I need help on forming a counter-argument against a creationist

[Phi for All]

perhaps you others find it necessary to beat it down with a stick, sorry I don't.

 

There's a big difference between disparaging something because you don't agree with it, and pointing out mistakes, misinformation, and ignorance about it. Creationism doesn't need to be beaten down with a stick, it's demonstrably wrong about the science it pretends to know.

[Dr. Funkenstein]

The definition of creation stands as the act of bringing something into existence. So when we automatically see the word creation, we also go straight to creator/Deity.

 

A more proper definition would be creation=Causality. for that definition science would say, Theories exists to explain this, but as of yet we simple do not know.

 

Some would say as in previous post, that not all things have cause, I would reject that since all things in existence has cause, otherwise why exist.

Now whatever this cause may turn out to be through research, that would in fact be our creator.

 

To the here and now, with partial/no understanding of the particulars of the subject between evolution and creationism. the debate on same would be moot. Why this position is such a lighting rod, I can't say. But in essence, it is evolution at it's finest.

[Strange]

The definition of creation stands as the act of bringing something into existence. So when we automatically see the word creation, we also go straight to creator/Deity.

 

So we have already established that you don't know anything about evolution. Now it seems you don't know what "Creationism" means.

 

To the here and now, with partial/no understanding of the particulars of the subject between evolution and creationism. the debate on same would be moot.

 

The fact that you know nothing about evolution (or, apparently, creationism) does not make it moot.

 

Why this position is such a lighting rod, I can't say.

 

Simply because the ignorant try and impose their ideas on others, even though reality shows them to be wrong.

[Greg H.]

Why this position is such a lighting rod, I can't say.

I think it has something to do with a particular religious group trying to impose their creation myth as science, and those of the general population who know better going "WTF are you doing?"

[Arete]

Why this position is such a lighting rod, I can't say.

 

It's because creationism - both YEC and Intelligunt design do not adhere to the scientific method, and are therefore not science, and yet we have a lobbyist movement demanding that they be treated as science, both in terms of legislature and education.

 

Imagine you run a banana stand. Some guy comes up with a trout and demands you sell his "banana" alongside the others in your stand.

 

You're like "WTF dude no, that's a trout. It's not yellow, curved, or even a fruit. You need to go to the fish market and sell it there, this is a fruit market."

 

Then trout guy lobbies the market, trying to get the definition of fruit changed so that fish are included, and trout are reclassified as a banana, so he can sell trout as bananas in the fruit market. Some less educated fruit buyers start buying the trout and feeding it to their kids on cereal for breakfast. Obviously, raw trout is bad for you and can make you sick, but now you have a generation of people who think it's a fruit and eating it on your cereal is perfectly ok and normal.

 

Switch back to creation and science. People are actively teaching their kids, and agitating for more kids to be taught that a bible story claiming that the earth is 6,000 years old is equal to all of our cumulative understanding of biology, geology, chemistry and physics. They will happily dismiss any statement science makes, no matter how well supported, that contradicts their particular version of a bible story, because, well, they've been taught that it is totally fine to do so.

 

So you end up with a community of people who don't actually believe in the scientific facts which allow their computers or medicine to work, and instead prefer to believe it was a "miracle" or effectively magic.

 

Now, someone like perhaps myself, who has spent years working on a potentially life saving medication for a disease, potentially finds the idea that someone whose life is saved by said medication will dismiss my efforts and instead invoke magic, is a little offensive and very dismaying.

 

Such a scenario understandably invokes a strong resistant response in the scientific community to creationists.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Arete

[iNow]

There's always money in the banana stand.

[Phi for All]

There's always money in the banana stand.

 

A lot of it made by people who only pretend to like fish, but really just sell tartar sauce.

[Greg H.]

 

It's because creationism - both YEC and Intelligunt design do not adhere to the scientific method, and are therefore not science, and yet we have a lobbyist movement demanding that they be treated as science, both in terms of legislature and education.

 

What really irks me about this is that if you bring up another creation myth, they dismiss it as being just a story, but they have the correct one, because the bible says so.

 

At this point, I find I usually need a stiff drink to just to keep from strangling someone.