Was stumped by a Creationist

[Third Party]

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.

Reply that God is a scientist and created a Creationist and an Evolutionist and put them together to see what would happen.

 

[dblack]

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.

Maybe the creationist was right. Why does that bother you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

But you know less than nothing about it, so your opinion is worth less than nothing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe the creationist was right.

But we know he wasn't and was saying ridiculous, demonstrably false things.

 

[Votto]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

 

[dblack]

Maybe the creationist was right.

But we know he wasn't and was saying ridiculous, demonstrably false things.

Then why were 'we' stumped?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

No, you would simply propose abiogenesis on another planet. What a rational person would not do is insist upon magic.

 

[james bond]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

Aliens didn't seed anything. There are no aliens. No abiogenesis means no aliens. Not even a microbe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why were 'we' stumped?

I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.

 

[Votto]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

Aliens didn't seed anything. There are no aliens. No abiogenesis means no aliens. Not even a microbe.

Would God ever be considered an alien?

 

[dblack]

Then why were 'we' stumped?

I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.

Yes. I was addressing the OP. Personally, I don't find anything in the creationist narrative compelling, but if the OP does - why fight it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then why were 'we' stumped?

I wasn't stumped, he was. And that was because he didn't have the information at hand to know the things the creationist was saying were demonstrably false.

Yes. I was addressing the OP. Personally, I don't find anything in the creationist narrative compelling, but if the OP does - why fight it?

Well, in this case, it was based on some false statements.

 

[james bond]

Scientists really are clueless as to how to make a cell.

Does that trouble you at all?

Therefore....magic! Or is it aliens? Hard to keep up with the nonsense on this board.

Imaginary science of abiogenesis. No abiogenesis also means no aliens.

So if aliens seeded humans where did aliens come from?

The only way solve the quandary is to say that the alien/aliens came from outside this time ruled dimension.

Wink, wink.

Aliens didn't seed anything. There are no aliens. No abiogenesis means no aliens. Not even a microbe.

Would God ever be considered an alien?

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

 

[james bond]

If we find rabbit bones in the Cambrian, that's a problem for evolution.

What about the jellyfish from 500 million years ago? It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.

 

[Karl Rand]

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.

So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.

And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression left by the creature in sediment.

You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.

 

[abu afak]

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

`

 

[james bond]

Again aliens do not exist. They would be physical beings. The answer to your question is an emphatic, "No." God is spiritual and thus takes faith to believe in him. Adam and Eve, the most perfect human beings, didn't believe that they would physically die by disobeying God, but they were wrong. Today, people will die again "spiritually" by not believing in Jesus saving us. God had only one command for Adam and Eve. Today, God only has one command for the rest of us -- John 3:16.

Congratulations on you evangelical furvour but do tell me, do you imagine you’re going to convert anyone here with your claims?
And another question, if we accept your supposed gospel truth how can the Almighty justify not saving those born into, say, a strict muslim nation who for their entire life never experience the supposed saving grace of being exposed to Christian mythology?
2nd Thessalonians 2:11 should be on your list for contemplation.

Aliens not existing is pure scientific method. Due to no abiogenesis. Dr. Louis Pasteur demonstrated that only life begats life.

Mine is not to convert anyone because only the person themselves can find the faith within themselves to change their worldview. Their worldview will be based on experience, religion and science mostly.

You're missing the whole verse and passage. It's referring to those deluded by the Antichrist and Satan during the tribulation. Even the believers will be misled.

"For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, 12 in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but pleasure in wickedness." 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Thus, the delusions of aliens and abiogenesis of those are like what NASA believes. They state they will find aliens within ten years.

 

[james bond]

It looks the same as today and goes against evos thinking soft organisms would not be preserved.

So what if it looks similar? That doesn't contradict or undermine anything about evolutionary theory.

And you are way off base regarding the soft tissue. That image is not a fossil of its tissue. It's the impression left by the creature in sediment.

You could have learned both of these facts yourself, if you had lifted a finger to educate yourself . Instead you regurgitate falsehood after falsehood from creationist bloggers who are non scientist liars. So, now you're a non scientist liar, too.

I am presenting evidence like your stated evidence of a Precambrian rabbit. It's a jellyfish instead.

Doesn't uniformitarian thinking state that what we find today is what occurred in the past? One can't just apply it to part and not the other. Thus, we find living fossils and they are like today what they were in the past. The jellyfish isn't a fossil, but it still left 500 millions years old impression and historical evidence.

I'm not lying. Just trying to present what you asked for. From your emotional reaction, it seems I struck a nerve .

 

[koshergrl]

Tell him he can’t prove that our universe isn’t the result of a cosmic fart from an extra-universal lesbian orgy. That’s not falsifiable either.

He just said that in the OP you imbecile.