If I were to argue like a creationist, would it sound something like this..?..:?

Question

Actually I'm a fully qualified scientist and also qualified in religious studies, so I should know..
I have seen the evidence both in my heart and in the field, and have concluded that the creation myth is a hoax and a danger to peace on Earth. And that those who embrace mainstream scientific principles and understandings are our best hope for the future.
People who think like me are the only ones who have morals.
There's also been a study done to prove this is true.
There's also heaps of proof this is so.
The proof I have is in my faith that it's true.
There's been other studies done showing why the creation myth is exactly that, a myth.
More and more people are becoming atheist, and everybody needs to become one.
All the studues done show this to be true.
I know the truth because it's in my heart, and my faith only confirms this..
May the natural sciences bless your mind.

[of course, the REAL arguments in favour of mainstream science are more complex and verifiable]

"John C", very funny, and very accurate..
Well done..

Answer 1

If I you are going to argue with creationist use there own argument against them I suggest the following as a perfect example.

The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des---

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed that way!

Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain? Frankly, I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all: the breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and run it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it wouldn't prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even get into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me a doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how that plays in court!

Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen, when push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes to matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method, testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they strongly privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy, ridiculous arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind of felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue, then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid you adieu.

Answer 2

Is or IS NOT Pluto a planet. I and billions of others were taught it was by the schools NOW we are told otherwise.

Does science and education perpetuate myths by putting out things as "facts" far too soon?

Will you go on record as supporting a LIFE POSSIBLE PLANET 30 light years away because of WAVE UNDULATIONS. You know, we can send probes to determine if that is true or not, it will take a few centuries to get there but it can be proven or disproven.

Did your microscope grown on a tree or was it created.

Did your lap top come from a cabbage patch or was it created.

Have we ever documented LIFE accidentally spawning from NATURALLY OCCURING INORGANICS.

The conditions, which are, I suppose, theoreticlally possible for organic RNA to come from an inorganic pool are quite complex, so complex in fact that the premutations for a scientist to duplicate them would require millons of experiments.

Occan's Razor says the simplest explaination is probably the correct one. And a creator, a scientist an inventor who starts the process of the universe and life using intellegence and willfull intent is, therefore, more likely to have made the universe than lucky random accident.

We will eventually find out for ourselves for even Science says there is going to be an end to the world and if on that date (and we're pretty sure it will take a tad of time, enough for use to freak out before we are consumed, enough for some to hide in holes in the ground or to live on Martian or Neaptunian MOON's colonies that might be spared) if there is no return of God to take man away then the religious will have to admit that Revelations was a story.

If God does come for man, those will your point of view will continue to have the PLUTO IS/IS NOT mentality.

Occam's Razor and Las Vegas odds say that it is a certainty ONE DAY, that ONE of the two groups is going to have to admit they were wrong. That is a certainty.

I'd rather cling to my beliefs than do the Pluto Shuffle and look like a fool who can't make up their minds.

Answer 3

You're not as smart as you think you are old wise one. Science has duped a whole lot of thinking people to deny Faith in God. The Creator of heaven , Earth and the entire universe. There is absolutely no argument here whatsoever.

Man did not evolve from anything.

Chicken did not mutate from an egg or protoplasm.

The earth is very young according to carbon dating analysis depending on whose research you accept.

Gorilla's, monkeys, and all ape like species would not be in existence today if man evolved from a lower species. The lower species would be like the dinasaurs (extinct) by now.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out simple things that would be a requirement to make evolution a viable choice.

Have you ever known two house cats to produce a lion or two dogs to produce a cat? Much of Evolution is a theory based on nonsense. Wow! I don't expect a scientist would give 10 points to a creationist but at least I have given you the truth. The truth is that God created all things. Read Hebrews 11:3, Psalm 24: 1-3, Genesis 1:1. Have faith dear friend in God.

Answer 4

Do you realize that evolution was laughed at by the educated in Darwin's day. Science evolves and gets better over time. Darwin's own father said that his son was an idiot. But creationists thank Darwin for enlightening us to adaptation and environmental conditioning. Though evolution is a bogus science, it does have it's place in creationism.

Creationists do not think that they are the only ones with morality. That is bogus. We see that people are people no matter what they believe.

If you are a scientist like you say you are I'd invite you to actually study the physics of creation science. It isn't anymore unscientific than evolution is and is only a theory.

Answer 5

You should point out that Piltdown Man was proof that evolution is true and leave it at that. Well, I guess you could throw in Nebraska Man while you're at it. And you could point to Lady Gaga as the missing link we've all been looking for.

Answer 6

A lot of the argument for creationism (and belief in general) boils down to 'It is true because the bible says it is true, the bible is true because god says it is true, god is true because I say it is true'

The main flaw with creationism is that it was formulated to attempt to discredit evolutionism. It is founded on disbelief (a negative), not belief, and therefore can never hold logical validity of it's own. Sadly this isn't enough to stop it gaining popularity.

Answer 7

Julie, Julie, Julie, you make me want to cry. Yes, dear, science does change, because technology catches up, and science is flexible enough to admit that it may have been (gasp) wrong, however, it still follows credible evidence to base theories on. It will always follow where the evidence goes to explain the things around us. Are you that closed-minded that you can never consider other possibilities? That makes me very sad for you.

Answer 8

Yes

Answer 9

Yes, I think you've done a reasonable job of imitating the "arguments" of creationists.

Think you'll change anyone's mind with it? Good luck!

Answer 10

As someone who has religious studies should know that wide is the path that leads to destruction and narrow is the path that leads to life and only few will find it.
*think about it*