Was stumped by a Creationist

[Olde Europe]

They simply analyze the evidence and create a theory, and from that theory, they take it as fact and everyone is suppose to accept it.

No, they don't "take it as fact". Actually, with every new theory, other scientists working in the same field actively try to find contrary evidence, search for lacking internal consistency, try their best to undermine that theory. If what they actually find confirms the theory, replicates findings in experiments, at least nothing contradictory is found, predictions based on that theory materialize, it is accepted as the currently best explanation of what is, and why.

Oh, and of course, everyone is free to dismiss the best available knowledge about the world and the universe, to remain a flat-earther, convinced that the swamp demons gave him flatulence, not to mention the witch on the other side of the street.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now, is there anyone else up for reasonable, intelligent discussion?

That thinks fully formed humans were placed here? No, there are no informed and reasonable people who think this. So don't waste your time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything in this universe was created. The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?

And then, if it's a higher intelligence:

What created the higher intelligence?

What created that which created the higher intelligence?

And so on...

If as you claim we came from nothing then why can't God have come from nothing? At least be consistent in your babbling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But it's logical to believe that the universe made itself, right?

Absolutely, you just pick the right premises, and logic will lead you right to that conclusion. I don't think you understand what "logical" means, in a strict sense.

Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If as you claim we came from nothing

I didn't claim that. You need to go back and start over. And I also never said god can't come from nothing. But if you say god did come from nothing, then I will just ask you why the universe could not have. You are confused about who is making assertions, here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.

I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.

I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.

I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.

 

[LittleNipper]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.

Shaman LittleNipper has spoken!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.

We're not your mommies or your 7th grade science teacher. Look it up yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.

Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?

No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact. Only theists are that sure about anything.

 

[bripat9643]

I was discussing Creationism with a friend. Put simply, he believes in it and I don't. He criticized the way I was comparing Creationism to Evolution in that I was pointing out that there is a considerable amount of verifiable evidence supporting Evolution, while there is basically none supporting Creationism. His point is that since Karl Popper re-defined how science is practiced, this is irrelevant. He pointed out that scientists have stopped relying on verifiable evidence to support their theories and have switched over to assessing their theories instead on the basis of how little evidence there is against them, assuming that the theory is theoretically falsifiable to begin with. In other words, the lack of verifiable evidence in support of Creationism is now irrelevant, as is the amount of verifiable evidence in support of Evolution.

He then brought up many criticisms of Evolution which were hard to respond to. I was having difficulty criticizing Creationism to the same extent because he didn't offer any evidence to support it other than vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotal stories about things like this one guy that prayed, his illness went away, and the doctors can't currently explain it. How do you critique vague, hypothetical beliefs and anecdotes?

My response was that while I can't really argue with what he says, Creationism is not falsifiable and he responded that Evolution is not either. I didn't know how to respond to that.

Everything in this universe was created. The question is, was everything created by a higher intellect or did everything create itself?

And then, if it's a higher intelligence:

What created the higher intelligence?

What created that which created the higher intelligence?

And so on...

If as you claim we came from nothing then why can't God have come from nothing? At least be consistent in your babbling.

Why do we need to place a god in the middle of it? If the universe can come from nothing, then just leave it at that. You've already conceded that the intercession of a magical gaseous invertebrate with a penis isn't required.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If as you claim we came from nothing

I didn't claim that. You need to go back and start over. And I also never said god can't come from nothing. But if you say god did come from nothing, then I will just ask you why the universe could not have. You are confused about who is making assertions, here.

I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Premise, a big fucking ass GUESS and you claim you don't believe.

I didn't say I believed the premises. You are so rabid that you can't seem to follow what is a pretty simple discussion.

I said that you can logically arrive at that conclusion (or any other) using the premises that help you get there.

I can, without violating a single rule of logic, argue that the moon being made of cheese means unicorns make ice cream.

A premise is nothing more than a Guess. And science goes on to use more guesses to fill out the original one. When ever they can not prove something they GUESS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You cannot create a star on earth because it has never been done.

However, a cell was created on earth, so why then and not now?

Get it?

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.

Equally, there is no proof or evidence of the big bang.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.

Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?

No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact. Only theists are that sure about anything.

Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT. Perhaps you just don't bother to read their posts?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it

At this point, you are correct. Scientists do not claim to know the answer, and anyone who says science already has the answer is wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT.

When correctly referring to the big bang as meaning the rapid expansionary period itself...yes, it is considered a fact, at this point. The evidence is overwhelming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I accept I do not know how everything originally got started but to claim science has the answer is just as much faith as saying God started it

At this point, you are correct. Scientists do not claim to know the answer, and anyone who says science already has the answer is wrong.

You have said it a couple times. You said the Big bang was what started everything and you have said Mammals evolving from one species into 2 or more entirely different species is fact also.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have said it a couple times. You said the Big bang was what started everything

I never once said that. You are confused. And I don't think it. So, now you are no longer confused.

you have said Mammals evolving from one species into 2 or more entirely different species is fact also.

I definitely said that. Yes, that's a fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Of course, stars have been created on earth. What do you think nuclear fusion is? That's mini-stars, lasting for just fractions of a second, but still...

Mother Earth had a billion years to experiment with different cocktails of chemicals in quite a variety of conditions to create life. Give humankind some time to figure out how she's done it; they'll get there, even though Mother Earth didn't leave blueprints lying around to be found billions of years later.

In other words, you don't get it; you don't have a hint of the beginnings of an argument, but that just reinforces your certainty, right?

You don't get it! "Mother Earth" isn't a "Mother". Earth could have 20 Trillion years to "experiment" and not accomplish one thing! GOD is the life force. God is the designer. God is the Creator. God can love!

The idea that a giant gaseous vertebrate with a penis created the universe doesn't pass the laugh test.

God is not a sexual being. He is a spirit.

Only to those whose ignorance is invincible.

Do you know of the proof of the big bang? Where has science said that we know undoubtedly that the big bang is fact?

Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Remember that word you used?

Where is all the evidence that evolutionist use to fabricate their theories since Science proves nothing?.

Then why do the Christians always refer to him with masculine pronouns?

No scientist has said we know "undoubtedly" that the big bang is a fact. Only theists are that sure about anything.

Actually several of the prominent arguers in this thread HAVE stated it is fact and that scientists also believe it is FACT. Perhaps you just don't bother to read their posts?

I said that "no scientist" has claimed that the big bang is a fact. The posters in here are not scientists.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm talking about Creationism's lack of verifiable evidence and that not seeming to matter.

Right, because believing it is "faith". One has already admitted that evidence does not matter, when one undertakes faith.

Additionally, why is the verifiable evidence in favor of Evolution irrelevant?

It isn't...?

Put simply, why is the fact that Evolution is more verifiable than Creationism irrelevant to scientists?

It isn't....?

Everything I'm reading is telling me that after Karl Popper, scientists stopped using verifiable evidence to support their theories and that all that matters now is how little evidence refutes it.

Well I think you had better find some better books, then. You could start with the confirmation of gravity waves. Then, move on the the cosmic background radiation.

Then, to go right to the successful predictions and evidence of evolution, you could read about human chromosome 2. Then relate this knowledge to your creationist friend.

If you wish to specifically debunk Popper's claims about evolution, read about the naked mole rat.

And, remember a general principle:

The arguments against evolution have, themselves, not evolved at all. The creationist deniers are all armed with the same, single shot muskets that they were popping off in 1870. Meanwhile, the science and mountains of evidence supporting evolution have grown and evolved to the point that evolution is as well known a fact as is any fact. So you can pretty easily find the information to debunk any evolution denier canard. Debunking these weak canards is what scientists have been busy doing for 150 years, after all. While the creationists, on the other hand, produce no science, no new arguments, and rely wholly on the ignorance and misunderstanding of 150 years of science to keep their archaic canards on life support.

The mistake those hostile to the fact of evolution make is to perceive the Earth as static and immutable – the Earth, of course, is neither.

Because the surface of the Earth is constantly changing – such as oceans becoming mountain ranges and rainforests becoming deserts– life must likewise change to accommodate a turbulent, violent Earth; evolution is the process by which life survives that change.

Indeed, absent the fact of evolution, life would have long ago been extinguished from this planet.