The unrefuted argument for creationism

[SkyWriting]

The problem I have with most creation-science literature is that I find it promoted by individuals who do not have sufficient credentials in either science or theology, along with the fact bogus degrees are also often presented.

How would a sufficient credential impact what they say?
That's like saying your doctors diagnosis is correct
even though you know it's not correct, yet you have
zero medical training. So you get a second opinion
which is rarely the same as the first.Most everyone has
gone through this process a number of times.

 

[SkyWriting]

I was educated in a American Baptist Seminary...

I personally consider one of the most useless educations available. (I'm from York Center.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.

But I have yet another "dvd" that says that you are wrong about everything. So... there!

 

[The Cadet]

I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.

Well, maybe if you feel interested in summarizing some of the more salient points, we could have a discussion about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you avoid Logical Fallacy: Affirming the Consequent ?

https://www.google.com/search?pws=0&q=the+fallacy+of+affirming+the+consequent&gws_rd=ssl

Why do you think that is a problem for geology or for any other science?

 

[AV1611VET]

The current sophisticated rhetoric by Creationists:

* WERE YOU THERE? *

Very useful indeed!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The raw nerve in these discussions is the hubris that most creationists exude. Without any real knowledge of the sciences they discuss, they will pronounce 150 years of science and millions of educated and knowledgeable scientists as being wrong, simply because the science goes against the creationists' preferred translation of the Bible. Creationists throw fuel on the fire by making such statements as "we are using the same evidence" when they are clearly not. It is obvious from the start that no evidence will change the mind of a creationist, which makes the whole scientific discussion a moot point from the start.

Science is still in the evidence-gathering stage. We have already reached our conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is still in the evidence-gathering stage. We have already reached our conclusion.

You reached your conclusion before you looked at the evidence, and not evidence will sway you from that conclusion. That's the problem.

Science is always in evidence-gathering mode, and will change theories if the evidence requires it. As it is now, 150 years of evidence supports the theory of evolution.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You reached your conclusion before you looked at the evidence, and not evidence will sway you from that conclusion. That's the problem.

Science is always in evidence-gathering mode, and will change theories if the evidence requires it. As it is now, 150 years of evidence supports the theory of evolution.

I agree there's something to the theory, but I don't know how it relates to creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I agree there's something to the theory, but I don't know how it relates to creation.

How does "creation" relate to anything in the world we see around us?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

How does "creation" relate to anything in the world we see around us?

The world we see around us is the creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

The world we see around us is the creation.

Then how could evolution not relate to the world we see around us?

 

[Chris B]

Nope. No work on that front either.
Any others?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=Tribalism
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=superstimulus

You might try looking in some other places. or reading around and then thinking for yourself.
Perhaps Claude Levi Strauss on the concept of "necessary myth".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then how could evolution not relate to the world we see around us?

It probably does, but I don't see a strong connection to creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

It probably does, but I don't see a strong connection to creation.

Like I said, no amount of evidence will sway you.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Like I said, no amount of evidence will sway you.

True.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

But I have yet another "dvd" that says that you are wrong about everything. So... there!

I have a DVD as well that says that unless you are a Christian, you cannot know anything for sure. So... there!

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I don't doubt that a creationist organization has misrepresented the science. That's pretty much their modus operandi.

I don't doubt that secularists are desperately clutching at straws in order to prop up their failed hypotheses. That's pretty much their modus operandi.

 

[lasthero]

I don't doubt that secularists are desperately clutching at straws in order to prop up their failed hypotheses. That's pretty much their modus operandi.

Clutching at what straws? You haven't actually presented any argument yet.

What did your DVD say about the cosmic background?

 

[The Cadet]

Clutching at what straws? You haven't actually presented any argument yet.

What did your DVD say about the cosmic background?

He's doing a thing, where he just mirrors exactly what people say back to him. It's not a winning strategy in Go or Chess, but in Debate it's... something else.