• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Young-Earth Creationists: Please Provide Physical Evidence For Creationism

obvious Child said:
And a YEC attempts to get out of defending his crackpot belief.

Just go Grimm. We all know that YECs can never defend their beliefs.
Click to expand...
Why you expect science from the philosophy forum is a mystery.
 
obvious Child said:
Lowdown is actually correct. But not for the reason he cites. All the peer review scientific findings in the world could argue YEC is crap (and they do). But, what stops God from lying to us and deceiving us daily?

I've long argued that if YEC is correct, God is the most Epic Liar of all time. Sure the science says YEC is flat up wrong. But God, if it exists, is not bound by science and can freely change whatever it wants.
Click to expand...

I don't even think that quote was directed at LD, though.

Anyway, yes, if the universe is 6000 years old, etc. and "god" put all the fossils, tissue remnants, etc. all here, then he's extremely deceitful. It would be an attempt to defy logic and critical thinking.
 
Jerry said:
Why you expect science from the philosophy forum is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Right, because science doesn't deal with claims made about reality or anything. :roll:
 
Jerry said:
Why you expect science from the philosophy forum is a mystery.
Click to expand...

Hey, if we must have religion in our philosophy, then we can stand a little science in our philosophy as well.
 
Paschendale said:
But then one can just assume an all powerful god (or an all powerful fish) who can trick us and invalidate any observation we can make about anything. Such an assumption renders any search for knowledge or truth of any kind futile. I can assume an all powerful moose who created the world entirely out of Jell-o, but gave it properties so as to appear to be rocks, water, and other things we observe. I can also assume that it did so yesterday, but implanted us with memories of times before that. Creationism, like those ideas I just posited to you, are not testable. They are thus not scientific. They are also probably not true, as one can suppose an infinite number of untestable ideas, but the testable ones keep working out. That seems to be the way to go, not suppositions of an all powerful aardvark, who we can only guess and hope is beneficent.
Click to expand...

You, sir, need to pick an animal deity and stick with it.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I don't even think that quote was directed at LD, though.

Anyway, yes, if the universe is 6000 years old, etc. and "god" put all the fossils, tissue remnants, etc. all here, then he's extremely deceitful. It would be an attempt to defy logic and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Despite that critical thinking supposedly being what makes us special in the eyes of this god. So, we're awesome because of these higher brains, but we're not supposed to use them?

RabidAlpaca said:
You, sir, need to pick an animal deity and stick with it.
Click to expand...

Heh. My point really is that proposing a definition for something doesn't make that thing true. Defining god as being unknowable doesn't make the unknowable god exist. Same as an unknowable anything else. Even an unknowable table lamp. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I suppose.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I'm sorry, but that's where I draw the line. God is clearly a single animal. I prefer Llamas.

I'm ready to kill and die for my beliefs, are you?
Click to expand...

Geez, prime example of how religion confuses me. First you say "clearly a single animal" and then reference Llamas plural. Which is it? Or do you mean a single "kind" of animal, and if so do Alpacas count (especially since your name pays homage to them), how about Guanaco's?

As far as killing for my beliefs - I noticed a fire ant hill along my driveway that I believe could be trouble if I don't poison it, does that count? I am not ready to die though.
 
marduc said:
Geez, prime example of how religion confuses me. First you say "clearly a single animal" and then reference Llamas plural. Which is it? Or do you mean a single "kind" of animal, and if so do Alpacas count (especially since your name pays homage to them), how about Guanaco's?

As far as killing for my beliefs - I noticed a fire ant hill along my driveway that I believe could be trouble if I don't poison it, does that count?
Click to expand...
God inhabits all Llamas. It would be ridiculous to assert that he would pick more than one type of animal. Alpacas are holy deities, but not god himself.

marduc said:
I am not ready to die though.
Click to expand...

Then your faith is weak.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
God inhabits all Llamas. It would be ridiculous to assert that he would pick more than one type of animal. Alpacas are holy deities, but not god himself.
Click to expand...

What about Guanaco's?!?

Also have to include this:
tumblr_lfuvwpYXtX1qeueoio1_500.gif




Then your faith is weak.
Click to expand...

What faith?
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I don't even think that quote was directed at LD, though.

Anyway, yes, if the universe is 6000 years old, etc. and "god" put all the fossils, tissue remnants, etc. all here, then he's extremely deceitful. It would be an attempt to defy logic and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

And that itself creates a series of theological issues regarding the very basis of the religions of Abraham. If God cannot be trusted from day one, how are we to know if ANYTHING it has said or promised is true?

Honestly, I don't see how you can be a Christian, Jew or Muslim and accept YEC with that kind of theological problem.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Then your faith is weak.
Click to expand...

Or yours is strong...whether that is good or not is debatable. Man is inquisitive. So, then, is faith inherent in human nature? I would argue that it is learned. People tell you to believe something and nevermind the fact that there is no hard evidence, which, by nature we would require (IMO), and they keep telling you to believe it, because they believe it, and so many others do too, because it says so in a book written 2000 years ago at a time when there was a political agenda and all the libraries were burned and it was illegal to possess any writings that may have survived the burnings, that might have told us what really is going on....

This is where faith, gullibility, and ignorance sort of all mesh together...
 
Last edited:
sKiTzo said:
Or yours is strong...whether that is good or not is debatable. Man is inquisitive. So, then, is faith inherent in human nature? I would argue that it is learned. People tell you to believe something and nevermind the fact that there is no hard evidence, which, by nature we would require (IMO), and they keep telling you to believe it, because they believe it, and so many others do too, because it says so in a book written 2000 years ago at a time when there was a political agenda and all the libraries were burned and it was illegal to possess any writings that may have survived the burnings, that might have told us what really is going on....

This is where faith, gullibility, and ignorance sort of all mesh together...
Click to expand...

Well you are right that it is not inherent, especially not with the "belief without factual support" definition. If you want to play the equivocation game and also include confidence in something (with or without reason for this confidence) then yes that is also learned. One learns to have "faith" that their senses provide them an accurate portrayal of reality and that the evidence that their senses provide them is correct. This is in no way equivalent to the definition of faith used in a religious context though, the former is extremely well supported and is necessary to function in this reality. Faith in a religious context is a different ball of wax and does not rely on a well supported foundation - but rather on tenuous assumptions.
 
marduc said:
It doesn't "know" that it needs to keep trying. The process of trial and error is just inevitable. For example - you used the development of webbed feet as a potentially successful adaptation so lets work with that.

Let us say a hypothetical population of humans lived on a remote island with no contact with the rest of the world, One day there was a massive earthquake and the island sunk beneath the sea - although the depth was still fairly shallow around the remnants of the island so that they did not drown. They manage to survive, and to breed and new generations live their life without ever seeing land. One day a baby is born with a deformity due to a genetic mutation:

View attachment 67145062

As a result of this deformity the baby is able to move water much more efficiently and is able to more readily evade the predatory sharks that are notorious for killing off its kinfolk. One day a shark comes along while this child and its friends are playing in the shallows - the child with the paddle-hands is targeted by the shark and he is able to smoothly evade the attack because of his paddle-hands. the shark then goes on to eat his sister. paddle-hand lives to breed, his sibling without the mutation does not - and as a result paddle hand passes on his genes. He has 4 kids, 2 of which are born with paddle-hands, 2 without. The 2 paddle hand kids live to breed, of the 2 without paddle hands one gets ate by a shark, the other gets killed. This process repeats over generations until over time the majority of the clan of sea dwelling people have paddle-hands, it is mathematically inevitable this will occur because they have a higher survival rate.

Now the questions are: Did the original paddle-hand kid "know" it had to be born with paddle-hands? Did the parents know that they somehow had to have a paddle-hand kid? Did natural selection "know" it had to produce a paddle hand? Was there "thinking" involved? Of course the answer is no to all of these, that would be ridiculous. It just happens, pure trail and error with random mutations which are then selected for if they increase the chance of reproducing (note: because these changes are selected their proliferation is NOT random).

The drafting table is nothing more than pure trial and error, no purpose at all to it - no need to "know" where it is going.

edit: due to a change in environment the paddle-hand was an improvement and was selected for, had the island not sunk into the sea the paddle-hand would have been at a disadvantage and would have less of a chance of reproducing - in this case it is a deleterious mutation, but due to the change in environment this adaptation was beneficial and as such would be selected for.
Click to expand...

That was a great example. A deformity allowed for greater survival and the deformity prevailed. This would not be the case, however, for the vast majority of evolutionary processes/improvements. A deformity is a mistake, but the horns on a bull are clearly not. There's no "design" in the deformed blob of a flipper hand, unlike the smooth conical contours of a bull horn....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom