The Miracles of Creationism

[Bismuthe]

Westenblum

A Lost Iguana

Silly scientists. When will stop assuming Uniformitarianism that you cannot prove? As we see in 2 Samuel 13:14, eventually we will win: that will be the fate of science. Just you wait.

"Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her." Yep, makes perfect sense. xd

It does to me. Religion will rape science. It's happened before. sad

[Mister_Greeny]

Its strange. It seems to me this thread is filling with self indulgent self proclaimed intellectuals that have nothing better to do other than mock the faith of people around the world for no reason other than to inflate their own egos. But, that is just my opinion. I say, if people are to present such evidence for evolution and against creationism, fine, but do so objectively. No need to add insult to injury.

Although, one theory of Creationism that hasn't been discussed in this thread is the one that the "Designer" (a.k.a God), knowing that man was going to be smart and scientific way ahead of time, could have created a situation on the planet that would provide a false history in order to preserve the all important "free-will" and the necessary faith for worship.

I don't personally follow this theory, but it seems to generally address the above issues. And in essence, is a very simple theory as well. Ah ha! Perhaps some unbiased information?

Of course, I myself believe in a more interesting ballet and balance of religion and science. But that is for another thread.

[Apocatastasis]

» give-up ;;

• • •

I give up. x.X
My brain is to sleepy for this. x3

[Westenblum]

Mister_Greeny

Its strange. It seems to me this thread is filling with self indulgent self proclaimed intellectuals that have nothing better to do other than mock the faith of people around the world for no reason other than to inflate their own egos. But, that is just my opinion. I say, if people are to present such evidence for evolution and against creationism, fine, but do so objectively. No need to add insult to injury.

Then you'd be wrong - you don't know us, and yet you are content to proclaim us as ego-stroking, self-indulgent quasi-intellectuals when we actually study these sciences specifically (VoijaRisa is an astronomer, myself an anthropologist).

Quote:

Although, one theory of Creationism that hasn't been discussed in this thread is the one that the "Designer" (a.k.a God), knowing that man was going to be smart and scientific way ahead of time, could have created a situation on the planet that would provide a false history in order to preserve the all important "free-will" and the necessary faith for worship.

That would make God deceitful.

Quote:

Of course, I myself believe in a more interesting ballet and balance of religion and science. But that is for another thread.

Which is all well and good, but you made the error of digging into us for supposedly bashing the faithful. We're not; we're taking creationism to task because creationists sincerely believe they have evidence to support their assertions.

[Westenblum]

Meherafraz

» give-up ;;

• • •

I give up. x.X
My brain is to sleepy for this. x3

We're not pressuring you to read this; if you're not up for it, then you can simply bide your time elsewhere. ^_^

[Siphilis]

VoijaRisa

What goes unstated with this is the unstated assumption that both possible solutions explain all of the same evidence. That means, that to even consider something as a possible alternative to evolution, Creationism must first also explain all of the same evidence.

In this thread, I will attempt to convince you that Creationism fails to even make it this far (Note: to see how I’m defining Creationism, please refer to this thread).

What I’m saying is that evolution and the rest of accepted science is able to neatly explain several observations while Creationism offers no explanation without inventing contrived answers that don’t really explain anything or untestable. In short, I will highlight several observations that Creationism fails to explain and leaves as “miracles”.

This is basically where I want to stop you. You're using some words that aren't clarified enough and leave an easy-to-fill hole for Creationists. First, you say "solution" instead of theory. In that case, a miracle is as valid an explanation for an observed phenomena as anything. Essentialy, if we're just posing a question, "Where did all this come from?" then "God did it" is just as valid as anything science can posit. I think all you can really do with this thread is prove that Creationism isn't science (or logic, but that would take just a little more time to argue). Because any of these questions can be simply answered with "God did it". I'll demonstrate.

Quote:

Plate Tectonics

For Young-Earth Creationists (who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old), the movement of plates poses a serious problem. We know that continents used to be connected because fossils of various fauna and animals found on the coast of one are found on the coast of the one it split off from.

Nope, God just put the same animal in different places.

Quote:

This is most apparent in eastern South America, which has the same fossils as western Africa.

Because that's where God wanted them.

Quote:

If the Earth is really only 6,000 years old, then the plates would not have had time to separate to their current distances and we should not expect to see these similar fossils. The observation that these separate continents have these fossils is left as a miracle.

Well yes, everything God does is a miracle.

Quote:

Some attempts have been made to solve this by saying that Noah’s flood was triggered by the releasing of reservoirs of water from under the crust.As the water welled up from the deep, it broke apart the continents and pushed them apart at a much more rapid rate in the past.

Well that's just silly. The flood occured because God made it rain a lot for a long time.

Quote:

However, this still leaves no reason for why they slowed down to the rate we would expect for the chronologically accepted age of the Earth of 4.3 billion years. This too is left as a miracle.

Of course.


Point being, it's pointless to show Creationists that all their answers rely on miracles. Of course they do, they're essentially saying "God did it". That's what Creationism is. God can do whatever he wants, no matter how inefficient or illogical it may seem. Anything you can show a Creationist is fruitless and hopeless, if they believe God did it, then they can believe He did anything for any reason. All the evidence, it's all explained by "God did that, because He wanted to."

[VoijaRisa]

Mister_Greeny

Its strange. It seems to me this thread is filling with self indulgent self proclaimed intellectuals that have nothing better to do other than mock the faith of people around the world for no reason other than to inflate their own egos

This thread doesn't mock faith. It only points out that Creationism (which is a faith) fails to meet scientific standards, or even simple logical ones.

Mister_Greeny

if people are to present such evidence for evolution and against creationism, fine, but do so objectively.

I think the OP is pretty damn objective. Showing where the failures are is straight forward. I didn't go beyond that.

Mister_Greeny

knowing that man was going to be smart and scientific way ahead of time, could have created a situation on the planet that would provide a false history in order to preserve the all important "free-will" and the necessary faith for worship

Except we all know that knowledge doesn't inhibit free will.

Siphilis

You're using some words that aren't clarified enough and leave an easy-to-fill hole for Creationists. First, you say "solution" instead of theory. In that case, a miracle is as valid an explanation for an observed phenomena as anything. Essentialy, if we're just posing a question, "Where did all this come from?" then "God did it" is just as valid as anything science can posit. I think all you can really do with this thread is prove that Creationism isn't science (or logic, but that would take just a little more time to argue). Because any of these questions can be simply answered with "God did it". I'll demonstrate.

"Goddidit" or "Magic" is never a sufficient explanation, solution, or theory.

[Siphilis]

VoijaRisa

Siphilis

You're using some words that aren't clarified enough and leave an easy-to-fill hole for Creationists. First, you say "solution" instead of theory. In that case, a miracle is as valid an explanation for an observed phenomena as anything. Essentialy, if we're just posing a question, "Where did all this come from?" then "God did it" is just as valid as anything science can posit. I think all you can really do with this thread is prove that Creationism isn't science (or logic, but that would take just a little more time to argue). Because any of these questions can be simply answered with "God did it". I'll demonstrate.

"Goddidit" or "Magic" is never a sufficient explanation, solution, or theory.

Not according to scientific or logical standards no, but I didn't get the impression from your wording in the OP that that was specifically what you were referencing. I know that's your point, but you seem to disregard that some people don't care about science or logic, and would consider "God did it" a valid answer. You shouldn't have to specify that it has to be a logical answer, but unfortunately you do. If you didn't, Creationism wouldn't exist.

[A Lost Iguana]

If you reject Uniformitarianism then Godidit is a logical answer.

[VoijaRisa]

Siphilis

I didn't get the impression from your wording in the OP that that [science and logic] was specifically what you were referencing.

Given that we're talking about Occam's razor which is a logic device, I think it was implied although, as you state, not explicitly pointed out.

[Siphilis]

VoijaRisa

Siphilis

I didn't get the impression from your wording in the OP that that [science and logic] was specifically what you were referencing.

Given that we're talking about Occam's razor which is a logic device, I think it was implied although, as you state, not explicitly pointed out.

Your wording makes it seem like you're going before Occam's Razor. That "GDI" shouldn't even get to that test because it doesn't answer scientific questions with scientific answers. My point was simple, of course not.

[Mister_Greeny]

Westenblum

Then you'd be wrong - you don't know us, and yet you are content to proclaim us as ego-stroking, self-indulgent quasi-intellectuals when we actually study these sciences specifically (VoijaRisa is an astronomer, myself an anthropologist).

That is fine. I don't doubt such qualifications of posters like Voija and yourself. What I was referring to is the snide remarks and insulting comments that have been littered throughout the thread such as "retard circus" to point out a single example. I don't like people who do that.

Quote:

That would make God deceitful.

Read the bible. (I am sure you have already) Worse things happen for the sake of faith there. *cough* Job *cough*

Quote:

Which is all well and good, but you made the error of digging into us for supposedly bashing the faithful. We're not; we're taking creationism to task because creationists sincerely believe they have evidence to support their assertions.

Ah. I understand your point. I suppose it was just a few (actually more) apples that spoiled the bunch for me. Although, I am curious, is the belief that evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth (I believe that is the most current age) is a part of the Divine Plan still considered a form of creationism?

[Mister_Greeny]

Thank you for the reply Voija, please see my above reply to Westernblum. I believe that covers what you have said.

[Westenblum]

Mister_Greeny

Ah. I understand your point. I suppose it was just a few (actually more) apples that spoiled the bunch for me. Although, I am curious, is the belief that evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth (I believe that is the most current age) is a part of the Divine Plan still considered a form of creationism?

Nah; it falls under theistic evolution, which states that God provided the initial state, and allowed evolution to proceed from there.

[VoijaRisa]

Mister_Greeny

I was referring to is the snide remarks and insulting comments that have been littered throughout the thread such as "retard circus" to point out a single example. I don't like people who do that.

Yeah. I'm a bit tetchy sometimes. I've been dealing with Creationism pretty heavily for 6 years now. I can't say I have any respect for them anymore. They have earned serious disrespect, but I don't suppose people that aren't familiar with their lies would see that. I'd suggest checking out the "Why are creationists so dishonest" thread in my profile to see just why I can't respect them anymore.

And disregard the actual title of the thread. It was more meant to get people in the thread than to be an actual insult.

Mister_Greeny

is the belief that evolution and a 4.5 billion year old earth (I believe that is the most current age) is a part of the Divine Plan still considered a form of creationism?

No. I provided a link in the OP to another thread in which I talk about the definition of Creationism (and why) more in depth, but to state it quickly, what you're referring to is what's known as "Theistic Evolution".