What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[MIDutch]

to their credit, the creationists do have this state-of-the-art research facility:

Van Andel Creation Research Center

It has a nice front porch.

 

[MIDutch]

Creationism is a theory that cannot be proven.

Quite true (and thank you for admitting that), because it mostly depends on "and then magic happened".

 

[GodsGrace101]

to their credit, the creationists do have this state-of-the-art research facility:

Van Andel Creation Research Center

It has a nice front porch.

Why do you think all creationists are the same?
Could there be another title for those that believe God created everything since CREATIONIST has become a bad word?

I like INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Some TYPE of intelligent design seems to have DESIGNED everything....

All the universe is made out of the same star stuff.
Everything is made up of either a circle, a curve or a straight line. Lots of things have a male and female part. Energy is required for life to continue. Energy does not seem to die but only to change.

So much mystery....

 

[GodsGrace101]

Quite true (and thank you for admitting that), because it mostly depends on "and then magic happened".

I don't believe in magic.
I do believe that it's difficult to believe in a being that is invisible unless someone has had some kind of encounter with that being.

I find that agnostics and atheists do not believe in any kind of metaphysical happenings. They don't believe in NDE,,,no matter how convincing they may be.
They don't believe in life after death even though some pretty strange things happen.
They don't believe in miracles even though the Catholic Church (a tough cookie) has verified about 670 REAL miracles at Lourdes in France...although thousands have been reported.
They don't believe in satan or obsession even though exorcists are alive and doing their job.

I mean, it must be soooo boring just believing in what you can actually see with the eyes and ignore what can be seen with the senses and the spirit.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? Honesty is a sign of irrational thought? I would have thought you liked honesty.

Here is my first paragraph:
If I proposed anything, it wouldn't be to suggest testing God or any claims of what God has done. That is why I've been asking: what do you really want?

What about that indicates I'm not being rational? Telling you any alternative to evolution I propose would not involve an attempt to test God, but would rather focus on the biological phenomena we can observe is an unreasonable thing to do? Please explain to me why that is. Once educated by you, I imagine I'll be living a much more enlightened life.

It demonstrates a conflation of the problem at best. It appears to be a meaningless statement.

What you would be testing are interpretations of what God said or interpretations of what one thinks God did. The question remains how would you test your beliefs?

If your beliefs are shown to be wrong does that disprove God or does that just disprove your beliefs? Too many creationists look at evolution as an attempt to disprove God since evolution clearly shows that creationist beliefs are incorrect. Once again all that it shows are that personal interpretations of the Bible are wrong.

 

[MIDutch]

Why do you think all creationists are the same?

I don't, but they have the word "Creation" right in their name, so ...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you think all creationists are the same?
Could there be another title for those that believe God created everything since CREATIONIST has become a bad word?

I like INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
Some TYPE of intelligent design seems to have DESIGNED everything....

All the universe is made out of the same star stuff.
Everything is made up of either a circle, a curve or a straight line. Lots of things have a male and female part. Energy is required for live to continue. Energy does not seem to die but only to change.

So much mystery....

No, you are abusing the term Intelligent Design. ID is an acceptance of common descent. Most creationists do no realize that and only accept it because it tries to stuff God back into the works.

And "seems" is only your opinion. It is worthless without evidence. The sciences are evidence based and the evidence shows no need of a designer, "intelligent" or otherwise. In fact with your sort of ID you are not in fact claiming an intelligent designer, you are claiming an incompetent one since there are all sorts of built in flaws in life that no intelligent designer would put there. Evolution on the other hand works on "good enough". It often results in extinctions because life's adaptions are no longer "good enough".

 

[GodsGrace101]

I don't, but they have the word "Creation" right in their name, so ...

Do you think creationist and intelligent design is the same? Just a change in name to confuse those that might think it does not mean God? Could there be another intelligence other than God?

And there's a reason why God needs a spaceship.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, you are abusing the term Intelligent Design. ID is an acceptance of common descent. Most creationists do no realize that and only accept it because it tries to stuff God back into the works.

And "seems" is only your opinion. It is worthless without evidence. The sciences are evidence based and the evidence shows no need of a designer, "intelligent" or otherwise. In fact with your sort of ID you are not in fact claiming an intelligent designer, you are claiming an incompetent one since there are all sorts of built in flaws in life that no intelligent designer would put there. Evolution on the other hand works on "good enough". It often results in extinctions because life's adaptions are no longer "good enough".

Hmmmm.
If God is perfect....
how did the flaws get there?

So much mystery....

 

[MIDutch]

I find that agnostics and atheists do not believe in any kind of metaphysical happenings.

That's not true. I don't know about atheists, but as an agnostic, I am perfectly comfortable with there being ghosts, spirits, undiscovered ancient civilizations, undocumented megafauna, aliens, etc.. But as an agnostic, my acceptance of them is "I don't know, I haven't seen enough evidence, if any, to make a determination".

My mother believed in ghosts (she some amazing stories), my son believes he had interactions with a ghost, I had a Wiccan girlfriend who could make unexplainable things happen. I don't discount anything they believe (heck, I was party to some of my Wiccan girlfriends events), but I can't explain them and therefore have no basis on which to accept them as "scientific".

 

[solid_core]

Hmmmm.
If God is perfect....
how did the flaws get there?

So much mystery....

God is perfect, but creation cannot be perfect. It would be God, if it would be perfect.

 

[GodsGrace101]

That's not true. I don't know about atheists, but as an agnostic, I am perfectly comfortable with there being ghosts, spirits, undiscovered ancient civilizations, undocumented megafauna, aliens, etc.. But as an agnostic, my acceptance of them is "I don't know, I haven't seen enough evidence, if any, to make a determination".

My mother believed in ghosts (she some amazing stories), my son believes he had interactions with a ghost, I had a Wiccan girlfriend who could make unexplainable things happen. I don't discount anything they believe (heck, I was party to some of my Wiccan girlfriends events), but I can't explain them and therefore have no basis on which to accept them as "scientific".

What is Wiccan?

How could you have such an experience and then demand that science explain it?

I've had several experiences that science will NEVER explain.

So I have to accept that there is something beyond science. If it is something called GOD,,,so be it. I'm not fighting it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmmm.
If God is perfect....
how did the flaws get there?

So much mystery....

Not really. Evolution explains what we see and why. Creationists do not have a rational explanation. A rational explanation is one that does not contradict itself or observations. And due to creationists inability to reason rationally they have no reliable evidence for their beliefs. All they have is a personal interpretation of the Bible. That people can have an incorrect interpretation of the Bible is easily demonstrated by the thousands of sects of Christianity. They have beliefs that are different at all different levels. That means most of the interpretations have to be wrong (and they could all be wrong) at best there is only one correct interpretation.

The point of this thread is how would creationists come up with a rational justification for their beliefs? To do that one would need to construct a model that was testable. That means that a test needs to be devised that would show the concept to be wrong if it is wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you think creationist and intelligent design is the same? Just a change in name to confuse those that might think it does not mean God? Could there be another intelligence other than God?

And there's a reason why God needs a spaceship.

ID is merely a failed attempt by creationists to sound "sciency". But since they cannot seem to find a proper way to test it (aside from the versions that have already been refuted) it is not science. It is only pseudoscience.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is Wiccan?

How could you have such an experience and then demand that science explain it?

I've had several experiences that science will NEVER explain.

So I have to accept that there is something beyond science. If it is something called GOD,,,so be it. I'm not fighting it.

No, your personal experiences that cannot be explained are likely unexplainable since they were not properly observed or recorded. Not being able to explain something is not evidence for God. A Muslim will make the same claims, is that evidence for Allah? A Buddhist will make the same claims, is that evidence for Buddha? If you do not say "yes" then you cannot say "yes" in your personal examples.

Unanswered questions are just unanswered questions. They are not evidence for or against an idea. If someone said "you can't answer this therefore God does not exist" you would be correct in rejecting that claim. The reverse is nonsensical as well.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, your personal experiences that cannot be explained are likely unexplainable since they were not properly observed or recorded. Not being able to explain something is not evidence for God. A Muslim will make the same claims, is that evidence for Allah? A Buddhist will make the same claims, is that evidence for Buddha? If you do not say "yes" then you cannot say "yes" in your personal examples.

Unanswered questions are just unanswered questions. They are not evidence for or against an idea. If someone said "you can't answer this therefore God does not exist" you would be correct in rejecting that claim. The reverse is nonsensical as well.

I think you think in a funny way.

What you're saying is that you don't TRUST your own experiences as real.

Being an intelligent scientist,,,I think must know what this means....

 

[Resha Caner]

The question remains how would you test your beliefs?

That is not the question I was addressing. Is that the question you're interested in? If so, maybe start a new thread.

What you would be testing are interpretations of what God said or interpretations of what one thinks God did.

No, that is not what I would do. Maybe you should let me say what I would do, rather than putting words in my mouth. But I'm not going to keep following this pointless conversation. If someone else is interested in what I actually said, I'm happy to continue.

As far as the "meaningless" statement, I don't know if you followed the "25 words" portion of the thread. Someone was asking for an explanation of evolution in laymen's terms with no more than 25 words. Several non-Christians were emphatically stating such is impossible - at least to provide an explanation with much depth of meaning. Yet what I proceeded to do was give definitions of "football" and "diffeq" in less than 25 words. People had fun. It was amusing. In showed the pros and cons of 25 word explanations. For the most part, people who knew football and knew diffeq understood what my 25 words meant. Those who didn't know football and didn't know diffeq didn't get it.

So, it wasn't that my 25 word statements about football and diffeq were meaningless. Rather, they required proper context in order to be comprehensible. I knew that as soon as I posted an alternative proposal I would get all kinds of shade about how I was being vague, I was conflating, I was invoking "Goddidit", etc. ... Thank you for so eloquently making my point that the statement wasn't meaningless. You just don't have the context to understand it. You're trying to turn over rocks and find the subversive arguments for the Bible hiding in my words when they aren't there.

I gave my less than 25 words in my post. I put them in bold type. If you actually wanted to see if what I said is plausible, testable, verifiable, you would have asked very different questions. Although, upon reflection, I'm not sure you asked any questions. Rather, you pontificated a lot about how bad my statements were.

So, again, if anyone else is interested, ask me a question pertaining to what I said, not what you think I believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you think in a funny way.

What you're saying is that you don't TRUST your own experiences as real.

Being an intelligent scientist,,,I think must know what this means....

Abusing the funny ratings is against the site rules. And one should not trust personal experiences blindly. That is what you are doing. If one's experiences are not repeatable they are probably not reliable. And being an "intelligent scientist" I understand how one tests one's ideas to see if they are valid or not.

Creationists typically only want to believe. They do not want to know. The problem is that mere beliefs are wrong quite often. When one knows something, which means one can support one's beliefs with reliable evidence, one is wrong much less often and wrong to a smaller degree. If you look at the sciences you will see that scientists are often "wrong", but the nature of their errors get smaller and smaller as we learn more and more.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the question I was addressing. Is that the question you're interested in? If so, maybe start a new thread.



No, that is not what I would do. Maybe you should let me say what I would do, rather than putting words in my mouth. But I'm not going to keep following this pointless conversation. If someone else is interested in what I actually said, I'm happy to continue.

As far as the "meaningless" statement, I don't know if you followed the "25 words" portion of the thread. Someone was asking for an explanation of evolution in laymen's terms with no more than 25 words. Several non-Christians were emphatically stating such is impossible - at least to provide an explanation with much depth of meaning. Yet what I proceeded to do was give definitions of "football" and "diffeq" in less than 25 words. People had fun. It was amusing. In showed the pros and cons of 25 word explanations. For the most part, people who knew football and knew diffeq understood what my 25 words meant. Those who didn't know football and didn't know diffeq didn't get it.

No, this is incorrect. And this has already been corrected. A 25 word explanation was rejected. When that happens a longer one is needed. It is possible to give one, but it will be very lacking in detail.

So, it wasn't that my 25 word statements about football and diffeq were meaningless. Rather, they required proper context in order to be comprehensible. I knew that as soon as I posted an alternative proposal I would get all kinds of shade about how I was being vague, I was conflating, I was invoking "Goddidit", etc. ... Thank you for so eloquently making my point that: the statement wasn't meaningless. You just don't have the context to understand it. You're trying to turn over rocks and find the subversive arguments for the Bible hiding in my words when they aren't there.

Please, instead of dancing a dance why not try to lay out how you would support creationism.

I gave my less than 25 words in my post. I put them in bold type. If you actually wanted to see if what I said is plausible, testable, verifiable, you would have asked very different questions.

So, again, if anyone else is interested, ask me a question pertaining to what I said, not what you think I believe.

And that was pretty much handwaving. To have evidence one needs to have a testable hypothesis. This would show if your beliefs are right or wrong. You only stated what you would like to see, not that it had ever been seen or how it would contradict the massive evidence for evolution. What a creationist needs is not only what he would like to see, but he also has to be able to explain all of the observations that already exist.

So let's start again. You would need to clearly lay out your beliefs and how you would test them if you want to be taken seriously. That is what the OP is about. Without that sort of action all one has is an ad hoc explanation at best and that should not convince anyone.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Abusing the funny ratings is against the site rules. And one should not trust personal experiences blindly. That is what you are doing. If one's experiences are not repeatable they are probably not reliable. And being an "intelligent scientist" I understand how one tests one's ideas to see if they are valid or not.

Creationists typically only want to believe. They do not want to know. The problem is that mere beliefs are wrong quite often. When one knows something, which means one can support one's beliefs with reliable evidence, one is wrong much less often and wrong to a smaller degree. If you look at the sciences you will see that scientists are often "wrong", but the nature of their errors get smaller and smaller as we learn more and more.

What funny rating?

I'm mentally stable and do not have schizophrenia.
I trust my experiences as being REAL.

I don't BELIEVE (think) I've had an experience...
I KNOW I've had an experience.

Your entire post makes no sense to me.