Top 10 Creationist Arguments debunked

Top 10 Creationist Arguments debunked

Joined: September 30th, 2009, 7:55 pm

February 17th, 2011, 8:20 pm #1

<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value=""></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>

-----------------------------------------------
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible." -- Mark Twain
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 4th, 2005, 1:31 pm

February 18th, 2011, 2:34 pm #2

There are TEN creationist arguments?
Quote
Like
Share

Phred
Phred

February 19th, 2011, 5:56 pm #3

Goddidit
Quote
Share

Iceman
Iceman

February 20th, 2011, 12:37 am #4

What or who did God?
Quote
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

February 20th, 2011, 5:48 am #5

Goddidit
Claim:
Goddidit

Substantiation:
None


Boy... Ain't I profound and insightful!!! puke
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 8th, 2003, 1:16 am

February 20th, 2011, 7:28 am #6

They just keep swimming after it.

-Vince
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

February 20th, 2011, 9:30 am #7

Goddidit
 

 <img alt="wink.gif" src="/images/wink.gif" width="14" height="14">


-it is not what you (think you) know that matters, it is what you can show true that does
after all, truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true - everything else ... mere opinion-


New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">
Last edited by JVH on February 20th, 2011, 9:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

February 20th, 2011, 11:07 am #8

Claim:
Goddidit

Substantiation:
None


Boy... Ain't I profound and insightful!!! puke
 

In the realm of reasoning and logic; also called common sense, an argument is a disagreement or a mode of reasoning wherein a set of statements mean to establish a definite proposition while logic serves as the means to evaluate the quality of ratiocination applied within the argument as to determine whether the conclusion reached proves valid, or not.
<p align="center">.

If we want to insist upon what we assert as true, then, reasonably, we *must* show true.
If we cannot, then we can do no other to put the assertion(s) down as either opinion or induction, at best.


There's only two ways to (dis)prove something: by (empirical) evidence and (deductive) argument.

Sufficient empirical evidence is often quite hard, if not impossible, to come by due to the nature of the means we are using here to communicate; a forum, basically letters behind a screen.

Leaves us mainly with deductive argument.

A deductive argument that is valid and sound always produces a true conclusion. Such an argument is considered to be proof - due to its intrinsic (axiomatic) nature - since it cannot (logically) be refuted.


Always try to keep in mind the distinctive differences between:
- inductive (inconclusive) and deductive (conclusive) argument
- (circumstantial) evidence and (established) proof


Note also that reasoning as the method and logic as the tool
to scrutinize the method serves as a self-correcting system
- when applied correctly that is.



So, there's only two ways to (dis)prove something: by conclusive evidence (Empirical Demonstrable Proof) and by deductive argument (Logically Sound Proof), either seperately or combined.

The mode to do so is by means of what is known as "the chain".

In order to produce C; the thing to be (dis)proven, we need to do so

A : in an unbroken (thus logically valid) chain of establised facts/events

B : by eliminating all other possibilities (therefore rendering a remaining argument sound)

When not A and B, no C.

 

May all your arguments be sound
<p align="center"><a rel="nofollow"><img border="0" alt="" src="http://images.bravenet.com/common/image ... t.gif"></a>



-it is not what you (think you) know that matters, it is what you can show true that does
after all, truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true - everything else ... mere opinion-


New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 13th, 2010, 2:50 pm

February 20th, 2011, 7:36 pm #9


Claim:
If we want to insist upon what we assert as true, then, reasonably, we must show true.
If we cannot, then we can do no other to put the assertion(s) down as either opinion or induction, at best.

Substantiation:
None

Claim:
There's only two ways to (dis)prove something: by (empirical) evidence and (deductive) argument.

Sufficient empirical evidence is often quite hard, if not impossible, to come by due to the nature of the means we are using here to communicate; a forum, basically letters behind a screen.

Leaves us mainly with deductive argument.

A deductive argument that is valid and sound always produces a true conclusion. Such an argument is considered to be proof - due to its intrinsic (axiomatic) nature - since it cannot (logically) be refuted.

Substantiation:
None
Quote
Like
Share

JVH
Joined: July 20th, 2009, 1:33 pm

February 21st, 2011, 8:44 am #10

<p align="center"><strong></strong> 
<p align="center"><strong>Ridicule nor dismissal does not make a rebuttal</strong>

Claims:

If we want to insist upon what we assert as true, then, reasonably, we *must* show true.
If we cannot, then we can do no other to put the assertion(s) down as either opinion or induction, at best.


Substantiation:

There's only two ways to (dis)prove something: by (empirical) evidence and (deductive) argument. Sufficient empirical evidence is often quite hard, if not impossible, to come by due to the nature of the means we are using here to communicate; a forum, basically letters behind a screen. Leaves us mainly with deductive argument. A deductive argument that is valid and sound always produces a true conclusion. Such an argument is considered to be proof - due to its intrinsic (axiomatic) nature - since it cannot (logically) be refuted.

Additional:

Always try to keep in mind the distinctive differences between:
- inductive (inconclusive) and deductive (conclusive) argument
- (circumstantial) evidence and (established) proof


Note also that reasoning as the method and logic as the tool
to scrutinize the method serves as a self-correcting system
- when applied correctly that is.


Further Substantiation:

Claim:

So, there's only two ways to (dis)prove something: by conclusive evidence (Empirical Demonstrable Proof) and by deductive argument (Logically Sound Proof), either seperately or combined.

Substantiation:

The mode to do so is by means of what is known as "the chain"":

In order to produce C; the thing to be (dis)proven, we need to do so

A : in an unbroken (thus logically valid) chain of establised facts/events

B : by eliminating all other possibilities (therewith rendering a remaining argument sound)

When not A and B, no C.


<p align="center"><strong>If religionists could reason, there wouldn't be any religionists left</strong>

The Subject Matter 

 

The Proposition (the claim):

<em>"The bible is God's inerrantly true word"</em>

 

The Argument (put <strong>available for refutation</strong>):

- If the bible is God's inerrantly true word, then everything in the Bible is inerrantly true.

- If everything in the Bible is inerrantly true, then Matthew 7:7, Mark 11:24, Matthew 17:20, John 14:13-14 and Matthew 21:21 are inerrantly true.

- If Matthew 7:7, Mark 11:24, Matthew 17:20, John 14:13-14 and Matthew 21:21 are inerrantly true, then prayer, any prayer, should come true, inerrantly.


<p align="center"><strong>Mere disagreement doesn't render anything less or more true/false; it might tell us something
about the one disagreeing,  it tells us nothing whatsoever about the thing in disagreement with</strong>


Refutation

- <em>to rebut by demonstrable proof and/or conclusive argument to the contrary</em>

<em></em> 

To refute something we have to quote it. We have to find a "smoking gun"; a passage -in whatever we disagree with- we feel is mistaken; point it out; substantiate why it is mistaken and how it affects the whole, if at all. The force of a refutation therefore, depends on <strong>what</strong> we refute and <strong>how</strong> we do it.  

The most powerful form of refutation is to rebut the <strong>central</strong> <strong>point</strong>. Truly refuting the central point means we have to identify it, then commit explicitly to it. A truly effective refutation would look something like this:

<em>"The (poster's) main point seems to be X, as it says: </em>

<em>- quotation - </em>

<em>This is wrong for the following reasons ..................... </em>

<em>These reasons show the (poster's) main point wrong because .....................</em>

<em>Therefore ....................."</em>


If we can't find a "smoking gun"; a central point to disagree with, and argue anyway, we may be arguing with a "straw man" and in effect with and against ourselves.

http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/index.htm

 

May all your arguments be sound.
<p align="center"><a rel="nofollow"><img border="0" alt="" src="http://images.bravenet.com/common/image ... t.gif"></a>


-it is not what you (think you) know that matters, it is what you can show true that does
after all, truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true - everything else ... mere opinion-


New!! Improved!! Now With T-Formula!!
<img alt="[linked image]" src="http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc31 ... tworks.gif">
Last edited by JVH on February 22nd, 2011, 10:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share