Thread:TheSquidychicken/@comment-31308946-20170525193032/@comment-27388204-20170605061832

Alright. I have just read the entire thread, and I must say, all the arguments I have seen are either fallacious or have already been refuted.

First of all: God of the gaps. This is a very common creationist argument: "Science can't explain this, therefore God!" Well, I'm sorry, but back in the past, there were other phenomena that science couldn't explain, and were thus attributed to a god. However, every time, a proper explanation was found, and God was kicked out of that gap. As Neil DeGrasse Tyson put it nicely, God is an ever-receeding pocket of ignorance.

Another one I noticed frequently in this thread was Pascal's Wager, which basically says that Christians have nothing to lose, but if atheists are wrong, they will go to hell. Well, what if you're wrong about Bumba, Quetzalcoatl or Zeus? Not to mention that Pascal's Wager in general reeks of cowardice. If you can't prove hell exists, why should I be scared of it?

Then there is the issue of the Bible. To ascertain the legitimacy of this ancient scripture, written by men who did not know where the sun went when it set, and though bats were birds, creationists always end up falling into circular logic:

A: The bible says so!

B: Why trust the bible?

A: Because it is the word of God, and is infallible.

B: But how to we 1: know that it is the word of God, and 2: know that the word of God is infallible?

A: The bible says so!

Repeat.

As for evidence for evolution, I'm sorry to say, but in no way whatsoever does the fossil record support the flood. If all animals species were killed in the flood, wouldn't you expect a jumble of different animals all in the same layers? No, we don't find that. Instead, we find organisms in different layers, with more complex organisms present in more recent layers, with the more ancient ones containing only very simple ones. We find no mammals in Palaeozoic rocks. We find no birds in Mesozoic rocks. We find no reptiles in Devonian rocks. We find no fish in Pre-Cambrian rocks. We find no vertebrates or arthropods in Ediacaran rocks. We find no multicellular animals prior to the Cryogenian (I think, I might have to check that up again). If all these were killed in a flood, we'd expect to find them all jumbled together, not in a pattern from simple to complex that corresponds perfectly with the genetic evolutionary tree.

I also saw the argument from complexity come up a few times. The human eye? Really? That has been debunked so many times. The human eye is the result of gradual evolution, with each stage possessing a distinct advantage over the last. Not only do we have fossil evidence to back this up, with simpler eye designs being found in older rocks, but we have the morphology of living animals. Even now, our eye isn't perfect. Birds of prey have a more refined version of ours, and we in fact have a blind spot.

Finally, you said that nothing would change our minds. In fact, there are many things that would change the mind of one who accepts evolution. Evolution could be so easily falsified if a single fossil was found in the wrong rock layer. At any moment, someone could dig up a fossil rabbit in Ordovician rocks. That would be evidence, and that would be all it would take to change my mind. Meanwhile you openly proclaimed that nothing would change your mind. Therein lies all the difference in the world.

As for Answers in Genesis, I'm pretty sure that they can immediately be dismissed as biased and presuppositional when one takes a look at their statement of faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." That is not the mindset of a flexible-minded scientist.

