There is no Creation Debate

[dad]

Where should I start looking for him?

Everywhere. All the time. Desperately. Sincerely.

 

[HitchSlap]

Everywhere. All the time. Desperately. Sincerely.

Ok. For how long?

 

[dad]

Ok. For how long?

Till you find Him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Till you find Him.

What's the point?

 

[dad]

What's the point?

Finding Him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Finding Him.

Then what?

 

[expos4ever]

So what. With enough special pleading, reinterpretation of scripture, and abeyance of common sense, I'm sure any religious dogma can be consistent with a "secular" worldview.

You are not being fair and I suggest you know this. You are no doubt used to dealing with the lightweights here. How about dropping the cheap shots (e.g. "abeyance of common sense") and engage in a real, substantive discussion with someone who actually knows what a rational, coherent argument is?

 

[The Cadet]

My point was that I claim I can present to you a Christian worldview that is consistent with the known facts of the world.

I'm sure you could. It's trivial to come up with countless worldviews that are consistent with all the known facts of the world.

As such, it would be on equal footing with the mainstream "secular" worldview.

This is where you're wrong. The point behind such secular systems is that they do their best to strip out unnecessary and superfluous assumptions. For example, which of the following explanations seems more sensible to you:

A) Faerie Rings are caused by the way mushroom spores spread
B) Faerie Rings are caused by faeries carrying the mushroom spores to their distinctive spread

The former makes fewer assumptions, and as a result is a stronger explanation of reality.

They also make a point of aiming for not just explanatory power, but also predictive power, which flies out the window when you assume the existence of a supernatural being that can change the laws of nature at a whim.

 

[lasthero]

You are not being fair and I suggest you know this. You are no doubt used to dealing with the lightweights here. How about dropping the cheap shots (e.g. "abeyance of common sense") and engage in a real, substantive discussion with someone who actually knows what a rational, coherent argument is?

Cool. When you find someone on the creationist side like that, let us know.

 

[The Cadet]

You are not being fair and I suggest you know this. You are no doubt used to dealing with the lightweights here. How about dropping the cheap shots (e.g. "abeyance of common sense") and engage in a real, substantive discussion with someone who actually knows what a rational, coherent argument is?

Hey, there are quite a few threads where science advocates on this site have tried to start a real, substantive discussion with Creationists. For some reason, these threads are rarely if ever frequented by anyone but the "lightweights". If you know such people, by all means, show them threads like Loudmouth's about ERVs.

 

[PerpetuallyCurious]

What are your opinions on Polonium Halos?

 

[expos4ever]

Hey, there are quite a few threads where science advocates on this site have tried to start a real, substantive discussion with Creationists. For some reason, these threads are rarely if ever frequented by anyone but the "lightweights".

I agree that basically all the defenders of creationism (that I have seen here) use very bad arguments. Several points:

First, I am not a creationist and, if I recall correctly, my response that you quoted was not made in the setting of creationism but was made in response to what I thought was a misleading characterization of the connection between religious belief and evidence.

Second, I suggest that people with bad ideas and / or chips on their shoulder are dramatically over-represented in these forums. This applies to all positions one sees represented here. Yes, the creationists here cause my eyes to roll into the top of my head. But, likewise, there is, I suggest, an over-representation of pedants and people who simply enjoy making others look bad among those who oppose either creationism or religious belief more broadly. Of course there are exceptions but I think you know what I mean.

 

[expos4ever]

The former makes fewer assumptions, and as a result is a stronger explanation of reality.

Do you think I am not aware of this? Again, it may be understandable given what we see here that you assume all those who have a "religious" worldview need to be patronized with lessons on what constitutes a good explanation or theory. When you present the example with the Faerie Rings, it shows that you mistakenly believe that I ascribe to an entire ensemble of bad ideas that, sadly, many Christians espouse here.

Please do not assume anything about what I believe based on what other nonsense you have read here.

 

[The Cadet]

Do you think I am not aware of this? Again, it may be understandable given what we see here that you assume all those who have a "religious" worldview need to be patronized with lessons on what constitutes a good explanation or theory. When you present the example with the Faerie Rings, it shows that you mistakenly believe that I ascribe to an entire ensemble of bad ideas that, sadly, many Christians espouse here.

Please do not assume anything about what I believe based on what other nonsense you have read here.

But you were the one who made the claim that such worldviews would be on equal footing.

 

[expos4ever]

But you were the one who made the claim that such worldviews would be on equal footing.

And I stand by that claim. Do you really think that I cannot present to you a 'theistic' worldview which (1) honours the facts as we know them; (2) otherwise has the characteristics of a sound model of the world? If so, I think you are underestimating the sophistication of some defenders of theism who really do not make the same embarrassing arguments you read here.

I suspect we will not agree in the end. But I will bet that the points we disagree on will be ones that "reasonable" people can indeed to disagree on.

Here is what I think happened (and all parties have some "blame")

1. Someone basically dismissed all religious worldviews;
2. I challenged that and declared that a religious worldview can be as 'valid' as a secular one. But I did not go beyond making a claim.
3. You (and others no doubt) assume that I do not have a valid argument to back up that claim and/or you assume that my arguments are going to be same bad arguments you get from others.

I should have given you guys more than a general statement (i.e. I should have backed it up) but you should not have assumed that I am in any sense promoting what I see as a rather obvious caricature of an otherwise very reasonable "orthodox" Christian worldview.

 

[HitchSlap]

I should have given you guys more than a general statement (i.e. I should have backed it up) but you should not have assumed that I am in any sense promoting what I see as a rather obvious caricature of an otherwise very reasonable "orthodox" Christian worldview.

Despite your hand-waving, there is nothing reasonable about virgin births and dead people coming back to life.

 

[Black Dog]

You are not being fair and I suggest you know this. You are no doubt used to dealing with the lightweights here. How about dropping the cheap shots (e.g. "abeyance of common sense") and engage in a real, substantive discussion with someone who actually knows what a rational, coherent argument is?

The problem is all creationists are lightweights who in the end resort to special pleading. How can you possibly have a serious discussion with someone whose goto arguments are based on an unprovable invisible friend?

 

[The Cadet]

I should have given you guys more than a general statement (i.e. I should have backed it up) but you should not have assumed that I am in any sense promoting what I see as a rather obvious caricature of an otherwise very reasonable "orthodox" Christian worldview.

I don't assume that. I personally feel that there is no place in a reasonable explanation of the world for the supernatural. I also respect that you don't intend to expand on that here, and will gladly drop it.

 

[Loudmouth]

And I stand by that claim. Do you really think that I cannot present to you a 'theistic' worldview which (1) honours the facts as we know them; (2) otherwise has the characteristics of a sound model of the world?

I don't think you can come up with theistic worldviews that differ from non-theistic worldviews when it comes to testable predictions. It is rather trivial to say that Leprechauns create rainbows, and then have that worldview be identical to light refraction where it concerns every testable prediction. To truly have a case, you need to show how the theistic worldview is different from the non-theistic worldview where it really counts.

For example, what does a theistic worldview predict about the comparison of physical characteristics and DNA sequences between species, and how does it differ from what we would expect from evolution? What mixture of characteristics should we see and not see in fossil species with a theistic worldview, and how does it differ from what we would see if evolution is true?

1. Someone basically dismissed all religious worldviews;

You can't dismiss worldviews that don't exist. What we have found time and again is that the claimed worldviews don't make any testable predictions or don't make predictions that differ from non-theistic worldviews.

2. I challenged that and declared that a religious worldview can be as 'valid' as a secular one. But I did not go beyond making a claim.

Then there is no religious worldview to dismiss.

3. You (and others no doubt) assume that I do not have a valid argument to back up that claim and/or you assume that my arguments are going to be same bad arguments you get from others.

It is like the assumption of innocence. It is always assumed that you have not made your case until you have presented the evidence.

 

[expos4ever]

The problem is all creationists are lightweights who in the end resort to special pleading. How can you possibly have a serious discussion with someone whose goto argument is an unprovable invisible friend.

As I have pointed out to others, my comment was not made in relation to creationism.