A Question to Evolutionists

[sfs]

I find the OP and subsequent clarification confusing. We have a question directed to "evolutionists", asking what would convince them of creationism, but based on the definition in the OP, evolutionist and creationist are overlapping sets. Also, the question posed has nothing to do with evolution, so it is not clear why it was directed toward evolutionists. And then we have the conflict between the OP, which defined creationism as god or gods having created the universe (an idiosyncratic definition), and a later post, which said that creationism was a series of claims. Both of those statements cannot be true.

So I really don't know what the OP was asking, or whether the question was addressed to me or not.

 

[CoderHead]

I answered it even though I'm not an "evolutionist" because it was a philosophical question on accepting the existence of a deity, given sufficient information. Obviously, belief in a deity doesn't preclude acceptance of scientific theories. And "evolutionist" is a vague term used to describe people who don't believe in the creation of the universe by a deity. Perhaps it should be "Big-Bangist" instead...?

Wouldn't an "evolutionist" be a person who devotes their life to the study and advancement of evolution? Like a physicist to physics?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I find the OP and subsequent clarification confusing. We have a question directed to "evolutionists", asking what would convince them of creationism, but based on the definition in the OP, evolutionist and creationist are overlapping sets.

Semantics, semantics. But you're right, I've got myself muddled up. As this is a question to evolutionists (i.e., those who believe in the theory of common descent), the 'Creationism' in the OP should restrict itself to those flavours that are not compatible with said theory (e.g., YEC).

Also, the question posed has nothing to do with evolution, so it is not clear why it was directed toward evolutionists.

The theory of common descent says that all life evolved from a single common ancestor.

And then we have the conflict between the OP, which defined creationism as god or gods having created the universe (an idiosyncratic definition), and a later post, which said that creationism was a series of claims. Both of those statements cannot be true.

Why not? Creationism is a series of claims, but not any series of claims; it the series of claims which, in summary, posit that a god or gods created the universe.
I'm also not sure how it's idiosyncratic; are you saying there's a broader definition than the one I gave?

But as I said above, I have indeed got my definitions muddled up. Not in the way you described, but still.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I answered it even though I'm not an "evolutionist" because it was a philosophical question on accepting the existence of a deity, given sufficient information. Obviously, belief in a deity doesn't preclude acceptance of scientific theories. And "evolutionist" is a vague term used to describe people who don't believe in the creation of the universe by a deity. Perhaps it should be "Big-Bangist" instead...?

Wouldn't an "evolutionist" be a person who devotes their life to the study and advancement of evolution? Like a physicist to physics?

An evolutionists is one who believes in the theory of common descent. It was coined by those who reject said theory, but it's now used by adherents of the theory as well. Either way, it should be obvious what it means.

 

[Faelin]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?
The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

EDIT: because there's some confusion, I'll clarify. The question is posed to evolutionists (those people who believe in the theory of common descent) about what would convince them of Creationism (the idea that, instead of evolving from a common ancestor, life was created by a deity). If you're still confused, just ask yourself what would convince you to become a YEC.

I think God manifesting Himself directly in front of me and at least a dozen other people would be convincing enough. If it were only me, nobody - not even Christians - would believe me anyway.

To convince me of a supernatural being, it would take the physical manifestation of the being in a manner that left no room for doubt.

I agree with Coderhead and Pete Harcoff. To actually have said deity create something whilst I was watching would end the argument once and for all!

I see nothing in nature that convinces me that this universe was "created" by anything other than natural means and not by a deity. I've always thought that human beings are far too flawed to have been "created" (I know that if I'd made something so imperfect that I'd never admit to it ).

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't know that any single instance of anything could convince me. The discovery of the truth of any of those things suggested in the OP is a one-off event.

If God manifested himself to me and proclaimed himself God, I couldn't know that he wasn't a deceiving alien (or for our religious friends -- an angel of light). If he transported me to Neptune and took me on a tour of the universe, he could still be a clever alien with the ability to overload my senses. IOW, I couldn't know that what was claimed was true. Even overwhelming warm-and-fuzzies could be induced on our relatively primitive brains.

I suppose tho that if some such being introduced himself to me and proceeded to have a life-long face-to-face relationship with me while doing god-like things, I might be induced to believe that the being is truthful and therefore god.

I.e., I'm open to the possibility of god, but I can't imagine what evidence would be sufficient. (All this assumes that some being doesn't induce a brain-state such that I could not help but believe.)

 

[AV1611VET]

If he transported me to Neptune and took me on a tour of the universe...

QV Swedenborgianism.

 

[Tinker Grey]

QV Swedenborgianism.

Well, the wiki was interesting.

Please explain why you think it is relevant. On quick perusal, I don't see what relates to my, essentially, epistemological statement.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, the wiki was interesting.

Please explain why you think it is relevant. On quick perusal, I don't see what relates to my, essentially, epistemological statement.

Emanuel Swedenborg claims he was taken on a tour of the solar system.

People here who say they would worship God if He would manifest Himself are making a very serious error.

That's how Swedenborgianism got started; that's how Islam got started; and that's how Mormonism got started.

It is also how Christianity got started --- (think Diabolical Mimicry, though).

 

[CoderHead]

Emanuel Swedenborg claims he was taken on a tour of the solar system.

People here who say they would worship God if He would manifest Himself are making a very serious error.

That's how Swedenborgianism got started; that's how Islam got started; and that's how Mormonism got started.

It is also how Christianity got started --- (think Diabolical Plagiarism, though).

So...you're saying Christianity is as identically man-made as any other man-made religion because of somebody's unsubstantiated, supernatural claims? I couldn't find a common usage of your term Diabolical Plagiarism, so I have to ask.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Emanuel Swedenborg claims he was taken on a tour of the solar system.

People here who say they would worship God if He would manifest Himself are making a very serious error.

That's how Swedenborgianism got started; that's how Islam got started; and that's how Mormonism got started.

It is also how Christianity got started --- (think Diabolical Mimicry, though).

Thank you for the info. A casual inspection of the wiki tells no such story. Nor does a look at their website. You'd have to knew where to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you for the info. A casual inspection of the wiki tells no such story. Nor does a look at their website. You'd have to knew where to look.

Here's one:

As early as the 1700s, people like Emanuel Swedenborg were claiming to be in psychic contact with inhabitants of other planets. 1758 saw the publication of Concerning Earths in the Solar System, in which Swedenborg detailed his alleged journeys to the inhabited planets. J. Gordon Melton notes that Swedenborg's planetary tour stops at Saturn, the furthest planet known during Swedenborg's era — he did not visit Uranus, Neptune or Pluto.

SOURCE

 

[peadar1987]

People here who say they would worship God if He would manifest Himself are making a very serious error.

Yeah, to be a real god, you need a book.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, to be a real god, you need a book.

That's right --- you do.

That Book keeps kooks away.

 

[CoderHead]

That Book keeps kooks away.

...or attracts them. What's God's need for a vague book of stories and laws on which nobody can agree? How does that advance our knowledge of God, or facilitate a relationship with Him? How does that promote peace and harmony across cultures?

 

[AV1611VET]

...or attracts them. What's God's need for a vague book of stories and laws on which nobody can agree? How does that advance our knowledge of God, or facilitate a relationship with Him? How does that promote peace and harmony across cultures?

Hey, if God actually manifesting Himself won't cut it, I suppose a Book won't, eh?

I'm saying that, thanks to the Bible, Mohammad was exposed as a false prophet, Joseph Smith was exposed as a false prophet, and I know you're not going to like this, but Darwin's teachings are exposed as a fake as well.

 

[Cabal]

...and I know you're not going to like this, but Darwin's teachings are exposed as a fake as well.

Only to the overimaginative.

 

[Cabal]

What would it take to convince you of Creationism?

Design?
Fine-tuning?
Evangelical aliens?
The Creator(s) manifesting right in front of you?

Are Creationists right in that we Godless atheists can rationalise away anything they present to us?

EDIT: because there's some confusion, I'll clarify. The question is posed to evolutionists (those people who believe in the theory of common descent) about what would convince them of Creationism (the idea that, instead of evolving from a common ancestor, life was created by a deity). If you're still confused, just ask yourself what would convince you to become a YEC.

I'm still not sure if TEs can answer this, but what the hey.

I don't think there is anything that could prove YEC to me - largely because the actual creation bit happened pre-Fall. So the creation account wouldn't necessarily be reflected in what we observe, as that would have been affected by the Fall.

 

[Split Rock]

Hey, if God actually manifesting Himself won't cut it, I suppose a Book won't, eh?

I'm saying that, thanks to the Bible, Mohammad was exposed as a false prophet, Joseph Smith was exposed as a false prophet, and I know you're not going to like this, but Darwin's teachings are exposed as a fake as well.

Nonsense. these all occurred after the Bible was written! How could The Bible expose any of them as "frauds?" More imaginative "interpretation" on your part, perhaps?

 

[Split Rock]

Darwin's teachings are exposed as a fake as well.

What is "fake" about Darwin's teachings? Is something "fake" if you don't like it?