You, Creationist CANNOT provide superior explanations for the evidence over those which Evolution theory can provide. That's a challenge. Come at me.

@cerealguy

I'm arguing that the evidence for creation is less concrete.
Given the available data, the explanation from evolution is consistent and descriptive while the explanation from creation is ad hoc and only manages to incorporate new discoveries rather than predict them.

@Pikachu I see. Before we dig into sharing, when you say predict, do you mean prediction of future species and stuff?

@cerealguy

No i mean predictions about fossil organisms, genetic footprints or living organisms and all of these un-documented at the time of the predictions.

@Pikachu so evolution is something you consider a better explanation with more solid evidence than creation for explaining living organisms, genetic footprints, fossil organisms, and/or its predictions for documented or undocumented organisms

So, we can compare at different grades. I wanted to jump right into the quality of the means to collect evidences. Does that sound like a fair place to start tbh?

Cuz discussing evidences will boil down to accepting vs not which is highly subkective and emotional, generally. But talking about a method or avenue to conclusions can always be rationally observed and properly analyzed, troubleshot, then improved. Wanna go from there or do you have something else ya wanna dive into? :o

I wanna politely carry out discourse.

@cerealguy

I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing. Can you give an example?

@Pikachu yeah

So when we think about evidence for something so historic as billions of years, we haven't seen anything taking place that far ago

Pretty much, we'll be basing our inferences on an observed regularity and we'll expect this to remain consistent throughout the course of history. And then on top of that, it should also make sense for what we see today

That's kinda what I'm saying. So the evidences for the stuff that occurred back then, our logical inferences and observations, and principles are all we have to go off of to properly establish or interpret what took place before. Let's just analyze that :v

From the ground up

@cerealguy

Yes, we have to assume that laws of nature remain consistent otherwise we can throw science out entirely.
What we then do is look at the evidence and see what model best accounts for that evidence and which model can use that data point to make predictions about as yet undiscovered data.

Evolution is absolutely the superior model to creation in that context.

In my experience, creationism can only supply a myriad of just so explanations for various lines of evidence and can only incorporate new data and not predict it.

We can look at fossils. DNA, the geologic column and it all be consistently explained by shared ancestry and descent with modification. The same parsimonious answer over and over but creation typically and rapidly requires the deployment of apologetics.

@Pikachu alright. We're perfectly on the same page. Tell me something that evoution predicts. Right after, we will analyze from the model of creation as a concept. [Disclaimer: creation as an understanding comes with other implications and dimensions that evolution simply doesn't come with that we can deal with later but is still pertinent to the subjecr matter]

@cerealguy

I'll give you two examples. The first occurred in Darwin's own lifetime when Archaeopteryx was discovered: an animal that had both characteristics of reptiles and birds, a "transitional form".

Another prediction we can look at from genetics was human chromosome 2. Most extant apes have have 48 chromosome while humans have only 46. An entire pair is missing between us and our closet living relative, Chimpanzees. We could not have survived a loss that abrupt of a whole chromosome pair and so i was predicted that it must yet exist within our genome, and so it does: a fusing site with telomeres in the center, human chromosome 2.
Predicted and discovered and explained, as always, by shared ancestry.

And that's just a couple predictions. There is a myriad of evidence which, while not predicted prior to discovery, remains consistent with that same answer while creation must propose convoluted explanations or just declare it the ineffable work of the creator.

@Pikachu you drive some good points. I'll preface with some brain teaser questions just cuz I know you like to debate sometimes 👀
They require literally no answer and don't relate to our convo but feel free to tackle and share anything about what you know. Perhaps I could actually learn from the questioning.

[c=665D00]Unnecessary questions:
1. How exactly would you argue establish, firstly, that this case for the archeopteryx is a norm for a principle you claim should be reflected across the entire concept of fossils and fossilization?

2. Do you think the rate of fossilization dampens the impact or solidity of this outlook and perspective?

3. What exactly does this understanding of evolution have in contention with the understanding of creation?[/c]



These types of logical inferences or conclusions that you have proposed can actually be established in the model of creation but both forwards and backwards. However, these can be a lot more tangibly debatable. For the concept of creation, there is no doubt that anything outside of this universe is automatically unfathomable and not really tangible or physically understandable because the physical properties of this universe obviously govern this universe but not what is outside of it. But, some inferences and suppositions can be concluded but perhaps you'll find there is more evidence than not. We actually talked about this in the distance SW past with an example where I asked you how you know a screw is not a natural part of nature. But before we dive in, feel free to drop any criticisms and actually open the conversation. Ask away or draw our starting ideas and talk about creation :o
Cuz I don't wanna ask questions then go into an explanation and questiom you right after. So take it away and set the scene

@cerealguy


"Transitional" forms are the norm. Everything is in transition and the more we learn about comparative anatomy and genetics, the more this becomes apparent. There are just a few dramatic examples kicking around like Archaeopteryx.


Nope. If anything it strengthens it because even with the incredibly low rate of fossilization, we're still this relationship all across the fossil record.


Creationism typically refers not just to the idea that god created life but that god created life in more or less its present form and often a very short time ago.

I think the most glaring problem even to laymen like myself is that when creationism has to explain evidence like human chromosome 2 or ERVs or why toothless animals carry the gene for teeth, the answer essentially boils down to "God did it for reasons". Evolution keeps explaining it in the same way and the explanation continues to be sound.

@Pikachu oh, so for creation, you are talking about the Christian lens? I guess perhaps we should have clarified sooner 😅


So, let's kinda walk through this and sort out an important thing. What does the human chromosome 2, ERVs, toothless animals carrying genes have to deal with the concept of this cosmos needing a creator? Does it seem rational to say that because of toothless animals carrying genetic code for teeth, this universe could not have been created? Or are the two not mutually exclusive and are rather firstly, rationally inclusive. (Potentially as a possibility if you don't think or know if they even are).

This seems like a necessary first hurdle because the dimension that creation exists in is different to the concept of evolution, no? If you go back to the beginning of the universe, what does this universe needing a creator really have to do with explaining something you believe took place billions of years later, and on a specific planet. Wouldn't you be questioning a dynamic on that planet instead of the concept of creation? Do they seem mutually exclusive? 😅

@cerealguy


Always important to define terms lol. But any model of creation that rejects evolution faces the same issues.

I don't think evolution disproves the existence of a creator deity but it does make it an unnecessary postulation to explain the diversity of life on the planet.
We do have to be absolutely clear here: if you want to make the argument that a god created the universe then evolution has nothing to say on that count. I am focusing on a specific example of faith-based pseudoscience.

Most theists today don't have an issue with evolution.

@Pikachu right. I'm glad we get each other. Most evolutionists also don't have an issue with deism/theism, either. For creation, I mean it in its non-contextualized form of just pure creation. The Christian perspective is incredibly dominant for sure 😂


So I guess here is where we focus on the logical reasoning behind the evidences. So since we did evolution pretty much (or at least I have a strong understanding [hopefully] or evolution's case studies and reasonings) let's turn to the concept of creation and explore the rationality behind this cosmos having a creator and why or how it is rooted in reason rather than blind pseudoscience. Seems fair? :v
I'm finna get into it but I wanna make sure we're on the same page again.

Our conversation is progressing in lovely fashion and manners

@cerealguy

Well i have to admit that i'm not really interested in the arguments about whether there is a creator or whether it is justified to assert that there must be a creator.

But i have enjoyed our discussion.
Thanks!

@cerealguy your 'creator' needs a creator, yes?

@chibs nope. This logic is actually what proves a single, sole, independent creator exists that is self sufficient, one, unique, and necessary

I can explain why

@cerealguy please... go ahead

@chibs just like an infinite series, it always has to have a beginning. That beginning is the ultimate, necessary being. The concept of infinite regression is a problematic and irrational conclusion

Infinite regression is to continually ask what created that creator, forcing the conclusion that there is no creator. But let's play that game and see.

Suppose this universe is dependent on the creator. And this creator is dependent on another, greater creator that created them. Then this ultimate, final creator would be the ultimate entity that is a necessary existence and is self sufficient, eternal, one, and unique. There was a time when only that entity was there. Then it created the other creator.

There is ultimately a stopping point.

Why?
This next portion targets how this is the only rational conclusion:

Suppose that this universe is dependent on its creator and that creator has a creator and that creator has a creator.....etc. etc.
Suppose it goes infinitely. This would mean we could never exist. Why?

Let's draw out the two tasks:

Task A:
We have to be created

Task B:
All the other creators and things we are dependent on to happen before us firstly need to take place


Since task A is our existence (and we know we exist), then that means task B has actually finished. Finished means it was never infinite. Because if I look back and see that I needed infinite things before me, I literally would never be able to happen. But since I exist, there was a limited number of things before me.

And this works for any mathematical seried too btw. Infinite regression is a fallacy and an irrationality, sadly.

This simple logic demonstrated that even if you argue that this creator has one, ULTIMATELY, there will be the One, True Creator that started everything and owns everything. That is the Creator I speak of and the only one I deem worthy of worship. Plus, there can't be other creators and owners of the universe too. So that has to be the One True God

@cerealguy
Why suppose that? There's no necessity to do so.

@chibs because it is the only rational conclusion I have ever encountered so far. The others have been simply guesswork or skepticism with no thought and reason

Unless you want to start bringing justification to go down that route

Regardless, I hope I answered your question

@cerealguy Why postulate a super intelligent creator being when whatever explanation offered for its origin can simply be applied to the universe instead?

@cerealguy So it's not based on a compelling necessity... it's based on convenience and academic laziness.

@Sharon two reasons:

1. Supernatural necessities cannot be applied to the natural world we see around us
2. Even without this, what justifies the postulation that this universe possesses it? Is this an actual stance and point you want to bring to the table as an option? A rational option, at that?

@chibs far from it. I answered your question thoroughly and completely, unless you're accusing me of missing something

Recall that this is the only rational conclusion I have ever come across. Unless you've really got something of substance, I suggest keeping ad hominems to yourself

Unless you wish to uptake an academic challenge and really prove which of us has taken a stance of convenience. (And I predict you'll decline to see challenge this through)