationist facts that bear on its validity. .

I limited myself to the fact part of creationism.

But without a statement of what your creationism is, any facts are meaningless. Thing is, I'm still not sure if the creationism you're talking about is Christian creationism or not. How about clearing this up.

What you say is merely disengenious evolutionist debating games. Choosing is the mechanism of creation, that is accepted in Christianity, as well as in Islam.

Yes I know, but it still doesn't make a case for the validity of creationism. As I said in my OP

Make your case for creationism ​

OR
​

Why should I discard evolution in favor of creationism?
​

Saying that choosing is a mechanism of creation is hardly a convincing argument.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Saying that choosing is a mechanism of creation is hardly a convincing argument.

I did not only just say that, I provided a general overview of the different parts of creationism, and then provided detail of one part. I provided concrete and viable outlines of theory.

Now I have no idea what you want.

Ofcourse this is generic creationism. It is regarding every creation theory, and taking the general structure of it, and then regarding timeframes etc. as variables in the theory. Just as like gravity theory is phrased generally, and then you have a planet with a specific mass.

And I know that William Jennings Bryan considered timeframes variable. Do you exclude him as a creationist? The most well known figure in the history of the creationism movement.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That's just because you are completely prejudiced. It is a viable theory, and there is no way that an organism can develop into adulthood, develop into the coherent whole that we see, without a representation of the finished product to guide the development.

Why not?

 

[Etritonakin]

Here's a link to an online version of the game: Yahtzee

Click "roll dice". Pick the dice you want to keep. Roll again. And you hold and roll again one more time. Then pick which place you want to put your score.

Bill (the computer) won over me .

Sounds about as exciting as sodoku/soduko/sudoku/whatever