As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why are you talking present tense?

Are you assuming creatio ex nihilo can present evidence on demand?

Shouldn't you have asked: If it didn't generate any evidence?

It's still the same. Fine, would you prefer me to use "can't have" since that is past tense?

I disagree ... but even if it was, it is far superior to evolution.

It's not superior because it is not competing with evolution because it can't compete with evolution because it has nothing.

Nathan Lents presents quirks and glitches of the human body.

But Adam, who was created in 4004 BC and died in 3054 BC, was created without quirks and glitches.

Quirks and glitches came after the Fall, not before it.

Ah, okay, now I get what you mean.

You're still wrong though.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Flying pig think it outsmart large yellow duck with too clever
by one half.

I used to love seeing that duck when I was in HK. Good to see its little cousins hanging out in Bangkok last year.

 

[Frank Robert]

I know, I know ... you're all upset. Evo's become quite emotional when anyone reveals that their evolution theory has no clothes.

It is irrational to overlook and dismiss the vast wardrobe (evidence) that evolution has and claim that the ToE is false for what it doesn't know by dismissing what it does know.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not superior because it is not competing with evolution because it can't compete with evolution because it has nothing.

Actually it is.

There's even a joke along this line, meant to cause a light bulb to come for those mature enough to want to understand:

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”

God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”

The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.

“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”

“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

 

[Astrid]

I used to love seeing that duck when I was in HK. Good to see its little cousins hanging out in Bangkok last year.

Oh? What is your connection to HK?

I've never been to Bangkok, not sure
I'd like it there.

 

[Bradskii]

There's even a joke...

Don't give up your day job.

 

[Frank Robert]

Sorry, Frank.

I'm not going to entertain a discussion on creationism outside of Genesis 1.

If I do, the discussion will quickly descend into discussions on everything but the creation week.

The Fall, the Flood, the Crusades, whatever ... all came after the Fall ... not before it.

I am not asking for a discussion, I was only relating why I, personally, have difficulty with the creation model.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually it is.

There's even a joke along this line, meant to cause a light bulb to come for those mature enough to want to understand:

God was once approached by a scientist who said, “Listen God, we’ve decided we don’t need you anymore. These days we can clone people, transplant organs and do all sorts of things that used to be considered miraculous.”

God replied, “Don’t need me huh? How about we put your theory to the test. Why don’t we have a competition to see who can make a human being, say, a male human being.”

The scientist agrees, so God declares they should do it like he did in the good old days when he created Adam.

“Fine” says the scientist as he bends down to scoop up a handful of dirt.”

“Whoa!” says God, shaking his head in disapproval. “Not so fast. You get your own dirt.”

*yawn* Don't quit your day job (if you have one).

Creation and creationism cannot supplant evolution as a scientific theory because it has no evidence to support it. Without evidence, it cannot be used a science, nor even a descriptor of history. If there is no evidence, then it is worthless.
Simple as that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't give up your day job.

Thanks for the QED.

 

[AV1611VET]

I am not asking for a discussion, I was only relating why I, personally, have difficulty with the creation model.

I don't understand what you're having difficulty with though.

I know why you're having difficulty, but not what it is specifically.

 

[pitabread]

There's even a joke along this line, meant to cause a light bulb to come for those mature enough to want to understand:

Is that the only context for the claim that creationism is superior to evolution? Namely the alleged notion that God is superior to humans?

That's not really much of a claim. By the same token you might as well be claiming that Captain Kirk is superior to Magellan. Or that the Incredible Hulk is superior to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

So what?

 

[AV1611VET]

*yawn* Don't quit your day job (if you have one).

Thanks for the QED.

Creation and creationism cannot supplant evolution as a scientific theory because it has no evidence to support it.

That doesn't mean evolution is superior to creationism.

Without evidence, it cannot be used a science, nor even a descriptor of history.

That doesn't mean evolution is superior to creationism.

If there is no evidence, then it is worthless.
Simple as that.

Suit yourself.

 

[Astrid]

The "Fall" explanation is a big part of what makes me agnostic. How does an omnibenevolent God punish over 100 billion people for the sins of the parents? But it goes even further that, this same God is also omniscient so he knew when he created A&E that they would fall and that he would then punish all succeeding humans.

"The Fall". I remember having this explained
to me, how everything wrong with a once -perfect
wotld is our fault. All the diseases, everything.

Cute explanation for how a perfect God could
make such a place.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thanks for the QED.

It was a bad joke, and while I did get the point behind it, it was a bad joke.

That doesn't mean evolution is superior to creationism.

Yeah, it does.

That doesn't mean evolution is superior to creationism.

Yeah, it does.

Suit yourself.

I will.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the only context for the claim that creationism is superior to evolution?

Even if evolution was the route God took to configure this universe, it is inferior to creationism, since evolution cannot do anything until it has something to work with: ylem.

Evolution is worthless without creation coming first.

 

[AV1611VET]

"The Fall". I remember having this explained
to me, how everything wrong with a once -perfect world is our fault. All the diseases, everything.

Cute explanation for how a perfect God could make such a place.

This post is a perfect example of the conclusion reached by academia, when creationism is taken outside of Genesis 1 & 2.

Good Advice: Never ever go outside of Genesis 1 when discussing creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was a bad joke,

I understand.

 

[pitabread]

Even if evolution was the route God took to configure this universe, it is inferior to creationism, since evolution cannot do anything until it has something to work with: ylem.

Evolution is worthless without creation coming first.

The fact that the universe and life itself has to exist before the theory of evolution can be used to explain changes in populations doesn't imply that anything is superior to anything else.

It would be like claiming your parents are superior to you because without them you wouldn't exist. And their parents are superior to them, and so on.

It's just nonsensical.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that the universe and life itself has to exist before the theory of evolution can be used to explain changes in populations doesn't imply that anything is superior to anything else.

Try wording it this way, and see if it helps:

The fact that the universe and life has to be created before the theory of evolution can be used ...

 

[pitabread]

Try wording it this way, and see if it helps:

The fact that the universe and life has to be created before the theory of evolution can be used ...

But we don't know that it was necessarily created insofar as creation being a deliberate act. (Assuming that is that what you are trying to imply.)

At the end of the day, you're trying to claim a belief is superior a science. That doesn't make sense.