What evidence is there that creation is impossible?

[npetreley]

This thread is for the enjoyment of those who have nothing to do but waste time, but are tired of doing it in the "can you prove macroevolution is impossible?" and other similar but also pointless challenges. Now that I've created this thread, I hope you will be courteous and refrain from saying anything about the possibility or even the feasibility of creation in other threads. If you want to say anything about whether or not creation is possible, please save your pointless comments for this tread, where you can stay on topic. If this fills up, I'll start another thread on feasibility, since there's a difference between possibility and feasibility and the two should be treated separately.

 

[jon1101]

I'm still waiting for those darn skeptics to disprove a religion that I wrote known as donkeyism. So far it's held its own, so perhaps I'm the world's next religious leader.

-jon

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Why is it that challenges creationists make to evolutionists (e.g. "Achaeopteryx") are valid but challenges from evolutionists to creationists are pointless?

I'd be happy to discuss your challenge, NP, but first you need to define what you mean by "creation".

When were the living species created?
Was there one creation event or many?
What was created at each event?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

You go Nick!

Yes I dare all of you to prove that a giant pink supernatural unicorn named BOB didn't just make the world by excramental procces caused by grazing on stars.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Nick, don't forget your cousins out there have suggested that macroevolution is impossible. If you admit to its possibility, then there is no need for you to provide the mechanism that makes it impossible.

For the record, I admit to the possibility that a supernatural agent created the universe and life, including human life.

I even admit to the fact that this does not require that supernatural agent refrain from employing evolution as a tool toward those ends.

This being a science thread, and supernatural causes not being scientific considerations, I doubt I will comment further on this thread.

 

[seebs]

Nothing! As you are well aware, there's no way to show that the world was not created last Tuesday. This belief is logically equivalent to the 6000 year number.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
You go Nick!

Yes I dare all of you to prove that a giant pink supernatural unicorn named BOB didn't just make the world by excramental procces caused by grazing on stars.

You fundamentalists are all alike. Everyone knows it's just allegory. BOB is green, not pink.

 

[tycho]

Wow. I thought Nick was just being difficult for fun. Now I think he really has no clue how logic & reason work.

Now that I've created this thread, I hope you will be courteous and refrain from saying anything about the possibility or even the feasibility of creation in other threads.

Because this thread is on a certain topic, we shouldn't discuss the topic in other threads when applicable? Please tell me you're not this obtuse, Nick. Please tell me you're just wasting your time for lack of anything better to do.

 

[jon1101]

As you are well aware, there's no way to show that the world was not created last Tuesday.

As SPECIFICALLY stated in the scriptures of donkeyism! You see, we are all in the donkey's god-dream as he orbits around Neptune, pummeled by the rays of the fire-demon (the sun). He fell asleep last Tuesday and created a .doc file on my computer as a vessel for conveying his divine wisdom to humankind*.

All hail the IRRIFUTABLE metaphysical donkey! Repent from your fire-demon loving ways!

-jon

*or a mean-spirited dig about me having too much spare time.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Nick,

Your challenge is red herring unless you can provide us with a testable defination of "creation" or even a rigorous one.

 

[Morat]

*cough* *cough* Burden of Proof *cough* *cough*

Sorry, I seem to have had some simple concepts stuck in my throat.

Namely the notion that those presenting the positive case have the burden of proof.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by tycho
Wow. I thought Nick was just being difficult for fun. Now I think he really has no clue how logic & reason work.

Because this thread is on a certain topic, we shouldn't discuss the topic in other threads when applicable? Please tell me you're not this obtuse, Nick. Please tell me you're just wasting your time for lack of anything better to do.

Criminy - relax. I was just poking fun at those who were obviously skirting issues by complaining that they were "off topic" for the thread. This whole thread was supposed to be a joke. Most of the threads are, but this one was SUPPOSED to be.

 

[OldBadfish]

There is no direct physical evidence to either prove or disprove creation.

However I am still working on a way to disprove Donkeyism.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Morat
*cough* *cough* Burden of Proof *cough* *cough*

Sorry, I seem to have had some simple concepts stuck in my throat.

Namely the notion that those presenting the positive case have the burden of proof.

That's actually a very bad model. More precisely, the party expecting you to change your views is obliged to provide sufficient evidence to convince you, or has no grounds to expect you to change your views.

In most of the real world, we accept preponderence of evidence, or "best theory available" almost all the time.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by seebs

...or has no grounds to expect you to change your views.

Now THERE is a proof I'd REALLY like to see -- the proof that anyone participating on these forums ever changed someone else's views, particularly with respect to creation/evolution.

 

[jon1101]

Now THERE is a proof I'd REALLY like to see -- the proof that anyone participating on these forums ever changed someone else's views, particularly with respect to creation/evolution.

Now for a serious comment:

I have actually altered my opinions on the creation/evolution debate significantly due primarily to discussion on this board. I was once an ardent creationist; now I no longer attempt to defend creationism and would consider myself rather undecided on the issue, taking no strong stance either way.

-jon

 

[OneLargeToe]

I grew up in a southern Baptist family and had never really questioned the validity of Genesis and God. However, after spending the past several months lurking this and Infidels.org message boards, I have come to the conclusion that a Christian God cannot exist, nor can Genesis be taken as anything more than a mythical story (and certaintly not to be taken literally!)

The problem is, people like Randman and npetreley do absolutely nothing to support their position. Do they think by attacking a few weak points of science and/or evolution that that in itself is enough to disprove the plethora of other evidence in favor of the theories set fourth?

I have yet to see any of these guys post or link evidence FOR creation. So that leads me to believe there is NO evidence.

-David

 

[Morat]

That's actually a very bad model. More precisely, the party expecting you to change your views is obliged to provide sufficient evidence to convince you, or has no grounds to expect you to change your views.

In most of the real world, we accept preponderence of evidence, or "best theory available" almost all the time.

That still fits burden of proof, at least as I was thinking.

Evolution has met it, with multiple independent lines of support. If you want to discard it, you'll need to hack out each of those lines of support. If you want to replace it, you'll need to have a model just as (or more so) supported and with better explanative or predictive power.

 

[chickenman]

its very encouraging to hear that people lurking on the boards have come to question the validity of creation science, if only everyone here were that openminded.

 

[AV1611VET]

If this fills up, I'll start another thread on feasibility, since there's a difference between possibility and feasibility and the two should be treated separately.

It appears that this thread is not going to fill up anytime soon; and in light of your question, I can see why.