Let's say hypothetically, evolution is wrong...

[Ar Cosc]

Your problem isn't a universal problem.

It is, even if you don't realise it.What evidence is there of the bible being inerrant than there is for any Muslim, Hindu, Shintoist, or Mayan holy text?

Yes I do, actually.

That Apple Challenge came to me one night, after I prayed and asked God for something I could challenge you guys with that would open your eyes to the fact that creatio ex nihilo does not generate evidence.

You would think an all-powerful God would have given you something less crummy.



Edit: Also, it's a bit off of you claiming it as your own if you got it from God after praying. Should you not be calling it God's Apple Challenge?

 

[Nostromo]

And you know exactly where I stand on that, don't you?

Yes we know where you stand. You assert that what people say is really something else, and then avoid reading the linked information so you can go on spouting the same old rubbish, safe in the knowledge that because you never read or acknowledged the counter-arguments, they don't exist.

 

[AV1611VET]

But why, AV, would it create evidence contradicting itself?

This question doesn't even make sense.

I just said it doesn't generate any evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

You would think an all-powerful God would have given you something less crummy.

No, you might -- but I see the beauty in it.

Edit: Also, it's a bit off of you claiming it as your own if you got it from God after praying. Should you not be calling it God's Apple Challenge?

Because He gave it to me?

 

[Ar Cosc]

Because He gave it to me?

You should at least give him a little credit. Call it the Apple Challenge, and give him equal billing when you pull it out. It seems a bit rude to take God's gift, and then pretend like it was your own.

 

[TheReasoner]

This question doesn't even make sense.

I just said it doesn't generate any evidence.

But we have evidence of something else. No evidence you say. Well, we HAVE evidence. So you're obviously wrong. If no evidence was present, fine. But evidence IS present.

You understand?

An analogy: You say "There is no text before page 376". I look at page 365 and find it filled with text. I look at every preceeding page and even read them. What precisely is wrong wiht what I then did? You said no writing. I found writing...
You say no evidence, there is plenty of evidence. Soooo.... No ex-nihilo creation 6k years ago.

13.7 billion years ago, maybe. Not 6000 though.

 

[AV1611VET]

But we have evidence of something else.

Not on Day One, you don't.

(Creationism can disarm an evolutionist easily by simply going back to Day One.)

 

[TheReasoner]

Not on Day One, you don't.

(Creationism can disarm an evolutionist easily by simply going back to Day One.)

So... We have no conclusive evidence of what happened exactly at the creation event. Only the following ~13.7 billion years. We're not denying that. But how can you conclude that ~13.7 billion years of evidence=6000 years old earth?

God made the universe. Does it matter how?

 

[AV1611VET]

So... We have no conclusive evidence of what happened exactly at the creation event.

No -- you have no scientific evidence of what happened.

(Unless you're speaking just for yourself.)

 

[TheReasoner]

No -- you have no scientific evidence of what happened.

(Unless you're speaking just for yourself.)

We still know a LOT about what happened in the following billions of years. How can you reject all of that?

 

[AV1611VET]

We still know a LOT about what happened in the following billions of years. How can you reject all of that?

Summarily-- just like you're rejecting I making it perfectly clear that we're dealing with Day One, not 'billions of years'.

 

[TheReasoner]

Summarily-- just like you're rejecting I making it perfectly clear that we're dealing with Day One, not 'billions of years'.

Uhm. I don't see that I did that. We don't know how creation happened. But we know it did NOT happen 6000 years ago.

 

[juvenissun]

Even if evolution is not true, and even if creationism is the only alternative, there are hundreds of equally valid creation myths. And before diabolical mimicry is brought up, how do you know which stories are diabolical mimicry? Why would your bible be the only one that is not made up? What are the chances?

So far, I did not say that the Biblical creation is the only one.
Creation. That is it. It is THE answer to the OP.

 

[juvenissun]

That's not true juvenissun. Evolved does not exclude creation. We can't test it (whether some intelligent being or God created life or the universe), but it's not something we can exclude. Goodness gracious, we use evolution as a tool for biologically derived products and as a method to design many other products as well. So if we use it, why do you insist God cannot? Isn't that making God less than us? Impossible, right? God's greater, So if we can use evolution to make stuff He can do so at both a greater scale and in a greater scope. Right?

As for creationism having any validity as a scientific theory the absence of evolution will not validate it or give it credence. It is not testable. We don't have to have a theory juvenissun. If we don't have a testable model we don't have a viable theory. Creationism isn't a theory by it's very nature. By what it is. Even in the absence of any other explanation it would not be a valid theory unless you could formulate it as a testable hypothesis and then thoroughly test it. If you could do that and found that it was supported by your [as objective and falsifiable as possible] tests... THen it would be a valid theory.

But, as I said, evolution does not exclude a God nor a creator. At all.

Your definition of evolution is too narrow.
That is why you have all these unnecessary arguments.

 

[juvenissun]

Nope. If the entire scientific community dismissed evolution tomorrow, none of them would be jumping on the creationism train. It isn't a scientifically coherent theory. It really is as simple as that.

They have no other choice. Eventually, they will make Creationism a coherent theory. I guarantee that.

 

[juvenissun]

Aliens put us here.

There you go there is another choice.

Origin of aliens?

 

[TheReasoner]

Your definition of evolution is too narrow.
That is why you have all these unnecessary arguments.

Really? Why, what definition 'should' I use then?

 

[TheReasoner]

So far, I did not say that the Biblical creation is the only one.
Creation. That is it. It is THE answer to the OP.

Can it be formulated in a fashion which fits the scientific method?
You cannot say that evolution or even abiogenesis excludes a creator any more than you can say a chemical reaction excludes a chemist. It might, but it doesn't necessarily do so.

 

[juvenissun]

Really? Why, what definition 'should' I use then?

Use this one: Evolution = change.
This is the most nebulous one. It includes yours.

 

[TheReasoner]

Use this one: Evolution = change.
This is the most nebulous one.

And how does that challenge God's existence?