Questions I'd Love to See a Creationist Answer

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. therefore living beings eventually die. But to keep off from dying, they need "energy" some of them get it from food and some from the sun (both things are external)...

If anything, this helps proving evolution. If it wasn't for death, we wouldn't have natural selection. If it wasn't for chaos, climate and habitats would be static, so there would be nothing to adapt to. Regards.

I don't think such a blanket statement can be upheld that "not any do", but let us assume that all do not. So what? It means nothing. Oil geologists, whether employed by the government or by the private sector are just employees. They have to work within policy, under Ad Baculum conditions where their careers would be threatened if they gave their employers a unfavorable impression to the stockholders or to the department leaders. All corporations care about are profits, but even if the Flood Geology provided better results, it would never be called that because the company would lose funding due to the connotations. Without funding, they cannot finance their operations. Marketing is far more important than truth in the business, and political, realms.



Assuming the universe has a center of mass, and also that the universe is expanding from this center, there would have been a time in the past when the density of all the matter in the universe would be enough to create an event horizon. Objects closer to the event horizon would experience time more slowly than those further away. And passengers aboard the Event Horizon all perish once the Gravity Drive is activated.



No, I take Pasteur's ... oy, how lame is that question? Do you use Lye Soap (sodium hydroxide) to clean your oven, developed originally by followers of Alchemy?

Genetic Fallacy.



It doesn't matter either way which is more offensive. Emotions are irrelevant.

What would falsify Evolutionism? And by Evolutionism, I do not mean changes in living things, but materialism. Even if all of its supporting evidence is shot out from underneath it, more claims sprout up again. How would you falsify an ideology anyway? All ideologies are modified with time to fit the era. Some are discarded, such as worship of Ba'al. Some are still present though just under different names or not named at all, such as Epicureanism.



What is your explanation for all the overwhelming evidence that _____. Good rhetorical setup. Have you never read any of the, even, 30 year old Flood Geology literature, such as The Genesis Record?



Why is it that the process of explanation is the simplest of all functions of imagination? What is the function of cone cells apart from absorbing photons of specific frequency ranges and converting this form of detected light into a signal to be used by other processing units?



How do you explain not keeping up with current creationist thought? It's no longer the 1860's here, we are not the same as James Prescott Joule, Louis Pasteur, James Clerk Maxwell, Kelvin William Thompson, Henri Fabre, or Gregor Mendel. Creationist views have even changed, along with data, since the time of Arthur E. Wilder-Smith. Creationists are no longer opposed to speciation, or variation within kinds, or rather differentiation among baramins.



Such as the use of citric acid in a form of bacteria after 40,000 generations where a transport mechanism broke down? Krebs cycle uses citric acid anyway. Lenski made the right choice of substitute food for the appearance of what he set out to prove. However, his population of E. coli would fail in normal environment compared to strains which do not have such damage.



Under the philosophy of Karl Popper, yes. The falsification criterion. Prior to this was the verification criterion which is basically relying on induction, which works well within the parameters of experimentation and that which is deducible based on models to explain... et cetera.

Because, at the least, the observed adaptations are basically destruction of property. See, The Edge Of Evolution by Behe.

That's not current. This is not the 1860's.



I do not believe this. Neither does anyone at CMI, at least I'm fairly certain.



I wasn't aware of this. I'll start reading more Asimov, such as his essay where, after all the stars fade away all intelligent lifeforms restart the big bang after they become gods. Something occasionally referenced in episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where sometimes corporeal lifeforms become like Q, such as those in the first season episode "Justice" and also in all Stargate episodes referring to the ascension of the Ori and the Ancients. Basically, you don't have to believe something which is unpopular to be intellectually lazy.

No, but confusing or conflating the concepts of "essay" and "fictional story" certainly is an indicator of mental laziness...

...as is taking a series of questions someone would like answered, rewording them slightly to make them more palatable to your own views, then posting that as if it were some sort of rational response - tends to indicate one's a little low on facts...

I have a question for creationists, and didn't get even a hint of an answer in a related thread where I first posted it. I don't know whether any of our creationists read it. So I would like to ask quite directly of iamnotaparakeet, SquishypuffDave, JetLag, zer0netgain and leejosepho whether you can answer my question. If not, could you say, so that I know you didn't just miss it? And perhaps forward it to someone who can, if you know someone?

Here is the question:

Many carnivores can't live on a vegetarian diet. Neither their teeth nor their digestive systems are made for it. The problem is worse if you think of obligate parasites, whether macroscopic like tape worms or microscopic. If there was no death or disease in paradise, species that now are obligate parasites would have had to be remodeled after the fall so much that even a creationist would be hard pressed to claim they are still the same kind. That means there would have had to be a second creation. Is that mentioned in the Bible? Or does the Bible say all life was created in the first six days? Then you could not have obligate parasites being created as part of the fall. If those parasites existed in paradise, then there must have been diseases. What is the YEC position on this?

What is the YEC position on the existence of immune systems? Did God create them before they were needed? Were they created after the fall? Did they evolve? If they evolved, would that mean anything that came into existence as a consequence of the fall is not irreducibly complex?

Cambrian bunnies. Now, what would falsify Creationism? I see that you are responding to a question with a question as a rhetorical device to avoid my original question.


Um... well, that's not what evolutionism is. You don't get to just redefine terms as you see fit. But I'll humor you anyways. Materialism could quite easily be falsified if, for example, we observed the creation of matter or energy, or something moved with no force acting on it, etc.


Would you like me to start listing stuff that doesn't make sense outside an evolutionary framework?


I occasionally try to read creationist stuff, but it's just such obvious garbage that I seldom get all the way to the end of it. When someone tries to write about science and they can't get through the first couple pages without badly misstating a basic scientific concept, I tend not to waste my time with the rest.


Again answering questions with questions?


That's like asking how you explain not keeping up with current astrological thought. It's wrong, it's already been refuted, why bother keeping up on developments in a dead-end idea?

Sorry, essay was an incorrect word. Short story is the proper word. I forget its exact title, but it was referenced in my college astronomy class.



Even if I am doing the rewording that you say I am, so what. I am one of the few creationists on this board bold enough to reply and take your crap.

If you prefer getting off in private though, then by all means continue with your verbal pornography. I will leave you alone.

Orwell, you do realize that this cannot disprove materialism. Such an instance of observed de novo creation, not using any known force would never be allowed to be classified as such. Instead, it would be relegated to a previously unknown force.

I know in your sentence you say "with no force acting on it", however, this would never be accepted. A new force and terminology associated with it would be invented to categorize and explain such an observation away.

Because, Orwell, if you actually wish to make an actual claim against my worldviews you should actually know what I believe. Or if you wish to make an actual claim against modern creationism in general, you should know what the proponents actually claim. Know ones enemy. Get that?

Of course, if you just wish to be accepted among your evolutionist friends, for the sake of the Gospel or what you will, then just continue on bashing ideas which we do not hold anymore.

If you want Gromit, I'll answer you later. I'm going to be spending the rest of Thanksgiving with my girlfriend though.

Straw man, basically this ridiculous statement made me ignore the rest of your post sorry...



Yes, we can't falsify the ideology of materialism. Evolution though is a completely sound scientific theory that has made a lot of predictions in the past, some are yet to be tested but some were:

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html

(completely unlike creationism BTW)

Creationists don't agree among themselves. I know plenty who deny speciation. Besides that, the basic tenets of Creationism are complete nonsense. If you are a YEC, can I, for example, assume that you believe the Earth was created in the ballpark of 4000BC? And you deny that humans and the other apes are descended from a common ancestor? In general, you don't believe in common descent of different organisms, or that a species can change over time to occupy a very different ecological niche?

I notice you still never answered on what would falsify creationism. You really don't want to admit that the answer is "nothing."

I would have to argue that naturalism/materialism would actually be best falsified by the noted presence of non-material presences. For example, clearly heard voices that could be found to not emerge from any noted existing material would probably be the best sort. I would imagine that in order to avoid being classified as an unknown natural phenomenon, a purposefulness or sentience or communicativeness would have to be proven, and be proven easily rather than being a matter of ongoing dispute.

In any case, the dividing line between "natural" and "supernatural" is not exactly a clean affair anyway. I mean, why couldn't spiritual energies be conceived of as another variation upon what naturally exists? Why can't the natural world just be considered an outgrowth of the spiritual world? I dunno, but in order to favor our intuitions, the issue would seem to be clear purpose.

I would imagine that a lot of claims against worldviews really are just dismissals rather than in-depth arguments against positions. In any case, Orwell's later point against the uniformity of positions does seem somewhat valid. Certainly when attacking a broadly defined position, a person isn't constrained to attack every single individual who can be labeled as being this position, but rather just attack characteristics which are perceived as being generally held in common. Claims against the worldview of a specific person or set of persons can only be made with knowledge of this person or of the set of persons.


I would actually guess that popular ideas promote intellectual laziness more. Defending an unpopular position requires effort.


I am not sure I completely agree with your labeling. I can see how a person might take anti-biotics based upon evolution, perhaps in the belief that there is more to anti-biotic development than evolution such as good science, or even that current antibiotics are better than no antibiotics wherever they come from, or even that modern antibiotics makers got lucky. However, at the same time, it is hard to accept the general power of a particular theory in a practical matter while denying that the theory is in some sense right, so the question isn't entirely wrong, even though you could have said yes to it while remaining intellectual integrity. Perhaps you will continue to disagree with that assessment though.

It is not a straw man. A straw man is pretending that YEC's, such as at Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research society hold the position that there is no speciation.

The oppositional view to creationism is not actually the Holy Deified Theory Of Evolution, though it is annoying how much it seems to be worshiped among atheists, but materialism, encompassing not the Theory Of Evolution, but also matters of the Origin Of Life and the Origin Of The Universe. And whether you wish to call this a straw man or equivocation, you'd be wrong. I am explaining my terms, in a frank manner. Call it what you like though.