ID/Creationism challenge

[sphenisc]

Ok, how about this.


If you take your definition of evidence, then evolution science would stall utterly because everything that is evidence for evolution would also be evidence for creationism,

No it doesn't. Mutations exist. They are evidence for evolution. Substitute "Mutations exist" into my argument and it's no longer valid.

the only difference being that the creationsits would simply say that god was creating every single differential animal ever found, and he killed off the rejects. You would literally not be able to differentiate between competing ideas and science would fall flat on it's face.

What creationists say and what Creationism is are two different things, equivocating between the two does not support your case.

Seriously, if the simple existence of X is evidence for A, B and C, then what do you use to differentiate between them?

Further evidence...what else?

Your definition of evidence is not even close to being rigorous enough to be useful in a laymans context, let alone a scientists one, and amounts exactly to the theistic circular argument that the Earth is evidence for god because god created the Earth.

Unsupported claim.

To make matters worse, you've also implicitly stated that all possible ideas are on an equal footing if we take your claim as the truth.

No I haven't.

For example, if you look specifically at whales, using your own definition you could say that the evidence for whales is evidence of creationism.

Yes it is. Substitute "Whales exist" into my argument and it still stands. So?

Further to this, the evidence of the evolutionary markers is evidence of creationism as well, because god put those markers in and made them look that way.

No that's not part of the definition of Creationism.

You don't see how this is a major problem that renders your definition utterly useless?

No. But thank you for providing a constructive response this time.

 

[randman]

You guys don't get the rules of the OP. The fact life is here is evidence for creationism and ID. You don't get to insert evolution into the argument.

If you want to say it's not exclusive evidence for ID, then please don't be hypocritical and admit most of what evos present as evidence is not exclusive evidence for evolution.

Some examples are natural selection, mutation, microevolution, etc,.....

There is almost no exclusive evidence for Darwinism aka "evolution" as you guys put it, nada.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You guys don't get the rules of the OP. The fact life is here is evidence for creationism and ID. .

Thanks for admitting that there is no science to these "theories."

 

[Philosaur]

...Substitute "Mutations exist" into my argument and it's no longer valid...

...Substitute "Whales exist" into my argument and it still stands. ...

The only argument of yours I can find here is as follows:

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.

Organisms exist.
Organisms are alive.
Life exists.

This matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, thus it is evidence for Creationism.

I can try to parse this into a deductive argument thus:

P1. If Creationism is true, then life exists.

P2. Life exists.

C. Therefore, Creationism is true.

Is this an accurate portrayal of your argument?

 

[Philosaur]

You guys don't get the rules of the OP. The fact life is here is evidence for creationism and ID. You don't get to insert evolution into the argument.

If you want to say it's not exclusive evidence for ID, then please don't be hypocritical and admit most of what evos present as evidence is not exclusive evidence for evolution.

Some examples are natural selection, mutation, microevolution, etc,.....

There is almost no exclusive evidence for Darwinism aka "evolution" as you guys put it, nada.

It's cute how you took our legitimate objection to your evidence for ID, then you applied that same objection to evolution, then tell us that we're not allowed to bring up evolution.

AND you have the chutzpah to call us hypocrites!

 

[aggle-rithm]

You guys don't get the rules of the OP. The fact life is here is evidence for creationism and ID. You don't get to insert evolution into the argument.

If you use the word "evidence" in this way, then the fact that life is here is also evidence for these other theories that I will make up right now.

The Theory of Jam and Jelly: All life formed from jam and jelly spilled on the earth by giant passing turtles.

The Regurgitation Theory: All life was vomited up by a visiting Sklor 10,000 years ago.

The Solipsism Theory: There is no life, it's all in your head.

The Sudden Appearence Theory: The earth was created with all life exactly as it is right now, ten minutes ago.

The Playdoh Theory: The earth is actually a ball of Playdoh and all life is germs from the kid's dirty hands.

These theories fit the evidence just as well as creationism/ID. If they don't, then I can easily throw together some semantic arguments so that they do.

 

[sphenisc]

The only argument of yours I can find here is as follows:



I can try to parse this into a deductive argument thus:

P1. If Creationism is true, then life exists.

P2. Life exists.

C. Therefore, Creationism is true.

Is this an accurate portrayal of your argument?

No. That would be affirming the consequent.

More like

If X matches one of the conclusions drawn from Y, then X is evidence for Y.

Creationism is the religious belief that life is the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.
Therefore one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism is that life exists or has existed.

Life exists.

The existence of life matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, therefore the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

 

[ehcks]

No. That would be affirming the consequent.

More like

If X matches one of the conclusions drawn from Y, then X is evidence for Y.

Creationism is the religious belief that life is the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.
Therefore one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism is that life exists or has existed.

Life exists.

The existence of life matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, therefore the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

If life were not created, life would still exist.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No. That would be affirming the consequent.

More like

If X matches one of the conclusions drawn from Y, then X is evidence for Y.

Creationism is the religious belief that life is the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.
Therefore one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism is that life exists or has existed.

Life exists.

The existence of life matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, therefore the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

It's also evidence for absolutely any insane idea or story anyone decides to come up with.

You claim that "mutations exist" makes your argument invalid, but it does no such thing. Indeed Randman has already said in this thread that creationists accept that mutations can and do happen, so mutations obviously do not invalidate creationism, ergo we are left again wondering what evidence one can use to differentiate between two competing ideas.

 

[sphenisc]

If life were not created, life would still exist.

Unless it didn't.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Unless it didn't.

But it does. To speculate on what that would mean were it not true is utterly worthless.

 

[ehcks]

Unless it didn't.

If we didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to question why we don't exist. We exist, so we question why.

Creation may have happened, but all evidence points to that it didn't. If creation didn't happen, we're still here.

 

[sphenisc]

It's also evidence for absolutely any insane idea or story anyone decides to come up with.

You claim that "mutations exist" makes your argument invalid, but it does no such thing.

Yes it does.
It fails at the point, "Mutations are alive". Because mutations aren't alive.
I should have said unsound, but either way my argument would fail.

Indeed Randman has already said in this thread that creationists accept that mutations can and do happen, so mutations obviously do not invalidate creationism

I didn't say it invalidated Creationism I said it made my argument invalid. I'll also remind you :

What creationists say and what Creationism is are two different things, equivocating between the two does not support your case.

ergo we are left again wondering what evidence one can use to differentiate between two competing ideas.

That depends on the two competing ideas in question. If there is a difference in prediction then further evidence can be used, you know falsification of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact. If not, then Occam's razor may help.

 

[ThunderChunky]

You guys don't get the rules of the OP. The fact life is here is evidence for creationism and ID. You don't get to insert evolution into the argument.

If you want to say it's not exclusive evidence for ID, then please don't be hypocritical and admit most of what evos present as evidence is not exclusive evidence for evolution.

Some examples are natural selection, mutation, microevolution, etc,.....

There is almost no exclusive evidence for Darwinism aka "evolution" as you guys put it, nada.

The old "god made it that way" argument. LOL. There is no evidence for gravity that is inconsistent with the theory of intelligent falling.

 

[Philosaur]

No. That would be affirming the consequent.

Indeed. Which is why I asked if you could reformulate it for me.

More like

If X matches one of the conclusions drawn from Y, then X is evidence for Y.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I've never encountered a definition of "evidence" like this one.

What does "matches" mean? Is it an equivalence?

Creationism is the religious belief that life is the creation of a supernatural being.
If life were created, then life would have to exist or at least would have had to exist at some time.
Therefore one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism is that life exists or has existed.

Life exists.

The existence of life matches one of the conclusions drawn from Creationism, therefore the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

Ok, again, you're writing this *almost* in the form of a deductive argument. But there are problems with your terminology.

"Life exists" is not a conclusion of Creationism (at least not by the standard meaning of conclusion as used in logic, rhetoric, or debate, if only because Creationism is not a logical argument). It is, possibly, a prediction of Creationism.

In effect, what you've got is:

1. Creationism predicts that life does exist or has existed.

2. Life does exist.

3. Correct prediction = evidence.

Is this what you are trying to say?

By the way, if you *are* trying to make a deductive argument, can you at least mark your premises and conclusion with "P" and "C", respectively?

 

[sphenisc]

Indeed. Which is why I asked if you could reformulate it for me.

Trying to pare it down a bit:

P1 If A implies B, then (if B then B is evidence for A).

P2 Creationism implies life exists.

C1 (P1,P2) If life exists then the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

P3 Life exists

C2 (P3,C1) The existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

 

[Wowbagger]

Some examples are natural selection, mutation, microevolution, etc,.....

There is almost no exclusive evidence for Darwinism aka "evolution" as you guys put it, nada.

That's like saying there is evidence for the sun, moon, and stars, etc.... but no exclusive evidence for "outer space".

Back on topic: What positive, exclusive evidence do you have for the actual creation of life?

 

[Dinwar]

P1 If A implies B, then (if B then B is evidence for A).

P2 Creationism implies life exists.

C1 (P1,P2) If life exists then the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

P3 Life exists

C2 (P3,C1) The existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

That may work in formal logic, but it doesn't cut it in science. The problem is that there are a number of competing theories which ALSO use "Life exists" as evidence, including Inteligent Design (not saying it's right, just that it attempts to compete with Creationism) and evolution. As the data can support all three theories, it's functionally useless. It's like tryign to classify mammals and saying "Hey! They all ahve fur and produce milk!" You're not going to get very far.

What you need to do is figure out evidence which would demonstrate that one of these theories is true, while the others are false. And each offers specific predictions that can be used to determine which is true. ID has irreducible complexity. Creationism has a 6,000 year old Earth. Evolution has decent with modification. Creationism was demonstrated to be false when we figured out that the world was ancient (via sedimentology, not radiometric dating). ID was shown to be false when we consistently demonstrated that each "irreducibly complex" structure is in fact constructed via multiple, incrimental steps. This leaves us with evolution.

 

[BadBoy]

Trying to pare it down a bit:

P1 If A implies B, then (if B then B is evidence for A).

P2 Creationism implies life exists.

C1 (P1,P2) If life exists then the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

P3 Life exists

C2 (P3,C1) The existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

Apart from all the other points already made about why this makes no sense, isn't there an issue with the premise in the first place. The premise of creationism isn’t a scientific theory in the sense that Evolution is. Evolution was "discovered". It was not a theory based on a premise that was just "announced" with the search for evidence starting after that. It is a theory based on undeniable conclusions from mounds of evidence collected and analysed. It also makes predictions that can and have been tested.

Creationism does not start from such a scientific premise. It’s backwards in that it was probably conceived to answer the question of where we came from. In fact it looks like it’s almost back to front in that the premise is "we exist" and the evidence why we exist is God (the idea of God already taken as a given). At the very best Creationism is a philosophic idea, not a scientific one.

randman is an attempt to dress mutton up as lamb. Its a obvious attempt to lend some scientific credence to a philosophical idea - after the fact. That dog dont hunt.

I think people who believe in God and especially ID/Creationism have to just live with (ignore) the inconsistencies between science and their faith in the modern world (For me that would be too much to accept.) and stop trying to justify their supernatural faith with science. Science was born from the urge for humans to discover the truth about the world, which will ultimately reject/erode ancient religious dogma.

 

[sphenisc]

That may work in formal logic, but it doesn't cut it in science. The problem is that there are a number of competing theories which ALSO use "Life exists" as evidence, including Inteligent Design (not saying it's right, just that it attempts to compete with Creationism) and evolution. As the data can support all three theories, it's functionally useless.

Simply because it doesn't do what you'd like it to do doesn't make it functionally useless.

It's like tryign to classify mammals and saying "Hey! They all ahve fur and produce milk!" You're not going to get very far.

Then don't use it to classify mammals.

What you need to do is figure out evidence which would demonstrate that one of these theories is true, while the others are false.

That's not what the OP says. You're shifting the goalposts.