Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8842 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-17-2018 10:10 PM
89 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (1 member, 88 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MrTim
Post Volume:
Total: 833,839 Year: 8,662/29,783 Month: 909/1,977 Week: 47/380 Day: 47/79 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   What evidence is needed to change a creationist
Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 730 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 1 of 144 (443231)
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


In this thread I want to hear what evidences it would require to disprove creationism to our EvC creationists. This is referring specifically to the theory of special creation, creation Ex Nihilo. I am thinking of this thread like those university quizzes at the beginning of the semester where the professor is polling the class to find out what they know. I want creationists to tell, in detail, what kind of evidence they would need to show them wrong, what would convince the individual.

So please, all of our creationists, dig deep in this thought experiment and tell what it would take in the real science realm (no time machines allowed!) to convince you to re-think your position. Doesn't have to be plausible, will not be judged here. I do not want answers to these to be posted, no pile ups or criticisms. The purpose of this is to get a feel for the spectrum of the creationists on this site.

One extreme would be creationists that admit that all evidence favors evolution (in the creationist sense, cosmic, abiogenesis, common descent, etc) but say that faith holds them to the Biblical viewpoint. On the other side are people like our own Nemesis Juggernaut who remain creationists and (bravely, in my opinion) admit that evidences from genetics pose a problem. (Am not at all being sarcastic about NJ, I was impressed)

So, I want to hear exactly what evidence (if any) it would take to make you question, all or in part, the post-Morris version of creationism. A hypothetical fossil find, archeology, a discovery in cosmology, any possibility is welcome. Flood and Exodus material completely acceptable as well.

Faith and Belief?

Edited by Lithodid-Man, : Added detail, thread was promoted while editing!


"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by tesla, posted 12-25-2007 10:01 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 4 by pelican, posted 12-30-2007 10:07 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 5 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 10:12 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 10:58 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 12 by Force, posted 12-31-2007 8:33 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2007 9:42 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 18 by Aquilegia753, posted 01-01-2008 8:42 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 22 by eternityfirst, posted 01-01-2008 11:12 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 32 by TheDarin, posted 01-04-2008 10:45 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Chiroptera, posted 01-04-2008 11:28 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 34 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-05-2008 2:14 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Volunteer, posted 01-08-2008 12:33 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Volunteer, posted 01-10-2008 5:55 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 51 by Volunteer, posted 01-11-2008 1:28 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 64 by ThreeDogs, posted 01-15-2008 10:25 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Brad McFall, posted 01-23-2008 6:15 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 89 by pelican, posted 01-27-2008 8:59 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded
 Message 109 by Buckfan328, posted 05-13-2008 5:19 PM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

    
AdminPhat
Administrator
Posts: 1858
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-03-2004


Message 2 of 144 (443233)
12-24-2007 3:50 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
tesla
Member (Idle past 1856 days)
Posts: 1198
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 3 of 144 (443479)
12-25-2007 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


evidence
prove to me, that we do not exist. creationalism is not only a religeos theory. the state of existing proves that something was before what is.

science has proven that all the universe and earth were formed. although science can see some of the how, it cannot produce one theory in the "why".

tell me, why does anything exist?
explain to me: what makes existance possible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 4 of 144 (444795)
12-30-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


prove what is true
In proving creationists wrong, wouldn't there have to be opposing evidence that is correct? That would convince me.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 5 of 144 (444889)
12-31-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


since there are all kinds of creationists, there are all kinds of evidence that would be required for different ones. for some (the six day, flood, dinosaurs didn't exist but were put in the ground by satan types, the evidence is already there. they choose to ignore it.

for some, who accept science but think there may just be someone behind all of it, the evidence will never exist because god doesn't work in neon signs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 6 of 144 (444896)
12-31-2007 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


It's almost impossible to change the beliefs of a die-hard Creationist. It does happen from time to time, but we're dealing with a mindset specifically set up to deny that the sky is blue if it disagrees with religious teaching. "If the evidence disagrees with the Bible, the evidence is wrong."

The mountain of evidence disproving 6-day Creation or a young Earth is under constant "attack," with fundamentalists arguing that the evidence is a lie from Satan (or even God as a test of faith), or the typical arguments from ignorance because they simply don't comprehend the evidence. Some even disregard the evidence because of intellectual laziness - the Bible story is just "easier to believe."

I mean, we're talking about a group of people here who choose the stone age mythology of a tiny sect of monotheists over observational evidence and logical inference tested repeatedly in laboratories. Because the stone age mythology is "easier to understand."

Apparently "ease of understanding" is more important than factual accuracy. Hear that, University students? Forget the Periodic Table of the Elements - sure, it's a highly effective and accurate model of the basic building blocks of matter, but it's hard to understand and remember! The old elements, Earth, Air, Fire and Water are all we should believe in! Because it's easier!

Our arguments here at EvC and elsewhere are typically not intended to sway an actual Creationist. Rather, the point is to dismantle their arguments over and over again and show the silent lurkers who may be sitting on the fence which side has the weight of evidence, and which side has the weight of a collection of old books that essentially amount to a self-contradictory fairy tale.

The rare occasion where a Creationist is actually swayed typically stems from pointing out the gaps in that person's knowledge. Let's face it, typical High School educations are woefully insufficient for really understanding scientific principles like Evolution, Cosmology or Geology. The reason we have to respond to PRATTs so frequently is that Creationists are constantly lied to, and don't understand enough of the science themselves to comprehend why it's wrong. How many times have we seen Creationists who honestly think that the Theory of Evolution predicts that we should find weird half-bull, half-frog chimeras evolving? Or dogs evolving into cats, or lizards, over the course of as little as a few generations? When the actual Theory of Evolution and its actual predictions are explained to a Creationist who's actually listening and is intelligent enough to comprehend what they're being told, sometimes we can make progress and penetrate the ignorance and the strawmen.

Other times, faith in the Bible/Koran/etc needs to be shaken. The vast majority of those who believe the Bible is literally true have never even read it. The vast majority of those who believe the Bible is an excellent moral guide have never even read it. Is it any surprise that they don't go over the contradictions or ethically disturbing parts in Sunday School? If a Creationist bases his belief on a perfectly literal Bible, showing him the textual history of the books that make it up (with all of the translational errors and other changes that we can actually read, because we have the conflicting versions and can see exactly how the text changed over time) can break the belief in infallibility enough to allow consideration of real evidence. (I was never a Creationist, but my Christianity was eventually dissolved through educating myself about the real history of the books of the Bible, and examining its stories against evidence from the real world regarding things like the Flood.)

These are the things I've seen that can actually convince a Creationist (or the fence-sitters, who are far more often the real targets of the debate). Those like our friend tesla, who say things like "prove we don't exist," are unlikely to be convinced by anything external. Until individuals like him accept that "why" is irrelevant with regard to determining the facts of Cosmology, Geology, and Biology, until they accept that experimentally verified predictions and observational evidence trump the stories they were told as children, it is highly unlikely we can ever change their minds.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-31-2007 11:30 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 12-31-2007 8:05 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1727 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 7 of 144 (444905)
12-31-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rahvin
12-31-2007 10:58 AM


*clears throat*

henotheists. they are not and have never been monotheists. christians, too. they think they are, but they're not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 10:58 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19509
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 8 of 144 (444949)
12-31-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


dealing with the wall
In this thread I want to hear what evidences it would require to disprove creationism to our EvC creationists.

By definition this would be evidence that would be rejected as false by the hardened creationist. Cognitive dissonance will set in and the creationist will either

(1) change the subject - common
(2) accuse you of lying - less common, but happens often enough
(3) disappear from the argument (while telling themselves they won -- see NJ & Buzz on the Pattern recognition thread) - also common
(4) move the goal-posts (a variation of (1)) where they try to redefine the argument - also common

When it comes to actually confronting the evidence on the other side of their cognitive dissonance wall people become functionally stupid, because they are not able to fit the information into their world view. Not only that, they don't see the wall.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : lixed fink

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 12-31-2007 7:16 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 10 by jar, posted 12-31-2007 7:19 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 61 by theLimmitt, posted 01-15-2008 10:11 AM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17325
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 9 of 144 (445005)
12-31-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-31-2007 2:26 PM


Re: dealing with the wall
Did you possibly place markers for links in your post which you intended to fill in later and then forgot?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30405
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 10 of 144 (445006)
12-31-2007 7:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-31-2007 2:26 PM


Re: dealing with the wall
Forgot to close the first link.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2007 2:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1090 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 11 of 144 (445010)
12-31-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Rahvin
12-31-2007 10:58 AM


Rahvin writes:


It's almost impossible to change the beliefs of a die-hard Creationist. It does happen from time to time, but we're dealing with a mindset specifically set up to deny that the sky is blue if it disagrees with religious teaching. "If the evidence disagrees with the Bible, the evidence is wrong."


Which is why I'm a firm believer of tackling the core of the problem and not the outer surface. All the evidence and all the sciences/pseudo-sciences are just the outer surface of the problem. The core of the problem is one of conscience versus evil. If the person can be convinced of the evils of christianity, the person will ultimately change his mind in regard to creationism.

I speak from experience.


Owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have occasionally used the academic jargon generator to produce phrases that even I don't fully understand. The jargons are not meant to offend anyone or to insult anyone's intelligence!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 12-31-2007 10:58 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Force
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 144 (445011)
12-31-2007 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


LM,

In order to disprove creationism to creationists you first have to bypass the communication barrier between evolutionists and creationists. I will agree that we do have alot of halfbreed folk(theist,etc) but typically creationists do not understand Science. So, I think, if creationists did understand Science they would not accept creationism. If creationists only understood that Science is not trying to disprove creationism but however it is disproving creationism. I also think that the bulk of creationists believe in spirits/gods and think that if they accept the evidence of evolution they are sinning in some way or another. Perhaps this idea is esoteric but I have a question for creationists. If evolution is true then what causes the spirtual realm to diminish? Maybe the spiritual realm is also evolutionary?

P.S. I also speak from experience.

Edited by tthzr3, : edit

Edited by tthzr3, : clarity

Edited by tthzr3, : clarity

Edited by tthzr3, : questions for thought


Thank you
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Volunteer, posted 01-22-2008 11:17 AM Force has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 144 (445022)
12-31-2007 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Lithodid-Man
12-24-2007 3:33 AM


A Whole Lot
Lithodid writes:

I want to hear exactly what evidence (if any) it would take to make you question, all or in part, the post-Morris version of creationism.

1. Falsify all the fulfilled Biblical prophecies. LOL!
2. Falsify the fact that God reveals himself to those of us who acknowledge him. According to the Bible he draws near to and reveals himself in manifold ways to those who draw to and acknowledge him.
3. Have your secularist researchers go to Nuweiba Beach at Aqaba and falsify the alleged chariot wheels encased in coral as well as all the corroborating evidence in the area relative to the Biblical Exodus account.
5. Empirically account for all the design evident in the DNA, the human cell and brain logically and mathmatically relative to the mathmatical probabilities.
6. Explain why your theory can circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics relative to your contention that there was no before the BB.
7. Falsify the evidence of the supernatural relative to bo good and evil such as voodoo, the accult and such as is experienced from time to time in churches; things like exorcism, healings etc.
8. Explain the probabilities mathmatically as to how so many factors relative to life on earth just happen to be right in order for life as we observe it to exist; things like a the properties of the atmosphere etc, the location of sun and moon relative to earth, the properties of the planet's surface such as soil, water, gravity, the intensity of the sun's heat, etc, etc.
9. Verify that life began naturally void of ID, existed long enough to begin to multiply and the mathmatical probabilites of procreation of life to the extent that is observed today. I know we've been told, but nothing has come close, better than ID, yet to convince me.

I could go on and on. I realize that many of the above items are impossible for you but for me, that is just a few of what it would take for me to abandon my Buzsaw understanding of ID creationism.

Btw, many of us creationists do not agree with all the aspects of Morris's creationism.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Lithodid-Man, posted 12-24-2007 3:33 AM Lithodid-Man has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2008 3:24 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Rrhain, posted 01-01-2008 3:26 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 88 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-25-2008 6:32 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 14 of 144 (445079)
01-01-2008 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
12-31-2007 9:42 PM


Re: A Whole Lot
Buzsaw writes:

quote:
Explain why your theory can circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics relative to your contention that there was no before the BB.

Huh? What does evolution have to do with the creation of the universe?

Be specific, Buzsaw. Why does evolution depend upon the the creation of the universe happening in a specific way?

You don't need to provide an explanation regarding how to derive the First Law from first principles as I have done for the Second Law. Instead, all you need to do is show that evolution is dependent upon the Big Bang.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2007 9:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 15 of 144 (445081)
01-01-2008 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
12-31-2007 9:42 PM


Re: A Whole Lot
Buzsaw writes:

quote:
Verify that life began naturally void of ID

Huh? What does the origin of life have to do with evolution?

Be specific, Buzsaw. Are you saying god can't create life that evolves?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 12-31-2007 9:42 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Lithodid-Man, posted 01-01-2008 4:34 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018