The Ultimate Challenge To Creationists

[Quintessence]

This is in no way s response to the thread. This is aimed at people who take creation stories as literal and factual. When debating they argue against evolution and not for creationism.

This thread is asking for a pro creationism argument, not anti evolution.

I get that the aim is to avoid anti-evolutionary dialogue, but it's extraordinarily easy to do this and support the gods having a role in the makings of things, even if we're missing the point of mythology by taking it literally. We can go read any tale spun about the making of things that predates the scientific revolution. There's a whole bunch of them available here (Sacred Texts). Just pick one. "Ultimate" challenge met. Done. Easy. Simple. End thread. None of the ancient tales are going to mention evolution, or be anti-evolutionary. Not a one of the tale spinners who spoke of the gods role in the making of things could have been anti-evolutionary, as the theory of evolution did not exist at that time. If they are being called anti-evolutionary, that is a modern interpretation being projected back onto the narratives. Hence, I don't get the point of this thread. It's so easy to do, I don't understand why the question is being asked. :areyoucra

 

[jonathan180iq]

I get that the aim is to avoid anti-evolutionary dialogue, but it's extraordinarily easy to do this and support the gods having a role in the makings of things, even if we're missing the point of mythology by taking it literally. We can go read any tale spun about the making of things that predates the scientific revolution. There's a whole bunch of them available here (Sacred Texts). Just pick one. "Ultimate" challenge met. Done. Easy. Simple. End thread. None of the ancient tales are going to mention evolution, or be anti-evolutionary. Not a one of the tale spinners who spoke of the gods role in the making of things could have been anti-evolutionary, as the theory of evolution did not exist at that time. If they are being called anti-evolutionary, that is a modern interpretation being projected back onto the narratives. Hence, I don't get the point of this thread. It's so easy to do, I don't understand why the question is being asked. :areyoucra

I think the greater goal is address those people who claim that creationism is somehow supported by science and evidence. (Like people who build a giant museum to this supposed evidence...)

As far as mythological explanations for creation, there are certainly hundreds, as you have pointed out. But, again, that's not the aim.

 

[Quintessence]

I think the greater goal is address those people who claim that creationism is somehow supported by science and evidence. (Like people who build a giant museum to this supposed evidence...)

As far as mythological explanations for creation, there are certainly hundreds, as you have pointed out. But, again, that's not the aim.

So... essentially the thread title probably should have read "The Ultimate Challenge to Intelligent Design." In which case, I would grant that such a thing would be worthy of the phrase "ultimate challenge." If this is the aim, that wasn't at all clear from the OP, though, hence confusion.

 

[Iti oj]

I get that the aim is to avoid anti-evolutionary dialogue, but it's extraordinarily easy to do this and support the gods having a role in the makings of things, even if we're missing the point of mythology by taking it literally. We can go read any tale spun about the making of things that predates the scientific revolution. There's a whole bunch of them available here (Sacred Texts). Just pick one. "Ultimate" challenge met. Done. Easy. Simple. End thread. None of the ancient tales are going to mention evolution, or be anti-evolutionary. Not a one of the tale spinners who spoke of the gods role in the making of things could have been anti-evolutionary, as the theory of evolution did not exist at that time. If they are being called anti-evolutionary, that is a modern interpretation being projected back onto the narratives. Hence, I don't get the point of this thread. It's so easy to do, I don't understand why the question is being asked. :areyoucra

that's not evidence or an argument. Its just stories.

 

[Skwim]

I get that the aim is to avoid anti-evolutionary dialogue, but it's extraordinarily easy to do this and support the gods having a role in the makings of things, even if we're missing the point of mythology by taking it literally. We can go read any tale spun about the making of things that predates the scientific revolution. There's a whole bunch of them available here (Sacred Texts). Just pick one. "Ultimate" challenge met. Done. Easy. Simple. End thread. None of the ancient tales are going to mention evolution, or be anti-evolutionary. Not a one of the tale spinners who spoke of the gods role in the making of things could have been anti-evolutionary, as the theory of evolution did not exist at that time. If they are being called anti-evolutionary, that is a modern interpretation being projected back onto the narratives. Hence, I don't get the point of this thread. It's so easy to do, I don't understand why the question is being asked. :areyoucra

My motive is to demonstrate the main shortcoming of the argument for creationism, and why it isn't really an argument for it at all, but an argument against evolution, as if showing that evolution is wrong automatically validates creationism. Either A or B. This "either or" type of argument is bogus because it assumes that what is to be proved (creationism in this case) automatically derives truth from the falsification of its counterpart (evolution). Therefore, I am challenging creationists to make their case for creationism solely on its own merits. Disregarding evolution entirely, just why should anyone believe the creationist claim that god created every living organism from specific acts of divine creation?

If it comes down to a simple "god did it," fine. Just so everyone realizes that whatever the answer is is what their argument must hinge on.

 

[sun rise]

So... essentially the thread title probably should have read "The Ultimate Challenge to Intelligent Design." In which case, I would grant that such a thing would be worthy of the phrase "ultimate challenge." If this is the aim, that wasn't at all clear from the OP, though, hence confusion.

ID is different than intelligent design. ID can be expressed by "God is who. Evolution is how." It is, of course, not a scientific concept even though some spend a lot of futile effort trying to make a scientific case for it. It is a theological concept which accepts science, specifically evolution.

 

[Ouroboros]

ID is different than intelligent design.

ID is the acronym of Intelligent Design (I. D.).

Like IBM stands for International Business Machines or DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid.

 

[Sapiens]

ID is different than intelligent design. ID can be expressed by "God is who. Evolution is how." It is, of course, not a scientific concept even though some spend a lot of futile effort trying to make a scientific case for it. It is a theological concept which accepts science, specifically evolution.

No! ID does not accept evolution, it pretends to accept science, but only those scraps and leavings of science that fit it's preconceived notions ... and that is not science.

 

[Bunyip]

I get that the aim is to avoid anti-evolutionary dialogue, but it's extraordinarily easy to do this and support the gods having a role in the makings of things, even if we're missing the point of mythology by taking it literally.

I would think that to be impossible, not extraordinarily easy. The only way you cpuld support the gods having a role in things is by making empty assertions I would think, you would not be able to present any evidence to support that contention whatsoever.

We can go read any tale spun about the making of things that predates the scientific revolution. There's a whole bunch of them available here (Sacred Texts). Just pick one. "Ultimate" challenge met. Done. Easy. Simple. End thread.

But none of those stories is an argument for creationism/intelligent design, they are just stories. The OP is asking for evidence.

one of the ancient tales are going to mention evolution, or be anti-evolutionary. Not a one of the tale spinners who spoke of the gods role in the making of things could have been anti-evolutionary, as the theory of evolution did not exist at that time. If they are being called anti-evolutionary, that is a modern interpretation being projected back onto the narratives. Hence, I don't get the point of this thread. It's so easy to do, I don't understand why the question is being asked. :areyoucra

Well because arguments FOR creationism/intelligent design, given that there is no evidence for either rely on attacking and misrepresenting science - particularly evolution. I would assume that the purpose of this thread was to expose or illusttate the fact that other than attacking and misrepresenting science - there is no argument for crrationism/intelligent design.

 

[sun rise]

No! ID does not accept evolution, it pretends to accept science, but only those scraps and leavings of science that fit it's preconceived notions ... and that is not science.

You're thinking of the typical American version. I was actually thinking of how other religions such as Hinduism think of evolution. Hinduism's standpoint on evolution - Arsha Bodha Center is one example. For Judaism:

Klinghoffer sees attempts to reconcile Jewish belief with evolutionary science as apologetics, arguing that any such reconciliation must inevitably "insist that whatever role God played in life's development, it is undetectable, thus unfalsifiable."

Judaism & Intelligent Design - My Jewish Learning

 

[Sapiens]

You're thinking of the typical American version. I was actually thinking of how other religions such as Hinduism think of evolution. Hinduism's standpoint on evolution - Arsha Bodha Center is one example. For Judaism:


Judaism & Intelligent Design - My Jewish Learning

We are discussing ID, at the moment, a basically American brand of foolishness.

From all I can tell Klinghoffer's big problem is over standing up during the Friday night before dinner prayer.

 

[outhouse]

ID can be expressed by "God is who. Evolution is how.".

Which imagination works as well and is actually more honest and plausible for "I"

"D" decomposition. As it is turning science into trash that would be better buried in the garbage.


ID as you know is pseudo science no matter how you want to apply it.


"Imagination decomposition" is the process of taking good ideas and ruining them with faulty logic, as well as ruining the beauty of the epic Genesis by forcing the square mythology into a round hole. Same as unintelligent design.

 

[Skwim]

You're thinking of the typical American version. I was actually thinking of how other religions such as Hinduism think of evolution. Hinduism's standpoint on evolution - Arsha Bodha Center is one example. For Judaism:

Do Hindus advocate some form of ID (creationism/intelligent design) that stands in opposition to evolution?

 

[sun rise]

Do Hindus advocate some form of ID (creationism/intelligent design) that stands in opposition to evolution?

As with all religions, I've read that some do but you might want to read the reference I provided earlier to a web site that presents one Hindu view on ID.

 

[rusra02]

Is the god of the bible the only god to have ever put his stamp of approval on his creation story??

Because...no.

And there is no evidence to support "His" claim. This thread only asks that you submit it.

The creation story that you, and the bible, refer to was taken, nearly in whole form, from the creation story of Ahura Mazda. It was pilfered from Babylonian Zoroasters during that period of Jewish History. Go read it. All of your evidence for creationism would, thus, support Ahura Mazda and diminish the role of Yahweh, who was his mythological clone.

If what you say is true, then Jehovah would be a false god. The facts prove he is the true God, IMO. For example, Jehovah had numerous prophecies recorded in the Bible, all of which came true or will come true. One example is his naming Cyrus as Babylon's conqueror, some 200 years before these events occurred., perhaps 150 years before Cyrus was born. There are many other examples. (Isaiah 44:26-28)
As to the Bible's creation account coming from a mythic god, this claim is often made and never substantiated. Comparing the Genesis account to pagan myths is like comparing a mansion to a tent.

 

[jonathan180iq]

If what you say is true, then Jehovah would be a false god. The facts prove he is the true God, IMO. For example, Jehovah had numerous prophecies recorded in the Bible, all of which came true or will come true. One example is his naming Cyrus as Babylon's conqueror, some 200 years before these events occurred., perhaps 150 years before Cyrus was born. There are many other examples. (Isaiah 44:26-28)
As to the Bible's creation account coming from a mythic god, this claim is often made and never substantiated. Comparing the Genesis account to pagan myths is like comparing a mansion to a tent.

Zoroastrianism was, Historically verifiable, a prominent religion in Persia during what you would call the Babylonian Exile... Just go read their origin accounts. Read up on their philosophies of good and evil - on the nature of god - on everything.

Jehova is a false god, just like Ahura Mazda is a false god.

It's always interesting, when reading old books that aren't properly dated, how we assume that a prophecy isn't actually just a piece of history that was recorded as a prophecy.

I like your analogy at the end, you just have it backwards historically. You're assuming that the one you have chosen supersedes the others, but you're mistaken. Christianity, and even Judaism, are evolved version of religions that came before it. As the Hebrews traveled through whatever regions they were in, they adapted their own belief system based on snippets of those that surrounded them.

The code of Hammurabi
The Epic of Gilgamesh
The mentioned creation by Ahura Mazda
Etc, etc...

Throw in some other smaller myths that you come across while traveling, adapt them to your own people, places, names, and cities, and you suddenly have an oral history (some written) which starts a new religion.

I'm sure you believe that Islam is adapted from Jewish and Christian stories, inserting differing views on certain events in order to give itself prominence. Judaism is the same thing, but using ancient religions that no one really pays any attention to anymore. Add a little bit of Saul of Tarsus, with a dash of historical reference to the Romans, and baby you've got yourself a stew going.

Just because Christianity is the religion that you have chosen to follow doesn't make it any more susceptible to these common historical practices in the evolution of religion.

Just look up the stuff I've mentioned. You seem like a rational person. You'll see what I'm talking about. Biblical Archaeology was my minor. It's what I know.

 

[McBell]

I agree any god could take credit, but the God of the Bible did, explaining the order he created. No false god can make a convincing case that he created the universe and life upon it. Jehovah does make it clear he is the Maker of heaven and earth, and the evidence supports his claim. The things made prove his wisdom, almighty power, and intelligence far exceeding any man's. (Isaiah 45:12)

Problem...
This is not evidence for creation.
This is nothing more than why YOU believe the Bible over all the other claims.

 

[McBell]

Dear Kyyptid, I am still waiting for ANY Evol evidence of ANY kind. What you seek is evidence of this Earth and NOT the Earth where Humans had our origin. It's too bad that your Scientific knowledge is limited to Planet Earth. This distorts your Evol thinking because it is contrary to God's Truth which shows that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" in the Flood.

It's also WHY the ToE is so incomplete since it has REJECTED God's Truth and left itself out on a limb, since it has been teaching it's "beliefs" as Facts.The last Great Debate, of the last days, is over this Fact. Read all about it in 2Pe 3:3-7. This information shows that most Evols are nothing more than Scoffers of the last days. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

You have already demonstrated on this very forum you have no interest in truth or facts.

 

[rusra02]

Problem...
This is not evidence for creation.
This is nothing more than why YOU believe the Bible over all the other claims.

I believe Jehovah has provided convincing evidence that he created the heavens and earth. No other God can prove their Godship by foretelling the future and then making their word come true. (Isaiah 46:9,10)
The evidence that someone created life in all it's forms is overwhelming. The evidence lies in what is created. One deduces a house or spoon or arrowhead had an intelligent maker. To then assume things infinitely more complex did not have a Maker, is to deny the evidence, IMO.
It is like a child covering their eyes to avoid seeing something that frightens them.

 

[rusra02]

Zoroastrianism was, Historically verifiable, a prominent religion in Persia during what you would call the Babylonian Exile... Just go read their origin accounts. Read up on their philosophies of good and evil - on the nature of god - on everything.

Jehova is a false god, just like Ahura Mazda is a false god.

It's always interesting, when reading old books that aren't properly dated, how we assume that a prophecy isn't actually just a piece of history that was recorded as a prophecy.

I like your analogy at the end, you just have it backwards historically. You're assuming that the one you have chosen supersedes the others, but you're mistaken. Christianity, and even Judaism, are evolved version of religions that came before it. As the Hebrews traveled through whatever regions they were in, they adapted their own belief system based on snippets of those that surrounded them.

The code of Hammurabi
The Epic of Gilgamesh
The mentioned creation by Ahura Mazda
Etc, etc...

Throw in some other smaller myths that you come across while traveling, adapt them to your own people, places, names, and cities, and you suddenly have an oral history (some written) which starts a new religion.

I'm sure you believe that Islam is adapted from Jewish and Christian stories, inserting differing views on certain events in order to give itself prominence. Judaism is the same thing, but using ancient religions that no one really pays any attention to anymore. Add a little bit of Saul of Tarsus, with a dash of historical reference to the Romans, and baby you've got yourself a stew going.

Just because Christianity is the religion that you have chosen to follow doesn't make it any more susceptible to these common historical practices in the evolution of religion.

Just look up the stuff I've mentioned. You seem like a rational person. You'll see what I'm talking about. Biblical Archaeology was my minor. It's what I know.

Once again, you make statements but fail to substantiate them.