Role Reversal

[corvus_corax]

I did my part!

You and Split were awesome

 

[BananaSlug]

Yes that is the point, this is the role reversal thread. Your supposed to only argue for creationism if you are accept evolution. And you can only argue for evolution if your a creationist.

So since you are a creationist your not supposed to argue for creationism in this thread. And visa versa for banana slug.

I cannot argue in support of creationism because there is no support. The closest thing I can argue is that God created an appearance of evolution to make others faith in the him even stronger.

 

[AV1611VET]

I cannot argue in support of creationism because there is no support.

I stopped by Marathon today and told the guys I wouldn't be needing any gas today, since I still have 3/4 of a tank.

 

[Doveaman]

Divinity= selflessness rather than selfishness.

It is very amusing to see an atheist defining Divinity.

What is more selfish than sending somebody to hell because they don't love you?

How is it possible to send somebody to hell? You are not making any sense.

 

[Gracchus]

It is very amusing to see an atheist defining Divinity.

Well, if we are going to discuss it, someone has to do it, and Christians can't seem to do a satisfactory job, because they can't agree.

How is it possible to send somebody to hell?

I thought God could do anything!?

You are not making any sense.

Perhaps the problem is on the receiving end of the conversation?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Originally Posted by BananaSlug

I cannot argue in support of creationism because there is no support.
​

I stopped by Marathon today and told the guys I wouldn't be needing any gas today, since I still have 3/4 of a tank..

Its..Kinda scary I actually feel like AV is making sense in this thread even when he's not pretending.
If that meant what I think it did. I agree.


Though yeah its a shame the thread died already. But atleast we got one star preformance out of it before it bit the bullet

 

[AV1611VET]

Though yeah its a shame the thread died already. But atleast we got one star preformance out of it before it bit the bullet

I didn't think there would be much participation in this thread; as I think it's easier for a creationist to talk evolution, than it is for an evolutionist to talk creation.

Evolutionists have a long track record of using the wrong terminology (like "magic" and "poofed"), and now that there's a thread where the roles are reverse, they wouldn't know what words to use, even if they wanted to participate.

 

[Cabal]

I didn't think there would be much participation in this thread; as I think it's easier for a creationist to talk evolution, than it is for an evolutionist to talk creation.

Evolutionists have a long track record of using the wrong terminology (like "magic" and "poofed"), and now that there's a thread where the roles are reverse, they wouldn't know what words to use, even if they wanted to participate.

It's not that.

It's just really hard to force one's mind to run on the kind of illogic creationists seem to consider good thinking.

Lol @ the terminology point though - I mean, it's not like creationists NEVER try and redefine words...

 

[BananaSlug]

I didn't think there would be much participation in this thread; as I think it's easier for a creationist to talk evolution, than it is for an evolutionist to talk creation.

Evolutionists have a long track record of using the wrong terminology (like "magic" and "poofed"), and now that there's a thread where the roles are reverse, they wouldn't know what words to use, even if they wanted to participate.

It's not that. It is the fact that the only two arguments that could support creationism are:

1. There is no evidence for creation.
2. God purposely falsified evidence of evolution.

It does not take pages of posts to argue those two points because there is no argument.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I stopped by Marathon today and told the guys I wouldn't be needing any gas today, since I still have 3/4 of a tank.

Not unless you're posting on your smartphone, you didn't.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I didn't think there would be much participation in this thread; as I think it's easier for a creationist to talk evolution, than it is for an evolutionist to talk creation.

Evolutionists have a long track record of using the wrong terminology (like "magic" and "poofed"), and now that there's a thread where the roles are reverse, they wouldn't know what words to use, even if they wanted to participate.

Right, because "poofed" and "magic" are sooo much different than, "and god said let there be light."

 

[46AND2]

I didn't think there would be much participation in this thread; as I think it's easier for a creationist to talk evolution, than it is for an evolutionist to talk creation.

Evolutionists have a long track record of using the wrong terminology (like "magic" and "poofed"), and now that there's a thread where the roles are reverse, they wouldn't know what words to use, even if they wanted to participate.

I disagree with the bolded section above, simply because many evolutionists are former creationists, and the opposite is rarely true; and I'm not talking about going through high school science class and calling yourself an evolutionist prior to your salvation date. When I say evolutionist rarely become creationists, I'm talking about people who actually spend a lot of time trying to understand evolution only to reject it for YEC. Hardly ever happens.

Anyway, I wanted to give this a shot, and see if anyone else is interested in playing along. Has been an interesting thread so far. So, here it goes:

Evidence for Creation:

Dr. Robert Gentry has discovered rings in primordial rock called granite, which are consistent with the radioactive decay of polonium, and hence named polonium halos. What makes these halos interesting is that polonium as a very short half-life, and granite normally takes a very long time to form.

So, the fact that these granite rocks contain the polonium halos suggest that the rock was formed immediately through God's creation, 6000 years ago on day 3, as described in

Genesis 1:9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.

This let the radioactivity from the polonium get trapped in the rocks as halos when under today's conditions, the polonium would all decay away before the granite had time to form.

Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I would like to propose a game of role reversal, if everyone would be willing to entertain the idea that is.

What I would like to see happen within this thread is that for the outspoken creationists in this forum such as AV, Dove, etc. etc. to pretend to be in favor of Science and Evolution and argue against the people who are normally in support of Science and Evolution.

Evolutionists (for lack of a better word) will use sources such as AIG to make our arguments, and I would like to see the Creationists use our sources to refute or argue the points we make within this thread.

But the meat of this game is not merely a cut/paste of the material. I would like both sides to really think about the arguments they make and weigh them against the evidence they come across. I will make an attempt to view the creationist material in such a light that I actually believe what it says. Hopefully the creationists here can do the same.

This will more than likely end up being a Fail thread, but I do it in the hopes that both sides can learn a thing or two about each other.

I will start first by putting forth an argument. (taken from AiG A Tale of Two Chromosomes - Answers in Genesis)

Humans have 46 chromosomes as opposed to the 48 chromosomes found in Apes. Scientists try to explain this by suggesting that a pair of chromosomes fused together. However, scientists have to make the assumption of common ancestry before this can be true.

Second, It is not the number of chromosomes that is really a significant difference between humans and apes, but the information contained on those chromosomes. According to the evolutionary scenario, our apelike ancestors underwent major anatomical restructuring to develop upright posture, speech ability, and an astounding increase in cognitive function all by random, chance processes. Such profound changes were never observed; they are inferred because evolution has an atheistic basis and assumes there is no creator.

Can it be done? But then I would have to argue against mutations damaging the human genome and making it "less" able to produce variation, hence a large fraction of the genome being unknown because no function can be discerned from it due to degradation by mutations, even though you didn't include this in your argument for creationism. You see, you really can't understand the viewpoint of a "perfect" genome degrading over time, so set are you into perceiving the opposite. Your argument would never include this, because you can not conceive of that the starting condition was a perfect genome degraded by mutation over time, but can only conceive of increase over time....

None of your arguments would be from this starting assumption, but instead from the starting assumption of less to more, because that is how you conceive of things.... I've been where you stand and walked a mile in your shoes, but have you even walked one foot in mine??????

 

[AV1611VET]

Can it be done?

Just do your best.

 

[pitabread]

If I was going to do a role-reversal, utilizing the boilerplate creationist arguments would be all too easy. Unfortunately many arguments are just negative arguments against evolution rather than positive arguments for creation. And even the latter tends to boil down to either arguments from awe or incredulity.

The problem is that I would want something more. In particular I'd want to make a positive argument for creation of individual life forms based solely on understanding of how that would be possible. To do that though means having a mechanism (even theoretical) from which to derive predictive output. The problem is I have no idea what such a mechanism would look like. And in all my reading of creationist literature, there's no mechanism to be found there either.

The closest I could imagine would be the equivalent of current genetic engineering. The caveat there is it's not possible to detect 'design' without aprior knowledge of the genetic sequences in question. So even that's a bit of a non-starter.

The other avenue might be to make an argument around genetic discontinuity in modern life. But I'm also not aware of such a discontinuity being identified in modern genetics/genomics.

Other than the boilerplate creationist stuff everyone has heard a million times, I don't know how else I could argue for creation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is that I would want something more. In particular I'd want to make a positive argument for creation of individual life forms based solely on understanding of how that would be possible. To do that though means having a mechanism (even theoretical) from which to derive predictive output. The problem is I have no idea what such a mechanism would look like. And in all my reading of creationist literature, there's no mechanism to be found there either.

Perhaps this thread isn't for you then.

 

[Brightmoon]

role-reversal will never happen, because every last person on this forum (except me) is too proud to do such a thing, for fear they may actually make a good argument in favor of the opposite side.

I’m not worried about making a good argument for creationism. It’s just that I don’t think I can !

 

[AV1611VET]

I’m not worried about making a good argument for creationism. It’s just that I don’t think I can !

At least you're honest about it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just do your best.

I used to argue for evolution for many, many years. But I got tired of lying to myself about what the evidence actually says. My heart wouldn't be in it as it was once upon a time because I would know I would be lying....

My argument about the perfect genome degrading over time would be to simply ignore the genomic data as an evolutionist.

My argument about soft tissue would be to plead to a laboratory experiment in which they had to centrifuge the iron out of the blood because just having blood was not enough to do the job. So I would have to leave out the part of the centrifuge which isn't found in nature....... just so my claim would seem to have the slightest possibility....

My argument about the fossil record would be to claim in one post that the fossil record definitely proves evolution, then in another unrelated post claim it doesn't matter what it shows as it isn't needed.... when the creationists destroyed my argument by showing no change in any creature.....

And although I certainly support faith, I would have to place my faith in missing common ancestors that split to become separate creatures. Then point out to the creationist that his Adam and Eve ancestors are missing. Then duck and dodge when the creationists then pointed out that he was not the one proposing that our ancestors were anything but human, so a claim that postulates humans come from anything but other humans demands evidence, not faith...... I am pretty sure the creationists faith that humans only produce other humans would hold up under all direct observations..... so I would have to duck and dodge.... and implement the magic words "after millions of years"........

I could argue mutations are beneficial, but then I would have to ignore that experiments show almost all are deleterious, most of the rest neutral, then the rare one beneficial, but it usually comes with side-effects.... I would then argue that "over millions of years" the beneficial ones add up, while ignoring the deleterious ones effects adding up over millions of years altogether..... I would then argue but natural selection weeds out the harmful ones, while ignoring that small mutations over time adding up are more likely to add up to another deleterious outcome than a beneficial one..... so in the end get nowhere....

No, it's a loosing battle, which is why I am on the winning side..... God's side.....

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's a loosing battle, which is why I am on the winning side..... God's side.....

Amen! Good testimony!

Arguing for evolution is like riding a bike uphill, isn't it?