lol.
Most people I know are christian, so most creationists I know are christian. 3/4 of the people I know are white, but that isn’t necessarily representative of the big picture when it comes to any valid statistic. I try my best not to generalize based on my world view, but it still creeps in sometimes.
How is there anything left to discuss about this issue?
All I’d like to know is the scientific evidence FOR creationism or intelligent design. Too many are trying to insert creationism/intelligent design into science class so I want to see what they have. Every single time I try to ask for it, they respond back with “Well, evolution this” or “Evolution says…” or “The theory of evolution can’t…”
A challenge to those that want creationism or intelligent design inserted into science class:
Provide the positive scientific evidence for creationism or intelligent design.
Most arguments for creation come from arguments from ignorance. Arguments from ignorance often say things like “The big bang theory doesn’t explain x so…” or “the Theory of Evolution doesn’t have x gap filled so…” The problem with these is that not knowing something doesn’t imply any additional knowledge. Not knowing something, doesn’t mean you know anything else. This is often called teaching the controversy. This is a ridiculous argument when there is no counter evidence.
The second most common argument is the fine tuning argument. But it fails to mention that the universe isn’t really all that hospitable to life. There is another argument that says our universe is so fine tuned that any variance would mean no universe at all, which is an odd assumption as we can think of a lot of things that could go wrong, but that doesn’t mean that a different nature of universe wouldn’t simply have different rules to govern it…again it’s an argument from ignorance.
We simply don’t have the scale of mind needed to explain such things, but lacking this doesn’t mean there is a god that created it. It just means we don’t know.
See, I always take the former argument (logical fallacies aside) as a criticism of the theory of evolution (which is fine and necessary for a scientific theory), not evidence FOR creationism or intelligent design.
The latter argument is just a logical fallacy. Back to the Douglas Adams quote about the sentient puddle that looked around himself and thought that the hole was made specifically for him.
Well there is some truth to the balance of the universe being a bit delicate. If all matter was evenly spread throughout the universe, it is possible no galaxies would have formed…but we can’t be sure of anything outside of our own natural existence. There may be universes with totally different formations and natural laws. Just because our universe seems to function in a way that seems balanced, doesn’t mean it is, or that there isn’t different balances. Even if things seem perfectly fine tuned, it isn’t evidence for anything beyond the observable fact that it is tuned to our benefit. Attributing any other properties to such a statement is a leap without supportable evidence.
It seems that most arguments towards creationism are not based on evidence, but on “common sense”, they are inclined to be philosophical. Many arguments are just similar to saying the phrase “because God wanted it to be this way”. I think it reflects a lot the behavior of Christian people itself - you have to leave the most complicated questions to God and to faith. But science is the search of the truth, not “oh, hey, let’s feel the truth” - specially because different people “feel” different truths.
I can remember only 3 more or less interesting arguments.
The first is the 2 theories about the creation of a cake. The simplest way is that someone simply cooked it. The other one is a supermarket truck rolling down the hill - the ingredients within it would be mixed by the shacking of the truck, and then the truck would ignite and cook the cake.
Ok, that is not much evidence - it is hard to calculate the probability of spontaneous generation of life with what we know, and creationists are hardly trying to. Philosophically, that is valid, I guess, but, even so, then why is God the God of the Bible and not some other form of God? Why would he choose to create everything ready instead of creating the initial conditions that would result in the big bang and so on? After all, God is timeless (and of course I am assuming that).
The second is the reason why fossils are found buried in an order that suggests evolution. The answer is Noah’s Ark story - some experiments were made using various kinds of earth and fossils and they were put inside some recipient, and, after shaking it and let it rest, the fossils and different kinds of earth were found in a similar order of what is found on nature.
Now, I don’t see how the Earth would be shaken with such power without burying the continents under the oceans, or why is the world so heterogeneous - for instance, there are salt deserts, sand deserts and other deserts in-between.
The last one is that some scientists calculated the age of the universe by measuring the amount of radiation on space assuming that quantity decreased over time - which is what the big bang theory predicts. By using the “same set of equations”, assuming everything was created in the exact place they were and the radiation increased over time, they estimated the universe has around 13 thousand years. Which is not the time from the Bible, but much closer than billions of years.
However, that does not explain why we see distant planets and starts - the light coming from some planets would take a hell lot more time than a few thousand years to reach Earth.
Philosophy is fine…in philosophy class. NOT science class. I’m quite fine with classes on comparative religion, and so forth.
I’ve heard that as the “bomb in a junkyard” scenario: Put a bomb in a junkyard and have it assemble a working car/airplane.
The thing is:
EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
That’s the foundation of the supposed “difference” between creationism and ‘intelligent design’: “We’re not saying ‘God’ but some sort of intelligence” which almost always turns out to be, well, “God”.
You mean, with larger organisms on top of smaller, more “primitive” organisms?
Arguments from incredulity are not, well, credible.
If that were the case, then God is an even greater deceiver than “The Great Deceiver”.
Well, I think philosophy is a kind of science, but each science has its place, it cannot simply substitute the other sciences. And, like any other science, you have to study it without closing yourself to the possibilities.
This is much better, I’m fine with this reasoning.
Yes. Just to be clear, I was presenting the arguments because someone asked, not because I agree with them.
What do you mean?
I was arguing that, if the Great Flood shook large portion of earth with such power that it would bury animals, it would also change the shape of the Earth. Also, it would dissolve all salt and distribute along all continents after evaporation in an homogeneous way, which could not have left deserts of sand and deserts of salt.
I’m not saying that there can’t be an explanation for this, the heterogenization could have taken place after that, but I seriously doubt creationists have even bothered to try to explain that.
You are right, if God created things as to allow us to conclude a lot of things that are not true, than he is a deceiver, but I can’t imagine a reason for him to do that. This makes me think that the only reason that he does not tell all the humans the whole truth and let us find it on our own, it means he wants us to do that. In other words, if God exists and created us for a purpose, that purpose is to use our ability of discovering and learn.
I believe one great mistake of Christians is to think that faith is a feeling. It’s not, it’s an attitude, and so is love.
Assuming there’s any evidence for said “flood”. And no evidence has been provided to date. More than likely (which we have evidence for), there was a localized flood or possibly a tsunami which wiped out everything in that area, leaving some guy with his family swept out to sea beyond a point where you could see land in any direction.
That makes a lot more sense 
lol@people trying to act like nature has to conform to the limits of human logic
but it doesnt make sense to me!!1! doesn’t change whether it’s true or not
edit: not aimed at anyone in particular, just something that bothers me about creationists
…and then there are those that are creationists, that still hold to the possibilities that we (humans) have yet to discover all the nuts and bolts of how something works. (seen this over and over again in my 40+ years) But that even when that happens, it still doesn’t disregard their own foundation of belief.
Catz: Just because we don’t know everything doesn’t mean that we don’t know anything.
I know. And ditto.
except for that clinging to creationism is basically denying everything that we do know. that’s like saying WELL WE DON’T KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE HUMAN BRAIN, SO I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO FAITH IN THOSE DARN NEUROLOGISTS THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING
:s igh:
I don’t even see why you bother, Catz.