What creationists need to do to win against evolution.

[pitabread]

Just a friendly reminder. Comments on the statistic seemed to be gaining a somewhat exuberant tone.

Like I said, such claims are typically only in response to creationist claims about scientists rejecting evolution. If creationists stopped trying to use that as an argument, you probably wouldn't see much of the other.

 

[pitabread]

Maybe, but not necessarily. And posting a question that is merely rhetorical doesn't invite a lot of confidence that a serious answer will be received seriously.

I've had these discussions before. The intent of this thread is more about reminding creationists why evolution hasn't be toppled as a scientific theory. If creationists want to do that, they have their work cut out for them.

Though most creationists won't even acknowledge the reality of the science they are up against.

Thanks. I appreciate your answer. And none of it is necessarily unreasonable, but I still think there are some underlying issues to address. So, do you want to address those issues or do you just want me to cut to the chase and summarizes my thoughts on alternatives to evolution knowing such thoughts are DOA?

You can post what you like. I'm always up for an interesting discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wouldn't lean too heavily on that statistic. After all, whenever a creationist points to a scientist who doesn't accept evolution, it's typically rejected as an appeal to authority or ad populum fallacy.

Or is that the standard now? Things are true based on how many people accept it?

Not true. False claims about the opposition is not a wise debating technique. There are a handful of scientists that reject evolution. Very very few of them are biologists. And those that do the work professionally tend to work for places where one has to swear not to follow the scientific method. Which ironically makes the work that they do there not science.

I am sure that you have been shown various statements of faith. They all tend to say that the Bible is right no matter what the evidence says. In the sciences one must base one's work on what the evidence says. That is not allowed at AiG and other such places.

 

[Resha Caner]

You could have stopped with your first paragraph since that is an admission that you are not going to approach this problem rationally. The OP informed you that without a rational argument you are not going to convince very many people.

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.

 

[Resha Caner]

I've had these discussions before.

Not with me, as best I can recall.

The intent of this thread is more about reminding creationists why evolution hasn't be toppled as a scientific theory. If creationists want to do that, they have their work cut out for them.

Indeed. Especially when you state up front the door is closed - that you're not going to listen. Again, if your only purpose here is mockery, I'm not interested.

 

[pitabread]

Indeed. Especially when you state up front the door is closed - that you're not going to listen. Again, if your only purpose here is mockery, I'm not interested.

I never said I wasn't going to listen. As I said in my prior post, I'm always up for an interesting discussion.

It's up to you to post what you want to or don't want to. It's no skin off my nose.

 

[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.

Being honest is one part of rational thought. One can be honest and still be irrational.

And your error is in thinking that you are "testing God". Testing the Bible is not testing God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not with me, as best I can recall.



Indeed. Especially when you state up front the door is closed - that you're not going to listen. Again, if your only purpose here is mockery, I'm not interested.

no one is saying that the door is closed. The point is that one will find it hard to convince anyone if one does not put one's money where one's mouth is.

 

[Resha Caner]

And your error is in thinking that you are "testing God". Testing the Bible is not testing God.

Where did I say I was going to test the Bible? I said test observable biological phenomena. Are you actually reading what I write?

 

[Resha Caner]

no one is saying that the door is closed.

I'm pretty sure @pitabread said it is. Regardless, yeah, I already knew how tough a hill this would be to climb. I don't need you to tell me that.

 

[pitabread]

I'm pretty sure @pitabread said it is. Regardless, yeah, I already knew how tough a hill this would be to climb. I don't need you to tell me that.

For clarification, this is what I said:

"In order to formulate [a scientific framework / model for creationism], said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.

To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists."
​

I'm just not sure how one can test competing ideas that rely on supernaturalism. I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years on how to devise a method to objectively test such ideas, and nobody has come forth with anything.

As a problem that creationists need to solve, if it were solvable they would have probably already have come up with a solution.

 

[Resha Caner]

For clarification, this is what I said:

"In order to formulate [a scientific framework / model for creationism], said framework would need to be testable, and that involves identifying constraints with which to test ideas. This is one of the biggest flaws in creationism is that because it relies on unbounded supernaturalism, there are no constraints to allow testing and determination of correct or incorrect hypotheses. Hence, why there are so many variations and contradictory versions of creationism in existence.

To be perfectly honest, I think this is an insurmountable hurdle for creationists."
​

I'm just not sure how one can test competing ideas that rely on supernaturalism. I've asked creationists repeatedly over the years on how to devise a method to objectively test such ideas, and nobody has come forth with anything.

As a problem that creationists need to solve, if it were solvable they would have probably already have come up with a solution.

Where did I ever invoke the supernatural? In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that I have no intention of doing so. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't consider "supernatural" a proper description of God's characteristics. Regardless, I was saying I have no intention of bringing God into the discussion.

 

[pitabread]

Where did I ever invoke the supernatural? In fact, I said exactly the opposite - that I have no intention of doing so. If you knew anything about me, you'd know I don't consider "supernatural" a proper description of God's characteristics. Regardless, I was saying I have no intention of bringing God into the discussion.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was referring to creationists in general.

If you want to post something different, go ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did I say I was going to test the Bible? I said test observable biological phenomena. Are you actually reading what I write?

Please, you are guilty of your own sin. You said that you would not be testing the Bible. You keep making the typical creationist error of assuming that your beliefs of what the Bible says are the only possible beliefs. What you need to be willing to do is to test your personal beliefs. That is not testing the Bible, it is not testing God. It is rather arrogant to think that one's beliefs are the correct ones no matter what.

Let me repeat that testing whether the various stories of the Bible when interpreted literally are correct is not testing God or the Bible. It is testing the literal interpretation. You do realize that Flat Earthers are extreme literalists when it comes to the Bible, don't you? Are they correct in their interpretation?

 

[Resha Caner]

Please, you are guilty of your own sin. You said that you would not be testing the Bible. You keep making the typical creationist error of assuming that your beliefs of what the Bible says are the only possible beliefs. What you need to be willing to do is to test your personal beliefs. That is not testing the Bible, it is not testing God. It is rather arrogant to think that one's beliefs are the correct ones no matter what.

Let me repeat that testing whether the various stories of the Bible when interpreted literally are correct is not testing God or the Bible. It is testing the literal interpretation. You do realize that Flat Earthers are extreme literalists when it comes to the Bible, don't you? Are they correct in their interpretation?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you say bears any relation to what I said. From my perspective, the conversation is going like this:

Me - A typical equation of mechanics used by engineers is Newton's F = ma.
You - You arrogant creationist. Stop promoting your narrow-minded interpretations of the Bible.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. I was referring to creationists in general.

If you want to post something different, go ahead.

I did. If you want to start over, we can go back to post 519.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you say bears any relation to what I said. From my perspective, the conversation is going like this:

Me - A typical equation of mechanics used by engineers is Newton's F = ma.
You - You arrogant creationist. Stop promoting your narrow-minded interpretations of the Bible.



I did. If you want to start over, we can go back to post 519.

Ah strawman.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Yes, we do.

Are you defining Christianity as including only those believers who reject evolution?

And for Christian scientists who don't take an oath to reject anything which contradicts a literal reading of Genesis regardless of the evidence.

You didn't understand anything I said...
no problem.

Many Christians believe in evolution.
Many scientists are Christian.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah strawman.

Indeed, it does seem that's what you're doing. Show me where, in this thread, I ever mentioned God, the Bible, or the supernatural except to state that I had no intention of including them in my proposal.

I am a creationist because I believe God created the world. However, given the criteria put forth by @pitabread for this thread, God, the Bible, and the supernatural are outside the bounds of the conversation. In my very first post, I accepted those conditions. Therefore, I have absolutely no intention of making any claims related to God, the Bible, or the supernatural.

Please, show me where I ever indicated anything to the contrary.

 

[MIDutch]

Many scientists are Christian.

None of them use creationism to do productive work.

 

[GodsGrace101]

None of them use creationism to do productive work.

Of course.
Creationism is a theory that cannot be proven.

God could use any method to produce a human.
I never said He couldn't.
All I state is that I, personally, cannot accept that a one-celled organism can become a human without some type of intervention.