Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationist Arguments

Camerondwight
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Whenever I try to debate the subject of evolution with a creationist, the cannot give me a valid argument. They almost always present me with outdated "facts," flawed science and irrelevant statements about morality. Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 8:30:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Whenever I try to debate the subject of evolution with a creationist, the cannot give me a valid argument.

No sh!t.

They almost always present me with outdated "facts," flawed science and irrelevant statements about morality. Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

No such argument exists.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
They don't really need an argument. The burden of proof is on the atheist. The people who believe in creationism, or people who believe in god, only need to have faith. With faith they don't need arguments. If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 1:35:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

No they won't, they'll just strap a bomb to a six-year-old.
Fractals
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2013 7:34:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Whenever I try to debate the subject of evolution with a creationist, the cannot give me a valid argument. They almost always present me with outdated "facts," flawed science and irrelevant statements about morality. Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

The thing is, creationists don't argue against evolution. They define a thing they want to attack, and call it evolution, or more frequently Darwinism. It very rarely resembles anything a biologist (or related field expert) would recognise. They stick to this paradigm, refute the thing only they say is what it is and go ergo Jesus at some point. Read the reviews of ID books such as Darwin's Descent by actual relevant experts. 1. They aren't really talking about evolution, just their make believe version. 2. They don't understand the evidence for evolution anyway and misuse it to support their fake version. 3. A lot of face-palming is had.
simpleman
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 11:16:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the assertion made in the beginning of the topic, I would ask why should man be so intelligent in contrast to the rest of the creatures on Earth? Surely this would be unnecessary as far as the paradigm of survival of the fittest would require for it's validation? And, what's more, why would there be such an occasion for something so abstract as the Arts?
Though I once viewed evolution as the most valid argument for our present existence, when I came of age and applied logic to it's deeper implications, I shed the belief for it's latent indefensibility.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 3:23:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Whenever I try to debate the subject of evolution with a creationist, the cannot give me a valid argument. They almost always present me with outdated "facts," flawed science and irrelevant statements about morality. Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

People can believe in a creator and believe in evolution. It's really not a hard concept to understand. People can even believe in a creator and a many worlds theory. It all depends on the persons definition of God(s) and the role they believe that God(s) plays in the universe.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 1:50:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?

Obviously it takes hundreds of millions of years for animals to evolve from one species to a completely different one. Scientists can see certain animals/bugs with short lifespans develop into a completely new species. Evolution has been reproduced in the lab and documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
Orangatang
Posts: 442
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 1:52:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Obviously it takes hundreds of millions of years for animals to evolve from one species to a completely different one. Scientists can see certain animals/bugs with short lifespans develop into a (similar but)* new species. Evolution has been reproduced in the lab and documented in nature:

a. Two strains of fruit flies lost the ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring in the lab over a 4-year span ... i.e. they became two new species. (Easily repeated experiment.)

b. A new plant species (a type of firewood), created by a doubling of the chromosome count from the original stock (Mosquin, 1967).

c. Multiple species of the house mouse unique to the Faeroe Islands occurred within 250 years of introduction of a foundation species on the island.

d. Formation of 5 new species of cichlid fishes that have formed in a single lake within 4,000 years of introduction of a parent species.

-Corrected my second sentence.
Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org...
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 6:09:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 8:46:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 6:09:54 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?



The Fool: That is easy, Its called Terminology. it's our language, it is us who have categorized them as species, and families, and groups. Life is continuous, as is everything, they are merely different modalities, that is, organizations, that is, in folds, that is, in-formation of the one that is all, form. The universe.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 3:14:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?

Your mom turned into a biitch.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 9:51:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The funny (enraging) thing is, whenever you show then evidence of (macro)evolution, they kind of say (yell):
"That's speciation, not macroevolution!"
To which one would first think: "Ignorance has been detected", then one says:
"Look, call it what you want, it's one species turning into another", to which they think:
"Snap, quick!" and then they:
*googles "ray comfort evolution vs god"*, to which they say (bluster):
"That's a kind, not a species!"

At this point, semantics ensue, because when presented with evidence of a species, they quickly revert to the word kind, which evolutionary biologists call pseudo-science. (Meaning not science.) To put this in debating terms: "Actually, when you look..."
Or: "Take a hint!"
;D
No offense to anyone, but either admit it's taken on pure faith, or you're gonna get knocked down pretty quickly.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/6/2013 8:33:10 AM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/21/2013 8:28:58 PM, Camerondwight wrote:
Can you, as a creationist, give me a valid, scientific argument against evolution?

Can you, as an Evolutionist (more like Evilutionist, amirite) give me a valid, scientific argument for the existence of the ability of one species to turn into a completely different one?

Differential reproduction.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:18:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"

I think "absolute" is a necessary part of the definition. Thing is, faith is the accepting of a claim without evidence. So it strikes me that if people believe something with no evidence, then evidence AGAINST it isn't going to change anything.

But then, I don't pretend to understand the ludicrous mindset of the religious.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:25:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 11:16:25 AM, simpleman wrote:
To the assertion made in the beginning of the topic, I would ask why should man be so intelligent in contrast to the rest of the creatures on Earth? Surely this would be unnecessary as far as the paradigm of survival of the fittest would require for it's validation? And, what's more, why would there be such an occasion for something so abstract as the Arts?
Though I once viewed evolution as the most valid argument for our present existence, when I came of age and applied logic to it's deeper implications, I shed the belief for it's latent indefensibility.

Flawed reasoning.

When you speak of humans being "so intelligent", you're only talking about intelligence in human terms. So it's a circular argument "Humans are the only species that exhibit human-like intelligence"

But that falls apart when you take into account the intelligence traits exhibited in other species. Bees display organisation, communication, and computational abilities that humans couldn't even hope to do without using instruments. Octopuses have reasoning and problem-solving skills that people can only get through years of learning and being taught.

And when it comes to art, that's merely an extrapolation of creativity. Abstract thinking IS a logical evolutionary trait, since a species that can adapt to new things and develop alternative solutions to problems is more likely to succeed
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:31:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:18:12 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"

I think "absolute" is a necessary part of the definition. Thing is, faith is the accepting of a claim without evidence. So it strikes me that if people believe something with no evidence, then evidence AGAINST it isn't going to change anything.

But then, I don't pretend to understand the ludicrous mindset of the religious.

Evidence might only go so far, though. Evidence usually comes in pieces, never really coming to a full circle. And until that "circle" is reached, it is the atheist who continues to hold the burden of proof.
tala00131
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 6:38:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Define creationism. There are many different version of creationism.
Young-Earth Creationism- The belief that the world was created in six days, and the cosmos is less than 10,000 years old.
Old-Earth Creationism- They don't believe in evolution, or common ancestry. However, they accept that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Theistic evolution- The belief that God used evolution to create life.
Progressive Creationism- The belief that God created life over millions of years, but they don't believe in evolutionary mechanisms. We believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is not supported by the fossil record. If you look at hominid fossils, all of their bones are much more robust than ours. A Homo-Erectus would pop our heads like pimples, but somehow we evolved from them? That's silly.
Drayson
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 7:23:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:31:13 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/12/2013 6:18:12 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"

I think "absolute" is a necessary part of the definition. Thing is, faith is the accepting of a claim without evidence. So it strikes me that if people believe something with no evidence, then evidence AGAINST it isn't going to change anything.

But then, I don't pretend to understand the ludicrous mindset of the religious.

Evidence might only go so far, though. Evidence usually comes in pieces, never really coming to a full circle. And until that "circle" is reached, it is the atheist who continues to hold the burden of proof.

If evidence goes in a circle, someone's doing it wrong. Evidence is an ingredient of a logical, linear process. With a starting point, and a conclusion.

If you start with your conclusion, and use that as the starting point in a process to GET to that same conclusion, that's circular.
"I'm not saying I don't trust you...and I'm not saying I do. But I don't"

-Topper Harley
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2013 9:01:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:18:12 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"

I think "absolute" is a necessary part of the definition. Thing is, faith is the accepting of a claim without evidence. So it strikes me that if people believe something with no evidence, then evidence AGAINST it isn't going to change anything.

But then, I don't pretend to understand the ludicrous mindset of the religious.

I would argue that faith is the acceptance of a claim without evidence, and blind/absolute faith is the acceptance of a claim with excellent evidence to the contrary.
simpleman
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:03:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:25:46 PM, Drayson wrote:
At 9/5/2013 11:16:25 AM, simpleman wrote:
To the assertion made in the beginning of the topic, I would ask why should man be so intelligent in contrast to the rest of the creatures on Earth? Surely this would be unnecessary as far as the paradigm of survival of the fittest would require for it's validation? And, what's more, why would there be such an occasion for something so abstract as the Arts?
Though I once viewed evolution as the most valid argument for our present existence, when I came of age and applied logic to it's deeper implications, I shed the belief for it's latent indefensibility.

Flawed reasoning.

When you speak of humans being "so intelligent", you're only talking about intelligence in human terms. So it's a circular argument "Humans are the only species that exhibit human-like intelligence"

But that falls apart when you take into account the intelligence traits exhibited in other species. Bees display organisation, communication, and computational abilities that humans couldn't even hope to do without using instruments. Octopuses have reasoning and problem-solving skills that people can only get through years of learning and being taught.

And when it comes to art, that's merely an extrapolation of creativity. Abstract thinking IS a logical evolutionary trait, since a species that can adapt to new things and develop alternative solutions to problems is more likely to succeed

Actually, my reasoning isn't circular. The implication of the intelligence I am asserting is that which lies beyond the bounds and limitations of mere instinct, unless you are suggesting I hold your intelligence in the same category of intelligence as that of a fly or an earthworm perhaps?

Concerning art, it is an exhibition of higher intelligence, not an adaptation. Adaptation, as cited in evolutionary theory, is a mutation that occurs as a mechanism required for survival under the accompanying principle of Survival of the Fittest. Art hardly fits into such a context, as it is unnecessary for survival, and an activity participated in by consent, not constraint.

So now, whence then is your critique, seeing as it is constructed upon the foundation of both an inapplicable context and inadmissible definitions?
simpleman
Posts: 26
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 2:39:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A word of advisement to scientific skeptics: You shouldn't be so quick to take for granted your preconceived assumption that our belief in God is somehow the inherent result of an apparent failure on our part to have grasped science at all. (I was once guilty of doing the same)

The basic problem of most with Christianity is not that it was tried and found lacking, but that it was found difficult and left untried.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:48:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 5:59:50 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 9/9/2013 9:39:26 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 8/21/2013 11:00:47 PM, ben2974 wrote:
If science can prove their faith wrong, then they'll stop being faithful. That's how it goes.

Depends on the strength of the faith. Absolute faith is unswayed by evidence.

I've never heard of such a thing as "absolute faith?"

One can have faith to varying degrees. The stronger the faith the less evidence is going to sway one's opinion.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 12:55:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:31:13 PM, ben2974 wrote:
it is the atheist who continues to hold the burden of proof.

One doesn't need evidence to not believe something. This is a silly sort of shifting the burden of proof.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 1:03:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:38:21 PM, tala00131 wrote:
Define creationism. There are many different version of creationism.
Young-Earth Creationism- The belief that the world was created in six days, and the cosmos is less than 10,000 years old.
Old-Earth Creationism- They don't believe in evolution, or common ancestry. However, they accept that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Theistic evolution- The belief that God used evolution to create life.
Progressive Creationism- The belief that God created life over millions of years, but they don't believe in evolutionary mechanisms. We believe in micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution is not supported by the fossil record. If you look at hominid fossils, all of their bones are much more robust than ours. A Homo-Erectus would pop our heads like pimples, but somehow we evolved from them? That's silly.

So all the rest of evidence, all the millions of fossils showing a slow trend from simple to complex through an almost continuous series of related species over billions of years is completely irrelevant is it? You choose to take just one piece of evidence rather than all of it together.

Perhaps learning from your example I should try to understand the bible based on just one verse taken from all the millions of others.

I choose Joshua Chapter 6 verse 24. "Then they burned the whole city ( Jericho)and everyone in it, but they put the silver and gold and the articles of bronze and iron into the treasury of the Lord"s house."

So I conclude that the Christian Bible advocates mass murder and whole sale robbery. They also teach their young children to sing songs about this horror.

Is my conclusion incorrect because I have taken just one piece of evidence completely out of context? Am I being deliberately devious and dishonest. Yes of course I am. But the difference is that I know I am being deliberately obstructive and subjective whereas I read a constant stream of rubbish from theists, who claim to be moral and ethical, being equally dishonest and devious and not accepting it. The frightening bit is that much of this rubbish issues from the mouths of some of the world's most powerful politicians.
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2013 1:35:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/12/2013 6:38:21 PM, tala00131 wrote:
A Homo-Erectus would pop our heads like pimples, but somehow we evolved from them? That's silly.

Know what else is silly? Chihuahua's evolving from wolves.

Next argument.
MysticEgg
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/15/2013 3:22:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have an expert on refuting evolution! I do I do I do! I give you....

Ian Juby!

He's highly qualified with...umm...a MENSA card? Yeah, he has a MENSA card, so he must be an expert at everything!

You're kidding, right? There are no arguments, just how straw men arose from rocks using pure, random chance.