Was stumped by a Creationist

[anynameyouwish]

Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.

Precisely!

How about a third option; beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.

 

[bripat9643]

Well, I believe in evolution, and I also believe that God is the author of all creation. There's no reason one has to choose between these two beliefs.

Precisely!

How about a third option; beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.

What's the evidence for that? Who created them?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How about a third option; beings who are NOT ACTUALLY gods but highly evolved created us.

You can say that unicorns and leprechauns created us, for all I care. Either way, you have explained exactly nothing and have provided no useful information that yields any useful predictions. but in any event, none of this contradicts what we know. it's when you start contradicting the evidence that you will get in trouble.

 

[james bond]

"was stumped by a creationist"

Said no informed person for the last 150 years....

What's evolution? Not ToE, but abiogenesis, common descent, changes over long-time and macroevolution? Doesn't that replace God? What's the first commandment again? So don't be so certain. You still have Judgment Day and the afterlife.

 

[Picaro]

The question I have is that if scientists no longer value verifiable evidence and it is only about how little contradictory evidence there is, doesn't that amount to both sides trying to shift the burden of proof and favor theories that are harder to test? If I propose a theory, shouldn't there be some burden of proof on my part to provide some verifiable evidence to support my own theory?

I have a theory and I have no verifiable evidence to support it and you have to prove its not true? How is that not shifting the burden of proof?

This is how I see Creationism and it seems all Creationists do is try to keep Evolution on the defensive.

this is the false premise that one has to choose one or the other, which is rubbish. I'm an agnostic, and I sleep just fine knowing evolution is rubbish and no evidence exists for it, and I do find more evidence of the 'intelligent design' arguments than for the fake evolutionists hand waves, and I don't have 'proof' of either, and I sleep just fine not knowing either way, since hard empirical evidence doesn't exist for either. It's like not knowing who killed Jimmy Hoffa; I don't worry about that or lose any sleep over that question either.

 

[Chuz Life]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

 

[Picaro]

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.

Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens. We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.

.

No, there isn't; pretending genetic adaptation is relatively easy re lower level simple cells, but that isn't evolution, which requires a fossil record for empirical evidence and genuine genetic mutations by the billions, which is just a ludicrous claim, given the vast majority of mutations are harmful, not beneficial, and it's a mathematical probability of near zero that such complexity can 'evolve' over just a few billion years. Stupid fantasy hand waves like 'punctuated equilibrium' aren't 'empirical evidence', they're just made up rubbish.

 

[Picaro]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.

 

[james bond]

In other words, God, is the only one who says. God doesn't have to follow his own rules of morality. God isn't evil simply because the Bible defines whatever God does as good and holy. That's utter crap. It sure as hell isn't science or factual.

Here is your message. Jesus taught, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This was in reply to a Pharisee lawyer who asked him what is the greatest commandment. I suppose this is the commandment you have not followed from all the rambling and ranting about the Christian religion that you went on.

That's a myth. It has no scientific evidence to support it. You claim creationism is science. Yet the only way you can support it is by referring to the Bible, a collection of Stone Age myths.

It's the God or Bible Theory. He was the only witness. Like I said, we found the universe was flat as described (not saddle shaped) and being stretched out. It's still expanding. That's science. Still to discover are whether it has boundaries or edges and whether it curls upward.

What do you have? You had the eternal universe or steady state theory and it was wrong. Now you have the Big Bang Theory. My little joke is we end with a bang, not start with it.

That isn't a requirement for evolution to be true.

It's part of macroevolution which does not happen. It's part of the common descent, but it seems you are ignorant of it.

I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformitarian" is supposed to mean, but I'm sure you don't understand it.

That's hilarious. You do not know what uniformitarian is supposed to mean and then state I do not understand it.

What "both ways" are you referring to? None of what you spout has any connection with reality.

It was in regard to ToE in regards to common descent of humans from apes and chimps. The descent was from tailed to tailless monkeys. Then it became gorillas and chimpanzees. There is no evidence from that. All of those animals in the past look exactly like the animals we have today. Yet, somehow today's monkeys are different. Your point was we had an ape-human, one of the australaphocines, that became human. We do not observe that today. We do not observe any of the aforementioned so called common descent. Moreover, we do not observe bipedalism in apes and chimps. So, basically what you got is a bunch of old fossils and claims that all of the aforementioned happened. I said that it didn't happen as you claim and you have no answer for it.

And I'll lump all of your other comments as the same. All you have are assertions. You admitted you do not know uniformitarian which is part of evolution. You also haven't been very scientific is any of your explanations in the S&T forum. All you have are assertions. I was patient and tried to explain it to you, but instead you rambled onto the Bible in a S&T forum. How stupid is that when you can't tell the difference between the religion forum and S&T. I admit there are overlaps, but what does what you kept rambling about have anything to do with science? You are a boob. That's my conclusion.

 

[fncceo]

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.

Here's the thing.... yes, there is plenty of proof that evolution happens. We can see it happening and it best explains how life on this planet went from where it was to how it is now.

.

No, there isn't; pretending genetic adaptation is relatively easy re lower level simple cells, but that isn't evolution, which requires a fossil record for empirical evidence and genuine genetic mutations by the billions, which is just a ludicrous claim, given the vast majority of mutations are harmful, not beneficial, and it's a mathematical probability of near zero that such complexity can 'evolve' over just a few billion years. Stupid fantasy hand waves like 'punctuated equilibrium' aren't 'empirical evidence', they're just made up rubbish.

Other important questions that have no impact or our lives include ...

 

[Chuz Life]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.

Facepalm.

I should have known better than to introduce a comment about science into a thread on philosophy.

 

[Picaro]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any; it's a function of how one defines their terms, and nobody has ever refuted Aquina's logic, though many have lied and the more mentally challenged will believe the fake claims, not having any understanding of why those claiming to are wrong.

Facepalm.

I should have known better than to introduce a comment about science into a thread on philosophy.

Well, it's blatantly obvious via biology that a person's life begins at conception; nothing 'philosophical' about that. I don't know what you mean here; science is natural philosophy, and the concept of empiricism is derived from philosophy. The problems come from scientists themselves lying and discrediting themselves, something they do quite often, being as much fashion victims as those allegedly less 'rational'.

 

[james bond]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

I talked about that. God said that he will not reveal the beginning nor end. It's something he will keep to himself. Thus, we do not know when a fetus' life begins and when a person's life ends. We had people come back to life after being clinically dead. Supposedly, we will never know. One can apply the same to the universe. Each side can explain, i.e. theorizes, how it came into being, but that is all we can do. We won't know when the world will end either. I suppose our world ending is the same as the universe ending according to Biblical prophecy.

 

[james bond]

The main part that continues to bug me that bripat9643 and I discussed is how he states fossils such as Lucy or australopiticus afarensis and ardipithicus are facts that he's right. Fossils are facts, but it doesn't mean the theory is right. I can understand a person arguing for it, but the evidence is scant and it opens up what led up to it as well.

 

[cnm]

So 007 is God?

No, is James Bond.

 

[Chuz Life]

I love watching people bicker about whether or not "God" created the universe, when we can't even get the vast majority of the same people to openly and publicly agree on when a child's biological life begins.

I talked about that. God said that he will not reveal the beginning nor end. It's something he will keep to himself. Thus, we do not know when a fetus' life begins and when a person's life ends. We had people come back to life after being clinically dead. Supposedly, we will never know. One can apply the same to the universe. Each side can explain, i.e. theorizes, how it came into being, but that is all we can do. We won't know when the world will end either. I suppose our world ending is the same as the universe ending according to Biblical prophecy.

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Doesn't that replace God?

No, not at all. your dogma makes you think that. Please be more specific about your preferred brand of magical voodoo when complaining about evolution. You do not speak for all theists.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thomas Aquina's logical proofs are as solid as any

no they aren't, they are laughable nonsense that are fodder 4 exercises for college freshmen

 

[bripat9643]

In other words, God, is the only one who says. God doesn't have to follow his own rules of morality. God isn't evil simply because the Bible defines whatever God does as good and holy. That's utter crap. It sure as hell isn't science or factual.

Here is your message. Jesus taught, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind." This was in reply to a Pharisee lawyer who asked him what is the greatest commandment. I suppose this is the commandment you have not followed from all the rambling and ranting about the Christian religion that you went on.

That's a myth. It has no scientific evidence to support it. You claim creationism is science. Yet the only way you can support it is by referring to the Bible, a collection of Stone Age myths.

It's the God or Bible Theory. He was the only witness. Like I said, we found the universe was flat as described (not saddle shaped) and being stretched out. It's still expanding. That's science. Still to discover are whether it has boundaries or edges and whether it curls upward.

What do you have? You had the eternal universe or steady state theory and it was wrong. Now you have the Big Bang Theory. My little joke is we end with a bang, not start with it.

That isn't a requirement for evolution to be true.

It's part of macroevolution which does not happen. It's part of the common descent, but it seems you are ignorant of it.

I have no idea what you believe the term "uniformitarian" is supposed to mean, but I'm sure you don't understand it.

That's hilarious. You do not know what uniformitarian is supposed to mean and then state I do not understand it.

What "both ways" are you referring to? None of what you spout has any connection with reality.

It was in regard to ToE in regards to common descent of humans from apes and chimps. The descent was from tailed to tailless monkeys. Then it became gorillas and chimpanzees. There is no evidence from that. All of those animals in the past look exactly like the animals we have today. Yet, somehow today's monkeys are different. Your point was we had an ape-human, one of the australaphocines, that became human. We do not observe that today. We do not observe any of the aforementioned so called common descent. Moreover, we do not observe bipedalism in apes and chimps. So, basically what you got is a bunch of old fossils and claims that all of the aforementioned happened. I said that it didn't happen as you claim and you have no answer for it.

And I'll lump all of your other comments as the same. All you have are assertions. You admitted you do not know uniformitarian which is part of evolution. You also haven't been very scientific is any of your explanations in the S&T forum. All you have are assertions. I was patient and tried to explain it to you, but instead you rambled onto the Bible in a S&T forum. How stupid is that when you can't tell the difference between the religion forum and S&T. I admit there are overlaps, but what does what you kept rambling about have anything to do with science? You are a boob. That's my conclusion.

I'm done with this debate because all you do is lie about what I said, lie about what science says, tell me to have faith or avoid answering difficult questions. There's no point in debating someone when all the do is lie and weasel.

 

[james bond]

So much for our laws against murder then, huh.

It went over your head, too? We have laws against murder, but for killing there is justifiable killing, i.e. just cause, such as protecting your own and someone else's life from death or from grave bodily injury.