Are there any NEW Creationist arguments? (v.2)

I don't understand....science doesn't refute the idea of god, I think it can support it. The universe is so much more beautiful and profound than they could ever imagine...it should be evidence of god's work.

What's keeping them from saying something simple like, "God created such a complex universe that from its birth, conditions were set so that men would eventually rise above all of his other creations and hold dominion over the earth". He created the universe in 7 days? Well...time is relative so I'm sure an omnipotent being could make eternity seem like weekend.

I don't know...I'm athiest but if I was a creationist, I'd try to use science to my advantage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If anyone has Comcast on Demand there's a show on the Science Channel called "Through the wormhole". I'd suggest you watch it. It's very interesting. There's a growing suspicion amongst a few prominent scientists that we might be living in an "ancestral simulation".

I can't say that I personally believe in that theory but damn the idea itself is beyond fascinating. Another theory to throw in the mix, which actually raises more questions than it answers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mod Hat - Version 2

Mod Hat — Version 2

This is the restored form of this topic, with twenty-two posts remaining. If this discussion sinks again, I will remove it to The Cesspool and issue sanctions against those responsible for its decline.

Easy enough?

Good.

Carry on.

Thank you.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, but it negates the necessity for god.

Come again?
God, by definition, is supernatural. Science concerns itself with the natural. And the observable.

They do try. And fail miserably.

 

We have

1) the argument from incredulity ("how can anyone believe such and so"),

2) the argument from bad math ("the probability of random chance producing whatever is incredibly small, now see (1) above"),

3) and the argument from lack of imagination (we can't imagine how wossname could have appeared by steps, therefore it must have appeared in one event, and now see (2) above).

Those are all at least a hundred years old, in some form or another. Are there any others?

 

Mod Hat - Splinter notice

Mod Hat — Splinter notice

I have created a splinter thread, and redirected it appropriately.

No more of that ludicrous nonsense, please. I would like to think there is a valid topic to discuss here.

Update: No, seriously—enough.

 

Here's NON ludicrous nonsence:

A conclusion is made on a basis. There is a basis on which the conclusion is made, somewhere in the brain. -I'm sure of it.

A such a basis can be derived from a malfunction that can only be explained by itself or creationism to some extent being true. That doesn't have to mean that it actually is true.

Simply the brain playing tricks. You wouldn't ever know one thing from another. Call it a fantasy or a dream that was very real. Or not. Perhaps even caused by drugs.

Is that NON ludicrous enough or may I not post in here?

 

Subversively silly?

Oh, it sounds incredibly ludicrous and unbelievably stupid. Then again, stupidity is what many people expect of creationists. Perhaps I ought to wonder if you're a misguided atheist attempting to covertly discredit theists.

Specifically:

In addition to the cryptic phrasing of the argument itself, "I'm sure of it," is a problematic assertion of support for an idea.

If any of my neighbors can tell me what this actually means, they'll be doing better than I am. Presently, what stands out is the phrase, "... that can only be explained by itself or creationism to some extent being true." To the one, just the sound of it strikes me as hiliarious. To the other, the general argument is so incoherent that the suggestion of fallacy within the statement is irrelevant.

The one question I have at this point is whether you're trying to articulate a hitherto unheard theory circulating among creationists, or promoting some notion of your own invention. Even the aforementioned Discovery Institute isn't so mysterious about its silliness.

 

/gnaws at leash

 

The lizard chewed the armpit

Is that what happened to the armpit of my favorite t-shirt?

 

I imagine you may be one of those fun guys who thinks there is something to string theory. If so you might want to reexamnie your premises.

 

I see you like to make assumptions.

 

you should reread my post.
I imagine you may be ......

You reacted exactly as I expected you to, walking straight into a very simple trap. While from your posts you are clearly well educated and intelligent, you are also prone to knee jerk reactions. Such was the case here.

I gave you two powerful qualifiers to a possible scenario. You assumed those qualifiers were absent.

What would be really nice is if you were to surprise me with an honest acknowledgement that you screwed this one up and that you do have a tendency to kneejerk reactions. Go on, surprise me.

Pretty please.

 

Ah you see... another assumption.

I was referring to this part:

There's no need for me to re-examine my premises.

Oops, wrong.

Keep trying.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You really are blind. Sad really.

If so you might want to reexamine your premises.

Another qualifier missed by you.

Dwyffr, deny it all you will. You made a series of assumptions about what I was saying that were wrong. Why? Because you leapt in without thinking. You cannot see that? Fine. Others can. Continue being a prat with intelligence, when you could simply be intelligent. I guess that's the choice you prefer.

I gave you an opportunity to be honest with yourself. You rejected it. I understand you may be a moderator, so I can't put you on ignore, so I'll just have to do that part manually - except when I catch you at another of your kneejerk brain dumps.

 

Still wrong.

Nope I didn't miss it.
You're missing my point: there is no need for me to re-examine. Regardless.

Nah, maybe you should simply just read what I write, instead of assuming I'm not reading what you write.

 

I became a believer because I saw that Science and history does support the existence of God, but I was pretty shaky in my belief. Now I am very solid in my faith because I've seen God change so many people's lives (including mine) and so incredible miracles in people's lives too. (including mine.)

-Matt

 

The important details

So what is that support?

Faith being the operative word.

Welcome to our humble bedlam, Crumeman. We look forward to your insights.