Is Creationism even valid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2017, 02:15 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:22 PM)unsapien Wrote:  I would say that any theory idea that requires an appeal to any authority to be believed and is not verifiable by outside examination is invalid. The author should be irrelevant. What's true is true.
I agree with the above, hence your argument below is invalid

(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

It doesn't matter who the author is or even that the author is unknown.
You need to look at the argument. How does it get to the conclusion Is it simply asserted or does it offer some evidence and credible logic to get there?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
05-06-2017, 08:36 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

I am sure that as far as they are concerned, the author is known since they believe it to be inspired by their god. The human who physically wrote the stories is of little importance to them (clearly).

But yes, one would want to have at least some idea about who wrote the stories and why in order to better scrutinize them. So your point is, at least in part, valid. Whether or not one could justifiably dismiss all of any story because an author is unknown is debatable. If the story is possible and plausible, then probably not. But for the creation story, we've no independent evidence to corroborate it. So it doesn't have any evidence to suggest it is possible or plausible.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2017, 01:13 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(04-06-2017 07:26 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

Anonymity is a strike against Genesis but not the main one. The even bigger strike is that Genesis is contradictory and wrong. Two contradictory creation tall tales in Genesis 1 and 2 for example. The Earth was not created before the sun and moon and stars. The tall tale of God creating animals for Adam and Adam naming them paints God as a goofy, silly, bumbling fool. Would an infinitely intelligent God create a tyrannosaurus rex, or platypus, or a skunk to offer for a "helpmeet" for poor old lonely Adam? Even if the author/redactor had a name, this would not save Genesis as being reliable or true.

Also put the image in their head that Adam figured out none of the animals were acceptable "partners" for him because he attempted to have sex with all of them, and reported back to god that it didn't go too well.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ResidentEvilFan's post
06-06-2017, 07:57 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(05-06-2017 01:13 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Also put the image in their head that Adam figured out none of the animals were acceptable "partners" for him because he attempted to have sex with all of them, and reported back to god that it didn't go too well.

This is a good point. After all, if it wasn't for the existence of sex, how many of us would be just fine with a cat or a dog for a "helpmate"/partner?

So sex is the only remaining explanation for why Adam couldn't have been happy with a good, loyal Ol' Yeller.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(03-06-2017 01:07 PM)av0vad0 Wrote:  I made a post on Reddit about Creationism yesterday:

"Creationism is invalid because the author of Genesis is unknown/up for debate.

If a book has no identified, verified author, it's illogical to place more weight on its contents than on those theories that have been empirically supported and repeatedly tested/researched by the scientific community (Big Bang and evolution).

As for the argument that creationism preceded evolution, there is still more support for the Big Bang than there is for Creationism, which is based entirely on assumption. So how do you justify your belief in Creation despite evidence pointing elsewhere?"

I've received a few personal insults from the responding Christians already, and one particular commenter is very set on denying any claims I make, regardless of the support I provide.

What are you thoughts on the subject? I am willing to change my viewpoint, I'm just tired of debating in a forum where I have to defend my intelligence in addition to my beliefs.

Creationism is invalid because there are a TON of claims made, yet NON of it has any [real/facutal] evidence to back it up. I don't know it what world people think it would be 'Valid' at all. It's all nonsense of the highest order.

You can't teach it in science class, because it's not science. Schools do teach it....in "religious education" along with every other religion because that's all you should be told about it.

"I don't do magic, Morty, I do science. One takes brains, the other takes dark eye liner" - Rick
I now sell T-Shirts Here! Please Check it out Thumbsup
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 03:17 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(04-06-2017 06:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Life is short.
Why waste your limited time debating the absurd with people who *need* (or their world-view falls apart) an ancient mythological text to be literally true, assembled from a number of known mythological sources, by humans who thought there was a dome over the Earth ? Facepalm

There's a Hitchens quote that I remember hearing (but I couldn't find it) about why he debated theists when he should know that it would likely not change the mind of the other side. The idea is kinda like this:

Debates aren't for the benefit of the participants but are to the benefit of the audience.

When atheists and theists debate neither side in the debate is likely to convince the other, but there are others watching, reading, even now "guests" and "lurkers" are reading TTA (and reddit etc...) not sure enough in their own positions to join in, but the gears in their heads are turning as they read...

I know...I used to be one of them, I imagine many of the members here have been.

A friend in the hole
"I'll be back when I want it...not when I need it." - Hawkeye
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
3
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like unsapien's post
06-06-2017, 04:00 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(06-06-2017 07:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-06-2017 01:13 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Also put the image in their head that Adam figured out none of the animals were acceptable "partners" for him because he attempted to have sex with all of them, and reported back to god that it didn't go too well.

This is a good point. After all, if it wasn't for the existence of sex, how many of us would be just fine with a cat or a dog for a "helpmate"/partner?

So sex is the only remaining explanation for why Adam couldn't have been happy with a good, loyal Ol' Yeller.

But Ol' Yeller can't be cooking dinner while Adam is busy weeding God's garden.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(06-06-2017 04:00 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 07:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  This is a good point. After all, if it wasn't for the existence of sex, how many of us would be just fine with a cat or a dog for a "helpmate"/partner?

So sex is the only remaining explanation for why Adam couldn't have been happy with a good, loyal Ol' Yeller.

But Ol' Yeller can't be cooking dinner while Adam is busy weeding God's garden.

You clearly need to work on your dog training skills, CC. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2017, 05:13 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(06-06-2017 07:57 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(05-06-2017 01:13 PM)ResidentEvilFan Wrote:  Also put the image in their head that Adam figured out none of the animals were acceptable "partners" for him because he attempted to have sex with all of them, and reported back to god that it didn't go too well.

This is a good point. After all, if it wasn't for the existence of sex, how many of us would be just fine with a cat or a dog for a "helpmate"/partner?

So sex is the only remaining explanation for why Adam couldn't have been happy with a good, loyal Ol' Yeller.

That evokes an image of YHWH being a pimp - hey Adam, check this out, nice and fuzzy, you can hold it one hand, give it a try! Let me know if you like it! Plenty more where that came from!

[Image: pimp.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
08-06-2017, 12:45 PM
RE: Is Creationism even valid?
(06-06-2017 05:06 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(06-06-2017 04:00 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  But Ol' Yeller can't be cooking dinner while Adam is busy weeding God's garden.

You clearly need to work on your dog training skills, CC. Tongue
Lol ... I can't get out of my brain a review of a recent cartoon I saw just today depicting the unwanted outcomes from some mad scientist conveying superior intelligence and speech abilities on some guy's pet dog.

First thing the dog does after inventing an exoskeleton for himself, is takes his owner's sister hostage and demands:

"My testicles are missing. Someone has taken them. Where are they?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: