Creation is logical while Evolution is just art. Why or why not?

Question

ARGUMENT. ON CREATION

Premise 1: Every simple thing, like cameras, computers, have makers or creators.

Premise 2: If simple things have makers then complex things like, our eyes, brains, have a maker(s) or creator.

Premise 3: Every rule has an exception.

CONCLUSION: If all things have makers /creators and if every rule has an exception, then the Grand creator of all is the exception. (That is no one made him.)

ARGUMENT ON EVOLUTION.
Premise 1: Art is an object or idea that fascinates many.

Premise 2: What is more art needs no concrete proof, imagination is proof enough.

Premise 3: Evolution has no concrete proof; some of its alleged proofs are imagined ( see www.evolution-facts.org)

CONCLUSION: Therefore, evolution is an art that fascinates many.

Answer 1

Here is my evaluation based on logic
Argument 1 Creation.
Premise 1: true
Premise 2: true
Premise 3: true
Conclusion: logically flows from premises 1 to 3, so valid.

Argument 2 Evolution.
Premise 1: true
Premise 2: true
Premise 3: true if that site's proofs are true.

Conclusion: logically flows from premise 1 to 3 ( except you have to add the words: "and many are fascinated by evolution); so yes, your conclusion is Valid.

Boy, you must be good in your logic class!

Answer 2

Premise 1: Every simple thing, like cameras, computers, have makers or creators.
Premise 3: Every rule has an exception.

CONCLUSION: EVOLUTION

Premise 1: Art is an object or idea that fascinates many.
Premise 2: What is more art needs no concrete proof, imagination is proof enough.
Premise 3: Gravity has no concrete proof, only indirect evidence.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, gravity is an art that fascinates many.

Of course, your so-called logic breaks down in so many other ways. Creationism is empty rhetoric, but somehow, you make it emptier.

Answer 3

Why can't you skip the middle man on the argument on creation and say that the world is the exception??? There is no logic in it, sorry mate. Plus - every man made thing has a creator, why does that mean non-man made things must have creators? Every man made thing also takes effort to make and probably burns up a few calories - does God burn up calories? This is like the 'All cats have 4 legs --> my dog has 4 legs --> my dog is a cat' argument.

Evolution does not have completely concrete proof, but it makes logical sense to many (more so than your argument above...) Of course that website says that evolution is not correct, it is precisely aimed at that - there are also neo-nazis who find 'logical reasons' that Hitler was right - does that make it true? It is what we call PROPAGANDA

And the argument about evolution as 'art' could equally apply to religion. In fact, more so. Art is also for its own sake - as is religion. Science is trying to explain things for a lot of reasons e.g. medicine, general understanding. There is no reason people would WANT to believe in evolution - it gives no purpose or goodness to life - EXCEPT that they find it logical.

Answer 4

Premise 1: Evolution doesn't say the universe wasn't created.Everything that is built can be improved on.

Premise 2: This is the same argument as Premise 1.

Premise 3: So? This is a Red Herring argument.

ARGUMENT ON EVOLUTION

Premise 1: Again, a Red Herring.

Premise 2: Art is not science, Art and Proof are completely unrelated.

Premise 3: Actually, it does, but you don't care. Anything to make your bible fit, eh?

CONCLUSION: Your support for creation is flawed as your arguments have nothing to do with the subject, and your criticism of evolution is, quite frankly, stupid as it makes no sense.

You're going to need more than that, buddy.

Answer 5

Creation

Premise 1. invalid, cameras and computers are not simple things, each is made of other things, which are made of other things.

Premise 2. invalid, see above

Premise 3. True, rules have exceptions, natural laws on the other hand do not.

Conclusion invalid. Natural chemical reactions do not have makers or creators. Error; Grand creator parameters not entered.


Evolution
Premise 1. invalid, it has nothing to do with evolution

Premise 2. see above

Premise 3. Error, goes against established historical records, fossils.

Conclusion: Self serving argument

Answer 6

Pulling premises out of your butt doesn't mean squat. The only premise you got right on the Creation side was 1. 2 and 3 you've just decided that they need to be there to fit your conclusion. And as for the Evolution side, art has nothing to do with evolution. Premise two is another pulled out of your butt. Premise 3 is a complete and total bold faced lie.

You're not very good at reasoning.

Answer 7

Creation:

Premise 1: There must be a creator god that created and knows everything at all times.

Premise 2: Nothing had to have created this god, even though you admit yourself that all things have a creator. Instead, this god has to have always existed and will always exist.

Conclusion: A logical paradox that you have even admitted yourself because all things must have a creator by your own admission.

Evolution:

Premise 1: All things began in the past and we don't know how they began.

Premise 2: Evolution explains how life became what it is today.

Conclusion: By all logic, Evolution is correct and does not express a logical paradox as creation does.

Answer 8

You argument impaled itself on the very first word: "Creation."
We bandy that idea about as if we had some experience or concept to cover this glibly uttered activity: "creation."

You dramatize the error of thinking you know what it means by alluding to things like "watches" and "cameras." The fact is you have never seen or heard of anyone "creating" a watch. What you MAY have seen is someone organizing EXISTING materials into something you call a watch. So before you go any further with this crippled analogy, we will demand you give us some more rigorous, satisfying rendition of what you mean by "creation" - and please, no more watchmakers, OK?

As to your pronouncements on the shortcomings of evolution, they are patently false and based on the ever-shriller denial of the obvious, and growing, body of evidence to the contrary. However, let's assume that indeed there are shortcomings. Does it strike you as likely that science would just close up the lab and substitute wizards or some such nonsense for a natural explanation? This is indeed fringe thinking, and it goes against main-stream Christian theology as well as science.

Answer 9

You are ***-backwards. Creation story is logical? To who? The local fairie tale readers association? The creation story is totally illogical, has not a single shred of proof to back it up, and it is not even original. The christian creation story is stolen, copied, editted from several other earlier such stories. I suggest you do much more research. There are volumes of evidence supporting evolution. Do we know all of the exact fine details of evolution? No and we may never fully know. Having said that, the only thing that possibly makes sense is still evolution.

Answer 10

CONCLUSION: If all things have makers /creators and if every rule has an exception, then the Grand creator of all is the exception. (That is no one made him.)

So who makes this "exception"? The people who buy into the fairy tale?

You can't stop a logical argument where you like just to fit your unprovable needs.

ARGUMENT DENIED

Please try again