An Open Challenge To Creationists

[Skwim]

It's not clear what you're trying to argue.

Maybe it's because I'm not trying to argue anything.

As such, it's not clear what someone is suppose to argue against.

Are you trying to claim that creationism needs evolution to prove it's case?
Or are you trying to claim that creationism only exists in opposition to evolution and can't prove it's case on it's own merits?
Or are you trying to claim something else entirely?

We need to know exactly what you are claiming before we can begin to disprove your claim.

Here, maybe this will help.

chal·lenge
/ˈCHalənj/

noun
1 : a stimulating task or problem

intransitive verb
1 : to make or present a challenge​

Vs.​

ar·gue
/ˈärɡyo͞o/

verb
verb: argue; 3rd person present: argues; past tense: argued; past participle: argued; gerund or present participle: arguing

1. give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view.
​

[I'm not arguing anything, I'm challenging]

​

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

​

So, from the OP:

"An Open Challenge To Creationists
[This means I'm challenging creationists. Challenging them to to ↓]

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects."
​

Think of it like someone challenging you to skip rope blindfolded. I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking you to skip rope blindfolded. (Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without referencing evolution or any of its aspects.)

.

​

 

[Rise]

Maybe it's because I'm not trying to argue anything.

Indeed, I have noticed that about seeming all your posts, is that you start threads without actually trying to argue anything, which usually makes them pointless. Especially when you post them in debate forums, where the implication is that you want a debate over a specific issue to take place.

Think of it like someone challenging you to skip rope blindfolded. I'm not arguing anything. I'm just asking you to skip rope blindfolded. (Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without referencing evolution or any of its aspects.)

You see I was trying to help you realize what your post was missing: A reason why anyone should take you up on such a challenge, and a clear definition of what constitutes success or defeat.

To use your analogy. You would first need to give a reason why someone should feel compelled to take up your challenge of skipping rope blindfolded. "Just because" isn't good enough when there is a substantial amount of time and effort involved in the proposed activity. And even for a simple activity, they may blow you off as a waste of time if you can't give them a compelling reason why they need to take up your challenge. You need to demonstrate to them why they have a need to prove they can do this to you. Second, you need a clear pass/fail condition, which a jumprope challenge does have, but which your challenge in the original post does not. I will elaborate on this further...

First problem: Too open ended.
It's so open ended that what you're basically asking people to do is write an entire book outlining the entirety of the case for creation science from beginning to end, with all of it's supporting data.
It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's an unreasonable expectation that someone should write a book for you simply because you challenged them to do so.
You would be far more reasonable to at least challenge people to answer something specific you object to, rather than demand an entire encyclopedia be written for you on a whim just because you demand it be done.

Second problem: You have failed to establish need.
Why does this challenge have to be met? Just because you want it to be met isn't a compelling reason for someone to waste a lot of time writing a book for you.
In order to establish the need for such a challenge to be met you'd first have to argue something that establishes it's need. If you aren't arguing anything, therefore, your post has no purpose. Ie. If you could establish that creation scientists do, in fact, do nothing by rely on attacking evolution to make their case, then you would have established grounds to challenge someone to disprove your claims and evidence.
But, since you haven't established that there is a need to meet the challenge, and since your challenge is so opened ended with unreasonable time requirements to meet it, it's no wonder no one would elect to waste their time on it.

Third problem: You failed to establish clear markers of success or failure for the challenge.
Doing that would first require you to formulate an argument, because then it gives others a clear thing to try to either prove or disprove. But, by trying to avoid making an argument, you're actually weaseling out of ever having to admit whether or not anyone ever succeeds at meeting your challenge, because you've given no concrete issue for them to contend with.
Who decides if they pass or fail your challenge? Just you sitting on the throne in judgement of them like Star Trek's Q, without any standards of evidence or arguments, but just your whims of judgement?
Having to actually take a stand and make an argument is what forces you to be bound by the rules of logic and reason, which then become the arbiters of success or failure in the challenge. If you aren't willing to do that then you aren't proposing a real challenge.

That's why I asked you to clarify what the underlying presumption or argument was behind your challenge. Because that would not only narrow down what needs to be presented, but it would also provide a clear marker of what constitutes successfully meeting the challenge.
And you do have an underlying presumption behind your challenge - the presumption that your challenge has not been done before, and therefore the presumption that creation science is not a valid viewpoint unless this challenge can be met. Your presumption is, itself, the statement of an argument, whether you realize it or not. But you haven't established that the presumption behind your challenge is even true, which means there's no need to debunk your presumption with a presentation to the contrary. Only if you could present some compelling reason to believe our presumptions are true would you create a need for a counter argument to be presented disproving it.

 

[Skwim]

Indeed, I have noticed that about seeming all your posts, is that you start threads without actually trying to argue anything.

Yet you make just such an assumption where there's no justification .

You see I was trying to help you realize what your post was missing: A reason why anyone should take you up on such a challenge, and a clear definition of what constitutes success or defeat.

To use your analogy. You would first need to give a reason why someone should feel compelled to take up your challenge of skipping rope blindfolded. "Just because" isn't good enough when there is a substantial amount of time and effort involved in the proposed activity. And even for a simple activity, they may blow you off as a waste of time if you can't give them a compelling reason why they need to take up your challenge. You need to demonstrate to them why they have a need to prove they can do this to you. Second, you need a clear pass/fail condition, which a jumprope challenge does have, but which your challenge in the original post does not. I will elaborate on this further...

First problem: Too open ended.
It's so open ended that what you're basically asking people to do is write an entire book outlining the entirety of the case for creation science from beginning to end, with all of it's supporting data.
It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's an unreasonable expectation that someone should write a book for you simply because you challenged them to do so.
You would be far more reasonable to at least challenge people to answer something specific you object to, rather than demand an entire encyclopedia be written for you on a whim just because you demand it be done.

Second problem: You have failed to establish need.
Why does this challenge have to be met? Just because you want it to be met isn't a compelling reason for someone to waste a lot of time writing a book for you.
In order to establish the need for such a challenge to be met you'd first have to argue something that establishes it's need. If you aren't arguing anything, therefore, your post has no purpose. Ie. If you could establish that creation scientists do, in fact, do nothing by rely on attacking evolution to make their case, then you would have established grounds to challenge someone to disprove your claims and evidence.
But, since you haven't established that there is a need to meet the challenge, and since your challenge is so opened ended with unreasonable time requirements to meet it, it's no wonder no one would elect to waste their time on it.

Third problem: You failed to establish clear markers of success or failure for the challenge.
Doing that would first require you to formulate an argument, because then it gives others a clear thing to try to either prove or disprove. But, by trying to avoid making an argument, you're actually weaseling out of ever having to admit whether or not anyone ever succeeds at meeting your challenge, because you've given no concrete issue for them to contend with. Who decides if they pass or fail your challenge? Just you sitting on the throne in judgement of them like Star Trek's Q, without any standards of evidence or arguments, but just your whims of judgement?
Having to actually take a stand and make an argument is what forces you to be bound by the rules of logic and reason, which then become the arbiters of success or failure in the challenge. If you aren't willing to do that then you aren't proposing a real challenge.

That's why I asked you to clarify what the underlying presumption or argument was behind your challenge. Because that would not only narrow down what needs to be presented, but it would also provide a clear marker of what constitutes successfully meeting the challenge.
And, you do have an underlying presumption behind your challenge - the presumption that your challenge has not been done before. Your presumption is, itself, the statement of an argument, whether you realize it or not.

Blather, Blather, Blather,---Ah, the beautiful sound of one's own voice pretending it's erudite---all of which no one cares about, including me.
Like I'm going to actually read any of it But I will take all this irrelevant prattle as your excuse to avoid the issue.

Consider it Noted, and have a good day

.​

 

[Rise]

Yet you make just such an assumption where there's no justification .

Your statement makes no sense.

I picked up on the fact that your original post had no argument presented clearly, and you affirmed what I observed - that you were trying to avoid making an argument (you still did make an argument by the presumptions behind your challenge, you just didn't want to have to own up to that).
I then explained for you why that's actually a bad structure to start a post with if you're trying to challenge people to something, especially in a debate forum.

Blather, Blather, Blather,---Ah, the beautiful sound of one's own voice pretending it's erudite---all of which no one cares about, including me.
Like I'm going to actually read any of it But I will take all this irrelevant prattle as your excuse to avoid the issue.

Logical fallacy, "ad hominem". You are trying to distract from the fact that you are unable to answer the logical points I raised about the fundamental flaws in your "challenge" by using personal attacks.

You also are additionally guilty of falling into the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad lapidem", because you are trying to dismiss my arguments as not worthy of consideration without giving any reason or proof of why that would be true of them.

It is not surprising you would resort to such fallacies as your only response, because I know you wouldn't be able to logically demonstrate any error with the argument I presented even if you tried. I think you know that too, but instead of admitting it you're trying to hide behind a wall of fallacies because you think they will let you retreat from the debate in a way that tries to save face without having to admit any fault on your part.

 

[McBell]

You have commited the same three logical fallacies again, merely repeating yourself.
That makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of "argument ad nauseam". Merely repeating yourself doesn't make your invalid arguments suddenly valid.





Logical fallacy, "shifting the burden of proof" and "red herring".

You were the one who made a claim, not me. You are required, as the one making a claim, to prove your claim or withdrawn you claim and admit you can't prove it.
It's not my responsibility to prove your claim isn't wrong. when you haven't first even attempted to give any facts or arguments to support the supposed truth of your claim.

Here were the claims you made:
Creationism has to be able to stand up on its own.
However, there does not seem to be a creationist one who even makes the attempt.
Instead, creationists act as if evolution being somehow shown wrong makes their creationism win by some sort of default.

You are trying to distract from having to prove your claims by shifting the topic to something else , which makes you guilty of committing a "red herring" offense.



Logical fallacy, "ad hominem". Being unable to prove your claim, you want to distract from your inability to do so by resorting to personal attacks.

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
you do not answer.
Instead you hide.
You hide behind fallacies.

Problem is I asked a question.
And instead of answering said question, you hide.
Hide behind fallacies.

But your hiding does not get you out of answering the question.
I understand your dishonesty here.
I have played this game of pigeon chess with other creationists.
All bravado, no substance.

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?

You can't, can you?
That is why you hide behind the bravado.
behind the fallacies.


Not proving my claim?
YOU have thus far been proving my claim.
With each post you refuse to answer the question, you prove my claim.
To bad from your hiding spot you failed to realise it.

Come then, further prove my claim by hiding.
Or prove me wrong by answering the question.
Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
Sad thing is.
I can.
And I am an atheist.
Sad that creationists are unable to.

 

[Skwim]

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
you do not answer.
Instead you hide.
You hide behind fallacies.

Problem is I asked a question.
And instead of answering said question, you hide.
Hide behind fallacies.

But your hiding does not get you out of answering the question.
I understand your dishonesty here.
I have played this game of pigeon chess with other creationists.
All bravado, no substance.

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?

You can't, can you?
That is why you hide behind the bravado.
behind the fallacies.


Not proving my claim?
YOU have thus far been proving my claim.
With each post you refuse to answer the question, you prove my claim.
To bad from your hiding spot you failed to realise it.

Come then, further prove my claim by hiding.
Or prove me wrong by answering the question.
Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
Sad thing is.
I can.
And I am an atheist.
Sad that creationists are unable to.

It's an old dodge we've all seen before: change the subject by going on some irrelevant attack The only difference with this one is that it's kind of amusing in its own pompous, clunky way. Personally, I'm done with the guy, but reserve the right to peek in on him from time to time.

.​

,

.

 

[McBell]

It's an old dodge we've all seen before: change the subject by going on some irrelevant attack The only difference with this one is that it's kind of amusing in its own pompous, clunky way. Personally, I'm done with the guy, but reserve the right to peek in on him from time to time..

Its all good.
He came bursting into the thread like the Kool-Aid Man and without paying attention to what the thread is about started waving his fallacies around like magic spells of protection.
Perhaps once he stops long enough to get his head out of his backside he will be able to see his error.
But until then, I gonna have some fun at his expense.

 

[YoursTrue]

Indeed, I have noticed that about seeming all your posts, is that you start threads without actually trying to argue anything, which usually makes them pointless. Especially when you post them in debate forums, where the implication is that you want a debate over a specific issue to take place.



You see I was trying to help you realize what your post was missing: A reason why anyone should take you up on such a challenge, and a clear definition of what constitutes success or defeat.

To use your analogy. You would first need to give a reason why someone should feel compelled to take up your challenge of skipping rope blindfolded. "Just because" isn't good enough when there is a substantial amount of time and effort involved in the proposed activity. And even for a simple activity, they may blow you off as a waste of time if you can't give them a compelling reason why they need to take up your challenge. You need to demonstrate to them why they have a need to prove they can do this to you. Second, you need a clear pass/fail condition, which a jumprope challenge does have, but which your challenge in the original post does not. I will elaborate on this further...

First problem: Too open ended.
It's so open ended that what you're basically asking people to do is write an entire book outlining the entirety of the case for creation science from beginning to end, with all of it's supporting data.
It's not that it can't be done, it's just that it's an unreasonable expectation that someone should write a book for you simply because you challenged them to do so.
You would be far more reasonable to at least challenge people to answer something specific you object to, rather than demand an entire encyclopedia be written for you on a whim just because you demand it be done.

Second problem: You have failed to establish need.
Why does this challenge have to be met? Just because you want it to be met isn't a compelling reason for someone to waste a lot of time writing a book for you.
In order to establish the need for such a challenge to be met you'd first have to argue something that establishes it's need. If you aren't arguing anything, therefore, your post has no purpose. Ie. If you could establish that creation scientists do, in fact, do nothing by rely on attacking evolution to make their case, then you would have established grounds to challenge someone to disprove your claims and evidence.
But, since you haven't established that there is a need to meet the challenge, and since your challenge is so opened ended with unreasonable time requirements to meet it, it's no wonder no one would elect to waste their time on it.

Third problem: You failed to establish clear markers of success or failure for the challenge.
Doing that would first require you to formulate an argument, because then it gives others a clear thing to try to either prove or disprove. But, by trying to avoid making an argument, you're actually weaseling out of ever having to admit whether or not anyone ever succeeds at meeting your challenge, because you've given no concrete issue for them to contend with.
Who decides if they pass or fail your challenge? Just you sitting on the throne in judgement of them like Star Trek's Q, without any standards of evidence or arguments, but just your whims of judgement?
Having to actually take a stand and make an argument is what forces you to be bound by the rules of logic and reason, which then become the arbiters of success or failure in the challenge. If you aren't willing to do that then you aren't proposing a real challenge.

That's why I asked you to clarify what the underlying presumption or argument was behind your challenge. Because that would not only narrow down what needs to be presented, but it would also provide a clear marker of what constitutes successfully meeting the challenge.
And you do have an underlying presumption behind your challenge - the presumption that your challenge has not been done before, and therefore the presumption that creation science is not a valid viewpoint unless this challenge can be met. Your presumption is, itself, the statement of an argument, whether you realize it or not. But you haven't established that the presumption behind your challenge is even true, which means there's no need to debunk your presumption with a presentation to the contrary. Only if you could present some compelling reason to believe our presumptions are true would you create a need for a counter argument to be presented disproving it.

You bring up what I consider a good point as to need. If someone perceives there is a need for something, he will possibly try to convince others. Good point!

 

[leroy]

.

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine
that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

.
* source


.

I accept the challenge, but only if you allow me to use atheist tactics to defend my view

1 I will always avoid the burden proof

2 everytime you find something that can't be explained by a young earth and that would be explained by an old earth, I will say "ohhhh you are making old earth if the gaps fallacy" or depending on the context I might also say ohhh "evolution of the gaps fallacy"

3 if you ask me a difficult question, I will change the subject or simply call you an ignorant and claim that you don't undesmrtand young earth creationism

4 if you point to something that I can't explain, I will simply say ohhh it's an argument from ignorance, just because we don't know how to explain it, that doest mean that "evolution did it"

5 oooo and even more important, I won't answer directly to any of your questions, I won't explain exactly what my view is,

 

[McBell]

It is interesting how much creationists chase their own tails.
Is it merely a diversion tactic?

 

[Skwim]

I accept the challenge, but only if you allow me to use atheist tactics to defend my view

Why choose atheists? Most Christians believe in evolution.

1 I will always avoid the burden proof

Do you actually believe atheists have some burden of proof for their lack of a belief in god? Here, maybe this will help.

2 everytime you find something that can't be explained by a young earth and that would be explained by an old earth, I will say "ohhhh you are making old earth if the gaps fallacy" or depending on the context I might also say ohhh "evolution of the gaps fallacy"

3 if you ask me a difficult question, I will change the subject or simply call you an ignorant and claim that you don't undesmrtand young earth creationism

4 if you point to something that I can't explain, I will simply say ohhh it's an argument from ignorance, just because we don't know how to explain it, that doest mean that "evolution did it"

5 oooo and even more important, I won't answer directly to any of your questions, I won't explain exactly what my view is,

Do whatever you wish, but do it without referencing evolution or any of its aspects.

.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why choose atheists? Most Christians believe in evolution.
.

And many who call themselves Christian actually do not believe the Bible in any case or follow its guidelines. Yet they call themselves Christians. So, specifically, if many claim belief in evolution and the Bible at the same time, that does not make it true.

 

[halbhh]

I actually talked with someone once who believed in the creation myths. His explanation was that God created everything just like the Bible says and then changed the laws of the universe to make it appear that the Bible was wrong as a test of faith.

I did not agree, of course, but at least he did not ignore the evidence. Rather he just waved a logical magic wand to dismiss it as being false.

Just between you and me, the book Genesis doesn't have the young Earth creationist theory in it. It's got instead something that reads to me as a beautifully written Poem About Creation. Then it has a parable next about the birth of consciousness and loss of innocence and the inevitable alienation from bliss that follows. (There's more, but that's a start)

 

[McBell]

And many who call themselves Christian actually do not believe the Bible in any case or follow its guidelines. Yet they call themselves Christians. So, specifically, if many claim belief in evolution and the Bible at the same time, that does not make it true.

Wait a minute.
How about you start tying up your loose ends before you start clogging up yet another thread?

For starters, have you found the videos yet?
You know, the ones of creation?

Or how about this little gem:

My position is that there is a Creator with intelligence that caused life to be as we know it. Jesus believed in the Creator. I believe Jesus. If I believed in the ToE I'd literally be saying that Jesus was misled. If I went further than that to say I am a Christian but believed he was misled and mistaken, then it would be as you say, propounding bad fruit.

What specifically about the ToE leads you to believe its being true means Jesus was misled?​

 

[Rise]

You bring up what I consider a good point as to need. If someone perceives there is a need for something, he will possibly try to convince others. Good point!

There's also another point to consider: If the original poster is not presenting the challenge from a position of good faith then any attempt to engage with them will be pointless.

His responses to me prove for everyone here that he isn't operating in good faith with an honest challenge.

When asking for clarification about what his underlying presumptions are behind the challenge, and what he's trying to prove, he refused to provide that information. Even though it's an essential part of making the challenge possible to undertake.

Further, when he was confronted with the fundamental flaw behind the way he structured his challenge, and presented with a detailed analysis of how that could be easily corrected, he responded with personal attacks and tried to ignore it.

If he's not even willing to deal with the logical errors that are pointed out with the structure of his challenge, then why should anyone believe he would be capable of dealing logically with whatever presentation they write up for him?

He's revealed to everyone that he's not looking to have a real discussion or debate and not operating in good faith. So if anyone did waste time responding to his challenge he would probably just respond to them the same way he did to me: call them names and ignore what they wrote. If that's the case, he has to answer for why anyone should waste their time even attempting the challenge when he has shown he's not willing to have an honest discussion or debate.

 

[Rise]

Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?
you do not answer.

Logical fallacy, "argumentum ad nauseam". Repeating your original fallacy doesn't make it cease to be a fallacy.

You fallacies continues to be: "shifting the burden of proof" and "red herring".

Burden of proof:
When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim

Just because you don't want to have to abide by the logical concept of the burden of proof doesn't make it go away.

You were the one who made a claim, not me. You are required, as the one making a claim, to prove your claim or withdrawn you claim and admit you can't prove it.
It's not my responsibility to prove your claim isn't wrong. when you haven't first even attempted to give any facts or arguments to support the supposed truth of your claim.

You are trying to distract from the fact that you can't prove your claim by trying to demand I disprove your claim - which is committing two logical fallacies in one.

Instead you hide.
You hide behind fallacies.

That's like saying someone is hiding behind the truth and logic. You don't seem to understand what logic is or how it works. If your argument is based on a logical fallacy then your argument is invalid.
Pointing that out is the opposite of hiding - it's confronting you directly with the wrong of your statements and telling you what you need to do to address that.

You have the responsibility as the one making the invalid argument to correct your errors and try to make a valid argument. Otherwise you concede the debate because you have no logically valid retort to respond with.

Problem is I asked a question.
And instead of answering said question, you hide.
Hide behind fallacies.

But your hiding does not get you out of answering the question.
I understand your dishonesty here.
I have played this game of pigeon chess with other creationists.
All bravado, no substance.

You can't, can you?
That is why you hide behind the bravado.
behind the fallacies.

Not proving my claim?
YOU have thus far been proving my claim.
With each post you refuse to answer the question, you prove my claim.
To bad from your hiding spot you failed to realise it.

Come then, further prove my claim by hiding.
Or prove me wrong by answering the question.
Can you present a case for creationism that does not rely on evolution being proven false?

Your proposal of a question was itself the logical fallacy of a "Red Herring" and "Shifting the Burden of Proof". As I already pointed out. But since you didn't seem to understand what I already explained to you I will elaborate a bit more for you:

You ignored the valid points I made about the errors in your argument. You made several assertions about creation science in your first post that you have no proof for being true.
I pointed those claims out to you and asked you what proof you had to back up your claim that those assertions could be true - which is a right and logically valid way for someone to respond to any claim you make.

You do understand, don't you, that your claims don't have to be accepted as true by people just because you assert they are true, right? Believing people are forced to accept your assertions are true just because you assert they are would be the logical fallacy of argument by assertion.

Rather than address my valid logical objection to your post, you refused to back up your claims and then tried to distract from your need to do that (which is a red herring fallacy) by demanding I disprove your claim instead (The fallacy of shifting the burden of proof).

You don't get to demand someone disprove your claim unless you first attempt to provide some kind of facts or logical argumentation to justify why your assertion should be accepted as truth. Only when you make a valid logical argument to justify your claim does the other party have an obligation to deal with your argument if they want to dispute your claim. But you haven't made any argument to deal with - That's the problem. You've only made assertions. Unsupported assertions without arguments backing them up. And when challenged to provide an argument to justify your assertions, you balk and distract from it by fallaciously trying to shift the burden of proof.

But demanding someone disprove your claim is not a substitute for making a valid argument in the first place. That's the fallacy of argument by assertion. You're basically asserting something is true and saying that the proof is the fact you asserted it, and now it's the job of someone else to disprove your assertion. That's not how logic and debate work. And that's a big problem you seem to have the most trouble with understanding right now - That demanding a question be answered is not a substitute for having a valid argument in defense of your claims.

Just because you don't want to back up your claims doesn't absolve you of the logical requirement to do so. No one forced you to make those claims. So it's not like you have an excuse not to support them when challenged. If you didn't think you could support your claims, or didn't want to for whatever reason, then you shouldn't have made them in the first place. Or, at the very least, if you want to make claims you don't intend to support, you should at least be intellectually honest enough to come out and admit that you can't do it, or don't want to, when challenged to do so - and stop trying to pretend to continue the debate under the illogical false pretense that you think you don't have to support your claims.

 

[dfnj]

.

Present your best case for creationism---specifically, "the religious doctrine​

that all living things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and not gradually evolved or developed"*---without
referencing evolution or any of its aspects.​

..

An omnipotent God does not have any limitations. And omnipotent God is not bounded by the laws of physics or the laws of logic. Our omnipotent God created all the matter and energy in the Universe along with the laws of physics. Our omnipotent God created consciousness in the Universe capable of language where the laws of logic come into existence. God is responsible for every facet of His creation.

Since an omnipotent God does not have any limitations, our omnipotent God is capable of creating the Universe, and every facet in it, in any amount of time as spoken by God. This creation in any amount of time dictated by God includes all the fake or pretend fossil and carbon dating evidence. God's proven ground for faith in His word is perfect in its conception by testing us with evidence suggesting the Earth is millions of years old. Otherwise, without the fossil and carbon dating evidence faith in God would be an easy decision. Instead it's a hard fought choice requiring the person making the choice to think long and hard about their relationship to God.

With this interpretation both Creationism and Evolution are both true at the same time.

Evolution, fossils, and carbon dating evidence does not prove our God is not omnipotent.

 

[Skwim]

And many who call themselves Christian actually do not believe the Bible in any case or follow its guidelines. Yet they call themselves Christians. So, specifically, if many claim belief in evolution and the Bible at the same time, that does not make it true.

I've always been of the opinion that because Christianity is such a fractured religion, " according to the World Christian Encyclopedia there are at least 33,000 Christian denominations in the United States."* which tells me there's a whole lot of disagreement among Christians, it's folly to dismiss any belief by a professing Christian as unChristian; That they don't qualify as a Christian. So obviously I don't go along with your assertion here, and why it makes no sense to single out atheists.

*source

.

 

[Skwim]

Since an omnipotent God does not have any limitations, our omnipotent God is capable of creating the Universe, and every facet in it, in any amount of time as spoken by God. This creation in any amount of time dictated by God includes all the fake or pretend fossil and carbon dating evidence. God's proven ground for faith in His word is perfect in its conception by testing us with evidence suggesting the Earth is millions of years old. Otherwise, without the fossil and carbon dating evidence faith in God would be an easy decision. Instead it's a hard fought choice requiring the person making the choice to think long and hard about their relationship to God.

With this interpretation both Creationism and Evolution are both true at the same time.

.

Creationism contends that that all living things were created substantially as they now exist, by an
omnipotent creator, and did not gradually evolve or develop into another species.

Evolution contends that all living things evolved over time from previous species into their present forms .

....Just as a circle cannot simultaneously be a square.

.​

 

[YoursTrue]

An omnipotent God does not have any limitations. And omnipotent God is not bounded by the laws of physics or the laws of logic. Our omnipotent God created all the matter and energy in the Universe along with the laws of physics. Our omnipotent God created consciousness in the Universe capable of language where the laws of logic come into existence. God is responsible for every facet of His creation.

Since an omnipotent God does not have any limitations, our omnipotent God is capable of creating the Universe, and every facet in it, in any amount of time as spoken by God. This creation in any amount of time dictated by God includes all the fake or pretend fossil and carbon dating evidence. God's proven ground for faith in His word is perfect in its conception by testing us with evidence suggesting the Earth is millions of years old. Otherwise, without the fossil and carbon dating evidence faith in God would be an easy decision. Instead it's a hard fought choice requiring the person making the choice to think long and hard about their relationship to God.

With this interpretation both Creationism and Evolution are both true at the same time.

Evolution, fossils, and carbon dating evidence does not prove our God is not omnipotent.

You make some interesting points and there is one in particular that I'd like to address, that is your statement that God is responsible for every facet of His creation. Here is where I'd like to discuss that (and here is where I believe free will comes in): I think we will agree that if an all-powerful God creates someone without defect (like Adam and Eve), but as the Ultimate Creator, makes them subject to His will, not their own, yet gives them the right to disobey Him, not programming them in advance to disobey, but gives them the right to exercise their free will (with caveats, instructions, and limitations), would you think that mean He is responsible for every bad decision they henceforth make? I'll leave it there for the moment, because you do bring up some interesting points and just writing about it in response to your post gives me occasion to ponder this. (So thanks...)