PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Cogent argument for Creationis
       Is there one?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Does anyone have a real argument for creationism with evidential support?

All I see in every debate between Evolutionists and Creationists is this:
The scientists supporting evolution provide evidence, and the theists supporting creationism try to disprove the evidence.

Creationists never actually give any real world evidence for their beliefs.

Scientists are constantly trying to disprove evolution, thats how science works.  That is why science is logical.  The aspects of evolution that cannot be disproven are fact.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 01:25 AM on September 20, 2005 | IP
deductive-christian

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Admittedly, I hadn't done much studying on the debate prior to jumping into it in another thread.  As I read more, one thing continues to be apparent to me:  Creation scientists ARE out there bringing their interpretation of evidence to the table.  But evolutionists so bent on defending their "faith" that they cannot consider other options, find many, many ways to discredit the work of creation scientists.  I think the attempts to discredit often fail because they sound like the person who yells louder because he wants to intimidate since he doesn't really have a position to defend.

Frankly, I find that what I read on the web (I don't have time to get to the library to keep up with all the publications that are quoted online) appears to be very cogent, appropriate, and objective in defending creation science.  When seemingly valid contradictions are exposed by creation scientists in quotations and citations from evolutionist writings, there is a rush to cry "out of context!" by evolutionist activists.  

I have read several articles on talk.origins and I find many of them very inflammatory and provocative, without a whole lot of substance.  And yet, when they are rebutted at trueorigins website, the counter-rebuttals whine that there is weak or no substantiation for the creation scientist to support his position -- even when his only "position" was to point out the poor support in the original evolutionist text being rebutted.  

Interpretations are based on inherent biases we all have.  We cannot avoid them.  For the record I was not raised in church, I have not been a Christian all of my life.  But even when I did not know God personally, I still never really accepted the plausibility of evolution as the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Once I became a Christian and heard the young-earth creationists espousing their viewpoint, I felt very much at home with that argument.  I only mention this to show that I have not had "creationism" drilled into me from day one.  But I certainly have had "evolutionism" drilled into me at every possible opportunity.  Yet, the thing that sticks out in my mind, especially as I read more in order to better debate this, is that evolutionists don't even want to acknowledge their theory's short-comings or anomalies.  Yes there are published evolutionists who breach some delicate issues, but they certainly aren't the mainstream of people out there trying to ram this thing down our throats.  It would seem to me that if evolutionists really wanted to gain trust and enthusiasm for their argument, they would present all of it, warts as well as brass rings, and advise us to make up our own minds from ALL of the issues facing the situation.  Instead, what seems apparent to me is that they want to angrily insist that we accept it, even when there are those within their own community who are saying, "whoa, wait a minute, we need to figure out how or even IF this fits the evolution paradigm."  

I would venture to say that the majority of creation scientists were once convinced that evolution was practically a natural law right up there with the laws of thermodynamics.  Something shook them, disturbed them enough to cause them to become more critical of the evolution paradigm.  And honestly, that intrigues me.  

The opposite being true, that creation scientists also leave their beliefs behind and embrace evolution, is a moot point.  It takes much much MUCH more nerve and character to choose to leave the academic mainstream to be exiled to the siberia of science - creationism.  Scientists who leave the accepted mainstream face ridicule and denial of research money.  And then the mainstream turns around and tells everyone, "hey, they can't even get published!  And gee, where's their research anyway?  If they're so sure of their position, why aren't they producing volumes of research??"  And, when they come under the umbrella of an organization that will provide them with encouragement and money and facilities, they are ridiculed again because the organizations they choose to affiliate with are scoffed at for their tainted pseudo-science and their supposed foundation in myth.

Creationists can't win except by quietly continuing their work and taking the punches.  Activist evolutionists, in my opinion, have prepared themselves very well to dodge and wiggle around uncomfortable issues, while pointing to the creation scientists and saying so loudly, "Hey, look at them!  They're up to that pseudo-science 'goddidit' stuff again!"  What a bunch of wack-o's!"  And they manage to steer clear of actually having to answer the issues directly.  Sounds like a cult to me, someone very into their religion.  Jehovah Witnesses have the same playbook.  Not a pretty sight.  


-------
boffy
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:17 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A very nice essay, Deductive Christian. Now kindly answer Roy's question and provide us the evidence.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:01 PM on September 22, 2005 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :
Admittedly, I hadn't done much studying on the debate prior to jumping into it in another thread.  As I read more, one thing continues to be apparent to me:  Creation scientists ARE out there bringing their interpretation of evidence to the table.  But evolutionists so bent on defending their "faith" that they cannot consider other options, find many, many ways to discredit the work of creation scientists.  I think the attempts to discredit often fail because they sound like the person who yells louder because he wants to intimidate since he doesn't really have a position to defend.


Scientists who waste their time denouncing creationists are crackpots anyways.  But it seems like all creationists do is try to find inconsistancies with the evolution theory.  Somehow they think discrediting evolution will make creationism magically true.

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :Frankly, I find that what I read on the web (I don't have time to get to the library to keep up with all the publications that are quoted online) appears to be very cogent, appropriate, and objective in defending creation science.  When seemingly valid contradictions are exposed by creation scientists in quotations and citations from evolutionist writings, there is a rush to cry "out of context!" by evolutionist activists.


The feelings are mutual.  Groups of scientists do the same thing to your beliefs, its just human nature.  Live with it, its not just limited to evolutionists.

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :I have read several articles on talk.origins and I find many of them very inflammatory and provocative, without a whole lot of substance.  And yet, when they are rebutted at trueorigins website, the counter-rebuttals whine that there is weak or no substantiation for the creation scientist to support his position -- even when his only "position" was to point out the poor support in the original evolutionist text being rebutted.


The job of the scientist is not to discredit prematurely.  But you can't study every little possibility.  Steps have to be taken.  Its like in math.  You can't just leap to Calculus, you have to take Algebra first.  I have already stated that i discredit professional scientists who spend their time trying to discredit other people, no matter what their beliefs.

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :Interpretations are based on inherent biases we all have.  We cannot avoid them.  For the record I was not raised in church, I have not been a Christian all of my life.  But even when I did not know God personally, I still never really accepted the plausibility of evolution as the only explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  Once I became a Christian and heard the young-earth creationists espousing their viewpoint, I felt very much at home with that argument.  I only mention this to show that I have not had "creationism" drilled into me from day one.  But I certainly have had "evolutionism" drilled into me at every possible opportunity.  Yet, the thing that sticks out in my mind, especially as I read more in order to better debate this, is that evolutionists don't even want to acknowledge their theory's short-comings or anomalies.  Yes there are published evolutionists who breach some delicate issues, but they certainly aren't the mainstream of people out there trying to ram this thing down our throats.  It would seem to me that if evolutionists really wanted to gain trust and enthusiasm for their argument, they would present all of it, warts as well as brass rings, and advise us to make up our own minds from ALL of the issues facing the situation.  Instead, what seems apparent to me is that they want to angrily insist that we accept it, even when there are those within their own community who are saying, "whoa, wait a minute, we need to figure out how or even IF this fits the evolution paradigm."


this arises from your ignorance to the subject.  i do not mean ignorance as an insult.  we all are ignorant in areas.  You do not need scientists to 'drill this into your head'.  stop asking them questions and figure them out yourself.  It seems like all you hear about evolution is what you read in the news.  How long has it been since you were in school?  Maybe you should take a few science courses.  Evolution 'fits the paradigm' in every way that we have observed.  And it will continue to do so because whenever we find an aspect of evolution that does not fit reality, it gets changed so that it does.

Show me a study of creationism that does that.

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :I would venture to say that the majority of creation scientists were once convinced that evolution was practically a natural law right up there with the laws of thermodynamics.  Something shook them, disturbed them enough to cause them to become more critical of the evolution paradigm.  And honestly, that intrigues me.


human psychology.  there have been no major discoveries like there were.  as information becomes faster, people seem to want more of it, no matter the quality.  as evolution becomes old hat, people tend to drift toward something that seems more complete, as creationism does.  But creationism is hardly credible.  If god came down tomorrow and told me otherwise i would repent but what are the probabilities of that?

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :The opposite being true, that creation scientists also leave their beliefs behind and embrace evolution, is a moot point.  It takes much much MUCH more nerve and character to choose to leave the academic mainstream to be exiled to the siberia of science - creationism.  Scientists who leave the accepted mainstream face ridicule and denial of research money.  And then the mainstream turns around and tells everyone, "hey, they can't even get published!  And gee, where's their research anyway?  If they're so sure of their position, why aren't they producing volumes of research??"  And, when they come under the umbrella of an organization that will provide them with encouragement and money and facilities, they are ridiculed again because the organizations they choose to affiliate with are scoffed at for their tainted pseudo-science and their supposed foundation in myth.


again, human psychology.  it sucks, but that happened to aristotle, galileo, so many scientists.  And it was christians that persecuted them.  Maybe that is just god giving a little justice to the world. ;)

Quote from deductive-christian at 5:17 PM on September 22, 2005 :Creationists can't win except by quietly continuing their work and taking the punches.  Activist evolutionists, in my opinion, have prepared themselves very well to dodge and wiggle around uncomfortable issues, while pointing to the creation scientists and saying so loudly, "Hey, look at them!  They're up to that pseudo-science 'goddidit' stuff again!"  What a bunch of wack-o's!"  And they manage to steer clear of actually having to answer the issues directly.  Sounds like a cult to me, someone very into their religion.  Jehovah Witnesses have the same playbook.  Not a pretty sight.  


sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.  As i have said, the kind of scientists who are really credible dont waste their time arguing with creationists unless they are directly confronted.

creationists are not scientists.

what are some of these credible creation scientists you speak of?  do you have any direct links to their theories or articles?  i would like to read them.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 01:28 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I would venture to say that the majority of creation scientists were once convinced that evolution was practically a natural law right up there with the laws of thermodynamics.  Something shook them, disturbed them enough to cause them to become more critical of the evolution paradigm.  And honestly, that intrigues me.

Not a lot of scientists rejecting evolution and accepting creationism, and none of them have done it on the strength of the evidence.  I'd like to see the testimony of one of these scientists and the evidence that caused them to become more critical of the evolution paradigm.  On the other hand, there are many reports of fundamental, creationist christians being forced to admit creationism is wrong when they study the facts.

It takes much much MUCH more nerve and character to choose to leave the academic mainstream to be exiled to the siberia of science - creationism.

Creationism is a falsified theory, there is no evidence to support it.  It is akin to denying a spherical earth supported by mainstream science and claiming the earth is flat.  So it doesn't take much more nerve, just more willful ignorance.

Scientists who leave the accepted mainstream face ridicule and denial of research money.

And yet we have all these creationist organizations supposedly supporting "creation science", aren't they supplying research money for "creation" scientists?  What new evidence have they uncovered?

And then the mainstream turns around and tells everyone, "hey, they can't even get published!  And gee, where's their research anyway?  If they're so sure of their position, why aren't they producing volumes of research??"  And, when they come under the umbrella of an organization that will provide them with encouragement and money and facilities, they are ridiculed again because the organizations they choose to affiliate with are scoffed at for their tainted pseudo-science and their supposed foundation in myth.

That's because those organizations are tainted by myth and pseudo-science.  From ICR and their list of tenets:
ICR
"1. The physical universe of space, time, matter and energy has not always existed, but was supernaturally created by a transcendent personal Creator who alone has existed from eternity."

Right there, they forfeit any claim of science!  They already have their conclusions before they look at any evidence!  This is why creationist organizations can't do science, they don't follow the scientific method, they loudly proclaim their bias, as opposed to real scientists who go where the data leads.  

Creationists can't win except by quietly continuing their work and taking the
punches.


And yet, this is not what we see in the real world.  Creationism is militantly pushed by non scientists despite the enormous benefits evolution has given us.

And I forgot to comment on this line,
that evolution was practically a natural law right up there with the laws of thermodynamics.  

Here's a good comparison of laws and theories in science:
Law/Theory
"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena."

A law will never become a theory.  In science, a theory is as high as you can go.

And in conclusion, I'll echo EntwickelnCollin and RoyLennigan, show us the evidence!


(Edited by Demon38 9/23/2005 at 01:56 AM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:53 AM on September 23, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.