|
Author
|
Topic: How can "Creationism" be supported?
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
Off-topic invitation.
Hi, Ray. In the Circle of the Earth thread, simple is explaining his theory that God flies around in a flying saucer. I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on that.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Heading towards the topic.
The topic Ray is how can Biblical Creationism be supported? Do you have anything to contribute that discussion.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
I think Ray has answered the question. As he demonstrates, creationism can be supported by windy meaningless pseudophilosophical babbling, childish logical fallacies, making up lies about your opponents' position, gabbling nonsense, hiding from the evidence, ignoring science, and declaring creationism to be right over and over again as though saying it would eventually make it true. Of course, when I say supported, y'know, I don't mean justified. But this really is the best they can do. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Does this apply to evolution as well? Of course. The fact that creationism is wrong doesn't in itself imply that evolution is correct. The evidence does. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3068 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
Message 20 of 32 (426831)
10-08-2007 9:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
10-08-2007 5:19 PM
|
|
Re: Heading towards the topic.
The topic Ray is how can Biblical Creationism be supported?
Do you have anything to contribute that discussion. In a previous topic I argued that Creationism is supported scientifically by the overwhelming observation of design seen in nature. Of course the entire claim is based upon the assumption that 'observation' is the cornerstone of science and the logic that design indicates invisible Designer. In reply, I might add, evolutionists special plead: design does not indicate invisible Designer. So in this respect the evolutionists and their counterintuitive "logic" best correspond to Young Earth Creationism belief that appearance of great age does not indicate great age, more special pleading. This is why I am an Old Earth Creationist-Designist (but accept a young biosphere). Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 17 by jar, posted 10-08-2007 5:19 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by jar, posted 10-08-2007 10:06 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Heading towards the topic.
In a previous topic I argued that Creationism is supported scientifically by the overwhelming observation of design seen in nature. However how do you differentiate between the appearance of design and design?
In reply, I might add, evolutionists special plead: design does not indicate invisible Designer. Can you support that assertion? First you need to show design, don't you? If it is possible to explain what is seen without some imagined designer, why insert one? So far all you are doing is making unsupported assertions. Where is the model that supports your assertions? The current models explain what is seen without resorting to some imaginary designer. What is the model that explains what is seen BETTER than the existing models?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Cold Foreign Object
Suspended Member (Idle past 3068 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: 11-21-2003
|
|
|
Message 22 of 32 (426844)
10-08-2007 10:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
10-08-2007 10:06 PM
|
|
Re: Heading towards the topic.
However how do you differentiate between the appearance of design and design? Straightforward logic says there is no difference.
Can you support that assertion? Evolutionists do not agree that design indicates invisible Designer.
First you need to show design, don't you? You already agreed that the appearance of design exists. Ray
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 21 by jar, posted 10-08-2007 10:06 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 23 by jar, posted 10-08-2007 10:18 PM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied | | | Message 24 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-09-2007 1:02 AM | | Cold Foreign Object has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Heading towards the topic.
Straightforward logic says there is no difference. That is simply an assertion. Do you have any support?
Evolutionists do not agree that design indicates invisible Designer. But you have not shown design or that design requires a designer?
You already agreed that the appearance of design exists. No, I asked how you could support the assertion that the appearance of design equals design. AbE: Ray The topic is related to methodology. How do you develop models that support your assertions? Edited by jar, : add hint towards the topic.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Heading towards the topic.
Straightforward logic says there is no difference. This is, of course, rubbish. "Straightforward logic" says that there is in fact a difference between two different things.
Evolutionists do not agree that design indicates invisible Designer. Because of course it does not. For example, the fact that a bicycle is designed does not imply that it has an invisible designer. The designer of a bicycle is, invariably, visible. Also, he exists.
You already agreed that the appearance of design exists. Yes, we agree that you've been fooled. Do go on. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 25 of 32 (431120)
10-29-2007 12:41 PM
|
|
|
Bump in the hope there is a Type 2 Creationist
Bumping this topic in the hope that there is a Creationist that can actually provide models that support Creationism.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 26 of 32 (431176)
10-29-2007 5:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
10-29-2007 12:41 PM
|
|
Re: Bump in the hope there is a Type 2 Creationist
I've been waiting for years for one (model).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by jar, posted 10-29-2007 12:41 PM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 27 by jar, posted 11-01-2007 9:11 PM | | bluescat48 has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Is there any hope a Biblical Creationist will ever step up
It sure would be nice if we ever saw a Biblical Creationist actually stepped up and presented a model that was not simply Special Pleading or if one of the many who have only Special Pleading would just admit it and not try to pretend they are using science, but I guess that is too much to hope for.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 10-29-2007 5:33 PM | | bluescat48 has replied |
|
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4210 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: 10-06-2007
|
|
|
Message 28 of 32 (431855)
11-02-2007 1:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
11-01-2007 9:11 PM
|
|
Re: Is there any hope a Biblical Creationist will ever step up
my view entirely
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by jar, posted 11-01-2007 9:11 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 29 of 32 (432650)
11-07-2007 3:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 25 by jar
10-29-2007 12:41 PM
|
|
seeking creation model
Jar: Bumping this topic in the hope that there is a Creationist that can actually provide models that support Creationism. Bumpity bump bump, bumpity ay! My oh my, what a creoless day! Plenty of nuthin' headin' our way! Bumpity bump bump, bumpity ay!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by jar, posted 10-29-2007 12:41 PM | | jar has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 31 by Phat, posted 11-19-2007 2:12 PM | | Archer Opteryx has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 32 (434976)
11-18-2007 12:44 PM
|
|
|
Bump for Beretta or any other Creationist.
This is the place where you can help Biblical Creationists, if anywhere. The issue is pretty much laid out in Message 1 and the methods needed are outlined in:
Type 1 If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted. Type 2 A second possible method they could use is to present a series of models that explain what is seen better than the current models, and then actually subject those models to examination through the peer review system. The models though must be demonstrable and explain things even better than the existing models, and should they call on some magic trick like “insert miracle here” they must actually be ready to support with evidence such an incident, or if God is involved, be ready to place God on exhibit to be tested and verified. Type 3 There is a third tactic we often see, but it is flawed and irrelevant right from the beginning and so should simply be rejected, perhaps with a chuckle, as soon as it is entered. That tactic is to try to attack the existing models. Those that use such a tactic thinking it advances the Creationist position should just be dismissed, hopefully with an explanation that even if the TOE, as an example, were shown to be totally wrong, it would in no way add support or validity to any other competing position. The fact that one might be wrong does not imply that the other might be right. Although it is necessary for you to understand the reasoning for most folk just laughing at the Type 3 attempts, and accepting the Type 1 defense as reasonable but certainly not scientific, it is in the area of Type 2 methodology that there is ANY hope for Biblical Creationism ever being taken seriously. Please take the time and read carefully what is included in the OP. Unless you can present a Type 2 argument you have nothing of any worth.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
™ Version 4.2