Challenge: Make Your Case for Creationism

[Awkward Fingers]

It doesn't make it a good argument. But you can't refute it with /0/, either.

And it would be dishonest, in this thread to ask someone to do so.
As this is only a thread about the evidence for creationism, not evidence for other idea, which are fully covered in other threads.
And again, an argument must stand on it's own merits only.
So, what we have left is... It doesn't make a good argument. Period.

 

[Desert Snake]

And this IS the problem.. The amount of evidence you've shown for creationism IS equal to "purple unicorns created the world" as long as someone feels that it seems purple unicorns must have created the world.

Your getting amount of evidence mixed up with plausibility. Your also confusing ''evidence'', with certain types of evidence, like some physical evidence. That doesn't work because part of the evidence for creationism is the creations lol. I'm not even presenting that argument in it's fullest extent, but it can be presented.

 

[Desert Snake]

And it would be dishonest, in this thread to ask someone to do so.
As this is only a thread about the evidence for creationism, not evidence for other idea, which are fully covered in other threads.
And again, an argument must stand on it's own merits only.
So, what we have left is... It doesn't make a good argument. Period.

Huh? Creationism is a good argument, even without evidence outside of the concept, or conclusion drawn from noticing how things seem created.

/or are you talking about the purple unicorns

 

[Skwim]

Huh? Creationism is a good argument from the onset, even without evidence outside of the concept, or conclusion drawn from noticing how things seem created.

Thing is, you never make creationism into an argument. All you do is assert that it's true. Sorry, but you fail logic 101. Big Time.

 

[Desert Snake]

Can't argue with no argument, people.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Huh? Creationism is a good argument from the onset, even without evidence outside of the concept, or conclusion drawn from noticing how things seem created.

/or are you talking about the purple unicorns

The only "evidence" you've given, using the term loosely, is "it seems so"
You have then, multiple times, talked about this huge mass of evidence, that either you've brought up, or is out there, but consistently, when asked, all you have is "it seems so". and claiming there's no argument against it. and shifting the burden of proof.
That is not evidence. nor an argument.
All I can take from this is there is no good argument for creationism, apart from pretending there is one, referencing it multiple times, but never actually giving it.

But the biggest problem, or at least difference between us is, your statement "a good argument from the onset, even without evidence outside of the concept"
shows you believe things are true, simply because you want them to be true.
I cannot do that. I want to believe things are true because they actually are true. I cannot simply "well, this feels good, I'll go with that"
Which is why I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.
But, good chatting.

 

[Desert Snake]

The only "evidence" you've given, using the term loosely, is "it seems so"
You have then, multiple times, talked about this huge mass of evidence, that either you've brought up, or is out there, but consistently, when asked, all you have is "it seems so". and claiming there's no argument against it. and shifting the burden of proof.
That is not evidence. nor an argument.
All I can take from this is there is no good argument for creationism, apart from pretending there is one, referencing it multiple times, but never actually giving it.

But the biggest problem, or at least difference between us is, your statement "a good argument from the onset, even without evidence outside of the concept"
shows you believe things are true, simply because you want them to be true.
I cannot do that. I want to believe things are true because they actually are true. I cannot simply "well, this feels good, I'll go with that"
Which is why I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.
But, good chatting.

This is meaningless.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

This is meaningless.

If that makes you feel better.

 

[Desert Snake]

If that makes you feel better.

*Shrugs*.

 

[jojom]

My, my, my. What a sad exchange this has turned into. And I have to ask q konn, you said "I did present evidence from logic, earlier" yet it appears you did no such thing. What gives?

If you did, what is it?

If you didn't, why did you say you did?


.

 

[Desert Snake]

My, my, my. What a sad exchange this has turned in. And I have to ask q konn, you said "I did present evidence from logic, earlier" yet it appears you did no such thing. What gives?

If you did, what is it?

If you didn't, why did you say you did?


.

You seem to be unaware of what logic means. Logic would dictate, that something which is the best available option, logically, is what we would consider ''evidence''. Sometimes, the OP a case in point, it is because there aren't 'other options'. That is why, all of your arguing against my stated position, which I stated quite plainly in the thread, btw, is not actually arguing anything. Ie, you are merely stating that I am incorrect. Well, that really is not an argument. My evidence does not have to convince you, that is a ridiculous supposition, it only has to convince me, and be a better argument than what you present. Since you have presented nothing, I have won this exchange, //a de facto forfeit on your part.

 

[jojom]

you said "I did present evidence from logic, earlier" yet it appears you did no such thing. What gives?
If you did, what is it?
If you didn't, why did you say you did?

You seem to be unaware of what logic means. Logic would dictate, that something which is the best available option, logically, is what we would consider ''evidence''. Sometimes, the OP a case in point, it is because there aren't 'other options'. That is why, all of your arguing against my stated position, which I stated quite plainly in the thread, btw, is not actually arguing anything. Ie, you are merely stating that I am incorrect. Well, that really is not an argument. My evidence does not have to convince you, that is a ridiculous supposition, it only has to convince me, and be a better argument than what you present. Since you have presented nothing, I have won this exchange, //a de facto forfeit on your part.

I'll take this sad evasion as an admission that you made a claim that isn't true. It's nice when people leave no doubt as to what they are. Thank you.


.

 

[outhouse]

My evidence does not have to convince you,

Good because its not evidence and it convinces no one.

 

[Desert Snake]

Good because its not evidence and it convinces no one.

Logic deduction is evidence, and many people are creationists, so you are incorrect on both counts.

 

[rusra02]

Your continued insistence in demonstrating your ignorance is interesting. Or, is it your continued insistence in purposely presenting arguments you know are fallacious?

Nor has this straw horse ever been asserted by science. Truthfully rusra02, your ongoing tactics are becoming so threadbare they virtually scream "I'm at my wit's end to make a case for creationism."

So what? Eric Bapteste's remark is stupid and certainly doesn't represent current evolutionary thinking.

"Next, let's take a look at the two news articles. The Telegraph took its story from the NS article, and both contain the same fairly outrageous quotes and claims (Graham Lawton is the source unless otherwise indicated):​

1. Dr. Eric Bapteste: 'We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."

1. False. The Tree of Life project is stronger and more accurate than ever.

the really insanely stupid comment by Eric Bapteste of Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris that "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality" is so far from the mark that it makes no sense unless you suppose in his mind the evolution of genes and the evolution of species are supposed to be identical. But the distinction between gene trees and taxonomic trees is as old as genetics, although the terminology is recent. So, all in all, either you have really bad journalism here"
source​

The cherry picking the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY does is shameful. A religion the purposely misleads its followers is hardly admirable. Of course, why should it care as long as such duplicitous ploys serve its goals.

I think the days when evolutionist verbal bullying and name calling are effective in stifling evidence are over. More and more people are examining the evidence for themselves and discern the evolutionary emperor has no clothes. Talk about duplicitous ploys!

 

[Skwim]

I think the days when evolutionist verbal bullying and name calling are effective in stifling evidence are over. More and more people are examining the evidence for themselves and discern the evolutionary emperor has no clothes. Talk about duplicitous ploys!

Don't you wish. Thing is, saying it's so doesn't make it so.

 

[viole]

I think the days when evolutionist verbal bullying and name calling are effective in stifling evidence are over. More and more people are examining the evidence for themselves and discern the evolutionary emperor has no clothes. Talk about duplicitous ploys!

I am afraid the scientific community missed that note.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

Logic deduction is evidence

False. Not when the equation is factually in error. You cannot logically add up 1 + 1 and have it equal 3,456 because mythology says so.

and many people are creationists

Wow! im so glad you aware of the word fallacy, maybe I should post the definition because it appears you love to use them in a debate.

fal·la·cy
[ˈfaləsē]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN

1. a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument:

, so you are incorrect on both counts

Nothing you could every credibly show, or provide any such example when I have all of academia on my side, and you only have mythology.

 

[outhouse]

I think the days when evolutionist verbal bullying and name calling are effective in stifling evidence are over.

That may be true here in this forum.

Outside of it, creationist are quiet because academically they are laughed at by some, but more often just ignored and eyes rolled at. They are forced to hide their faith.

They don't hold a credible academic position anywhere.

 

[outhouse]

More and more people are examining the evidence for themselves and discern the evolutionary emperor has no clothes.

Thanks for your USUAL lack of credible sources

You factually CANNOT have an open mind and look at the evidence, and come to any other conclusion then 100% naturalism.


Evolution is fact.


fact
[fakt]
http://www.religiousforums.com/javascript:void(0)
NOUN

1. a thing that is indisputably the case:

That is because it has been observed, and has not been up for debate because all evidence in total points in only one direction.