A Challenge to Creationists (worth >11,000,000 gold!)

[Katherine1]

The point of this thread is that Creationists claim that there is scientific evidence for their beliefs. We are simply calling their bluff.

[geodesic42]

To actually draw more participants, I'd accept it as a win if they showed in a gedanken experiment that logic mandated creationism to be true - nothing empirical needed. This would relax the criteria and stop the posts about the inherent inconsistency of creationism and science (although I suppose the primary objective of demonstrating creation science is thus met as it is). I'd wager what I have (granted it's not much) that this cannot be done without logical fallacies.

But then again, we'd have to endure assertions referencing a beginning to time and infinitely more strawman points...what an impasse.

[xXJack of SpadesXx]

I'd try but all I have is negative arguments neutral

[Feyre]

I do not believe in creationism, in fact I have several crushing arguments few ever use against it, but can I win the prize as well?

[Lexenos]

AcursedVandersnow

Prove to me scientifically that god doesn't exist.

Your post has already been picked apart, so I'll not do it again. But I do have this to say: YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. Asking someone to do so is fallacious.

[xXJack of SpadesXx]

Feyre

I do not believe in creationism, in fact I have several crushing arguments few ever use against it, but can I win the prize as well?

I know a few holes in the evolution theory as well. But holes in the evolution theory don't prove creationism.

[geodesic42]

Post deleted: in retrospect, I'd rather not have this thread turn into a rapid fire "no, you're wrong!" ordeal.

[Feyre]

xXJack of SpadesXx

Feyre

I do not believe in creationism, in fact I have several crushing arguments few ever use against it, but can I win the prize as well?

I know a few holes in the evolution theory as well. But holes in the evolution theory don't prove creationism.

You don't know a single that disproves it.
I'm talking about evidence against creationism.

[A Confused Iguana]

geodesic42

Post deleted: in retrospect, I'd rather not have this thread turn into a rapid fire "no, you're wrong!" ordeal.

It was a cute idea but it changing the rules along the way is bad form. And I really don't feel like wading through thought experiments: evidence is nice and clean.

[Dyne the Omni]

To be honest, I just want to see how he describes the beginning of life on this planet.

The problem with Darwinism, and thus this challenge, is that it doesn't describe the beginning; it simply states that animals, including humans, evolve. They ones that are best suited for the environment live will survive and reproduce. The one's that are not die off. Meanwhile Creationist theories describe the beginning of the life. This challenge is like asking someone to prove that early African tribal music is better then 19th century composers. Just simply doesn't make sense.

So I ask you, VoijaRisa. Since you are so clearly against any higher power theory, how do you describe the beginning of life on this planet, and support it.

VoijaRisa

It's a standing challenge to highlight the ineptitude of Creationists to defend their own stupidity.

Wait am I understanding this correctly? It's stupid to believe in a higher power? Or is it merely stupid to try and convince other's that your beliefs are correct? I am having a hard time understanding that sentence.

Before I head out, there are some people who are fanatical about their beliefs, and will go to any lengths to defend them. The important thing to do is to remember that there are simply opinions, nothing more.

[Katherine1]

Dyne the Omni

To be honest, I just want to see how he describes the beginning of life on this planet.

The problem with Darwinism, and thus this challenge, is that it doesn't describe the beginning; it simply states that animals, including humans, evolve. They ones that are best suited for the environment live will survive and reproduce. The one's that are not die off. Meanwhile Creationist theories describe the beginning of the life. This challenge is like asking someone to prove that early African tribal music is better then 19th century composers. Just simply doesn't make sense.

So I ask you, VoijaRisa. Since you are so clearly against any higher power theory, how do you describe the beginning of life on this planet, and support it.

VoijaRisa

It's a standing challenge to highlight the ineptitude of Creationists to defend their own stupidity.

Wait am I understanding this correctly? It's stupid to believe in a higher power? Or is it merely stupid to try and convince other's that your beliefs are correct? I am having a hard time understanding that sentence.

Before I head out, there are some people who are fanatical about their beliefs, and will go to any lengths to defend them. The important thing to do is to remember that there are simply opinions, nothing more.

First of all, Evolution doesn't need to describe the origin of life, as there are other scientific theories that try to explain it.

Secondly. I will say it again. This is a challenge based on the creationist claim that there is scientific evidence for their beliefs.

[Caelyprise]

Oh, how I WISH I could successfully argue this.

Unfortunately Creationism is by its very nation not something that can be proven unless you accept that Evolution as the guiding hand behind the system.

In any case...

Why do you taunt me so?

XD

[Contagious Cure]

Dyne the Omni

Wait am I understanding this correctly? It's stupid to believe in a higher power? Or is it merely stupid to try and convince other's that your beliefs are correct? I am having a hard time understanding that sentence.

No you're not. It's stupid to claim that you can use science: a study of the natural world in accordance to physical laws, to prove supernatural entities or "higher" powers.

[geodesic42]

Confused Iguanga - yeah, I wouldn't really want to wade through the garble myself. Like I said, "time began at this time" and the strawman arguments would enter a lot.

To post right above me: it's not unheard of for science, physics in particular, to knock the seemingly super off of their metaphysical pedestal and slap them in the face with reality. Not necessarily a higher power, but lots of other supernatural thing-a-ma-jigs.