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

[Contagious Cure]

geodesic42

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.

Then it's not part of science. It's probably a scientist mocking such unfounded beliefs in his own spare unscientific time.

Science can't test the supernatural because the supernatural isn't necessarily bound to rules of predictability, probability or any sort of particular laws which allow for others to re-create the experiment for verification.

[Ejak]

An entry fee of 5k? That may not be much to you guys but it takes me a while to get that much. If you lowered the entry fee, I'm sure you would have more fun. Not that the fee is stopping people from posting their arguments now. Are you even allowed to do this in the first place?

And even If I had 5k (and didn't know ID is crap) I wouldn't try. You guys are master debaters! ...and cunning linguists too!


I suggest you make a thread for challengers to discredit or disprove (The Scientific Theory of Biological) Evolution instead. Creationists do have more arguments prepared against evolution than for ID, so you will get more gold responses from the tards creationist debaters. ^.^

[Daumier]

This just in: Evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers. If evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers, then evolution is full of holes. And if evolution is full of holes, then God exists and created all life on earth. I win. Money plz.

[Overlord484]

I think I hear crickets.

[Ejak]

Daumier

This just in: Evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers. If evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers, then evolution is full of holes. And if evolution is full of holes, then God exists and created all life on earth. I win. Money plz.

Yoo has to pae entry fee foist. 3nodding

[geodesic42]

Contagious Cure

geodesic42

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.

Then it's not part of science. It's probably a scientist mocking such unfounded beliefs in his own spare unscientific time.

Science can't test the supernatural because the supernatural isn't necessarily bound to rules of predictability, probability or any sort of particular laws which allow for others to re-create the experiment for verification.

Ghosts. Supernatural, right? Many claim to have seen them. Seeing them requires an interaction of light with the fundamental constituents of the ghost. Since light interacts with it, it must have electronic substructure. We should thus be able to probe ghosts using whatever means we can probe anything else with electronic structure.

Many things we like to think of as 'supernatural' actually can't be without necessarily leading to an inconsistency with the behavior of 'natural' things.

Edit: dug up an old post to be more precise since I don't feel like reproducing my same argument ad infinitum.
"Seeing something implies one's photoreceptors at the back on the eyes receive the photons (re-)emitted from an electrically charged entity. This is a physical process that is well described. If one person can see something, someone else should be able to see it since the mechanism for vision will be the same for both observers, or, if it's just outside the visible spectrum for one person, it should be detectable by equipment. Moreover, I want to emphasize that the interaction of light with the entity forces it to be electrically charged, making the entity something detectable using the same methods with which we can probe anything with electronic structure."

[S3C-Pastor Matt]

Katherine1

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

Ambiogenesis from God's perspective is logical. God is from everlasting to everlasting. God creates everything. Man is formed in God's image, God allows sin so that people can choose their idols or God. God sends his one and only son to restore those living under sin back to him through faith. In the end, the Earth is destroyed, and the believers go into eternity to live with God forever.

Ambiogenesis from an evolutionary standpoint seems to miss the main ingredients. It isn't repeatable, even to scale; isn't observable; is prone to bias so its questionably empirical.


I'm a solid creationist and I don't believe for one second that anyone could convince any of you that God exists.


You ask for proof, but grace from God comes through faith in Christ crucified for sin.

All creation speaks to the glory of God, but that is by faith

[VoijaRisa]

Dyne the Omni

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.

Why is that a problem with evolution? Why does it need to explain where life came from any more than the theory of gravity need explain where mass comes from, or child development theory where children come from?

This is a silly double standard.

Dyne the Omni

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

Life likely came from the self assembly of pre-biotic molecules. It has been clearly demonstrated via the Miller-Urey experiments that such molecules are able to spontaneously arise, as well as the fact that they are common throughout the universe. From there, all you need for natural selection to take over is one that becomes self replicating. Thus, although we don't have every step observationally confirmed, we do have several, which is far more than the notion of tossing your hands in the air and saying "Goddidit".

Dyne the Omni

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.

The sentence makes perfect sense if you truly understand what I mean by creationism. Creationism is not the same as theism, which is the general belief in a higher power. Creationism is the explicit belief that we are the intentional product of a divine creator and that there is scientific evidence to support this. This is the position by creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries, the Discovery Institute, etc....

I don't mean to imply that belief in a higher power in general is stupid, but rather, to think that scientific evidence (or any sort of logical evidence at all) exists is stupid. If any Creationist would like to challenge this assertion and present some that isn't baseless, I'd like to see it. I've been waiting 6 years for it and we we will gladly reward >9 million gold to anyone that can do it.

Dyne the Omni

The important thing to do is to remember that there are simply opinions, nothing more.

If opinions stayed as opinions, I'd have no problem with it. But Creationists are trying to assert them as scientific truths and worm their way into the scientific arena, thereby destroying the methodological naturalism that makes science actually function. That's something.

Daumier

This just in: Evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers. If evolution cannot explain push-and-turn medicine tablet containers, then evolution is full of holes. And if evolution is full of holes, then God exists and created all life on earth. I win. Money plz.

I realize this is a parody, but the sad truth is that I've actually seen a creationist argue Evolution is wrong because it doesn't explain gravity.

[Contagious Cure]

geodesic42

Contagious Cure

geodesic42

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.

Then it's not part of science. It's probably a scientist mocking such unfounded beliefs in his own spare unscientific time.

Science can't test the supernatural because the supernatural isn't necessarily bound to rules of predictability, probability or any sort of particular laws which allow for others to re-create the experiment for verification.

Ghosts. Supernatural, right? Many claim to have seen them. Seeing them requires an interaction of light with the fundamental constituents of the ghost. Since light interacts with it, it must have electronic substructure. We should thus be able to probe ghosts using whatever means we can probe anything else with electronic structure.

Many things we like to think of as 'supernatural' actually can't be without necessarily leading to an inconsistency with the behavior of 'natural' things.

Edit: dug up an old post to be more precise since I don't feel like reproducing my same argument ad infinitum.
"Seeing something implies one's photoreceptors at the back on the eyes receive the photons (re-)emitted from an electrically charged entity. This is a physical process that is well described. If one person can see something, someone else should be able to see it since the mechanism for vision will be the same for both observers, or, if it's just outside the visible spectrum for one person, it should be detectable by equipment. Moreover, I want to emphasize that the interaction of light with the entity forces it to be electrically charged, making the entity something detectable using the same methods with which we can probe anything with electronic structure."

Claiming to see ghosts is a lot different from actually seeing a ghost. Do you really want me to go through all the implications that come with the analysis of ghosts in the context of science by their traditional and mainstream definitions? Or would you rather just drop this incredibly weak line you're holding onto? Because logically, all you have is the argument from ignorance to conclude the actual existence of ghosts or the supernatural; because I doubt you can disprove every possible scientific explanation or potential for scientific explanation for such claims.

[mitoguard]

Adding a coco kitty and a Guitar of Demona to the rewards pool if it hasn't already closed.

[VoijaRisa]

mitoguard

Adding a coco kitty and a Guitar of Demona to the rewards pool if it hasn't already closed.

There's this magical thing. It's called the edit button. wink

[geodesic42]

Contagious Cure

geodesic42

Contagious Cure

geodesic42

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.

Then it's not part of science. It's probably a scientist mocking such unfounded beliefs in his own spare unscientific time.

Science can't test the supernatural because the supernatural isn't necessarily bound to rules of predictability, probability or any sort of particular laws which allow for others to re-create the experiment for verification.

Ghosts. Supernatural, right? Many claim to have seen them. Seeing them requires an interaction of light with the fundamental constituents of the ghost. Since light interacts with it, it must have electronic substructure. We should thus be able to probe ghosts using whatever means we can probe anything else with electronic structure.

Many things we like to think of as 'supernatural' actually can't be without necessarily leading to an inconsistency with the behavior of 'natural' things.

Edit: dug up an old post to be more precise since I don't feel like reproducing my same argument ad infinitum.
"Seeing something implies one's photoreceptors at the back on the eyes receive the photons (re-)emitted from an electrically charged entity. This is a physical process that is well described. If one person can see something, someone else should be able to see it since the mechanism for vision will be the same for both observers, or, if it's just outside the visible spectrum for one person, it should be detectable by equipment. Moreover, I want to emphasize that the interaction of light with the entity forces it to be electrically charged, making the entity something detectable using the same methods with which we can probe anything with electronic structure."

Claiming to see ghosts is a lot different from actually seeing a ghost. Do you really want me to go through all the implications that come with the analysis of ghosts in the context of science by their traditional and mainstream definitions? Or would you rather just drop this incredibly weak line you're holding onto? Because logically, all you have is the argument from ignorance to conclude the actual existence of ghosts or the supernatural; because I doubt you can disprove every possible scientific explanation or potential for scientific explanation for such claims.

Never said anything regarding the existence of ghosts. Nor did I assert anything along the lines of "ghosts aren't supernatural, therefore nothing is." I just used them as an example of how something supposedly supernatural actually isn't entirely.

And yes, I would love to see you go through "all the implications that come with the analysis of ghosts in the context of science blah blah yap yap." It would appear I'm irritating you. I call your bluff - show how weak my 'line' is. Your first line of duty: go learn quantum electrodynamics and explain to me how photons can be scattered and/or their fields generated in the absence of charges without leading to the violation of conservation of energy and momentum and how to incorporate this into the electroweak action. Then show me how to reconcile the new demands (if any) on the particles of the massive gauge of this action (W and Z bosons) with what's observed experimentally. The problem cascades: demanding something so simple as being able to 'see' something without that something requiring electronic substructure has huge implications for many studies of the 'natural.'

Note to those familiar with principles in above paragraph: I'm aware the electromagnetic details could be tackled classically (after all, the classical field would need a new interaction term), I mostly just wanted to show the implications this has in other well-documented natural phenomena (weak interactions).

Now if you want to work form the perspective that you can't see ghosts, that's fine. But guess what: my previous argument assaulted the assertion ghosts can be seen and are still yet untestable by scientific methods. If we let it be a person's soul, the argument becomes more complicated and I refuse to post another page about this nonsense, but that places demands on the behavior of natural entities as well. The shared trait of both problems: if you let the ethereal interact at all with the physical it's going to place demands on the behavior of physical reality in some way shape or form. The only real way to isolate it entirely is to not have it interact with 'natural' things, in which case why would it have anything to do with us or be interesting at all?

[TheAlmightyBeanDip]

You can use the theory about the 10th dimension to prove that there is a probability that there may be a God out there, however the 10th dimension theory isn't really all well established either...

Video

[Jaaten Syric]

TheAlmightyBeanDip

You can use the theory about the 9th dimension to prove that there is a probability that there may be a God out there, however the 9th dimension theory isn't really all well established either...

If by 'not that well established' you mean 'nonexistent' assuming you're referring to the gibberish devoid of any scientific backing I think you are... What does this have to do with our challenge to present documented, falsifiable evidence corroborating creationists' claims again?

[TheAlmightyBeanDip]

Jaaten Syric

TheAlmightyBeanDip

You can use the theory about the 9th dimension to prove that there is a probability that there may be a God out there, however the 9th dimension theory isn't really all well established either...

If by 'not that well established' you mean 'nonexistent' assuming you're referring to the gibberish devoid of any scientific backing I think you are... What does this have to do with our challenge to present documented, falsifiable evidence corroborating creationists' claims again?

I edited the previous post to include a video about the 10th dimension (9th was a typo).

Basically, once you get passed to the 7th or 8th dimension or so (don't have time to check again) you eventually get to the point where you make many parallel universes containing many things that could happen to any universe.

Because of this probability, one universe can indeed have a God (or not).

Then again, I'm not trying to prove anything, so I'm not saying that such a thing is absolute; I'm just throwing some ideas.