Other Than "The Bible Tells Me So," Your Single Best Argument for Creationism

[viole]

Right. The problem with evolution is that scientits cant get past first cause. Life can only beget life. So where did life come from? The more we know about science, the more evolution (Darwinian Evolution that is) becomes bankrupt as an alternative to creation.

In astrophysics, stellar evolution, just to make an example, is not concerned with the origin of the Universe and the basic materials that make and determine the life cycle of a star.

Does that entail that astrophysics is intellectually bankrupt?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Laughing Coyote]

If life could just pop up on its own and adapt to environment I think you should see some on other planets.

One of the most common fallacies in science is that if we haven't see it then it doesn't exist. The best indicator of life on other planets probably will be that their atmospheres are not in an equilibrium state, with volatile molecules such as oxygen. Planetary scientists are as yet in the very early stages of being able to see this.

 

[viole]

What, in your opinion, is the alternative to the creation account from the biblical God?

That the Universe has been created by Mickey Mouse out of some primeval piece of Swiss Cheese in 351 days.

Just to name one of the infinite alternatives that share the same evidence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

I think it can show evolution to be false since evolution is governed by the laws of nature. but A Creator could do things any way he wants therefore it doesn't prove a Creator true or false.

Which is precisely why evolution is testable, and hence scientific, and creationism is NOT testable and is thereby NOT scientific.

But, the facts are that evolution has been tested and has passed every test so far. Your misunderstandings about how evolution works are not problems for evolutionary theory, just your own problems.

 

[Polymath257]

I think Behe's argument of irreducible complexity is strong evidence against evolution. BTW, while I believe in creation, I don't consider myself a "creationist".

And in court, Behe was challenged to produce a single example of irreducible complexity and was not able to. ALL of his proposed examples have been show to NOT be irreducibly complex.

 

[Skwim]

I have no argument against evolution as the process by which life as we know it was created, and you have just, with your 'edited to note' made it a non-issue for me. What is the problem?

Creationists, who are invariably Bible believing Christians, deny the scientific findings that support evolution, and they reject the evolution of species. So I'm curious to see if they have any argument for creationism that doesn't rely on the Bible.

If you don't care how life first came into being, then why are the evolutionists giving the creationists such grief? Well, at least, why are the evolutionists giving creationists like ME such grief?

Just to clear up one minor issue here. Although the forum here is titled Evolution vs Creationism, it isn't the scientists of biological evolution that oppose creationism so much as it's creationists who oppose evolution. So a more appropriate title would be Creationism Vs Evolution. That said, evolutionists really don't care what creationists believe; unless, that is, creationists try to get their beliefs installed in public school science classes, which they have. Then they will vigorously engage creationists. On the other hand, creationists, who are almost always Christians, actively oppose evolution because it can cause Christians to question the veracity of the Bible, as they see it. They detest the fact that science has come up with a rational explanation for the diversity of life that goes against the Bible. This is why we see various organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Biblical Creation Society, Creation Ministries International, and the Institute for Creation Research, which have been established to denounce evolution. Unlike evolutionists, who seldom care what creationists believe or say, creationists are extremely concerned with what evolutionists do and say.

Me, I get it from both sides, and frankly, from where I sit, it looks as if evolutionists care a great deal about biogenesis (or abiogenesis).

As a necessary facet of evolution, they don't give a damn, although I suspect that any scientist looking into abiogenesis would believe in evolution.

.

 

[Kemosloby]

One of the most common fallacies in science is that if we haven't see it then it doesn't exist. The best indicator of life on other planets probably will be that their atmospheres are not in an equilibrium state, with volatile molecules such as oxygen. Planetary scientists are as yet in the very early stages of being able to see this.

Right because science hasn't discovered God yet, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Is that what you;re saying?

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Don't we have a thread on this? And didn't it end up like all the other similar ones I've seen where it ends up being pages and pages of creationists regurgitating tired old arguments against evolution, but no actual arguments for creationism?

Why not a thread that creationists argue for evolution and people who accept evolution argue for creationism. Seems it would be more interesting.
.

 

[Skwim]

84 responses so far - is there is any positive evidence for creationism yet?

Creationists must to be aware that saying "Evolution can't answer certain questions" does nothing to support their position...

If I said that the Titans seeded the Universe, and that they always preexisted, then my claim, to this point, would be just as valid as that of the Biblical Creation mythology, wouldn't it? We'd be equally as substantiated.

And this is oh-so much thee paramount tactic of creationists. Lacking any argument other than, The Bible Tells Me So, they typically attack evolution under the noxious rational that if evolution can be proven false then by default creationism must be right. A self-serving logic to be sure, but they have nothing else to offer.

.

 

[Jose Fly]

Why not a thread that creationists argue for evolution and people who accept evolution argue for creationism. Seems it would be more interesting.
.

Now that would be interesting!

 

[Polymath257]

Right because science hasn't discovered God yet, but that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Is that what you;re saying?

What test for God do you propose? Notice that the previous poster gave a specific test (non-equilibrium atmosphere) as a test for life.

What test would you propose that, if it *fails*, will convince you that no God exists?

 

[Kemosloby]

What test for God do you propose? Notice that the previous poster gave a specific test (non-equilibrium atmosphere) as a test for life.

What test would you propose that, if it *fails*, will convince you that no God exists?

If I die and don't get resurrected someday, then I will be convinced.

 

[Polymath257]

If I die and don't get resurrected someday, then I will be convinced.

Hmmm...any way for those of us alive to test this idea?

 

[rusra02]

And in court, Behe was challenged to produce a single example of irreducible complexity and was not able to. ALL of his proposed examples have been show to NOT be irreducibly complex.

I disagree, of course. Claims that irreducible complexity have been debunked are unconvincing, IMO.

 

[Jose Fly]

I disagree, of course. Claims that irreducible complexity have been debunked are unconvincing, IMO.

I'd like to see you start by explaining, in your own words, what you understand IC to be.

 

[Kemosloby]

Hmmm...any way for those of us alive to test this idea?

Yes but one miscalculation could lead to a zombie apocalypse.

 

[suncowiam]

If life could just pop up on its own and adapt to environment I think you should see some on other planets.

Have you been to other planets to confirm or deny? If so, did you look everywhere?

 

[Polymath257]

I disagree, of course. Claims that irreducible complexity have been debunked are unconvincing, IMO.

Well, the definition is pretty straightforward. All that is required to debunk one is to show how there would be evolutionary steps to get to the present condition.

The basic flaw for most IC arguments is thinking that previous stages have to have the same functionality as the current stage. So, the precursor to a bacterial flagellum was a secretory protein, not a component of a primitive flagellum.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, the definition is pretty straightforward.

Actually, it's not. Let's see what Rusra comes up with.

 

[Polymath257]

Have you been to other planets to confirm or deny? If so, did you look everywhere?

Let me put it this way. If we looked at, say, a million planets with water in the Goldilocks zones of their stars and none of them had any sign of life, even bacterial, that would throw a monkey wrench into a our current understanding of how life arose. Hey, even a few hundred such would cause some significant re-thinking.