My Superiority Challenge

[Aabbie James]

Ultimately, the discussion about "Creation or Evolution" is a discussion about the authority of Scripture.

For those who believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects, in the parlance of this OP, creation stands supreme. The Holy Scriptures, God-breathed and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority and His power.

All praise, honor, glory, and power to God. Amen!

 

[AV1611VET]

Ultimately, the discussion about "Creation or Evolution" is a discussion about the authority of Scripture.

For those who believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects, in the parlance of this OP, creation stands supreme. The Holy Scriptures, God-breathed and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority and His power.

All praise, honor, glory, and power to God. Amen!

Wow! You're two-for-two!

Another good post, Aabbie!

 

[dlamberth]

Ultimately, the discussion about "Creation or Evolution" is a discussion about the authority of Scripture.

For me, it's about what we actually see in the Earth and what it has to tell us. It's not at all about Scripture, unless I guess it's the Sacred Manuscript of Nature that's being talked about.

 

[pitabread]

For those who believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects, in the parlance of this OP, creation stands supreme.

I've never seen a Christian deny that God made everything, so not really sure what your point is.

Ultimately, the discussion about "Creation or Evolution" is a discussion about the authority of Scripture.

This sort of thing is probably more suited to the Apologetics subforums.

 

[pitabread]

For me, it's about what we actually see in the Earth and what it has to tell us. It's not at all about Scripture, unless I guess it's the Sacred Manuscript of Nature that's being talked about.

I find it really odd that so many creationists seem bent on ignoring the very creation they are alleging God created.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it really odd that so many creationists seem bent on ignoring the very creation they are alleging God created.

Asking which is superior is not the same thing as ignoring creation.

I do ignore any evolutionist claims, but that's not the point of this thread.

This thread is comparing two paradigms and asking which is superior to the other.

 

[pitabread]

Asking which is superior is not the same thing as ignoring creation.

The context of that response is in relation to the notion of viewing creation strictly through the lens of Biblical texts as opposed to examining creation itself. Even you admit to that; are you objecting to that notion?

This thread is comparing two paradigms and asking which is superior to the other.

To which I asked why one need be considered superior to the other in the first place. And you haven't really addressed that.

Or, alternatively by which criteria one would even use to judge superiority? I don't think you've answered that either.

 

[AV1611VET]

To which I asked why one need be considered superior to the other in the first place. And you haven't really addressed that.

Or, alternatively by which criteria one would even use to judge superiority?

I'm not going to argue the OP with you guys.

I know your tactics, and it's not going to work here.

If you don't know what "superior" means, I suggest you look it up.

 

[pitabread]

I'm not going to argue the OP with you guys.

I'm not asking you to argue it. I'm asking you to clarify it.

If you don't know what "superior" means, I suggest you look it up.

This isn't about what superior means. This is about a criteria by which one can measure superiority.

What criteria are you using to determine superiority?

 

[o_mlly]

Which is superior: Creation or Evolution?

The one that offers more explanatory power as to the causes for observed effects. That would be Creation.

 

[partinobodycular]

The one that offers more explanatory power as to the causes for observed effects. That would be Creation.

Except that Creation has no actual explanatory power whatsoever, beyond some vague unsubstantiated claims. Sorry, but that's not an explanation, that's conjecture. "Creation" is an explanation without evidence. It's what people turn to when the evidence ends.

 

[VirOptimus]

Another challanged thread.

 

[o_mlly]

Except that Creation has no actual explanatory power whatsoever, beyond some vague unsubstantiated claims. Sorry, but that's not an explanation, that's conjecture. "Creation" is an explanation without evidence. It's what people turn to when the evidence ends.

These two methods of acquiring knowledge cannot criticize each other. Scientism does not allow argument against itself (other than a lack of internal consistencies) by means outside its own validation methods.

If creation (A) argues that evolution (B) is irrational it must do so only from a reference that includes B's accepted methods of validation. B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

Productive debate must depart from the limitations of scientism's accepted validation methods and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to evaluate evolutionary and creator claims. One must appeal to the basic principles of rational thought in order to evaluate the claims of evolution or creation as a logical system. To transcend both scientism and faith one has to take recourse to philosophy, specifically metaphysical philosophy.

Unfortunately, that forum on CF is closed.

 

[Ophiolite]

To transcend both scientism and faith one has to take recourse to philosophy, specifically metaphysical philosophy.

Unfortunately, that forum on CF is closed.

Nothing is to prevent you from presenting your metaphysical argument here. Unless, of course, you are not up to it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except that Creation has no actual explanatory power whatsoever,

Depends on what you want explained.

 

[pitabread]

The one that offers more explanatory power as to the causes for observed effects. That would be Creation.

What explanatory power?

 

[Ophiolite]

Ultimately, the discussion about "Creation or Evolution" is a discussion about the authority of Scripture.

For those who believe the Bible to be the written revelation of God, complete and sufficient in all respects, in the parlance of this OP, creation stands supreme. The Holy Scriptures, God-breathed and therefore fully authoritative in and of themselves; rely for their authority upon no church, council, or creed, but are authoritative simply because they are the Word of God. The Scriptures, as they embody the very speaking of God, partake of His authority and His power.

All praise, honor, glory, and power to God. Amen!

And you feel that in Genesis God eschewed the richness and illustrative power of metaphor and that he deliberately obfuscated The Truth by writing a many-billions of years history in the rocks and the stars? It seems an odd view to have of one's God. I would be uncomfortable with it and certainly avoided it when I was a practicing Christian.

 

[o_mlly]

What explanatory power?

Do you acknowledge that there are other ways for men to come to know the "what" and "how" about the universe other than from within the constraints of scientism? If so then what are those other methods? If not then there is no fruitful outcome in our exchange.

 

[partinobodycular]

If creation (A) argues that evolution (B) is irrational it must do so only from a reference that includes B's accepted methods of validation. B does not recognize the validity of system A, so the criticism by system A of system B is correctly disregarded as baseless by system B.

Productive debate must depart from the limitations of scientism's accepted validation methods and proceed to a higher authority, a new and higher vantage point to evaluate evolutionary and creator claims. One must appeal to the basic principles of rational thought in order to evaluate the claims of evolution or creation as a logical system. To transcend both scientism and faith one has to take recourse to philosophy, specifically metaphysical philosophy.

Except that creationism's explanatory power doesn't lie within some supposed Creator, it lies within the human imagination. Unencumbered by a need for evidence the mind is free to imagine whatever it wants, and that strips creationism of any explanatory power that it may have thought it had. When every explanation that the human mind can conceive must be deemed credible, then none of them are credible. To truly have explanatory power an explanation must be backed by evidence, and that's why scientism trumps creationism, and that's why creationism attempts to find evidence to support its claims, because in the end even creationism recognizes the need for evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

And you feel that in Genesis God eschewed the richness and illustrative power of metaphor and that he deliberately obfuscated The Truth by writing a many-billions of years history in the rocks and the stars? It seems an odd view to have of one's God. I would be uncomfortable with it and certainly avoided it when I was a practicing Christian.

God's word starts out, "In the beginning ..."

Not, "Once upon a time ..."