Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[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?