The unrefuted argument for creationism

[In situ]

The current sophisticated rhetoric by Creationists:

Credits to to Ken Ham for without this would not had been possible.

Edit note: after i Posted this I saw it ended up in the wrong discussion forum but don't know how to delete/move it. It is supposed to be posted in Creation & Evolution.

 

[patrick jane]

The current sophisticated rhetoric by Creationists:

View attachment 169177

Credits to to Ken Ham for without this would not had been possible.

Edit note: after i Posted this I saw it ended up in the wrong discussion forum but don't know how to delete/move it. It is supposed to be posted in Creation & Evolution.

What is your common ancestor ?

 

[Chris B]

The current sophisticated rhetoric by Creationists:

No, I was not their (responding in kind).

 

[In situ]

What is your common ancestor ?

Common ancestor of what? For my sisters and brothers it is my father and mother... and yours is?

 

[In situ]

No, I was not their (responding in kind).

So since you was not there would you then think it is reasonable to believe the child's claims it did not eat the chocolate?

 

[Chris B]

So since you was not there would you then think it is reasonable to believe the child's claims it did not eat the chocolate?

Look at the picture again to make best sense of my reply.

On the denial of chocolate-eating, the persistent evidence of a past event is both clear and
specific as to its nature.
If it had been blood on the child's forehead then a previous significant event would be equally clearly established, but its nature and cause would be far more open. I think that we see we have a universe is rather nearer the blood case, as opposed to the single clear scenario with the chocolate.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON


Move from Creation & Evolution Debate forum. Did a little clean up of the off topic posts. If you don't want to participate, then you are free not to.


MOD HAT OFF

 

[In situ]

MOD HAT ON

Move from Creation & Evolution Debate forum. Did a little clean up of the off topic posts. If you don't want to participate, then you are free not to.

MOD HAT OFF

Thank you Sir. Much appreciated.

 

[In situ]

Look at the picture again to make best sense of my reply.

On the denial of chocolate-eating, the persistent evidence of a past event is both clear and
specific as to its nature.
If it had been blood on the child's forehead then a previous significant event would be equally clearly established, but its nature and cause would be far more open. I think that we see we have a universe is rather nearer the blood case, as opposed to the single clear scenario with the chocolate.

Are you saying that blood has been mistaken for chocolate?

 

[Chris B]

Are you saying that blood has been mistaken for chocolate?

No.

I'm saying that the implied argument
(the kid denying he has eaten chocolate, given the surviving evidence is as silly as
people denying a Creator, given the massive amount of surviving evidence)
is an argument by picture. There's definitely chocolate.

But that picture and parallel has been carefully selected.
If it were a kid with some blood on his forehead, a singular *agent* or type of event could not so safely be inferred, An event there must have been, the forehead blood being evidence enough for that, but the inferred parallel to "so it must have needed a creator" is lost. Lots of different causes could lie behind the clear evidence.

I think the evidence that can be drawn from the observed universe is far more analogous to that image.


(Still not spotted the original spelling error? )

 

[In situ]

No.
[...]
But that picture and parallel has been carefully selected.

Correct. It is not blood with purpose. The analogy I want to illustrate should be clear. What I was not clear on was if you disgared with the validity of the analogy or not.

I think the evidence that can be drawn from the observed universe is far more analogous to that image.

So you think the analogy is valid?

(Still not spotted the original spelling error? )

No, thanks for the heads up. I will adjust it accordingly.

 

[In situ]

No, I was not their (responding in kind).

Now i get it! Quite fun reply actually...

I did not get it until now because I normally automatically compensate for spell errors (including my own) when reading - I mostly read meaning (entire words) and pay less attention to the letters words are made of than I should do.

 

[AV1611VET]

The current sophisticated rhetoric by Creationists:

[Were you there?]

Yes, indeed.

It's effective.

What's your question?

 

[In situ]

Yes, indeed.

It's effective.

Are you saying it is an effective strategy by creationist leaders to deceive the gullible masses? If so, I agree with you.

What's your question?

I am making a statement AV, not a question. The statement is; the evidence is there but creationist use intellectual immature arguments to deny them.

 

[Chris B]

Correct. It is not blood with purpose. The analogy I want to illustrate should be clear. What I was not clear on was if you disgared with the validity of the analogy or not."

No, I think the chocolate analogy is too forcing...
I don't think that the presence and nature of the universe points clearly and exclusively to a sentient creator (and one with an interest in humanity at that.)
The sheer size of the (now) known universe for one.
(What, we matter? I don't think so, except on our own scale, and to us.)
The messiness as well as the marvel of the universe.
Giant rocks randomly flying around the solar system... Whoops, there go the dinosaurs...
Alternately giant rocks flying around the solar system, perfectly controlled and directed... "Sorry about that, dinosaurs, but I have creator's rights for this sort of thing."
.. .if that last is the universe we have then the full implications, worked through, seem horrific.

 

[AV1611VET]

The statement is; the evidence is there ...

What evidence?

I challenge any creationist (or otherwise) to show me evidence of the creation week.

 

[46AND2]

No, I think the chocolate analogy is too forcing...
I don't think that the presence and nature of the universe points clearly and exclusively to a sentient creator (and one with an interest in humanity at that.)
The sheer size of the (now) known universe for one.
(What, we matter? I don't think so, except on our own scale, and to us.)
The messiness as well as the marvel of the universe.
Giant rocks randomly flying around the solar system... Whoops, there go the dinosaurs...
Alternately giant rocks flying around the solar system, perfectly controlled and directed... "Sorry about that, dinosaurs, but I have creator's rights for this sort of thing."
.. .if that last is the universe we have then the full implications, worked through, seem horrific.

I see where you two aren't on the same page. The chocolate is supposed to represent the evidence of evolution, not a creator. The kid using the words "were you there?" in an attempt to convince the parents that their accusation of chocolate consumption is not provable, being the same as the creationist's claim in response to people who accept evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The little boy sure looks like a product of creation to me.

 

[SkyWriting]

So since you was not there would you then think it is reasonable to believe the child's claims it did not eat the chocolate?

If there is more than one possible scenario then you cannot "predict" past events.
Note
- the extremely good lighting
- the featureless background.

What does this tell us? The picture was staged and "set-up" by the photographer.
In fact, it's possible that the child has not yet swallowed anything
and had no part in touching the cake on the counter.

So who is responsible for eating the missing 1/2 of the cake?
The photographer?

The lighting assistant?

Possibly the kid.

 

[SkyWriting]

What evidence?
I challenge any creationist (or otherwise) to show me evidence of the creation week.

To create such a model, I'd need to test the model.
I really have no control over the process or the
ability to force God do my bidding. Sorrrry.