The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[leibowde84]

This is not meant to be about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, or the religious belief that God created everything and macro-evolution isn't possible. It is about the method by which creationists attempt to bolster their argument that 1) the theory of evolution is wrong, and 2) God created everything.

1. Even if you were to be able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution, it would in no way magically create support for creationism.
2. The Bible does not provide any verifiable evidence for anything. It is merely a book of claims. So, assuming that a claim in the bible is true without providing evidence to support it as being true is fraudulent reasoning (unless, of course, you start the debate with the understanding that the Bible is to be considered true).
3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.

Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.

Scientists have gotten to the current theory of evolution by utilizing the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation, it becomes a "scientific theory", like the theory of evolution. In short, they see a phenomenon, create a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon, and test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation. Other scientists will continually try to disprove the hypothesis, and after this has all been done "to death", the hypothesis graduates to become a scientific theory.

When discussing creationism with RF members, I came to the conclusion that they are using a fraudulent method (I call the "creationistic method") to support their hypothesis about the creation of the universe.

First, they start with the belief that the Bible is accurate. This is troubling by itself, as there is no verifiable evidence that the Bible is 100% correct, divinely inspired, or that certain stories aren't fictional (like the creation account in Genesis).

Next, they make assumptions about certain biblical events, like the flood, and characters, like Moses or Noah. We have no verifiable evidence that proves Moses or Noah existed. But, instead of looking for said evidence, creationists tend to believe whatever is stated in the Bible is true unless it can be proven false. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of logic can plainly see this is absolutely unreasonable and logically fallacious. Believing something is true without verifiable evidence, based on nothing more than claims from an ancient text written by mostly unknown authors, until someone can prove it incorrect (prove a negative) is fraudulent. It is illogical, unreasonable, and spits in the face of actual knowledge and understanding.

Next, they incorrectly assume that poking holes in the theory of evolution somehow magically creates evidence for creationism. This is, again, obviously fraudulent. Even if evolution is proven false, it being incorrect in no way provides any evidence whatsoever for creationism. They aren't the only two options ... they are merely the only two plausible options currently on the table. But, our scientific understanding of the universe is still vastly incomplete. So, it is dishonest to claim that if evolution is false, creationism must be true.

Finally, they assume seemingly ludicrous things without any evidence and ask "evolutionists" to prove them wrong. Again, this is logically incoherent, as nothing should be assumed true until proven false. For example, recently I heard the argument that the scientific laws of nature did not apply before 6,000 years ago. So, the decay rate of radioactive carbon isotopes was not only not the same as it has been since it has been measured. Radioactive isotopes might not have decayed at all before that time. Obviously, this is a supernatural claim ... an extraordinary one too. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. We CANNOT believe something like this without verifiable evidence to confirm it. If there is no plausible reason to assume that scientific laws were different at any time throughout cosmic history, or even a crumb of evidence that even points to that conclusion, it should not be considered.

The main point I'm trying to make is this: We CANNOT fall into the trap of making assumptions simply because they help to align reality with our world view. Assumptions are fine, and necessary. But, they must be based on evidence of some kind. Claims in the Bible aren't evidence of anything ... they are merely claims.

So, if you think that scientific laws that govern the universe magically didn't rule 6,000 years ago, make your case. Provide the evidence that leads you to believe this is a possibility. But, if you say "how do you know that scientific laws did govern 6,000 years ago (or however long they claim)", the only honest, reasonable, and respectful position is to admit that you cannot come up with any reasoning or evidence that suggests they were different.

 

[Super Universe]

This is not meant to be about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, or the religious belief that God created everything and macro-evolution isn't possible. It is about the method by which creationists attempt to bolster their argument that 1) the theory of evolution is wrong, and 2) God created everything.

1. Even if you were to be able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution, it would in no way magically create support for creationism.
2. The Bible does not provide any verifiable evidence for anything. It is merely a book of claims. So, assuming that a claim in the bible is true without providing evidence to support it as being true is fraudulent reasoning (unless, of course, you start the debate with the understanding that the Bible is to be considered true).
3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.

Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.

Scientists have gotten to the current theory of evolution by utilizing the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation, it becomes a "scientific theory", like the theory of evolution. In short, they see a phenomenon, create a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon, and test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation. Other scientists will continually try to disprove the hypothesis, and after this has all been done "to death", the hypothesis graduates to become a scientific theory.

When discussing creationism with RF members, I came to the conclusion that they are using a fraudulent method (I call the "creationistic method") to support their hypothesis about the creation of the universe.

First, they start with the belief that the Bible is accurate. This is troubling by itself, as there is no verifiable evidence that the Bible is 100% correct, divinely inspired, or that certain stories aren't fictional (like the creation account in Genesis).

Next, they make assumptions about certain biblical events, like the flood, and characters, like Moses or Noah. We have no verifiable evidence that proves Moses or Noah existed. But, instead of looking for said evidence, creationists tend to believe whatever is stated in the Bible is true unless it can be proven false. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of logic can plainly see this is absolutely unreasonable and logically fallacious. Believing something is true without verifiable evidence, based on nothing more than claims from an ancient text written by mostly unknown authors, until someone can prove it incorrect (prove a negative) is fraudulent. It is illogical, unreasonable, and spits in the face of actual knowledge and understanding.

Next, they incorrectly assume that poking holes in the theory of evolution somehow magically creates evidence for creationism. This is, again, obviously fraudulent. Even if evolution is proven false, it being incorrect in no way provides any evidence whatsoever for creationism. They aren't the only two options ... they are merely the only two plausible options currently on the table. But, our scientific understanding of the universe is still vastly incomplete. So, it is dishonest to claim that if evolution is false, creationism must be true.

Finally, they assume seemingly ludicrous things without any evidence and ask "evolutionists" to prove them wrong. Again, this is logically incoherent, as nothing should be assumed true until proven false. For example, recently I heard the argument that the scientific laws of nature did not apply before 6,000 years ago. So, the decay rate of radioactive carbon isotopes was not only not the same as it has been since it has been measured. Radioactive isotopes might not have decayed at all before that time. Obviously, this is a supernatural claim ... an extraordinary one too. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. We CANNOT believe something like this without verifiable evidence to confirm it. If there is no plausible reason to assume that scientific laws were different at any time throughout cosmic history, or even a crumb of evidence that even points to that conclusion, it should not be considered.

The main point I'm trying to make is this: We CANNOT fall into the trap of making assumptions simply because they help to align reality with our world view. Assumptions are fine, and necessary. But, they must be based on evidence of some kind. Claims in the Bible aren't evidence of anything ... they are merely claims.

So, if you think that scientific laws that govern the universe magically didn't rule 6,000 years ago, make your case. Provide the evidence that leads you to believe this is a possibility. But, if you say "how do you know that scientific laws did govern 6,000 years ago (or however long they claim)", the only honest, reasonable, and respectful position is to admit that you cannot come up with any reasoning or evidence that suggests they were different.

1. If I was able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution it would in now way magically create support for creationism? It wouldn't be magic, it would be "logical".

2. The bible does not provide verifiable evidence of anything? Correct, but that does not mean it's entirely wrong either.

3. Unless I can prove that the laws of nature did not exist 6,000 years ago don't bring it up? Okay.

God could have used evolution to change species? Correct but God did not plant life, the angels planted life, God just caused the evolutionary change events (Punctuated Equilibrium) to happen.

The scientists came up with the scientific method? They did, it doesn't always work well and certainly cannot explain what truly gives life "life", even the angels have trouble explaining it because they only know bits of truth.

There is no verifiable evidence that the bible is 100% accurate? If that is the standard then I think many scientific theories lose credibility. Einstein was not 100% accurate.

We have no evidence that Moses or Noah existed? Uhh, we have the bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Just because some of the bible is story does not mean that all of the characters are fabricated. If you want to make the claim that the characters did not exist then please provide your evidence. You have some, right?

Logic is not truth. Logic is a conclusion that follows a stated premise. If a stated premise is wrong, and thus the conclusion is wrong, that is a logical statement, even though it is wrong.

Many scientific theories were doubted by scientists at first and then, over time, came to be accepted.

Poking holes in the theory of evolution doesn't prove creationism, it proves that the scientists don't have all the answers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? This is a common claim by atheists, it gives you quite a debating advantage. Before I will accept this I will have to look at your evidence for this claim. Uh, you have some, don't you? Or is it something you atheists just made up?

We can't believe something without verifiable evidence? Sure we can. Just because you can't doesn't mean that I can't and that others can't or shouldn't. The universe does not obey your made up standards.

Recently someone argued that 6,000 years ago the laws of nature did not apply? There's all kinds of stupid out there. We all have our moments, I've had a few.

You're trying to use your incorrect definition of logic to argue that creationism is wrong. You can't.

 

[ChristineM]

...
There's all kinds of stupid out there. We all have our moments, I've had a few.

You're trying to use your incorrect definition of logic to argue that creationism is wrong. You can't.

You certainly have

No the logic is sound and accurate

 

[Sapiens]

This is not meant to be about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, or the religious belief that God created everything and macro-evolution isn't possible. It is about the method by which creationists attempt to bolster their argument that 1) the theory of evolution is wrong, and 2) God created everything.

1. Even if you were to be able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution, it would in no way magically create support for creationism.

Creationists here partake of the logical falacy known as a false dichotomy.

2. The Bible does not provide any verifiable evidence for anything. It is merely a book of claims. So, assuming that a claim in the bible is true without providing evidence to support it as being true is fraudulent reasoning (unless, of course, you start the debate with the understanding that the Bible is to be considered true).

This is presupposition.

3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.

Denial of uniformitarianism.

Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.

Life is not an on/off switch, it is a gradual process starting with organic chemical processes. The first life form was likely much simpler than a bacterium and there may well have been multiple origins that merged together.

Scientists have gotten to the current theory of evolution by utilizing the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation, it becomes a "scientific theory", like the theory of evolution. In short, they see a phenomenon, create a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon, and test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation. Other scientists will continually try to disprove the hypothesis, and after this has all been done "to death", the hypothesis graduates to become a scientific theory.

Correct, the critical thing is that a scientific theory is supported by multiple evidences, often from different fields.

When discussing creationism with RF members, I came to the conclusion that they are using a fraudulent method (I call the "creationistic method") to support their hypothesis about the creation of the universe.

First, they start with the belief that the Bible is accurate. This is troubling by itself, as there is no verifiable evidence that the Bible is 100% correct, divinely inspired, or that certain stories aren't fictional (like the creation account in Genesis).

The only support that can offer for this partakes of circular reasoning, the bible is true because the bible says that it is true.

Next, they make assumptions about certain biblical events, like the flood, and characters, like Moses or Noah. We have no verifiable evidence that proves Moses or Noah existed. But, instead of looking for said evidence, creationists tend to believe whatever is stated in the Bible is true unless it can be proven false. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of logic can plainly see this is absolutely unreasonable and logically fallacious. Believing something is true without verifiable evidence, based on nothing more than claims from an ancient text written by mostly unknown authors, until someone can prove it incorrect (prove a negative) is fraudulent. It is illogical, unreasonable, and spits in the face of actual knowledge and understanding.

The bible can not be shown to be anything other that a Bronze Age historical novel, e.g., fictional characters moving through an amalgam of fictional and historical locales and events, which should never be taken seriously.

Next, they incorrectly assume that poking holes in the theory of evolution somehow magically creates evidence for creationism. This is, again, obviously fraudulent. Even if evolution is proven false, it being incorrect in no way provides any evidence whatsoever for creationism. They aren't the only two options ... they are merely the only two plausible options currently on the table. But, our scientific understanding of the universe is still vastly incomplete. So, it is dishonest to claim that if evolution is false, creationism must be true.

Again, a false dichotomy.

Finally, they assume seemingly ludicrous things without any evidence and ask "evolutionists" to prove them wrong. Again, this is logically incoherent, as nothing should be assumed true until proven false. For example, recently I heard the argument that the scientific laws of nature did not apply before 6,000 years ago. So, the decay rate of radioactive carbon isotopes was not only not the same as it has been since it has been measured. Radioactive isotopes might not have decayed at all before that time. Obviously, this is a supernatural claim ... an extraordinary one too. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. We CANNOT believe something like this without verifiable evidence to confirm it. If there is no plausible reason to assume that scientific laws were different at any time throughout cosmic history, or even a crumb of evidence that even points to that conclusion, it should not be considered.

Major problems for the creationists here, radioactive decay is what produces the heat in the core of the Earth and the rate of decay jibes with the measured temperature. If the creationist lie is to be believed they have to readjust many of the laws of physics, not just the decay rates.

The main point I'm trying to make is this: We CANNOT fall into the trap of making assumptions simply because they help to align reality with our world view. Assumptions are fine, and necessary. But, they must be based on evidence of some kind. Claims in the Bible aren't evidence of anything ... they are merely claims.

Most such biblical claims do not hold water and thus is born the field of apologetics. They are apologizing, in fact, for being wrong.

So, if you think that scientific laws that govern the universe magically didn't rule 6,000 years ago, make your case. Provide the evidence that leads you to believe this is a possibility. But, if you say "how do you know that scientific laws did govern 6,000 years ago (or however long they claim)", the only honest, reasonable, and respectful position is to admit that you cannot come up with any reasoning or evidence that suggests they were different.

Hear! Hear!

 

[Sapiens]

1. If I was able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution it would in now way magically create support for creationism? It wouldn't be magic, it would be "logical".

Since you are not able to actually do so that is entirely irrelevant.

2. The bible does not provide verifiable evidence of anything? Correct, but that does not mean it's entirely wrong either.

It means that anything not supported by outside evidence should not be taken seriously ... like a Tom Clancy novel.

3. Unless I can prove that the laws of nature did not exist 6,000 years ago don't bring it up? Okay.

So it is safe, in your view, to assume uniformitarianism, correct?

God could have used evolution to change species? Correct but God did not plant life, the angels planted life, God just caused the evolutionary change events (Punctuated Equilibrium) to happen.

Got any supporting evidences for these claims, else they are just arguments from ignorance.

The scientists came up with the scientific method? They did, it doesn't always work well and certainly cannot explain what truly gives life "life", even the angels have trouble explaining it because they only know bits of truth.

You need to demonstrate the existence of angels before invoking them in any way.

There is no verifiable evidence that the bible is 100% accurate? If that is the standard then I think many scientific theories lose credibility. Einstein was not 100% accurate.

The bible is accurate only in the sense that a historical novel contains some accurate personages, landscape and events designed to lend believability to what is basically a ridiculous fable.

We have no evidence that Moses or Noah existed? Uhh, we have the bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Basically the same source.

Just because some of the bible is story does not mean that all of the characters are fabricated. If you want to make the claim that the characters did not exist then please provide your evidence. You have some, right?

It is not incumbent upon anyone to prove a negative. You must support your claim that they did exist. To go back to the Tom Clancy example, must I prove that Jack Ryan did not exist by tracking down everyone with that name and then following their career until I may discard them because they deviate from the story line? No, that is not how it is done, I have to prove the positive, I have to show that there is a person named Jack Ryan whose life (more or less) parallels the critical elements of the tale. I can't do that for Jack Ryan, you can't do that for Noah or Moses. Ryan goes especially awry when you find that Denver was not blown up with a backpack nuke, just as Moses goes awry when you realize that the exodus never occurred.

Logic is not truth. Logic is a conclusion that follows a stated premise. If a stated premise is wrong, and thus the conclusion is wrong, that is a logical statement, even though it is wrong.

Many scientific theories were doubted by scientists at first and then, over time, came to be accepted.

Poking holes in the theory of evolution doesn't prove creationism, it proves that the scientists don't have all the answers.

Since you are not able to actually do so (poke holes in the ToE) that is entirely irrelevant.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? This is a common claim by atheists, it gives you quite a debating advantage. Before I will accept this I will have to look at your evidence for this claim. Uh, you have some, don't you? Or is it something you atheists just made up?

It is pretty self explanatory ... if I told you I have some lava rock in front of my house, you'd be inclined to believe me without even checking. If I told you there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in front of my house you are unlike to come over with a jack hammer, O'o bar, pick and shovel without some much stronger evidence that my personal testimony, especially when you know that I am trying to level that area for a driveway.

We can't believe something without verifiable evidence? Sure we can. Just because you can't doesn't mean that I can't and that others can't or shouldn't. The universe does not obey your made up standards.

You are correct, you can believe any sort of tomfoolery that you want. The problem starts when you try to confuse your belief with reality and attempt to build a logical construct that incorporates your unsupportable belief.

Recently someone argued that 6,000 years ago the laws of nature did not apply? There's all kinds of stupid out there. We all have our moments, I've had a few.

How is that any more stupid than arguing for the historical existence of Noah or Moses?

You're trying to use your incorrect definition of logic to argue that creationism is wrong. You can't.

No. I am using a clear and precise form of logic to demonstrate that creationism makes all sorts of foolish, unsupportable and contradictory claims. It is the problem with those claims that shows creationism to be wrong.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1. If I was able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution it would in now way magically create support for creationism? It wouldn't be magic, it would be "logical".

Yes it's a little projectionism I fear. Magic might come in handy, in helping sophisticated designs spontaneously invent themselves for no particular reason...

But Intelligent design does not require this leap of faith, it works fine sticking with the scientifically proven mechanism; creative intelligence

 

[Super Universe]

Since you are not able to actually do so that is entirely irrelevant.
It means that anything not supported by outside evidence should not be taken seriously ... like a Tom Clancy novel.
So it is safe, in your view, to assume uniformitarianism, correct?
Got any supporting evidences for these claims, else they are just arguments from ignorance.
You need to demonstrate the existence of angels before invoking them in any way.
The bible is accurate only in the sense that a historical novel contains some accurate personages, landscape and events designed to lend believability to what is basically a ridiculous fable.
Basically the same source.
It is not incumbent upon anyone to prove a negative. You must support your claim that they did exist. To go back to the Tom Clancy example, must I prove that Jack Ryan did not exist by tracking down everyone with that name and then following their career until I may discard them because they deviate from the story line? No, that is not how it is done, I have to prove the positive, I have to show that there is a person named Jack Ryan whose life (more or less) parallels the critical elements of the tale. I can't do that for Jack Ryan, you can't do that for Noah or Moses. Ryan goes especially awry when you find that Denver was not blown up with a backpack nuke, just as Moses goes awry when you realize that the exodus never occurred.
Since you are not able to actually do so (poke holes in the ToE) that is entirely irrelevant.
It is pretty self explanatory ... if I told you I have some lava rock in front of my house, you'd be inclined to believe me without even checking. If I told you there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator buried in front of my house you are unlike to come over with a jack hammer, O'o bar, pick and shovel without some much stronger evidence that my personal testimony, especially when you know that I am trying to level that area for a driveway.
You are correct, you can believe any sort of tomfoolery that you want. The problem starts when you try to confuse your belief with reality and attempt to build a logical construct that incorporates your unsupportable belief.
How is that any more stupid than arguing for the historical existence of Noah or Moses?
No. I am using a clear and precise form of logic to demonstrate that creationism makes all sorts of foolish, unsupportable and contradictory claims. It is the problem with those claims that shows creationism to be wrong.

Evolution contradicts evolution. Stromatolite hasn't changed in 3.8 billion years. Crododiles haven't changed in 200 million. Trilobites are unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. There's a few more that are very old and unchanged. It seems there's a problem with your theory.

Anything not supported by outside evidence should not be taken seriously? What if there is only one source of evidence for something?

So uniformitarianism is correct? Sort of. Once set the laws of physics do not change in this universe but there are beings who can cause forces to increase or decrease which may seem to others to change the laws when they actually don't. And, the laws of this universe do not apply to other universes.

Do I have any evidence to support my claim that the angels planted life? Sure I do, nothing you would accept because you won't accept anything that disputes your ideas. We all know how smart you are. Please explain everything to us. Inquiring minds want to know it all.

I need to demonstrate the existence of angels before invoking them in any way? Who told you that? When did you make up this rule and why would you think I would have to follow your made up rules? Please provide all of your topic rules 30 days ahead of time for review and approval, otherwise, they're not a rule, they're just something you just attempted to make up.

The bible is really a fable? I will look at your proof for this claim? Uh, do you have any?

The bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are basically the same thing? Okay. Where is your proof that evidence that contradicts evolution would not create support for creationism? You don't have any. It's just an idea you proposed that is untested.

It is not incumbent upon anyone to prove a negative? Sure it is. If I told you that your house was on fire you would hurry over to find out. If I called 911 and said I was being held hostage the police would come over right away even if I was lying. You atheists always try to invent all these ridiculous debating rules.

I must support my claim that Moses did exist? What if no one could provide any evidence that Moses ever existed and he really did exist? Your system of logic fails.

You have to prove the positive? Attempt to prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists.

I am not able to poke holes in the theory of evolution? Uhh, see the first sentence.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Prove it.

If you told me that there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator in front of your house I am unlikely to come over with a jack hammer? That's probably correct. I don't have a jack hammer. Or maybe I just would know that you are a total bs'er.

People can believe whatever sort of tomfoolery they want to believe? They can. I think one time some guy tried to say that the earth was not the center of the solar system and he was tried and convicted and sentenced to be burned at the stake, luckily the Pope changed it to house arrest for life.

The problem starts when someone tries to confuse belief with reality? You mean like when scientists did not accept the idea of the Higg's-Boson for years and years?

How is the 6,000 year old earth idea any different than the existence of Noah or Moses? Because the bible doesn't say the earth is 6,000 years old, some priest came up with that idea.

You're using a clear and precise form of logic to demonstrate that creationism makes all sorts of foolish, unsupportable and contradictory claims? Oh, clear and precise logic, right. You do realize that the word logic does not mean truth, right? And science makes some pretty wild claims too and some of the physics does not fit with other physics.

 

[Sapiens]

Evolution contradicts evolution. Stromatolite hasn't changed in 3.8 billion years. Crododiles haven't changed in 200 million. Trilobites are unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. There's a few more that are very old and unchanged. It seems there's a problem with your theory.

No that is not an issue. Not everything has to evolve, that is a question of an organism with a mutation being able to take advantage of a change in niche space, it is not an escalator that a species steps up upon to get to the next level. There are many species that have not changed much and many that have. You are badly in need of a basic biology course.

Anything not supported by outside evidence should not be taken seriously? What if there is only one source of evidence for something?

Then I would look at it skeptically. I would only rely on it tentatively and then, only, if it was clearly required to link two known items together.

So uniformitarianism is correct? Sort of. Once set the laws of physics do not change in this universe but there are beings who can cause forces to increase or decrease which may seem to others to change the laws when they actually don't. And, the laws of this universe do not apply to other universes.

Can you point out those organisms? Are they perhaps pink unicorns? Can you show me the way to another universe, or even just evidence that one exits? No, you can't? I did not think you could.

Do I have any evidence to support my claim that the angels planted life? Sure I do, nothing you would accept because you won't accept anything that disputes your ideas. We all know how smart you are. Please explain everything to us. Inquiring minds want to know it all.

I do not, unlike you, pretend to know it all, but since you do evidently think you know something I don't ... how about evidence of angels? Your, "you wouldn't believe" me horsepucky is only true if you have no evidence.

I need to demonstrate the existence of angels before invoking them in any way? Who told you that? When did you make up this rule and why would you think I would have to follow your made up rules? Please provide all of your topic rules 30 days ahead of time for review and approval, otherwise, they're not a rule, they're just something you just attempted to make up.

In this case "invoking" is a synonym for "mentioning." You need to present some evidence before you mention them as a causal agent.

The bible is really a fable? I will look at your proof for this claim? Uh, do you have any?

There is sufficient demonstrable error in it to cast doubt on the whole kit and kaboodle.

The bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are basically the same thing? Okay.

So you admit that partakes of a circular argument.

Where is your proof that evidence that contradicts evolution would not create support for creationism? You don't have any. It's just an idea you proposed that is untested.

There is no such evidence. Look at your first attempt to present some (above).

It is not incumbent upon anyone to prove a negative? Sure it is. If I told you that your house was on fire you would hurry over to find out. If I called 911 and said I was being held hostage the police would come over right away even if I was lying. You atheists always try to invent all these ridiculous debating rules.

It is not a debating rule, it is an artifact of reality. See: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia

I must support my claim that Moses did exist? What if no one could provide any evidence that Moses ever existed and he really did exist? Your system of logic fails.

I can not prove that Moses did not exist, but I can demonstrate that the Exodus did not occur. That makes the details of Moses rather irrelevant.

You have to prove the positive? Attempt to prove to me that the Eiffel Tower exists.

I have seen it. I have photographed it. Many others have seen and photographed it. It's design and construction are well documented. I can tell you where to go so that you may confirm my observation yourself.

I am not able to poke holes in the theory of evolution? Uhh, see the first sentence.

You fell you on your face there, proving only you misunderstand of biology and the ToE.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Prove it.

If you told me that there was a diamond the size of a refrigerator in front of your house I am unlikely to come over with a jack hammer? That's probably correct. I don't have a jack hammer. Or maybe I just would know that you are a total bs'er.

I did prove it.

People can believe whatever sort of tomfoolery they want to believe? They can. I think one time some guy tried to say that the earth was not the center of the solar system and he was tried and convicted and sentenced to be burned at the stake, luckily the Pope changed it to house arrest for life.

That's a failure of science or of religion to grasp science? Science is self correcting and now everyone knows better. Shall we burn you at the stake for not understanding the ToE?

The problem starts when someone tries to confuse belief with reality? You mean like when scientists did not accept the idea of the Higg's-Boson for years and years?

It contradicted the existing and accepted model and one it was adequately demonstrated it was accepted ... self correcting, see.

How is the 6,000 year old earth idea any different than the existence of Noah or Moses? Because the bible doesn't say the earth is 6,000 years old, some priest came up with that idea.

You're using a clear and precise form of logic to demonstrate that creationism makes all sorts of foolish, unsupportable and contradictory claims? Oh, clear and precise logic, right. You do realize that the word logic does not mean truth, right? And science makes some pretty wild claims too and some of the physics does not fit with other physics.

When it does not fit further work is designed to determine what is right ... no big deal. That's the open ended and self correcting nature of science ... quite the opposite of religion.

 

[Laika]

3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.

Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.

On the one hand you say "unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe the scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility".

Yet in the following sentence you say, "I agree, anything is possible," and you do so without providing evidence. In the following paragraph you say "Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe" and you do so again without providing evidence.

I realise that debating creationists is deeply frustrating, especially given the amount of time that is spent on claims that are widely regarded as counter-factual. We would all like to have discussion with people who agree on common standards of rational discourse and that we all share a conception of reality and that our understanding of reality is based on the same facts. Unfortunately, that is not the case.

If you are trying to assert a belief in the scientific laws of nature means that young-earth creationism cannot be asserted as a possibility without evidence, whilst also asserting that old-earth creationism is a possibility without evidence, you need to take a step back and try to refine the distinction between the two kinds belief as "possible" without evidence and why one is legitimate and the other is not.

As much as sympathise with the difficulty in holding a debate with people who disagree on questions as fundamental as the nature of knowledge, truth, science and legitimate belief, if this confusion is anything other than an sincere and honest error, this is not a fair, constructive or even rational standard by which to hold a debate even with people who you profoundly disagree with.

 

[leibowde84]

On the one hand you say "unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe the scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility".

Yet in the following sentence you say, "I agree, anything is possible," and you do so without providing evidence. In the following paragraph you say "Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe" and you do so again without providing evidence.

Well, the phrase "anything is possible" is a short way of saying, "anything that has not been proven impossible beyond any doubt is technically a possibility". Is it possible that unicorns exist somewhere in the universe? Sure. But, since there is absolutely no evidence even leading to any likelihood of unicorns existing, there is no reason to even think about it. The same is true for scientific laws of nature. While it is technically possible that scientific laws did not govern the universe thousands of years ago, there is absolutely no evidence that is the case. There isn't even any evidence leading anyone to consider the possibility as a real likelihood. Thus, it is dishonest to use the technical possibility as a reason why carbon dating isn't reliable.

Allowing technical possibilities not supported by any evidence whatsoever to hinder scientific progress and understanding is a dangerous thing. It should be challenged at every turn as a ludicrous position that makes all human understanding a waste of time if considered.

 

[DavidFirth]

This is not meant to be about the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection, or the religious belief that God created everything and macro-evolution isn't possible. It is about the method by which creationists attempt to bolster their argument that 1) the theory of evolution is wrong, and 2) God created everything.

1. Even if you were to be able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution, it would in no way magically create support for creationism.
2. The Bible does not provide any verifiable evidence for anything. It is merely a book of claims. So, assuming that a claim in the bible is true without providing evidence to support it as being true is fraudulent reasoning (unless, of course, you start the debate with the understanding that the Bible is to be considered true).
3. Unless you can provide evidence that there is even a slim reason to believe that scientific laws of nature did not govern roughly 6,000 years ago (or whatever), don't bring it up as a possibility. I agree, anything is possible, but in a debate over a scientific theory, it is your responsibility to back up your claims with evidence. If you claim that the laws of nature might have been different, then back that up with supporting, verifiable evidence.

Now, let it first be said that the theory of evolution in no way excludes the possibility of God's existence and creation of the universe. Certainly, God could have used evolution as a tool to get life on earth to where it is today via genetic mutations and natural selection. In that case, God would have started the process and possibly would have created the first form of life on earth (bacteria). Because evolution does not even speak to the origin of life on earth, there really is no contradiction. But, that is also not what this thread is about.

Scientists have gotten to the current theory of evolution by utilizing the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. Once a hypothesis has been sufficiently repeatedly tested and confirmed through experimentation and observation, it becomes a "scientific theory", like the theory of evolution. In short, they see a phenomenon, create a hypothesis that explains the phenomenon, and test that hypothesis with experimentation and observation. Other scientists will continually try to disprove the hypothesis, and after this has all been done "to death", the hypothesis graduates to become a scientific theory.

When discussing creationism with RF members, I came to the conclusion that they are using a fraudulent method (I call the "creationistic method") to support their hypothesis about the creation of the universe.

First, they start with the belief that the Bible is accurate. This is troubling by itself, as there is no verifiable evidence that the Bible is 100% correct, divinely inspired, or that certain stories aren't fictional (like the creation account in Genesis).

Next, they make assumptions about certain biblical events, like the flood, and characters, like Moses or Noah. We have no verifiable evidence that proves Moses or Noah existed. But, instead of looking for said evidence, creationists tend to believe whatever is stated in the Bible is true unless it can be proven false. Now, anyone with a basic understanding of logic can plainly see this is absolutely unreasonable and logically fallacious. Believing something is true without verifiable evidence, based on nothing more than claims from an ancient text written by mostly unknown authors, until someone can prove it incorrect (prove a negative) is fraudulent. It is illogical, unreasonable, and spits in the face of actual knowledge and understanding.

Next, they incorrectly assume that poking holes in the theory of evolution somehow magically creates evidence for creationism. This is, again, obviously fraudulent. Even if evolution is proven false, it being incorrect in no way provides any evidence whatsoever for creationism. They aren't the only two options ... they are merely the only two plausible options currently on the table. But, our scientific understanding of the universe is still vastly incomplete. So, it is dishonest to claim that if evolution is false, creationism must be true.

Finally, they assume seemingly ludicrous things without any evidence and ask "evolutionists" to prove them wrong. Again, this is logically incoherent, as nothing should be assumed true until proven false. For example, recently I heard the argument that the scientific laws of nature did not apply before 6,000 years ago. So, the decay rate of radioactive carbon isotopes was not only not the same as it has been since it has been measured. Radioactive isotopes might not have decayed at all before that time. Obviously, this is a supernatural claim ... an extraordinary one too. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. We CANNOT believe something like this without verifiable evidence to confirm it. If there is no plausible reason to assume that scientific laws were different at any time throughout cosmic history, or even a crumb of evidence that even points to that conclusion, it should not be considered.

The main point I'm trying to make is this: We CANNOT fall into the trap of making assumptions simply because they help to align reality with our world view. Assumptions are fine, and necessary. But, they must be based on evidence of some kind. Claims in the Bible aren't evidence of anything ... they are merely claims.

So, if you think that scientific laws that govern the universe magically didn't rule 6,000 years ago, make your case. Provide the evidence that leads you to believe this is a possibility. But, if you say "how do you know that scientific laws did govern 6,000 years ago (or however long they claim)", the only honest, reasonable, and respectful position is to admit that you cannot come up with any reasoning or evidence that suggests they were different.

The Bible does contain a lot of history. The cities destroyed by the Hebrews in the desert during the Exodus have been found right where Moses had written that they were, for example.

Much of the Bible can be confirmed scientifically, such as my description above. Of course one can say the remains of cities were only found were only coincidence, but that seems irrational to me.

I believe God is Spirit and He wants us to believe in Him based on faith like He did with Abraham. He isn't going to provide us with pictures and films at 11.

 

[leibowde84]

The Bible does contain a lot of history. The cities destroyed by the Hebrews in the desert during the Exodus have been found right where Moses had written that they were, for example.

Why do you think that the cities being there confirms the Exodus story in any way? I would expect that whoever wrote the book lived in that area. So, I would expect that they would know where the cities were, even if they made the entire exodus story up. Thus, it seems obvious that city locations (or the location/description of any landmark) would provide any support for the Bible being accurate. It is merely evidence that the author lived in the area.

Much of the Bible can be confirmed scientifically, such as my description above. Of course one can say the remains of cities were only found were only coincidence, but that seems irrational to me.

I don't think it is a coincidence. It just shows that the author was familiar with these locations. How does it support the claims made in the Bible though?

It seems like you are using the logical fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). You seem to be saying that the author being right about city locations or landmark locations somehow magically provides evidence that the Bible is accurate as a whole. That is merely fraudulent reasoning relying on a logical fallacy.

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you think that the cities being there confirms the Exodus story in any way? I would expect that whoever wrote the book lived in that area. So, I would expect that they would know where the cities were, even if they made the entire exodus story up. Thus, it seems obvious that city locations (or the location/description of any landmark) would provide any support for the Bible being accurate. It is merely evidence that the author lived in the area.
I don't think it is a coincidence. It just shows that the author was familiar with these locations. How does it support the claims made in the Bible though?

It seems like you are using the logical fallacy of composition. The fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole (or even of every proper part). You seem to be saying that the author being right about city locations or landmark locations somehow magically provides evidence that the Bible is accurate as a whole. That is merely fraudulent reasoning relying on a logical fallacy.

Fair enough. But I also say that macroevolutionists use the fallacy of assumptive premises and Affirming the consequent.

I guess that if one looks hard enough one can find a fallacy in nearly any argument. Few are ironclad.

 

[sayak83]

The Bible does contain a lot of history. The cities destroyed by the Hebrews in the desert during the Exodus have been found right where Moses had written that they were, for example.

Much of the Bible can be confirmed scientifically, such as my description above. Of course one can say the remains of cities were only found were only coincidence, but that seems irrational to me.

I believe God is Spirit and He wants us to believe in Him based on faith like He did with Abraham. He isn't going to provide us with pictures and films at 11.

Iliad and Mahabharata contain a lot of history in that sense as well.

 

[DavidFirth]

Iliad and Mahabharata contain a lot of history in that sense as well.

That's true and I think your point is that it doesn't make the whole book unquestionably believable. I agree.

 

[sayak83]

That's true and I think your point is that it doesn't make the whole book unquestionably believable. I agree.

Yes. It is difficult to find any mythology of any civilization or group (Egyptian, Chinese, Babylonians, native Amerindians) which do not refer to cities, settlements, peoples and geographical features of their land. They are after all narratives that seek to explain how they and things and places they value came to be. Thus they invariably provide essential nuggets of history that archaeologists can unearth without at the same time believing their explanation itself as true.

 

[leibowde84]

1. If I was able to provide evidence that contradicts evolution it would in now way magically create support for creationism? It wouldn't be magic, it would be "logical".

Why would poking holes in evolution somehow create evidence or support for creationism? Are you under the false assumption that it is either one or the other?

2. The bible does not provide verifiable evidence of anything? Correct, but that does not mean it's entirely wrong either.

No, it is certainly not entirely wrong. But, every claim in the Bible must be supported on its own if it is to be used as evidence for anything. I'm not saying that the Bible is wrong. I'm saying that it is a book of claims. If a claim is to be used as evidence, that claim must first be supported by outside evidence. You can't use the Bible to show that something in the Bible is true. That is circular logic.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? This is a common claim by atheists, it gives you quite a debating advantage. Before I will accept this I will have to look at your evidence for this claim. Uh, you have some, don't you? Or is it something you atheists just made up?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence because they are extraordinary. If a claim suggests that someone or something violated the laws of nature (a.k.a. supernatural claim), it should not be considered unless there is verifiable evidence supporting it. If not, we would be all be in trouble.

If I say that I flew to the moon yesterday, you wouldn't believe me without evidence. If I say that Zeus came and spoke to me last night, you would probably assume I had a mental lapse unless I had some good evidence.

Likewise, supernatural claims about God's existence and his ability to bypass natural laws require evidence. They are extraordinary claims because they are claiming supernatural events. Since we do not have any evidence suggesting that supernatural events are possible, we should have a higher standard of evidence to consider them as true or possible.

Any evidence that shows that a supernatural event happened would be, by definition, extraordinary.

You're trying to use your incorrect definition of logic to argue that creationism is wrong. You can't.

I merely ask that people not use logical fallacies to bolster arguments regarding the supernatural.

 

[leibowde84]

Fair enough. But I also say that macroevolutionists use the fallacy of assumptive premises and Affirming the consequent.

I guess that if one looks hard enough one can find a fallacy in nearly any argument. Few are ironclad.

That's not true. It is pretty easy to avoid logical fallacies, as long as you know what to look for. The way to avoid it is to use verifiable evidence that can be seen by all.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes it's a little projectionism I fear. Magic might come in handy, in helping sophisticated designs spontaneously invent themselves for no particular reason...

But Intelligent design does not require this leap of faith, it works fine sticking with the scientifically proven mechanism; creative intelligence

How has creative intelligence been scientifically proven?

 

[DavidFirth]

That's not true. It is pretty easy to avoid logical fallacies, as long as you know what to look for. The way to avoid it is to use verifiable evidence that can be seen by all.

However, you end up right back with fallacy when your evidence that can be seen by all is interpreted using methods that are based on assumptions.