Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[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.