If you were a Creationist what would be your best argument?

[Sir Pwn4lot]

Hey,

Just wondering, if you were a supporter of intelligent Design (Hope people don't mind me using those terms interchangeably) what argument would you use as evidence against evolution?

Mine:

The very existence of people as stupid as we are suggests the errancy of your theory (lol)

What would you use?

 

[Zylstra]

If I could think of a really good case for creationism,... I'd be a creationist... :|

 

[IrBubble]

I don't know any valid arguments for creationism, but I guess if I would have wanted to propagate it I would use the shotgun approach and simply try to overwhelm anyone trying to refute my points.

 

[e2iPi]

goddidit

They all reduce to this anyway.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

goddidit

They all reduce to this anyway.

Yeah, at least with that one you're being relatively honest and not wasting anyone's time thinking that you have an actual position.

"I just take it on faith" and "the Bible says so" also have the same effect.

 

[Squawk]

Probably something from developmental biology. The mammalian vagina, for example, is pretty tough to explain (don't get me wrong, it can be explained). The original design was for one exit hole for all waste and young (think monotremes and egg laying), but at some point the vagina developed in what must have been a pretty huge upheaval.

The typical arguments are a waste of time, creotards jump on them without thinking because phrases like "irriducible complexity" sound scientific and thus they think they gain credibility.

 

[scikidus]

I'd probably use a strawman version of Occam's Razor.

"You need complex explanations for everything, but I know that God did it. My version is simpler, therefore I win."

Unfortunatly, peopel who use this argument fail miserabl;y at understanding what Occam's Razor is, what it is used for, and just how many assumptions lie under "God did it."

 

[GoodKat]

If by "best" you mean "most convincing in the eyes of a layperson", it would be denial of beneficial mutations.

 

[Aught3]

I think I'm special therefore I am.

Don't you want to be special too?

 

[Pulsar]

Those scientists keep changing with the wind. First they said the world was millions of years old, now it's billions.
They thought the universe was static, now it's supposedly expanding. Einstein biggest mistake: the cosmological constant! First it didn't exist, then it did, then it didn't, and now it does again! Pfff. Every scientific theory has been proven false, or changed. And when they fail again, they'll try to sell us something else. And we're supposed to pay for their grants!

The word of God never changes, the Bible is infallible!!!

 

[IrBubble]

Well, the mormons do have the best argument ever, I mean who can argue with MAGICAL UNDERWEAR?

 

[Marcus]

Actually, in this case I think the distinction between Creationism and ID is an important one. ID claims to be scientific, but it can clearly be shown to be false by scientific means. If I were a creationist, on the other hand, I would simply hang anything that didn't go along with actual facts on faith that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Magic man dun it. With magic.

 

[FCAAP_Dan]

only the experienced creationist debater will not reduce their own beliefs from ID to creationism and then to biblical literalism. I've seem them defeat themselves that way many times. they admit it's not science.

transitional forms are always going to be a big problem. creatards and the layman just don't get it. they both seem to expect a crocoduck.

 

[Daealis]

I've heard and read some pretty convincing arguments. Even some that seriously made me think that what the hell could explain that. But when I bump into these, I try to check the validity of the finds or the mechanism on which they operate, and usually there is a fairly simple explanation to why the creatard math seemed convincing. Off the bat I can think of a videoseries posted by Nephilim about a creation conference, that had some arguments I thought to be pretty convincing, but a few weeks later ThetaOmega came along and tore them a new one.

So every argument that seemed at first as convincing has been misrepresented and only seemed impossible because of my own personal ignorance on the subject.

Because of that, the best arguments for creationism today lie in the unknown, like the mechanics on how our universe began. I could never be a young earther, since that is just stupidity beyond my comprehension.

 

[e2iPi]

Off the bat I can think of a videoseries posted by Nephilim about a creation conference

You were actually able to sit through an entire series by this idiot? I'm impressed, you must have a much higher tolerance for pain than I.

i^2

 

[Ciraric]

My argument:

Bring to me any and all evidence you have for your side so I can disprove it. Nothing can be proved only disproved.

(This usually gets people to shut up as they are too lazy to go searching for evidence).

It works both ways.

 

[Pookabun]

[
Yeah, at least with that one you're being relatively honest and not wasting anyone's time thinking that you have an actual position.

"I just take it on faith" and "the Bible says so" also have the same effect.[/quote]

Exactly.

I always think that this is the only way to be anything like an honest creationist. Just say "obviously our beliefs are mutually exclusive to demonstrable scientific evidence of the world, but we believe it because the bible (god) says so. " That's it.

Which, in the end, is what they are doing anyway. But to go directly there is less insulting to the rest of us and certainly saves all the energy spent on dishonest, ridiculous apologetics.

 

[Moky]

I'm right and you're going to hell.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I'm right and you're going to hell.

Yeah, because that's convincing... :lol:

 

[WaxItYourself]

If I were a creationists I would begin by stating that God created the Big Bang in which the beginning of both time and space were. Since God created time and space he can not live within his own creation. Therefor he lives outside of time and space and is eternal. God sees everything and every time as it is at that moment. What passes for us in our dimension does not pass for God in his. Evolution could be the way he is forming us to be like him. It's taken us billions of years to get to the point we are at now but from God's point of view it happened immediately. Creation is the beginning while evolution is the means.

If you mean how would I argue from a creationists standpoint that evolution is false... well I'd probably take the facts, twist them around to meet my agenda while simultaneously ignoring the facts that don't meet my agenda and then posting them as fact and place some personal jabs in it now and then followed by a loud laugh and the word Pwned.