The Ultimate Question for a Creationist?

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=CurtC]
No need to come up with an answer yourself, the great scientist J.B.S. Haldane has already answered it:

“Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.”
[/QUOTE]

That might bolster the YECs’ position – which is not that of the ID’ers. The latter acknowledge the universe and Earth are as old as astronomers and geologists say, they accept the validity of the fossil record, and they acknowledge that every species, including humans, resulted from a process of biological evolution; but they deny that evolution could have happened as a natural process, a mindless working-out of the laws of physics and chemistry. Rather, they assert, it must have been guided at various points by an “Intelligent Designer” – never named as God, but clearly a being with the same skill set.

  1. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution must have been guided by an intelligent designer?

  2. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution occurred/occurs as an unguided natural process?

(Occam’s Razor, of course, favors the latter, but that’s not what I’m asking.)

102

[QUOTE=e-logic]
[nitpick in the interests of Fighting Ignorance]

The reason a police box is the size of a large phone booth… is that it’s a large phone booth.

They were not used as mini-jails.
[/QUOTE]

The Great God Wiki says otherwise:

Emphasis added.

Emphasis added, from the Newspaper of the Hampshire Constabulary, December 2006,here (pdf file). I don’t know if police boxes are still used for temporary detainments (i.e. as a “mini jail”) but Doctor Who started back in 1963 when that function, if falling out of fashion even then, was at least fresh in the public’s memory.

So goes nitpickin’ somewheres else, bub.

103

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

  1. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution must have been guided by an intelligent designer?
    [/quote]

Depends on the supposed perfection of the designer. If he’s supposed to be perfect, then any suboptimal design.

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
2. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution occurred/occurs as an unguided natural process?

[/QUOTE]

Irreducible complexity.

104

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]

  1. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution must have been guided by an intelligent designer?
    [/QUOTE]
    That’s proving a negative, and is impossible. There could always be some “irreducibly complex” thing out there that we haven’t found yet, theoretically.

(The “any suboptimal design” argument fails because any supposed flaw could be claimed to have a purpose we don’t know yet, can’t understand, or refuse to understand. ‘Your baby was born with a deadly disease to make you stronger! Why aren’t you grateful?’)

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
2. What evidence would falsify the hypothesis that evolution occurred/occurs as an unguided natural process?
[/QUOTE]
Actual irreducable complexity, or better yet, God strolling down to earth and zapping monkeys with magic lightning that turns them into human people.

105

[QUOTE=Lobohan]
This is a tangent, but it brings up a point. Nowhere in the bible is god portrayed as omnipotent. He’s the most powerful, but there are clear limits to his abilities. In the garden of eden he asks “Who goes there” at one point. Mind you there are all of two physical beings in the universe at the time. He took six days to create the universe. An omnipotent being could do it instantly. He had to *rest *afterwards. Omnipotent beings don’t require rest.

He was a savage murderous dick in old testament times, yet is all touchy feeley, “let’s all be friends” around the time he rapes Mary. That implies personal growth, yet an omnipotent being would be at a state of perfection once he existed. He requires a sign of goats blood on the door frame of believers so that his clumsy death spirit can kill the gentile first born in Egypt, an omnipotent being could will them dead flawlessly. He savagely murders Lot’s family and servants then, when Lot has proven his loyalty gives him a new family. Anyone sane would have resurrected the old ones.

So no, the imaginary psychopathic monster depicted in the bible is certainly not omnipotent./tangent
[/QUOTE]

He’s just lazy! Which is sloth… which is a deadly sin so… errr…

Anyway, does anyone know where in the Old Testament (I guess New Testament may work too, but I’m more concerned with the "old(relative of course) scripture here) it states God is the ONLY god? Last time I asked this question to sometone they pointed to the Ten Commandments, which I countered by saying he states there shall be no other gods BEFORE him, which come to think of it, implies to the contrary that there actually are other gods, just not as important as him. Which could invalidate this whole monotheism thing we’ve had going on, which means I can believe in God AND the entire Norse pantheon, so long as God is still number one.

The other thing is I’ve always heard that God is “timeless” (and present at all times simultaniously I’ve sometimes heard) and knows what’s going to happen so (avoiding the annoying predestination vs free will rationalization we have to get into) if he’s present at all times at once, or at elast knows in some vague sense everything that will occur (or all the POSSIBILITIES as some people use toa void the above paradox) how can there be personal growth, if he’s experiencing all things simultaniously, or even feel a different emotion at a different point in time.

Anyway on the topic of creationism, it’s very difficult, or impossible to convince some people, barring (possibly) physical and mental torture, but that wouldn’t be particularily NICE and bings to action the healthy fear of totalitarian conformity we got from people like Orwell. Honestly the only way these people would not believe God did something is if God himself came down and said “I didn’t do it” this encompasses God’s existance as well.

106

[QUOTE=Jragon]
Honestly the only way these people would not believe God did something is if God himself came down and said “I didn’t do it” this encompasses God’s existance as well.
[/QUOTE]

J.K. Rowling can’t even say one of her own characters is gay without people kicking up a fuss. I rather doubt God wouldn’t face an argument or two.

107

[QUOTE=Lumpy]
Since facts are largely irrelevent in a creationism debate, I’d instead make the subject a moral debate. I’d say something like the following to a creationist: “Why am I opposed to creationism? Because it’s dishonest. You know, in your heart of hearts you KNOW, that the evidence strongly suggests that evolution took place over hundreds of millions of years. You’re like the defense lawyer for a man who was caught standing over a dismembered corpse with a bloody axe: you’re struggling frantically to find some way, any way, to say ‘this isn’t what it looks like’”.
[/QUOTE]

If anything stands a chance of working, it’s this. True, there are creationists who are completely immersed and blinded by the whole thing - and against those you will not prevail with any argument, but I do believe there are others that are trapped in a wretched pit of knowing denial - who know, or at least suspect, that they are in fact playing a game of fabricating excuses just to make it all go away, but don’t know what else to do. I was one of them.

108

I really don’t like that argument, because i’ve been on the end of it myself - “You know, deep down, that there’s a god; really you’re just coming up with excuses”. I think i’d probably be more likely to respond to someone who’s insulting and rude over someone who decides both that they can answer for me and that i’m lying.

109

I want to know where all that water came from. How could there be a world wide flood?

110

God™ works in mysterious ways…

IOW, you will never get anywhere with the faithful asking questions like ‘where did the water come from’ or ‘why didn’t that much moisture in the air simply kill everything’ or ‘how did they get all those animals on board…and what did they do with all the poo!!!’. Not going to happen.

-XT

111

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I really don’t like that argument, because i’ve been on the end of it myself - “You know, deep down, that there’s a god; really you’re just coming up with excuses”. I think i’d probably be more likely to respond to someone who’s insulting and rude over someone who decides both that they can answer for me and that i’m lying.
[/QUOTE]

Good point, and yes, it could be taken that way. But I still think it’s about the best that can be done. Creationism does in fact consist of a constant effort to dispute, to discredit, to cover up, to silence, excuse and ridicule - there are those who adhere to it, and are marginally aware of this, but just need it confirmed a few times by other people.

112

[QUOTE=solkoe]
I want to know where all that water came from. How could there be a world wide flood?
[/QUOTE]

God is magic remember? He teleported comets from the oort cloud garnering the energy from the nuclear processes of a largish blue sun located approximately 4000 light years from Earth. The appropriation of the energy to teleport the comets caused the star to collapse as there was no outward pressure to combat its immense gravitation. Consequently it went supernova.

The teleported comets meanwhile had appeared in Earth orbit. The massive amounts of angular momentum they possessed relative to the Earth caused them to heat up when their new frame of reference in orbit was established. They burst into steam and God telekinetically moved the water molecules into the atmosphere.

Yada yada… Flood. Arc. Hyperspatial expanding of the inside of said arc was necessary to allow for the tremendous amount of fauna aboard. The extra space was exacted from a certain rounding error in the strong nuclear force that God nudged back into place distorting the space-time coordinates in the arc as a result. The distortion diffused over time, until today where it is undetectable by any currently existing human equipment.

In any planetary system some amount of water vapor will be lost to space. God altered probability of water vapor escaping by removing the entropy of a small galaxy directly on the other side of the universe from us. It seemed a reasonable gamble as it was unlikely our telescopes could ever resolve that far.

Then in a few thousand years the light from that supernova mentioned above reached a small city in the middle east. A wiseman, noticing the light called a couple of friends and yelled, “Road Trip!”

113

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Good point, and yes, it could be taken that way. But I still think it’s about the best that can be done. Creationism does in fact consist of a constant effort to dispute, to discredit, to cover up, to silence, excuse and ridicule - there are those who adhere to it, and are marginally aware of this, but just need it confirmed a few times by other people.
[/QUOTE]
If it does, that doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t really believe in creationism. Many people who are that certain of creationism are often equally certain that not believing it mean you don’t get a seat upstairs, or (possibly more importantly) that teaching it in schools means kids are being indoctrinated into it. I don’t think unethical means of debate alone suggest they aren’t true believers.

I’m not disputing your own story. I just think that coming it at it from the perspective of “Aha, lots of people who think like this are lying to themselves; I know what they really think” is about as effective as if they said exactly the same to me, and i’d be both insulted and convinced that debate won’t work (after all, if they think i’m lying, nothing I could say can convince them). I’m sure it would work in some cases, but i’m not willing to insult everyone else and risk them never listening to any other argument I might make.

114

[QUOTE=Lobohan]
God is magic remember? He teleported comets from the oort cloud garnering the energy from the nuclear processes of a largish blue sun located approximately 4000 light years from Earth. The appropriation of the energy to teleport the comets caused the star to collapse as there was no outward pressure to combat its immense gravitation. Consequently it went supernova.
[/QUOTE]

Well, yeah…it could have happened like that. :stuck_out_tongue:

-XT

115

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
There have indeed been several dozen pickup trucks’ worth of fossils of Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, etc., brought to light, and in any case the evolution of man is only a very small part of the picture. Unless you care to argue for a special creation of Homo sapiens combined with evolution of other species.
[/QUOTE]

I admit I was quoting other Creationists. However, it doesn’t seem from this scientific study that there are many skulls and skeletons.

“This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.”

116

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I admit I was quoting other Creationists. However, it doesn’t seem from this scientific study that there are many skulls and skeletons.

“This list includes fossils that are important for either their scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table. That is a misleading image, as there are now thousands of hominid fossils. They are however mostly fragmentary, often consisting of single bones or isolated teeth. Complete skulls and skeletons are rare.”

[/QUOTE]

How many skeletons would make you believe?

117

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
That Ooh! Giardano Bruno was burned at the stake for suggesting (among other things) that the stars are other suns, perhaps orbited by planets, perhaps inhabited by life. Okay, we haven’t proved the life part yet, but the suns/planets thing is pretty much in the bag.
[/QUOTE]
No. Bruno was burned because he (an ordained priest) denied the divinity of Jesus. He expressed a lot of different ideas–theological, philosophical, scientific–and pissed off just about every group with whom he worked, regardless of religious beliefs, however. he was not martyred for science. It was a theological belief about theology that got him killed.

118

[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Yeah, I used to think that you could rattle a fundamentalist by pointing out places where God is particularly dickish (e.g., ordering the Israelites not just to kill all the Amalekites (men, women, children, babies, elderly, etc.) but even their livestock). But fundamentalists are like the deaf adder who stoppeth its ears and hearkens not, charm you never so wisely. I would get responses like, “Well, it’s just hastening their deserved reward/punishment, so it’s not really wrong to perform genocide on them.” Makes me feel glad that religion is supposed to be the font of Western morality.
[/QUOTE]
One of my favorites : “What about all the babies killed in the Flood ?” “They were evil babies.”

[QUOTE=Jragon]
Honestly the only way these people would not believe God did something is if God himself came down and said “I didn’t do it” this encompasses God’s existance as well.
[/QUOTE]
They’d probably just claim he was the Devil tempting them. For that matter, they might believe that it really is God and that he’s testing their faith.

119

[QUOTE=lekatt]
It would be impossible to give anyone an understanding. Thanks Tom for the dunking.
[/QUOTE]
You misspelled debunk. :stuck_out_tongue:
I haven’t “dunked” you, whatever that is supposed to mean. Anyone is free to interact with you as they please.

I just pointed out that people who wander into this thread in an attempt to correct your gross illogic and egregious ignorance of science are going to do nothing but derail the thread and if anyone wants to stick to the topic, they would be better served by not playing your games.

Mind you, I am not all that impressed with the topic. Trying to find ways to “shut down” Creationists (aside from keeping their errors out of science classes) is futile (and not all that worthwhile even if it was not futile). But to the extent that the thread exists, it should be allowed to wander along without being derailed.

If you actually contribute a point worth considering, people should interact with you. If you are just going to spout the same sillines that you have spread for several years, they they do themselves a disservive if they abandon the thread in an attempt to persuade you to act in a rational manner.

120

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Mind you, I am not all that impressed with the topic. Trying to find ways to “shut down” Creationists (aside from keeping their errors out of science classes) is futile (and not all that worthwhile even if it was not futile). But to the extent that the thread exists, it should be allowed to wander along without being derailed.
[/QUOTE]

You have the right not to participate and you can ignore any post you want. I certainly didn’t start this thread to annoy anyone.
The question was valid when I started the thread. After reading all the posts telling me it isn’t possible, I still think there is a way to make them pee their pants.