Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[theVOID]

The argument needs to be both sound and valid.

Present one, but for all your talk of how 'obvious' it is I'm betting you haven't got what it takes.

[Tiberius]

You clearly didn’t get my point. The point was that they both admitted that there were two possibilities, creation by naturalistic means, or creation by supernatural means. So that is why disjunctive logic is completely valid in this instance and that is why both of them have used it and that is why I too use it.

Ok Statler, I've been following this thread and I thought I'd pipe in on this bit. You are correct that they have both admitted that there were two possibilities, natural vs supernatural creation, and this point I don't argue with. The two are complete opposites, such that if something is not natural, it is supernatural, and vice versa.

What the point I think most people were trying to make is that abiogenesis / Evolution are both possible naturalistic "creation" methods; they are certainly not every single possibility. So whilst you can make the argument that refuting naturalistic creation supports supernatural creation, you cannot hold that refuting evolution or abiogenesis is a support of supernatural creation.

Even if you had disproved evolution and abiogenesis (and I don't think you have), you cannot say anything about the validity of supernatural creation.

[Statler Waldorf]

The argument needs to be both sound and valid.

Present one, but for all your talk of how 'obvious' it is I'm betting you haven't got what it takes.

Ok, I will provide you with a proof, if you can first provide me with a proof that the pyramids were built by humans. Since I asked for that earlier and it was dodged.

---

---

You clearly didn’t get my point. The point was that they both admitted that there were two possibilities, creation by naturalistic means, or creation by supernatural means. So that is why disjunctive logic is completely valid in this instance and that is why both of them have used it and that is why I too use it.

Ok Statler, I've been following this thread and I thought I'd pipe in on this bit. You are correct that they have both admitted that there were two possibilities, natural vs supernatural creation, and this point I don't argue with. The two are complete opposites, such that if something is not natural, it is supernatural, and vice versa.

What the point I think most people were trying to make is that abiogenesis / Evolution are both possible naturalistic "creation" methods; they are certainly not every single possibility. So whilst you can make the argument that refuting naturalistic creation supports supernatural creation, you cannot hold that refuting evolution or abiogenesis is a support of supernatural creation.

Even if you had disproved evolution and abiogenesis (and I don't think you have), you cannot say anything about the validity of supernatural creation.

---

Hey Adrian,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You are right, there may be other naturalistic explanations for life on Earth. However, since you are the one asserting this, can you give an example of one? If not, then there really are still only two options, creation and evolution.
This is the reason evolution is pretty much unanimously accepted by atheistic naturalists, because it really is the only naturalistic theory that is possible in their minds.
Just curious, why do you feel I have not demonstrated that abiogenesis and evolution are not possible?

[theVOID]

I've missed some of this back-and-forth, what have the Pyramids got to do with anything? And more importantly why is that a prerequisite for you giving an argument for the existence of God?

I can't show that that the Pyramids were necessarily built by humans, the only sort of argument would be as follows:

1. The pyramids are stone buildings.
2. These pyramids could have been built by an ancient culture.
3. There is an ancient culture that claims credit for the buildings (the Egyptians).
4. There exists no evidence of intervention from any other cultures or beings, Therefore:
5. The only justified conclusion is that the pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians.

I'm not sure how solid it is seeing as it was off the top of my head but it seems at first glance to be sound and valid. If it is possible for P to be built by x, x claims credit for P and there is no evidence for participation from any non-x entity in the creation of P then only justified conclusion is that x built P.

[Captain Scarlet]

I've missed some of this back-and-forth, what have the Pyramids got to do with anything? And more importantly why is that a prerequisite for you giving an argument for the existence of God?

I can't show that that the Pyramids were necessarily built by humans, the only sort of argument would be as follows:

1. The pyramids are stone buildings.
2. These pyramids could have been built by an ancient culture.
3. There is an ancient culture that claims credit for the buildings (the Egyptians).
4. There exists no evidence of intervention from any other cultures or beings, Therefore:
5. The only justified conclusion is that the pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians.

I'm not sure how solid it is seeing as it was off the top of my head but it seems at first glance to be sound and valid. If it is possible for P to be built by x, x claims credit for P and there is no evidence for participation from any non-x entity in the creation of P then only justified conclusion is that x built P.

Don't humour him Void. He has asserted supernatural creation is true and when asked for evidence and argument FOR supernatural creation rather than evidence AGAINST evolution (which are just the usual rants from creationists), he then says he won't provide evidence/argument until someone proves the pyramids were built by humans. Its just beyond contempt. He's holding an empty sack and erecting strawmen to protect his position. Yawn.

[Statler Waldorf]

I've missed some of this back-and-forth, what have the Pyramids got to do with anything? And more importantly why is that a prerequisite for you giving an argument for the existence of God?

I can't show that that the Pyramids were necessarily built by humans, the only sort of argument would be as follows:

1. The pyramids are stone buildings.
2. These pyramids could have been built by an ancient culture.
3. There is an ancient culture that claims credit for the buildings (the Egyptians).
4. There exists no evidence of intervention from any other cultures or beings, Therefore:
5. The only justified conclusion is that the pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians.

I'm not sure how solid it is seeing as it was off the top of my head but it seems at first glance to be sound and valid. If it is possible for P to be built by x, x claims credit for P and there is no evidence for participation from any non-x entity in the creation of P then only justified conclusion is that x built P.

You'll see where I am going in a second. So how do you know the Egyptians claimed to build the pyramids?

---

Don't humour him Void. He has asserted supernatural creation is true and when asked for evidence and argument FOR supernatural creation rather than evidence AGAINST evolution (which are just the usual rants from creationists), he then says he won't provide evidence/argument until someone proves the pyramids were built by humans. Its just beyond contempt. He's holding an empty sack and erecting strawmen to protect his position. Yawn.

Easy there Cap'n. You are not in my head, I have a very logical reasoning for seeing the pyramid proof. I know it is something we both accept, the pyramids were built by humans. So I want to see what he accepts as logical proof for this belief before I move on to the God proof. Although I do love how what you call "rants" is known by logicians as a very valid form or argumentation. Oh well, guess that just goes to show you are not a logician.

[theVOID]

there really are still only two options, creation and evolution.

What evidence exactly do you have for creation? Until you present some evidence indicating creation (Ie not something unresolved in evolution) then you have no more justification for believing in creationism than a hypothetical person has for *poof magic*.

This is the reason evolution is pretty much unanimously accepted by atheistic naturalists, because it really is the only naturalistic theory that is possible in their minds.

False, the main reason that Evolution is accepted by naturalists is because it is the only explanation that has ever been able to satisfy the rigours of methodological naturalism or some other natural epistemology. If there was another theory for naturalistic life that satisfied these strict standards then you would see some split between the two.

Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results. Theism has nothing that can compare to this standard in testability, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, compliance with explanatory virtues or results and application.

Just curious, why do you feel I have not demonstrated that abiogenesis and evolution are not possible?

After sifting through your wall of text it becomes clear. The fact that there is nothing at all resembling a proper argument in form in your posts is also suggestive of it not standing up to proper examination. If you really want to impress us try some formal arguments that clearly state the premises, justify these premises as being supported by argument and evidence and then build an argument that logically follows on to your conclusion without committing fallacies.

It will either make it easier for us to point out the flaws in your reasoning or it will show that you are correct beyond doubt - it could go either way, the question is whether or not you are prepared to put your arguments out there in that form.

[Statler Waldorf]

---

there really are still only two options, creation and evolution.

What evidence exactly do you have for creation? Until you present some evidence indicating creation (Ie not something unresolved in evolution) then you have no more justification for believing in creationism than a hypothetical person has for *poof magic*.

This is the reason evolution is pretty much unanimously accepted by atheistic naturalists, because it really is the only naturalistic theory that is possible in their minds.

False, the main reason that Evolution is accepted by naturalists is because it is the only explanation that has ever been able to satisfy the rigours of methodological naturalism or some other natural epistemology. If there was another theory for naturalistic life that satisfied these strict standards then you would see some split between the two.

Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results. Theism has nothing that can compare to this standard in testability, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, compliance with explanatory virtues or results and application.

Just curious, why do you feel I have not demonstrated that abiogenesis and evolution are not possible?

After sifting through your wall of text it becomes clear. The fact that there is nothing at all resembling a proper argument in form in your posts is also suggestive of it not standing up to proper examination. If you really want to impress us try some formal arguments that clearly state the premises, justify these premises as being supported by argument and evidence and then build an argument that logically follows on to your conclusion without committing fallacies.

It will either make it easier for us to point out the flaws in your reasoning or it will show that you are correct beyond doubt - it could go either way, the question is whether or not you are prepared to put your arguments out there in that form.

---

Huh? My reason for evolution being the only naturalistic explanation for life is exactly the same as your's. It's the only one thought to be possible by naturalists. You just elaborated on why they think it is the only possible one, something I was well aware of.

So exactly why are you requiring me to do all of my argumentation in logical form, when aside from your pyramid argument (which I had to ask for) nobody else on here has presented any argument in formal format? It's special pleading for you to ask more of me than you do of other's just because you agree with their worldviews.

[theVOID]

You'll see where I am going in a second. So how do you know the Egyptians claimed to build the pyramids?

I'm no expert (or even really that interested in architecture and history), but off the top of my head there are edicts demanding their construction for burial chambers in some of the 100+ pyramids, there are the orders from the persist/chancellor to Djoser, Imhotep, of whom there are heirogliphics related to moving rocks, crude methods of leverage and papyrus with anatomy, architecture, leverage devices etc.

There are also hieroglyphs of pyramid construction specifically.

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/py...nstruction

If you dig around you'll find a few more.

So I want to see what he accepts as logical proof for this belief before I move on to the God proof.

I already said I can't prove that humans built the pyramid, what I presented was an argument against any other intervention or claim to the title of architect or builder. My argument makes the ancient Egyptians the only group that you can be justified in believing to have built the pyramids.

That is if the premises are all true. I'm pretty sure that if you could demonstrate otherwise you should get a prize from some official organisation

[Statler Waldorf]

Ugh, I really need to head to bed. If you (theVOID) can clarify two issues for me, I will do the "God proof" in the morning.

1. How do you know the pyramids require a builder and did not arise by naturalistic processes?
2. Just the point about how you know it was the Egyptian empire that claimed to build the pyramids.

Once those are clarified we should be good to go! Night!

---

You'll see where I am going in a second. So how do you know the Egyptians claimed to build the pyramids?

I'm no expert (or even really that interested in architecture and history), but off the top of my head there are edicts demanding their construction for burial chambers in some of the 100+ pyramids, there are the orders from the persist/chancellor to Djoser, Imhotep, of whom there are heirogliphics related to moving rocks, crude methods of leverage and papyrus with anatomy, architecture, leverage devices etc.

There are also hieroglyphs of pyramid construction specifically.

http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/py...nstruction

If you dig around you'll find a few more.

So I want to see what he accepts as logical proof for this belief before I move on to the God proof.

I already said I can't prove that humans built the pyramid, what I presented was an argument against any other intervention or claim to the title of architect or builder. My argument makes the ancient Egyptians the only group that you can be justified in believing to have built the pyramids.

That is if the premises are all true. I'm pretty sure that if you could demonstrate otherwise you should get a prize from some official organisation

Wait wait, I was heading to bed until I saw this. Are you saying you can't prove the Egyptians built the pyramids but you believe they did anyways? Are you also saying that the reason you believe this is because of evidnece against anyone else building them? So you are using disjunctive reasoning? Evidence against A equals B when A and B are the only two options. The same reasoning everyone else flamed me for using? Somehow I doubt you will get flamed for using it though.