15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

I've studied the Cambrian for years, so thanks for the links but they won't alter the facts....

No, No, I posted "the facts" while you had despicably tried to make the "explosion" sudden enough to be a creation/supernatural event instead of an instance of "punctuated equilibrium"/the fact that some conditions on earth, or an important mutation can greatly speed up Evolution.

If one wants to cling to evolution at all cost then one can, but to pretend these are not huge glaring problems is a bit dishonest. That's one of my main gripes over evolution, the manner in which it is dogmatically asserted despite serious problems, the unwillingness to consider that it might be wrong, that closed mindedness is the biggest problem, bigger even than the disparity between observations and empirical expectations.

There is no "glaring problem" with evolution, just tweaks as Eldredge and Gould's "Punctuated Equilibrium" I just mentioned. It only makes sense that environmental changes or one more significant mutation can dramatically speed things up.
Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE, creationism None. Evo has withstood 160 years and an explosion of new sciences. All relevant ones (including filling in with intermediate species and millions more fossils in the right layers) help confirm it,

You Dishonest Creationists can play with other/weaker posters for pages.
I end discussion in no more than two posts..
as just happened here.

Gameover part 12,849.

`

 

[alang1216]

Theism is the assertion God exists and in my case that's an evidence based position. Atheism is not a variant of that, it is a general claim that one doesn't hold a belief because they do not recognize evidence for that belief, if you are an atheist then you are making that claim yet cannot clearly articulate what evidence would look like.

Anyone saying "I do not believe in X because I see no evidence for X" must have a method for deciding if something is or is not evidence of X.

Well if you choose to characterize all arguments for God as "God of the gaps" then you have a problem, namely if God does exist and even if there's evidence, you'll never recognize it because you argue that this is simply an absence of knowledge about nature not evidence of non-nature. It's a self defeating argument.

It reduces to the belief that natural explanations suffice for everything and where they don't that because we are simply ignorant of that natural explanation.

This is then no different to "God of the gaps" but instead of attributing the gap to God you attribute it to ignorance of nature.

But you haven't addressed the issue of how to produce a naturalistic explanation in the absence of anything natural. This is not God of the gaps, its better described as God is the only rational option, one cannot invoke laws of nature as the explanation for the presence of laws of nature.

Scientific explanations are always exercises in reductionism, tangible things are explained in terms of other tangible things but how to explain the presence of tangible things in the first place. Any explanation that tries to explain X in terms of X is obviously not reductionist and therefore not scientific.

So my belief in "God" is evidence based, the evidence is that the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist, where could laws come from? If a scientific explanation is not possible (as opposed to not yet known) then we must - if we are truly rational - seek a non-scientific explanation, it really is that simple.

Neither of us can offer proof of our position but I am comfortable with my review of the physical evidence. Your evidence appears to be base on an assumption, "the universe and laws exist yet can never be explained scientifically because that's only possible after laws exist" that is unsupportable. You don't know if those laws were created, "came from" somewhere/someone, at some point in the past or have always existed.

It may well be possible there was an intelligent Creator or creators of our universe, on that point I am agnostic since I don't know how the universe came to be, but, since I see zero evidence that that Creator is the one named in any of the scriptures of man, I consider myself an atheist.