Evidence for creationism

[Brian Shanahan]

I used to - a few years back - take part in a forum [no longer exists] where creationist views were often discussed. There were differences in my style and the style you have used in this thread (I won't claim to have been as thorough, logical or eloquent as yourself), but I did insist that creationists be able to provide sound, logical reasoning to back up their theories and remove apparent contradictions. This expectation was never met. It gave me a pleasant sense of self righteousness knowing that I had won on my terms, but, frankly, winning on my terms achieved nothing. I believe that only a minority of creationists would change their minds based on reading your posts in this thread.

Firstly sorry for double posting, went away and found over a page worth of replies here.

Secondly as regards the bolded part especially, you're probably right if you're ashamed of self-righteousness, it's not a nice emotion (from personal experience), but if you gave proper evidence to back your case and the creationists didn't then you won full stop. There was no "on my terms" as you didn't set the terms, as winning by putting a logical and consistent arguement forward and then backing it up by evidence is a basic rule of any sort of debate or mental enquiry, it is not a situation to favour one side over another. Winning "on my terms" is something like what Dommy is doing here, taking a position and putting up arguements to defend it, and when those arguements are defeated, changing the rules and arguements to bring them back in line to suit his own conlcusion, i.e. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, if they disprove my evidence I will change it as they have cheated by using science and logic against me, when they know that GOD is bigger than both. They are just jealous that I have faith and they don't."

Instead you should feel pity for those who won't change, in that they are so insecure about their faith and position in the world that they will ignore and deny a solid mountain and evidence in order to try and push the views of a person who didn't have that evidence (and if he did I wonder would he change his text?) down everybody's throat in order to feel that they are right. If they cannot changed their opinions based on new evidence then they are in serious trouble, going forward.

Edit: @Chukchi Husky, either you're the most naive and trusting person I've ever had the opportunity to talk to (and I'm not being insulting I hope) or you're the most brillaint parodyist I have ever had the privilege to see in action. As regards your question, the person involved is not a physicist as most everything in the bible directly contradicts what he would know as a physicist.

 

[Methos]

Sorry but he tells the truth, and you lose respect for him because of that. Tell me how this works as I'm confused

You might want to consider looking at what my statement was in reply to, as your own statement seems to imply its against ATPGs entire post, when it isn't. It's in regards to one single sentence.

If you are in fact replying to it correctly, then the underlined sentence above is false, since his one sentence is an opinion, which thereby cannot be a truth. Like I previously said, I'm guessing you missed what I was replying too.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You can still respect an opinion...

That's right.

Is the Bible proven fact, Methos? No, it is not.

That places it in the realm of opinion, by definition. Even scientific theories are still opinions.

You're far too quick to lose respect for someone just because they call something that isn't proven fact an opinion.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The Bible is not a textbook and it isn't meant to be taken as such, so why should it be 100% factual? It's rather difficult to teach in parables if you put such a stipulation on it.

I would rather people did NOT put such stipulations on it.

I'll repeat myself. I am not a Biblical literalist. I'd PREFER if it were treated as parable and metaphor.

I'd also personally prefer it be treated in much the same way that Grimm's fairy tales are, which is that they are also fables written to express a moral point or life lesson, in that particular case, to children. (No disrespect, those stories are meant to teach people morals, and in that sense they are similar)

The point is that Biblical literalists are the main opponents of evolution, for a reason. They argue the Bible is incompatible with that theory, and thus wish to oppose it not just for themselves, but for others as well, and stop schools from teaching it, and/or wish to teach "creation science" which isn't a science as an equal alternative.

This thread demonstrates why they aren't equal. Lalalala wizard did it is not science.

The first part I can agree with, but not the latter. Just because its not a perfect book, doesn't mean we can't learn from it. One of the Gnostic Scriptures I've read is in no way factual, nor even meant to be taken that way, yet what it teaches is very amazing.

That's fine, and you'll never hear one peep out of me if that's all it is taken as.

But it isn't.

You can't be upset at me for not approving of Biblical literalism and calling it science, when you know darn well it isn't science.

I never said it was, I'm not the one making that argument. I'd prefer NO ONE did.

I realize your primarily argueing against Dom, but your own statements are as far fetched as Dom's are. I may be mis-reading you, but your statements seem to imply that because it isn't 100% factual, then nothing can be learned from it.

Never implied any such thing, for the record. I don't know where you're reading that.

The problem with that is, I cannot. I believe in Creationism and I believe in Evolution. So from the Big Bang on, you and I would more then likely be in agreement. I'm guessing prior to the Big Bang is where we'd conflict, but I don't see how we can effectively argue that using evidence, so not really a point to even try.

Science has no official answer for where the universe came from. At that point, God becomes just as valid a theory as any. That's fine.

But, that's where science and religion diverge. Stuff beyond that point is both repeatable, observable in laboratories, and knowable.

And after the Big bang, the universe conforms primarily to known laws with very few exceptions. But the Biblical literalist account does not, and doesn't attempt to come close to a scientific explanation.

It's fine to believe it (I guess, even though I feel irrational beliefs that you live your life by are inherently dangerous) but it's not fine to treat it as equal to science.

I'm rather outspoken about this view, and passionate about it. If religious people are allowed to be outspoken and passionate about this subject, so am I. I haven't insulted anyone here on a personal level, I've only critiqued ideas.

If ideas cannot be discussed here with an even-handed view of both, then there shouldn't be a thread. My ideas are just as valid as anyone else's, and so long as I am not bashing someone personally, I should be allowed to criticize their ideas, and most especially, their unwillingness to defend them in a thread about evidence pertaining to their own ideas.


Do not take the passion of my argument as evidence of hatred or malice towards believers, please. Don't read into my statements what isn't there, please. Don't judge me based on a misinterpretation of my words, please.

 

[Methos]

That's right.

Is the Bible proven fact, Methos? No, it is not.

That places it in the realm of opinion, by definition. Even scientific theories are still opinions.

You're far too quick to lose respect for someone just because they call something that isn't proven fact an opinion.

It appears you and others aren't understanding what I'm saying. Your inclined to argue only one way, which I'm not even arguing. I'm off to work, so I don't have time to explain. What I will say is this, you're looking at my post wrong. Quit looking at it as an argument.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

You might want to consider looking at what my statement was in reply to, as your own statement seems to imply its against ATPGs entire post, when it isn't. It's in regards to one single sentence.

If you are in fact replying to it correctly, then the underlined sentence above is false, since his one sentence is an opinion, which thereby cannot be a truth. Like I previously said, I'm guessing you missed what I was replying too.

And I did look at what you said, he stated that the bible is a piece of opinion, and you lost respect because of that. Frankly because you can't accept that fact says a lot about your own ability to accept the opinions about others and the fragility of your own self confidence.
You called him ignorant because he called the bible an opinion. Show me any passage of the bible that is not opinion and is infact a straight retelling of incontrovertable events. I bet you won't be able to do that as it is a propoganda (and I don't mean this in the "OMG propoganda is evil" sense so don't get your knickers in a twist over my phrasing) publication for partisans of a particular group who are pushing a particular agenda (i.e. the Jews and later the Christians). And as a matter of course it is going to prioritise the right opinion over the facts on the ground in it's materials, especially when they are contradictory.

If you cannot accept this fundamental fact, then I suggest that instead of argueing on the website here you go and take a long hard look at your beliefs and see what they truly are, whether secular or religious. Because from your postings in response to both myself and askthepizzaguy you seem to trust in authority figures way too much and do too little by way of confirmation and fact checking.
I am not asking you to give up your beliefs, I am just asking you to take a long hard look at them and realise that they (mine too) are often bred of predjudice and ignorance and should be challenged in every possible way before being accepted. Now I know it is impossible to do for every belief you have (you're only human after all) but at least make an attempt.

Final word on the issue:

The Bible is not a textbook and it isn't meant to be taken as such, so why should it be 100% factual? It's rather difficult to teach in parables if you put such a stipulation on it.

Here you flat out agree with what asktehpizza guy says, so am I to believe that a lot of the respect you previously had for yourself is now gone?




I thought not.

 

[BasketCase]

But the Bible is the "Word of God" ... is it not and God is not wrong.

The word of God, as written by people. And poeple damn well can be wrong. Believe me, no matter how prefect God is, human beings will find a way to take God's work and *&^@# it up.

 

[SuperJay]

The problem with that is, I cannot. I believe in Creationism and I believe in Evolution. So from the Big Bang on, you and I would more then likely be in agreement. I'm guessing prior to the Big Bang is where we'd conflict, but I don't see how we can effectively argue that using evidence, so not really a point to even try.

No, that's true - and as ATPG said, prior to the Big Bang, neither science nor religion really has a cogent explanation. (I think the difference is that science could get there eventually, whereas Christianity is sort of stuck given that God hasn't caused any new books to be written in the last few millenia.) So we might not even conflict at all.

To be clear, I'm not a die-hard athiest or even an athiest at all. I don't hate Christians or any other believers in any other religion. I have immense respect for those whose religious faiths enrich their lives and guide them toward virtuous paths during their time on this planet. I think the Bible is an amazing collection of parables, stories, and fables that can teach many important moral lessons to those who wish to find wisdom within it. I don't believe it can teach evolutionary biology or particle physics and the like. I think science and religion can coexist just fine, as long as you recognize the limitations of each.

My biggest problem is with biblical literalists who insist that those parables are objective truths with no room for error, and want my children to learn about a bronze age fairy-tale explanation instead of being taught actual human knowledge.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

While I like your statement, I worry that Dom hasn't met his own. I have no problem with Dom believing how he does. I just hope he sits down and serious contemplates his own decision so that he has a strong foundation to believe what he does.

Thats the rub, there is no strong foundation to believe what he does. It's utter nonsense. Nothing he has said this whole thread has any more evidence to support it than Russell's Teapot.

You just removed a large part of the respect I had for you and your argument. I have no problem with someone not believing in the Bible, its their choice. But to say its an opinion is to show your own ignorance in what the Bible is. I disagree with Mormonism and believe the Book of Mormon to be false, but I still highly respect the BoM and what it teaches. Just because you disagree/disbelieve something, doesn't mean you should treat it as utter trash.

By definition, if I don't believe in it, I don't think it's fact. If it isn't fact, what's left? Would calling it fiction better suit your sensibilities?

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

The word of God, as written by people. And poeple damn well can be wrong. Believe me, no matter how prefect God is, human beings will find a way to take God's work and *&^@# it up.

I agree.

Well, just look at the planet.

Suppose for example the Abrahamic God is the one correct one, and take that as fact for the sake of argument.

Well, look how many religions exist today who believe in that God, but have wildly different, contradictory views about it. There are millions of unique viewpoints. He's a controversial God, and all opinions (key word) about this God (i.e. discrete religions) are probably not 100% true, as there seems to be only one objective reality.

So, if indeed there is one God, and reality doesn't change, only one (or none) of these viewpoints or opinions is correct, even assuming that there is just that one God.

And all those separate viewpoints? Because people cannot agree to a large extent and everyone tells the story a little differently. Even accepting the source as fact, people intervening has demonstrably and incontrovertibly messed things up.

Definitely not out of line to call these faiths opinions, as such. If one believes they are all factual, that implies we all occupy our own discrete realities with our own discrete Gods.

At that point, all facts become opinions. No matter what, religious views need to be classified as opinion, because they are, and they can't even be proven as factual. That's why it exists outside the realm of science. There's no test which can disprove God.

 

[Algeroth]

I'm glad SOMEONE is.

Bible doesn't mention this happening on the ark, so this does the following:

1. Makes stuff up out of thin air
2. Requires magic
3. Is the same thing as saying "God did it".

Why not just say "God did it" whenever I have a criticism of anything in the Bible? Why attempt to give any other answer, when you always have to fall back on "I dunno, God must have done it somehow!"

Bible also doesn't mention Jesus defecating. Normal person would explode after 30-something years on nondefacting, jesus would have to explode. But you know what? God did it! ....and made a miracle of not-writing everything in the bible.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

It gave me a pleasant sense of self righteousness knowing that I had won on my terms, but, frankly, winning on my terms achieved nothing.

It is impossible to win on their terms when their terms are "I always win".

I believe that only a minority of creationists would change their minds based on reading your posts in this thread.

This thread isn't for proving evolution, that's already been done beyond a shadow of a doubt. This thread is and opportunity for creationists to back up their claims with some form of evidence or logical argument to prove their beliefs aren't made up nonsense. So far they have provided nothing.

 

[Thedrin]

Firstly sorry for double posting, went away and found over a page worth of replies here.

Secondly as regards the bolded part especially, you're probably right if you're ashamed of self-righteousness, it's not a nice emotion (from personal experience), but if you gave proper evidence to back your case and the creationists didn't then you won full stop. There was no "on my terms" as you didn't set the terms, as winning by putting a logical and consistent arguement forward and then backing it up by evidence is a basic rule of any sort of debate or mental enquiry, it is not a situation to favour one side over another. Winning "on my terms" is something like what Dommy is doing here, taking a position and putting up arguements to defend it, and when those arguements are defeated, changing the rules and arguements to bring them back in line to suit his own conlcusion, i.e. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, if they disprove my evidence I will change it as they have cheated by using science and logic against me, when they know that GOD is bigger than both. They are just jealous that I have faith and they don't."

Instead you should feel pity for those who won't change, in that they are so insecure about their faith and position in the world that they will ignore and deny a solid mountain and evidence in order to try and push the views of a person who didn't have that evidence (and if he did I wonder would he change his text?) down everybody's throat in order to feel that they are right. If they cannot changed their opinions based on new evidence then they are in serious trouble, going forward.

I don't mind feeling self-righteous about something as long as I'm not being driven that feeling.

The key point in what I was trying to say came just after what you bolded and was highlighted by Kiwitt:

Me:
I believe that only a minority of creationists would change their minds based on reading your posts in this thread.

I recognise that AskThePizzaGuy's arguement is a good one and effective if his main aim is to convince observers that he has a sounder grasp of logic, but if the aim is to change the opinion of the person he is arguing with (as mine usually was), then it is an ineffective one. I've seen it happen occasionally as a result of such arguements, but those cases are very rare.

I don't have much formal debating experience outside of the Internet, but for me winning a debate is bringing your opponent around to your point of view (whilst using sound logic and not being deceptive), which, I believe, is a very different from how debating societies view winning.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Bible also doesn't mention Jesus defecating. Normal person would explode after 30-something years on nondefacting, jesus would have to explode. But you know what? God did it! ....and made a miracle of not-writing everything in the bible.

Bible does mention who begats who, and mentions the intimate details of the lives of non-prophets and non-Gods, but forgets to mention the miracle of unlimited food and vanishing poo aboard the Ark?

I'm.... almost certain Noah would have mentioned it. It's not exactly like passing gas, someone is going to notice even if they are mentally challenged.

I don't have much formal debating experience outside of the Internet, but for me winning a debate is bringing your opponent around to your point of view (whilst using sound logic and not being deceptive), which, I believe, is a very different from how debating societies view winning.

With certain people, there is no method of convincing them. It isn't Domination's views I wish to change, it is impossible to reason with him. Reason doesn't reach a person whose mind is made up before the facts are in, who rejects new facts, who disputes all evidence that goes against his viewpoint, who denies anything which contradicts his opinion.

There is nothing I could do or say to change that kind of mind.

No, you can't convince everyone, nor should you try to. The only person capable of changing Dommy's mind is Dommy, and he's perfectly fine to stand pat and do nothing as the walls of his opinion fortress are being pummeled by the cannonballs of reasoning.

When the walls are all crumbled down to the ground, and its obvious to everyone else that they have been torn down and are in ruin, but the master of the castle refuses to acknowledge that, that's not the fault of the cannon, or the balls. Those weapons work just fine.

The walls have been torn down, but denial remains. Faith can sometimes lead to the conscious and intentional denial of reality. The emperor has no clothes. The fortress has no walls.

Perhaps the soldiers will realize this before it is too late. If the emperor can't accept what's happening, perhaps others will.

 

[Berzerker]

So your response to another poster completely demolishing your POV is that they're wrong

No, my response was that he didn't address anything I said and instead used me to launch a stupid rant against someone else. Now what was my POV?

He did destroy what you were quoted by him as saying (i.e. your actual words) and from memory (which is good enough for the arguement if not direct quoting) it has been your whole point all along, and this quote from Tacitiustis (Sp?) post you're arguing is wrong, neatly spells out the logical fallacy inherent in both your arguement and the world-view of YECcers in general: " So one data point can be picked to support your idea, but the scientific consensus that is formed from many data points can be safely ignored."

Quote me and show how his post had anything to do with what I said. I'm not a YEC and I argued against the idea of a world covering flood (and I didn't even mention evolution). Back that BS up!

As long as the data supports your arguement, in other words, it's ok but when it goes against it it's bad. This has been your argument style all along, to claim your one or two anecdotes as conclusive proof and then turn around and claim the whole mountain of actual eviedence is both fallacious and inconclusive.

All I said was the I didn't think the Flood covered the world and that the Bible describes a tsunami and a couple theories as to what may have caused it.

So there we have it; a complete and thorough evaluation of the available evidence to put together a theory which best fits that evidence is beaten by a hybuttesis which examines none of the evidence and explains none of the facts simply because someone thousands of years ago wrote a fable based on what he thought god was telling him. Brilliant arguement just brilliant, worthy of such a cunning person as:

Spoiler :

Link to video.
And I don't mean Edmund Blackadder.

And now you've used me to launch your own clueless rant Do I have any leeway with the mods to express what I think of these clowns? Oops, too late.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

And now you've used me to launch your own clueless rant Do I have any leeway with the mods to express what I think of these clowns? Oops, too late.

I'm sorry but please stop trying to accuse of others what you continuously do yourself. It's not clever, pretty or likely to win you an arguement. That is all I've left to say on the matter.

 

[Berzerker]

What is my POV? You make accusations and runaway when asked to back them up, thats chickencrap.

 

[Arakhor]

This isn't helping, gentlemen.

 

[Berzerker]

I agree, if y'all wonder why "creationists" dont show up en force to defend their views, I can explain why and I dont even qualify as a creationist to them.

 

[Arakhor]

I think we've pretty much established why anyway, but please, be my guest.