Is this it for creationism?

[Jose Fly]

For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.

I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.

To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.

This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.

Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?

Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?

[The Barbarian]

No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died

Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female

I suspect that you have some problems here. Physically, it's easy. A woman is an adult human without a Y chromosome. Problem is, brains and bodies sometimes don't line up correctly. And that's hard for everyone.

Scientists say if you believe you are a unicorn, then you are a unicorn[/quote

Sounds unlikely. Checkable source. I think you've been taken for a ride on that one.

No, I will refrain from “trusting science”, as “science” is way more fantastical than belief in God

People are usually down on things they aren't up on.

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #111]

No, in fact it is science that has died. What we knew as “science” has died

Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female

I suspect that you have some problems here. Physically, it's easy. A woman is an adult human without a Y chromosome.

Thus the science...

Problem is, brains and bodies sometimes don't line up correctly. And that's hard for everyone.

Best not trust the brain then...other than if/when it tells you that it is unlikely it created you.

Some of the human sciences don't deal with 'you' things as these are too subjective....however, there has been headway re examination of that fiendishly devilish organ...it goes deeper even, than Alice ever did...

I think that, if it wanted too, any brain can go deeeper than that, but often it is the personality which is using the brain who gets to decide how much is "enough".

That is not to say that the brain does not go exploring without the personality...but even that it may do, how would it convey any information it gets from the experience, to the personality using it?

Meantime, life outside goes on all around us.

Does the brain know there is a Mind behind Creation, even if we do not?

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #111]

Scientists can no longer even tell the difference between a male and a female

I suspect that you have some problems here. Physically, it's easy. A woman is an adult human without a Y chromosome.

Thus the science...

Part of it, anyway. But it's not as simple as we assumed back before we understood about the way the brain works. Problem is, brains and bodies sometimes don't line up correctly. And that's hard for everyone.

Best not trust the brain then...other than if/when it tells you that it is unlikely it created you.

Trusting bodies never seemed like a good idea, either. As the man says, for every complex issue there's an answer that's simple, direct...and wrong.

[Diogenes]

I think Jose is referring to creationism and not creationists. No one can argue that a lot of scientists, especially from the past, believed in gods and were creationists. But show me one result someone like Newton published that involved creationism in any way. He and others may have been inspired in some way by their religious beliefs, but the hard science they produced is independent of that.

What creationism in science produces is nonsense of the type that Russell Humphreys, Walt Brown, and others like them produce. You won't find this garbage in real science journals because it is the result of taking religious ideas as fact and then trying to make the science fit. It has never worked and probably never will.

I am in accord with these observations. "Creationism" is so far removed from science as to provoke (at least an inner) laughter at the idea anyone could take it seriously... unless the 'creationist' simply acknowledges his god used the completely natural processes we have observed and just gives his god credit for somehow instigating the process which has been going on for billions of years, if not for eternity with cycles of singularities every 14 billion years or so.

But to actually try and compress this (likely infinite) process to 6000-10,000 years and then misuse bits and pieces of cherry picked or awful 'science' to try and prove this nonsense, is not worth entertaining or even discussing except with satire or amusement. To engage these folks in any attempt at serious debate is to volunteer to take over for Sisyphus and forever roll the boulder up the mountain only to see it fall back under the weight willful ignorance... again and again ad nauseam.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1]

I guess I am not sure what you mean by creation. Do you mean young earth creation? If so, then yes, it is at a decline as it should be. The church has always said to interpret the bible in light of the facts.

If you mean creation in general, then no. it is not in decline. Creation only means that God is the cause of the universe. God can cause it to be that the system evolves and life evolves, for example. That is still creation.

Any argument for God is an argument ultimately for creation. Here is a new one by Dr. Brian Cutter and Dr. Dustin Crummett: psychophyiscal harmony.

"Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism" PDF: https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTPHA

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #115]

And as a side note. There are always new arguments for God, but there are not new arguments against God.

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

[Difflugia]

And as a side note. There are always new arguments for God, but there are not new arguments against God.

Exactly! Just like there are always new arguments for leprechauns, but there are not new arguments against leprechauns.

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

And all those aleprechaunists really have is an utter lack of supernatural pots of gold.

[Jose Fly]

I guess I am not sure what you mean by creation. Do you mean young earth creation? If so, then yes, it is at a decline as it should be. The church has always said to interpret the bible in light of the facts.

If you mean creation in general, then no. it is not in decline. Creation only means that God is the cause of the universe. God can cause it to be that the system evolves and life evolves, for example. That is still creation.

Any argument for God is an argument ultimately for creation. Here is a new one by Dr. Brian Cutter and Dr. Dustin Crummett: psychophyiscal harmony.

"Psychophysical Harmony: A New Argument for Theism" PDF: https://philarchive.org/archive/CUTPHA

Please note that the topic of the thread is creationism. Specifically, it's about the creationists who come into forums like this one and try to debate against established science (e.g., evolutionary biology, cosmology, geology) and for some religiously-based alternative version of natural history.

The paper you linked to is about the existence of gods, which is not the topic of this thread.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #115, 116]

If you mean creation in general, then no. it is not in decline. Creation only means that God is the cause of the universe. God can cause it to be that the system evolves and life evolves, for example. That is still creation.

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

What all atheists have is the total absence of evidence for God and gods, along with no need to be fabulists ond simply make things up or engage in logical fallacies and circular reasoning.

One of the big problems for theists who hold that God is the 'cause' of the universe and merely put systems like evolution in place is that they sound more like deists.
If they want to assert the existence of a personal god who is active in the universe then they have to justify why such a god sits back and does nothing while a billions of years old cumbersome, inefficient, seemingly random process moves along at glacial speed causing pain, suffering, death, birth defects, disease, predation, and war. A personal god could have used his magic and created a beautiful and pleasant land instantly, not even needing six days plus one for resting.

No wonder the Young Earth Creationists work so hard to push their transparently ridiculous views.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #119]

All atheists really have is Divine Hiddenness and Problem of Evil.

Re divine hiddenness, this would translate to such expression as given ... "What all atheists have is the total absence of evidence for God and gods" which theists seem to have no trouble in seeing, in the exact same evidence.

Re Problem of Evil, this is not based in atheism [which is just "lack of belief in Gods"] but is a very weak argument which atheists generally try to use to point out that if there is a creator-GOD, then the GOD would have to be evil to have created this real world and all its "horrors". [specifically]

Of course, the "problem" is concocted from that position of lack of beliefs in gods, and in some cases is claimed to be the reason some folk became "Atheists" because they lack belief on account that the world has horrors to contend with, which is not really "Atheism" at its root-description. "Why" is not really required, as there is no reason necessary, in order that folk simply lack belief in gods.

In that, the so-called problem of evil presents as a farse.

However, it is noted that the Problem of Evil is specific to the notion of an all powerful all loving all knowing omni-everything idea of GOD, and - biblically speaking, YHVH does not fit that description, so the curio therein is why atheists make a song and dance about YHVH as if YHVH fits the script which determines the validity of the Problem of Evil.

The first biblical example of YHVH not being all knowing, was in the Eden story, where YHVH has to ask the human pair for information on their whereabouts...a thing that many theists supporting the belief in said story, appear to overlook...so the source of the problem can be linked to theistic belief systems which do not acknowledge discrepancies and claim that YHVH is omni-everything...as if these type of believers are trying to superimpose an omni-everything image of GOD onto the image of YHVH as presented in the Bible...

So one can question the concept in light of it being a problem that theist created, and are hard pressed to defend/support...

So the battle rages on for those directly participating in it...