Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!
So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.
But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.
So, Creationists... Let's get started.
By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?
By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?
Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.
Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.
Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
PghPanther wrote:Donray wrote: theStudent cannot explain why God created virus. He cannot explain why God created Neanderthals and then why he got rid of them.
theStudent cannot explain why God created humans with vertebrate spinal column that is weak in a human and fit into a four legged animal better.
theStudent cannot explain why God crested a brain subject to mental illness.
theStudent should at least explain Neanderthals.
the Creationist simply states that they are due to sin...................the fall of man and you have flesh eating flesh and farts..........not to mentioned everything else you just mentioned above.....
Nice huh?
But then they need to believe in evolution to explain it. Lions evolved into meat eaters. All animals evolved to have cancer. Helpful bacteria evolved into deadly virus.
God would have just let evolution work after he got pissed off. Ava was a common ancestor to man and apes.
-
rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Post #12
Wow. Just wow. A thread is given where in the OP, Creationism is handed the victory its proponents so earnestly desire and so far, not one creationist can answer the questions of the OP.
One person from the creationist camp has tried so far, but all they did was attack evolution, for which they had to be reminded that this was completely unnecessary. Evolution, according to the OP, has already been discredited. After that, no-one else from that camp has bothered.
One person from the creationist camp has tried so far, but all they did was attack evolution, for which they had to be reminded that this was completely unnecessary. Evolution, according to the OP, has already been discredited. After that, no-one else from that camp has bothered.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #13
[Replying to post 12 by rikuoamero]
I'm well aware as to why it is people aren't willing to accept the challenge.
Because the underlying emphasis of the entire post is: Make a falsifiable claim.
And creationists can't do that.
I'll play devil's advocate for one turn, and we'll see just what it means to actually apply critical thinking to one's own argument.
If Creationism is true, then that means that the diversity of life we see in nature has
A. Not changed in the 6,000 years that life has existed.
B. Grown from a smaller scope of diversity in the 6,000 years that life has existed. (This would, of course, borrow the mechanisms of evolution and rely on evolutionary theory to be valid, so it's out.)
C. Decreased in the 6,000 years that life has existed.
In order for Creationists to figure out which of the three above is correct (assuming Creationism is right from the start), they should look at the fossil record.
If we find:
1. No unique fossils that are distinct from current organisms, that implies that the diversity of life has either increased or stayed the same. Because otherwise species that existed in the past that no longer exist today would be classified as 'decreased diversity'.
2. Unique fossils that are distinct from current organisms, that implies that the diversity of life has decreased or increased. An increase in diversity, with novel and unique fossilized organisms present in the fossil record, would support evolutionary theory, so that's invalid. Therefore it must be that the diversity of life has decreased over time.
So once we check our evidence, and find that there aren't any Tiktaliks in our modern day biomes, we're left with the conclusion in the latter option: that the diversity of life has decreased over time.
Well. That's embarrassing. There's already a LOT of diversity, and scientists have determined that 99% of species have gone extinct. Under Creationist logic, since evolution can not have occurred, and therefore diversity cannot have increased among the organisms around the globe, that implies that there were 2 orders of magnitude more species present 6,000 years ago, at a level of diversity that would dwarf today's ecosystems on a massive scale.
So given that, only 6,000 years ago, there were 100 times more unique species than there were today, we are left with a perplexing, falsifiable claim by Creationism that renders itself entirely by using their warped logic.
Assuming that the diversity of life cannot increase due to evolutionary mechanisms, there can only be a net decrease in the diversity between species. With 100 times more diversity, the fossil layer SHOULD behave as such:
There should be an immense layer with a high density of the diverse species that existed 6,000 years ago. After that, with each successive generation, there should be less diverse fossils made over time. Less and less, as fewer unique species exist. Until we get to 'modern day fossils' (which I can only assume are less than 4,000 years old) where the diversity of fossils is at its minimum.
By Creationist logic, we should expect to see a net decrease in the diversity of fossils in the fossil record.
Oops. We don't. Anyone wanna come up to bat?
I'm well aware as to why it is people aren't willing to accept the challenge.
Because the underlying emphasis of the entire post is: Make a falsifiable claim.
And creationists can't do that.
I'll play devil's advocate for one turn, and we'll see just what it means to actually apply critical thinking to one's own argument.
If Creationism is true, then that means that the diversity of life we see in nature has
A. Not changed in the 6,000 years that life has existed.
B. Grown from a smaller scope of diversity in the 6,000 years that life has existed. (This would, of course, borrow the mechanisms of evolution and rely on evolutionary theory to be valid, so it's out.)
C. Decreased in the 6,000 years that life has existed.
In order for Creationists to figure out which of the three above is correct (assuming Creationism is right from the start), they should look at the fossil record.
If we find:
1. No unique fossils that are distinct from current organisms, that implies that the diversity of life has either increased or stayed the same. Because otherwise species that existed in the past that no longer exist today would be classified as 'decreased diversity'.
2. Unique fossils that are distinct from current organisms, that implies that the diversity of life has decreased or increased. An increase in diversity, with novel and unique fossilized organisms present in the fossil record, would support evolutionary theory, so that's invalid. Therefore it must be that the diversity of life has decreased over time.
So once we check our evidence, and find that there aren't any Tiktaliks in our modern day biomes, we're left with the conclusion in the latter option: that the diversity of life has decreased over time.
Well. That's embarrassing. There's already a LOT of diversity, and scientists have determined that 99% of species have gone extinct. Under Creationist logic, since evolution can not have occurred, and therefore diversity cannot have increased among the organisms around the globe, that implies that there were 2 orders of magnitude more species present 6,000 years ago, at a level of diversity that would dwarf today's ecosystems on a massive scale.
So given that, only 6,000 years ago, there were 100 times more unique species than there were today, we are left with a perplexing, falsifiable claim by Creationism that renders itself entirely by using their warped logic.
Assuming that the diversity of life cannot increase due to evolutionary mechanisms, there can only be a net decrease in the diversity between species. With 100 times more diversity, the fossil layer SHOULD behave as such:
There should be an immense layer with a high density of the diverse species that existed 6,000 years ago. After that, with each successive generation, there should be less diverse fossils made over time. Less and less, as fewer unique species exist. Until we get to 'modern day fossils' (which I can only assume are less than 4,000 years old) where the diversity of fossils is at its minimum.
By Creationist logic, we should expect to see a net decrease in the diversity of fossils in the fossil record.
Oops. We don't. Anyone wanna come up to bat?
-
Inigo Montoya
- Guru
- Posts: 1333
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:45 pm
Post #15
God is all powerful. Nothing that seems contrary to science or intuition matters in the face of omnipotence. You don't mean to imply something can't be a certain way in the presence of an agency that can literally do ANYthing, do You?
Checkmate, atheists.
Checkmate, atheists.
-
liamconnor
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3170
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2015 1:18 pm
Re: Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!
Post #16[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]
I am confused.
I was under the impression that "Creationist" simply believe that God created the world; they were not theologically opposed to a very old universe or even to evolution.
On the other hand, there are six-day creationist, who pledge allegiance to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Is it the latter that you have in mind?
I am confused.
I was under the impression that "Creationist" simply believe that God created the world; they were not theologically opposed to a very old universe or even to evolution.
On the other hand, there are six-day creationist, who pledge allegiance to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Is it the latter that you have in mind?
-
Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!
Post #17[Replying to post 16 by liamconnor]
I was half-tempted to approach your question in a round-about way to make my point, but I won't try to pull you into any word games.
For the purpose of this discussion, I was focused on the Creationism camp specifically opposed to evolution.
If your beliefs coincide with the idea that God created the universe, and then let natural processes do their work and leave behind evidence, then that suits me just fine. Your worldview, when applied scientifically, can render a more reliable picture of reality, and even form predictions about what we should see in nature. Evolutionary theory, for example, predicted the appearance, location, and geological timescale of the fossil Tiktaalik. This would be an example of a scientific theory making a prediction and potentially being falsified. Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution, are capable of interacting with science because they don't will all contradicting evidence to disappear.
Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, is a different beast. It exists only to attack evolutionary theory, and this entire thread was meant to highlight the nature of its arguments, and present to the whole forum the vapid hollowness of an unscientific idea. It presents no claims, uses no evidence, and makes no predictions about reality. It's dead weight.
I was half-tempted to approach your question in a round-about way to make my point, but I won't try to pull you into any word games.
For the purpose of this discussion, I was focused on the Creationism camp specifically opposed to evolution.
If your beliefs coincide with the idea that God created the universe, and then let natural processes do their work and leave behind evidence, then that suits me just fine. Your worldview, when applied scientifically, can render a more reliable picture of reality, and even form predictions about what we should see in nature. Evolutionary theory, for example, predicted the appearance, location, and geological timescale of the fossil Tiktaalik. This would be an example of a scientific theory making a prediction and potentially being falsified. Old Earth Creationism, or theistic evolution, are capable of interacting with science because they don't will all contradicting evidence to disappear.
Young Earth Creationism, on the other hand, is a different beast. It exists only to attack evolutionary theory, and this entire thread was meant to highlight the nature of its arguments, and present to the whole forum the vapid hollowness of an unscientific idea. It presents no claims, uses no evidence, and makes no predictions about reality. It's dead weight.
Post #18
[Replying to post 15 by Inigo Montoya]
An all powerful God by definition, can do anything.
All you have to do now is to prove that your god exists.
I'm ready to accept that God is real when someone does.
NOPE.Inigo Montoya wrote:
God is all powerful. Nothing that seems contrary to science or intuition matters in the face of omnipotence. You don't mean to imply something can't be a certain way in the presence of an agency that can literally do ANYthing, do You?
Checkmate, atheists.
An all powerful God by definition, can do anything.
All you have to do now is to prove that your god exists.
I'm ready to accept that God is real when someone does.
Re: Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!
Post #19Even some Christians that believe in some evolution don't believe man evolved from slime. They believe God crated man as is and therefore are creationists.liamconnor wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Neatras]
I am confused.
I was under the impression that "Creationist" simply believe that God created the world; they were not theologically opposed to a very old universe or even to evolution.
On the other hand, there are six-day creationist, who pledge allegiance to a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Is it the latter that you have in mind?
-
Bust Nak
- Savant
- Posts: 9874
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 267 times
Re: Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!
Post #20Those kind of technically creationists are qualified as old Earth creationists to differentiate from regular creationists, those who actually are liberal enough to affirm evolution are known as theistic evolutionists.liamconnor wrote: I was under the impression that "Creationist" simply believe that God created the world; they were not theologically opposed to a very old universe or even to evolution.
