Why Are Mass Media Suddenly Talking Seriously About UFOs? The End of the Evolution Theory Era?

[Ogner]

18 hours ago, Tristen said:

This is well said.

My concern is with Young-earth creationists who advance rhetorical arguments rather than rational arguments - because I think we have the stronger rational arguments. I therefore consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions (which is why they are so popular with proponents of the secular narrative).

For example, you said, "it’s probably best to steer clear of evolutionists entirely, since their theory, at first glance, often feels like a collection of guesses, sometimes bordering on fairy tales" - which is an implied denigration of the method they use to draw their conclusions. That is, the statement is a rhetorical invitation to dismiss the opposition as spouting mere "fairy tales".

However, in reality, both sides are merely asking how history might have unfolded to produce the current universe - given their respective faith assumptions (i.e. for creationists - that the Bible is true, and for secularists - that no god has participated in the unfolding of history). Since neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations, the conclusions of both sides can be equally labelled "guesses", stories, speculations etc. (investigators like to call them 'models'). That is simply the logical nature (and limitation) of historical modelling.

It is the want of secularists to pretend their position is, by default, intellectually superior. We, however, should be mindful to reign-in the influence of our biases - so as to be more objectively critical in our analysis.

 

I also think rhetorical arguments are a waste of time. They often pop up when people debate the origin of the universe. Creationists have a straightforward answer: God created it. Evolutionists, though, get a wide-open road, limited only by their imagination—Big Bang, multiverses, you name it. There’s no way to test any of that. At that level, I don’t see the point in talking—it’s all guesses. But when it comes to abiogenesis—the origin of life—things start getting real. Take James Tour’s five questions about life’s beginnings: chemical specifics that evolutionists can’t answer yet. From there, once life starts, At that point, we can lean on history, archaeology, biology, genetics, logic—natural sciences and the world we actually see. Then, we can zoom in even further to human evolution. The narrower the focus, the more solid the discussion. So, with evolutionists, I try to zero in on "human history"—does their theory even describe it right? Arguing from a creationist standpoint here doesn’t make sense; we diverged back at the creation of the universe, and they’ve gone off into multiverse. It’s more practical to use their own perspective, logic, and language of "evolution" and break it down from the inside when it comes to humans. 
Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? 

Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? I don’t think so, and here’s why—I’ve got questions they can’t answer:
Where are the millions of complete skeletons of human ancestors? We don’t even have one full specimen.

Where are the living subspecies or “cousin” species of humans today? There should be some, but it’s just us and apes.

Why did successful “ancestors” like Homo erectus (1.8 million years) and Neanderthals (200,000 years) vanish without a trace, while chimps stuck around for 6 million?

How does a gradual process explain humanity’s leap from spears to spaceships in 300,000 years, when no other animal does that?

These aren’t rhetorical gotchas—they’re gaps in their model, based on their own logic. Evolutionists claim a smooth progression, but the evidence doesn’t line up. I’m not here to dunk on them with “God did it”; I’m asking them to explain their own story. So far, silence.
You’re right—both sides build models from faith assumptions: Bible for us, no-God for them. Neither can time-travel to watch it happen. But we shouldn’t let bias cloud the analysis. Secularists act like their view is inherently smarter, but I say let’s ditch the posturing and dig into what’s observable. Human history is where their theory stumbles hardest. 

[Tristen]

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Have you ever just LISTENED to the Young-earth creationists' arguments with an open mind?

Hi Retro,

I have been a "Young-earth creationist" (so-called) for over three decades.

My concern is our tendency to fall into the same time-wasting trap as proponents of the secular narrative. 

Consider: When the secularist claims creationists ignore evidence, are anti-science/anti-intellectual - or that we believe in "fairy tales" - does that ridicule sway your position at all? Do you think ridiculing the secular arguments as "fairy tales" sways your opponent's position? I'm simply trying to caution fellow creationists away from rhetoric that doesn't move the argument - and may even result in opponents becoming more defensive.

I am aware that secularists like to exaggerate their conclusions as 'established truths' - and therefore often need reminding that investigations of the past logically implement more storytelling than observation. However, it is not fair-minded (or useful) to ridicule their conclusions - as though this logical limitation only applies to their conclusions about the past.

 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

OR, one can STAND UP to secularists, learn a few truths - both from the Bible and from REAL science - observation and experimentation - and show that the secularist worldview is the REAL "fairy tale." As you said, "neither side can go back in time to make the requisite observations"; therefore, it is IMPERATIVE to accept the TESTIMONY given to us from the One who was THERE from the beginning! He WAS there when He created it all, and HIS Word was the record.

Many of those we encounter in this debate do not respect the authority of the Bible - and have been raised to exclusively believe the secular narrative. Nothing is gained by simply retorting that their "worldview is the REAL "fairy tale."". 

Again, my issue is with us trying to win a rhetorical argument; forgetting that we are actually trying to reach people's hearts. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that their exclusive confidence in the secular narrative is not justified by evidence or logic, and that what they have been taught incorporates larger elements of speculation, conjecture, assumption etc. AND THEREFORE, that the creationist view is an equally-valid alternative to the secular narrative.

Incendiary rhetoric is unnecessary - and potentially hindering to our ultimate goal.

 

9 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

Furthermore, it is important to understand HOW the secularists make faulty assumptions

It is perfectly valid to expose the inherent "assumptions" in their arguments. However, to claim those assumptions are "faulty" exposes your own bias - given that we also have no way to verify/falsify the applied "assumptions". 

The weakness with regards to "assumptions" is that the conclusions are relying on logical elements that can not be verified/falsified. Therefore, no-one is logically obligated to those conclusions (as is often falsely implied). If the "assumptions" happen to be wrong, then the conclusions are untrustworthy. Since the "assumptions" can be wrong (and there is usually evidence to support that possibility), we are justified in distrusting (i.e. justified in not accepting) the conclusions.

 

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

OR, to learn HOW to support our "biases" with fact

You can support your argument "with fact". But if your argument incorporates logical bias, then your argument loses credibility.

 

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, eye-witness testimony IS fact. One could get into the Hebrew of the text and see what the Scriptures say from the Hebrew point of view and understand that we have MORE than just a "bias" about what we are reading. It's NOT written as a "fairy-tale," nor is it written as poetry or fiction. It is written from the perspective of a historian, listing the details of what He experienced. It's actual HISTORY, not a "story" or a "legend."

You are failing to consider the paradigm of the secularist you are engaging with - and that not everyone you speak to automatically trusts the "testimony" of scripture.

The first step in this debate is often an attempt to show them that you are logically/scientifically/intellectually permitted to question and disagree with the secular narrative. I find that to be the hardest part of the conversation, since they have been indoctrinated to think that only their position is valid - and won't take anything we say seriously until we unravel that lie.

 

10 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

However, their humanistic, secular worldview is ignorant - they IGNORE the history given to us in favor of their own narrative. But, they've been consistently wrong in that narrative, BECAUSE they REFUSE to believe the truths that could influencce how they READ that evidence. They fail to see how THEY'VE become the "church rejecting the evidence from Galileo!"

So, they say we are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". Then we say we they are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". So much time-and-energy is wasted on this type of rhetorical bluster.

 

 

 

 

 

[Tristen]

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

Creationists have a straightforward answer: God created it. Evolutionists, though, get a wide-open road, limited only by their imagination—Big Bang, multiverses, you name it.

Agreed. Time becomes their god. That is, 'Given enough time, who knows what is possible?'.

To be fair though, our preferred model of reality incorporates actual supernatural elements - which also vastly broadens the range of possible explanations.

 

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

There’s no way to test any of that

There is no way to directly "test" any past (or supernatural) claim. We can only indirectly "test" such claims through consistency between the available evidence and our respective models.

That is, if the available evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, then the model (objectively speaking) might be accurate - and is therefore a legitimate option for fair consideration (but also, there is a possibility that the available evidence may have been generated via a completely different story of history than what we are proposing). That is the ever-existing weakness with any claim about the unobserved past. Even new evidence that is consistent with model predictions only means that the model might still be accurate.

 

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

There’s no way to test any of that. At that level, I don’t see the point in talking—it’s all guesses

Again, to be fair, we do a lot of guessing ourselves.

The same logical weaknesses apply to both sides trying to investigate the past. I see no objective value in pretending (or posturing) that only the secular narrative has such weaknesses.

 

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

But when it comes to abiogenesis—the origin of life—things start getting real.

Yes - there are many unanswered questions for the secular narrative of history.

And again, there are many questions/challenges and gaps in the creationist narrative of history.

They will respond to challenges by claiming, "That is just how science works; we don't know things - until we do". Unfortunately, by way of double-standard, they will rarely afford us that same grace; acting as though any challenge to our position is tantamount to the wholesale falsification of young-earth creationism (YEC).

 

4 hours ago, Ogner said:

It’s more practical to use their own perspective, logic, and language of "evolution" and break it down from the inside when it comes to humans.

I agree that we often have to reveal to them that there are logical weaknesses in their own preferred narrative - before they'll hear anything we have to say about YEC.

 

5 hours ago, Ogner said:

Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? I don’t think so, and here’s why—I’ve got questions they can’t answer:
Where are the millions of complete skeletons of human ancestors? We don’t even have one full specimen.

Where are the living subspecies or “cousin” species of humans today? There should be some, but it’s just us and apes.

Why did successful “ancestors” like Homo erectus (1.8 million years) and Neanderthals (200,000 years) vanish without a trace, while chimps stuck around for 6 million?

How does a gradual process explain humanity’s leap from spears to spaceships in 300,000 years, when no other animal does that?

I guess my problem here is, that - even as a YEC, I think I can answer these from the secular perspective. The first two, for example, are technically Arguments from Ignorance - i.e. logic fallacies arguing on the basis of what we haven't observed - claiming to know what we should have observed.

I think your earlier appeal to "the origin of life" is a much, much stronger challenge to the secular narrative.

 

5 hours ago, Ogner said:

Secularists act like their view is inherently smarter

Absolutely - and that is (usually) the first obstacle we need to overcome in the conversation - to get them to even consider considering what we have to say.

 

 

[Ogner]

9 hours ago, Tristen said:

I guess my problem here is, that - even as a YEC, I think I can answer these from the secular perspective.

 

Welcome! Try answering these questions! Man Is Not the Product of Evolution: Where Are All the Others?

Quote

 

Agreed. Time becomes their god. That is, 'Given enough time, who knows what is possible?'.

To be fair though, our preferred model of reality incorporates actual supernatural elements - which also vastly broadens the range of possible explanations.

 

I partially agree with you. You’re right that time becomes their god—evolutionists lean on "given enough time, anything’s possible," which stretches explanations pretty thin. To be fair, though, our creationist model does include supernatural elements, and that opens up a wider range of possibilities too.
Take the constraints: creationists are tied to the Bible, so every claim has to check out against the text, which keeps us grounded but limited. Still, there’s some wiggle room. For instance, when evolutionists ask, "If God created the universe just a few thousand years ago, how did light from stars millions of light-years away reach Earth in less than 10,000 years?"—creationists can flex a bit. A rhetorical answer might be: "God created the universe fully formed, like an artist painting a picture. The Creator painted 'The Universe,' complete and ready, just as we see it now." 
I think this sidesteps all rhetorical guesswork—from the creation of the world to young-Earth puzzles. It’s like a checkmate at that level; there’s nothing left to debate there. The real discussion starts at something concrete, like abiogenesis, where we can dig into evidence and reasoning beyond "what ifs."
What do you think—does that shift the focus enough?

Quote

 

There is no way to directly "test" any past (or supernatural) claim. We can only indirectly "test" such claims through consistency between the available evidence and our respective models.

That is, if the available evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, then the model (objectively speaking) might be accurate - and is therefore a legitimate option for fair consideration (but also, there is a possibility that the available evidence may have been generated via a completely different story of history than what we are proposing). That is the ever-existing weakness with any claim about the unobserved past. Even new evidence that is consistent with model predictions only means that the model might still be accurate.

Again, to be fair, we do a lot of guessing ourselves.

The same logical weaknesses apply to both sides trying to investigate the past. I see no objective value in pretending (or posturing) that only the secular narrative has such weaknesses.

 

I see where you’re going—you’re trying to frame creationism and evolutionism as equally unprovable theories, each leaning on its own untestable crutches: time for them, the supernatural for us. Fair enough, but I don’t buy that creationism is just as shaky. It’s not bologna—it’s got legs to stand on, and I’ll get to that.
First, creationism isn’t some wild guess. Take the Bible as a starting point: it’s a consistent record, not a fairy tale. The universe looking "ready-made"—like light from distant stars hitting Earth in under 10,000 years—fits a model where God created it fully formed, like an artist with a finished painting. That’s not a dodge; it’s a framework that matches what we see without needing billions of years of "maybe." Compare that to evolution’s gaps: no millions of ancestor skeletons, no living human subspecies, no clear path from chimp DNA to ours. Creationism doesn’t need to invent missing pieces—it takes the world as is and points to a purposeful design.
Now, you said earlier: "I consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions." Yet here we are, spinning in circles about how we test models—rhetoric about rhetoric. I’m with you—let’s cut the fluff. Either we shift to something concrete, like DNA or the fossil record, where creationism holds its own, or this stays a rhetorical merry-go-round that’s going nowhere. Your call: real talk or more hot air?

Quote

 

Yes - there are many unanswered questions for the secular narrative of history.

And again, there are many questions/challenges and gaps in the creationist narrative of history.

They will respond to challenges by claiming, "That is just how science works; we don't know things - until we do". Unfortunately, by way of double-standard, they will rarely afford us that same grace; acting as though any challenge to our position is tantamount to the wholesale falsification of young-earth creationism (YEC).

 

You’re spot on—there are tons of unanswered questions in the secular narrative. No skeletons of human ancestors by the millions, no living cousin species, no solid bridge from chimp DNA to ours. They wave it off with "science takes time," but that’s a cop-out when the gaps stay gaping.
That said, I’ll push back on lumping creationism in the same boat. Sure, YEC has challenges—light from distant stars, say—but it’s not scrambling for missing pieces like evolution is. Our model starts with a clear frame: the Bible says God made it all, fully formed, in six days. Stars visible on Earth? Easy—He painted the universe ready-made, light and all. That’s not a gap; it’s a feature. Evolution’s "we’ll figure it out later" doesn’t hold a candle to that kind of coherence.
You’re right about their double standard, though—they’ll forgive their own holes but act like one question for YEC blows it all up. Hypocrisy aside, let’s not kid ourselves: we’re still circling rhetorical wagons here. You said rhetorical arguments waste time, so let’s ditch the dance. Pick a challenge—DNA, fossils, starlight—and I’ll show you YEC stands tougher than you think. What’s your move?

[Retrobyter]

15 hours ago, Ogner said:

I also think rhetorical arguments are a waste of time. They often pop up when people debate the origin of the universe. Creationists have a straightforward answer: God created it. Evolutionists, though, get a wide-open road, limited only by their imagination—Big Bang, multiverses, you name it. There’s no way to test any of that. At that level, I don’t see the point in talking—it’s all guesses. But when it comes to abiogenesis—the origin of life—things start getting real.

Shalom, @Ogner.

This is correct, of course. However the point in talking is that THEY need to see that the Bible is NOT a book of fairy-tales but is rather a book of Truth. Without it, they will NEVER come to the knowledge that it is the ONE way that they will come to the Father.

When one cannot accept the absolute truth of God's Word, they will not be able to come to the One who can forgive their sins and provide a hope for their future! Thus, our GOAL is to show them that the Bible makes good sense, even when it comes to "Science!"

15 hours ago, Ogner said:

Take James Tour’s five questions about life’s beginnings: chemical specifics that evolutionists can’t answer yet. From there, once life starts, At that point, we can lean on history, archaeology, biology, genetics, logic—natural sciences and the world we actually see. Then, we can zoom in even further to human evolution. The narrower the focus, the more solid the discussion. So, with evolutionists, I try to zero in on "human history"—does their theory even describe it right? Arguing from a creationist standpoint here doesn’t make sense; we diverged back at the creation of the universe, and they’ve gone off into multiverse. It’s more practical to use their own perspective, logic, and language of "evolution" and break it down from the inside when it comes to humans. 
Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? 

Does evolution accurately describe humanity’s story? I don’t think so, and here’s why—I’ve got questions they can’t answer:
Where are the millions of complete skeletons of human ancestors? We don’t even have one full specimen.

Where are the living subspecies or “cousin” species of humans today? There should be some, but it’s just us and apes.

Why did successful “ancestors” like Homo erectus (1.8 million years) and Neanderthals (200,000 years) vanish without a trace, while chimps stuck around for 6 million?

How does a gradual process explain humanity’s leap from spears to spaceships in 300,000 years, when no other animal does that?

These aren’t rhetorical gotchas—they’re gaps in their model, based on their own logic. Evolutionists claim a smooth progression, but the evidence doesn’t line up. I’m not here to dunk on them with “God did it”; I’m asking them to explain their own story. So far, silence.
You’re right—both sides build models from faith assumptions: Bible for us, no-God for them. Neither can time-travel to watch it happen. But we shouldn’t let bias cloud the analysis. Secularists act like their view is inherently smarter, but I say let’s ditch the posturing and dig into what’s observable. Human history is where their theory stumbles hardest. 

This is a good approach to defeat their worldview from a negative perspective (showing how their theories don't add up), but the LURE for them would be a more POSITIVE perspective the other way (showing them how a biblical worldview makes good sense) would be more profitable to explain the theories..

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, Ogner said:

Welcome! Try answering these questions! Man Is Not the Product of Evolution: Where Are All the Others?

I already addressed two of the 4 questions you posited.

 

21 hours ago, Ogner said:

Take the constraints: creationists are tied to the Bible

And the secular narrative is "tied" to naturalistic explanations.

 

21 hours ago, Ogner said:

so every claim has to check out against the text, which keeps us grounded but limited. Still, there’s some wiggle room

The Bible leaves many aspects of history and science unexplained. There are therefore many, many aspects of the natural world that creationists are left to explain - that are not directly addressed in the Bible. Our job is to come up with a potential history that reconciles the evidence to the Bible. Since we can't go back in time to make the necessary observations, our explanations are also speculations - that may, or may not, be accurate representations of what really happened.

The same logical limitation applies to all claims about the past; whether secular or creationist.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

I see where you’re going—you’re trying to frame creationism and evolutionism as equally unprovable theories, each leaning on its own untestable crutches: time for them, the supernatural for us. Fair enough, but I don’t buy that creationism is just as shaky

Right - but what you (or I) "buy" is subjective. What is objectively true is that all claims about the past are stories that may, or may not, be true. Honesty demands that we acknowledge logical limitations. Normally, that has to be explained to the secularist - but the same rules of logic apply to us.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

First, creationism isn’t some wild guess. Take the Bible as a starting point: it’s a consistent record, not a fairy tale.

They would (and often do) make exactly the same claims about their narrative and paradigm. That is why such statements are meaningless and time-wasting.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

The universe looking "ready-made"

I'm often asked by secularists why the universe looks old.

It is the refusal to factor-in your own biases that leads you to the same rhetorical mistake as the secularists. You think their position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". They think our position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". To me, all such claims are fruitless, rhetorical bluster.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

light from distant stars hitting Earth in under 10,000 years—fits a model where God created it fully formed, like an artist with a finished painting

Truth 1 - The Bible indicates that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago.

Truth 2 - Even without direct measurements, we are happy to concede that light is reaching the earth from stars that are millions/billions of light years away.

Conclusion: (i.e. Story/guess/explanation) - God created the earth complete/mature/"full-formed"/"ready-made" as would an "artist" finish their work-of-art. This conclusion is speculation/conjecture about what may, or may not, have actually happened. It is a story that was made-up to reconcile the evidence with the Biblical model.

Please understand that I am not denigrating your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is the logical nature of past claims - and the logical limitation of past investigations. There is therefore no logical value in either side rhetorically denigrating the explanations of the others - because we both, of logical necessity, utilize the same brittle method to defend our preferred models.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

That’s not a dodge

It's not a "dodge". It's a valid attempt to answer the question in a way the reconciles the evidence to the model. But it is a "guess", a story, a speculation about what might have happened (how God might have created) - which is OK. But in honest fair-mindedness, it also has to be OK when the other side does it.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

Compare that to evolution’s gaps: no millions of ancestor skeletons, no living human subspecies, no clear path from chimp DNA to ours

These are Arguments from Ignorance - and therefore not logically valid rebuttals.

Given the specific and rare requirements for fossilization, we cannot logically claim to know what would, or would not, have undergone fossilization.

Any number of explanations (stories) could account for the disappearance of sub-populations of humans. Sub-populations of species routinely go extinct due to factors such as disease, or extreme weather, or predation, or interbreeding, or violence etc.

They would explain the path from ape to human as occurring through small genomic changes over time.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

Creationism doesn’t need to invent missing pieces

Your story about God completing His work like an artist is absolutely an invention.

 

22 hours ago, Ogner said:

Now, you said earlier: "I consider rhetorical arguments to be time-wasting distractions." Yet here we are, spinning in circles about how we test models—rhetoric about rhetoric

I'm explaining the logical limitations of the methods we both apply - for the explicit purpose of dissuading empty rhetorical arguments from our side. It's not "spinning in circles" to try and improve the logical quality of our arguments.

 

23 hours ago, Ogner said:

I’m with you—let’s cut the fluff. Either we shift to something concrete, like DNA or the fossil record, where creationism holds its own, or this stays a rhetorical merry-go-round that’s going nowhere. Your call: real talk or more hot air?

The "fluff" is when we denigrate the opposing position's explanations as "guesses" and "fairy tales" - all the while we are using the exact same method and logic to support our arguments.

I am not here to debate YEC with you - as I am already an affirmed YEC; and have been for over three decades.

 

23 hours ago, Ogner said:

the Bible says God made it all, fully formed, in six days. Stars visible on Earth? Easy—He painted the universe ready-made, light and all

You say "easy" for your story. And they say "easy" for their stories. And ultimately, both sides have a bunch of stories that the other side calls "fairy tales". Your story is consistent with your model - guess what, their stories are also consistent with their model.

So then, the conversation can, as you say, move on to more "concrete" issues - or both sides can continue to waste time on the rhetorical merry-go-round.

"Your telling fairy tales". "No, your telling fairy tales". "your inventing stories". "No, you are the one who's just guessing". "I know you are but what am I" etc. etc.

 

23 hours ago, Ogner said:

Pick a challenge—DNA, fossils, starlight—and I’ll show you YEC stands tougher than you think. What’s your move?

My purpose for engaging was to improve the rational quality of your creationist argument.

If you want me to distinguish the facts from the stories as I did with your "painter" explanation, I'll happily do that with any argument you care to provide. But you should be able to do that yourself.

As a creationist, I already know the creationist arguments. That debate is not why I'm here.

 

 

 

 

[Ogner]

On 3/26/2025 at 11:13 AM, Retrobyter said:

Shalom, @Ogner.

This is correct, of course. However the point in talking is that THEY need to see that the Bible is NOT a book of fairy-tales but is rather a book of Truth. Without it, they will NEVER come to the knowledge that it is the ONE way that they will come to the Father.

When one cannot accept the absolute truth of God's Word, they will not be able to come to the One who can forgive their sins and provide a hope for their future! Thus, our GOAL is to show them that the Bible makes good sense, even when it comes to "Science!"

This is a good approach to defeat their worldview from a negative perspective (showing how their theories don't add up), but the LURE for them would be a more POSITIVE perspective the other way (showing them how a biblical worldview makes good sense) would be more profitable to explain the theories..

Shalom, Retrobyter, I appreciate your comment, but I believe my approach is fully justified. You’re right that a positive approach—showing how a biblical worldview makes sense—can be a great lure. But you can’t force a conversation about God on someone who isn’t willing to talk about Him. If a person is open to discussing evolution, I’d rather meet them on their own ground, using their logic and language. My approach isn’t just about “defeating” their worldview by showing their theories don’t add up; it’s about letting them see the gaps in their own model for themselves. If they start questioning evolution, it might open the door to a conversation about biblical truth later, when they’re ready. For now, I focus on what we can discuss here and now—their own theory and its inconsistencies.

[Ogner]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

I already addressed two of the 4 questions you posited.

 

And the secular narrative is "tied" to naturalistic explanations.

 

The Bible leaves many aspects of history and science unexplained. There are therefore many, many aspects of the natural world that creationists are left to explain - that are not directly addressed in the Bible. Our job is to come up with a potential history that reconciles the evidence to the Bible. Since we can't go back in time to make the necessary observations, our explanations are also speculations - that may, or may not, be accurate representations of what really happened.

The same logical limitation applies to all claims about the past; whether secular or creationist.

 

Right - but what you (or I) "buy" is subjective. What is objectively true is that all claims about the past are stories that may, or may not, be true. Honesty demands that we acknowledge logical limitations. Normally, that has to be explained to the secularist - but the same rules of logic apply to us.

 

They would (and often do) make exactly the same claims about their narrative and paradigm. That is why such statements are meaningless and time-wasting.

 

I'm often asked by secularists why the universe looks old.

It is the refusal to factor-in your own biases that leads you to the same rhetorical mistake as the secularists. You think their position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". They think our position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". To me, all such claims are fruitless, rhetorical bluster.

 

Truth 1 - The Bible indicates that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago.

Truth 2 - Even without direct measurements, we are happy to concede that light is reaching the earth from stars that are millions/billions of light years away.

Conclusion: (i.e. Story/guess/explanation) - God created the earth complete/mature/"full-formed"/"ready-made" as would an "artist" finish their work-of-art. This conclusion is speculation/conjecture about what may, or may not, have actually happened. It is a story that was made-up to reconcile the evidence with the Biblical model.

Please understand that I am not denigrating your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is the logical nature of past claims - and the logical limitation of past investigations. There is therefore no logical value in either side rhetorically denigrating the explanations of the others - because we both, of logical necessity, utilize the same brittle method to defend our preferred models.

 

It's not a "dodge". It's a valid attempt to answer the question in a way the reconciles the evidence to the model. But it is a "guess", a story, a speculation about what might have happened (how God might have created) - which is OK. But in honest fair-mindedness, it also has to be OK when the other side does it.

 

These are Arguments from Ignorance - and therefore not logically valid rebuttals.

Given the specific and rare requirements for fossilization, we cannot logically claim to know what would, or would not, have undergone fossilization.

Any number of explanations (stories) could account for the disappearance of sub-populations of humans. Sub-populations of species routinely go extinct due to factors such as disease, or extreme weather, or predation, or interbreeding, or violence etc.

They would explain the path from ape to human as occurring through small genomic changes over time.

 

Your story about God completing His work like an artist is absolutely an invention.

 

I'm explaining the logical limitations of the methods we both apply - for the explicit purpose of dissuading empty rhetorical arguments from our side. It's not "spinning in circles" to try and improve the logical quality of our arguments.

 

The "fluff" is when we denigrate the opposing position's explanations as "guesses" and "fairy tales" - all the while we are using the exact same method and logic to support our arguments.

I am not here to debate YEC with you - as I am already an affirmed YEC; and have been for over three decades.

 

You say "easy" for your story. And they say "easy" for their stories. And ultimately, both sides have a bunch of stories that the other side calls "fairy tales". Your story is consistent with your model - guess what, their stories are also consistent with their model.

So then, the conversation can, as you say, move on to more "concrete" issues - or both sides can continue to waste time on the rhetorical merry-go-round.

"Your telling fairy tales". "No, your telling fairy tales". "your inventing stories". "No, you are the one who's just guessing". "I know you are but what am I" etc. etc.

 

My purpose for engaging was to improve the rational quality of your creationist argument.

If you want me to distinguish the facts from the stories as I did with your "painter" explanation, I'll happily do that with any argument you care to provide. But you should be able to do that yourself.

As a creationist, I already know the creationist arguments. That debate is not why I'm here.

 

 

 

 

, I understand you want to improve the logical quality of my arguments, and I appreciate your effort. But honestly, I see more criticism than actual help in your words. You point out logical limitations and call my explanations "guesses," but you don’t show how to do it better. Enough with the criticism—if your goal is truly to help, give me specific advice on how to reframe my points to be more logical. Show me how it’s done, and I’ll take a look. 

[Tristen]

21 hours ago, Ogner said:

, I understand you want to improve the logical quality of my arguments, and I appreciate your effort. But honestly, I see more criticism than actual help in your words. You point out logical limitations and call my explanations "guesses," but you don’t show how to do it better. Enough with the criticism—if your goal is truly to help, give me specific advice on how to reframe my points to be more logical. Show me how it’s done, and I’ll take a look. 

Both sides of the debate employ the same logical method to investigate the past. Both sides invent stories with the explicit aim of reconciling the evidence to their preferred model of reality. There is therefore no objectively rational value in using disparaging language to characterize the explanations of the other side.

[farouk]

On 3/27/2025 at 4:29 AM, Tristen said:

I already addressed two of the 4 questions you posited.

 

And the secular narrative is "tied" to naturalistic explanations.

 

The Bible leaves many aspects of history and science unexplained. There are therefore many, many aspects of the natural world that creationists are left to explain - that are not directly addressed in the Bible. Our job is to come up with a potential history that reconciles the evidence to the Bible. Since we can't go back in time to make the necessary observations, our explanations are also speculations - that may, or may not, be accurate representations of what really happened.

The same logical limitation applies to all claims about the past; whether secular or creationist.

 

Right - but what you (or I) "buy" is subjective. What is objectively true is that all claims about the past are stories that may, or may not, be true. Honesty demands that we acknowledge logical limitations. Normally, that has to be explained to the secularist - but the same rules of logic apply to us.

 

They would (and often do) make exactly the same claims about their narrative and paradigm. That is why such statements are meaningless and time-wasting.

 

I'm often asked by secularists why the universe looks old.

It is the refusal to factor-in your own biases that leads you to the same rhetorical mistake as the secularists. You think their position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". They think our position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". To me, all such claims are fruitless, rhetorical bluster.

 

Truth 1 - The Bible indicates that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago.

Truth 2 - Even without direct measurements, we are happy to concede that light is reaching the earth from stars that are millions/billions of light years away.

Conclusion: (i.e. Story/guess/explanation) - God created the earth complete/mature/"full-formed"/"ready-made" as would an "artist" finish their work-of-art. This conclusion is speculation/conjecture about what may, or may not, have actually happened. It is a story that was made-up to reconcile the evidence with the Biblical model.

Please understand that I am not denigrating your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is the logical nature of past claims - and the logical limitation of past investigations. There is therefore no logical value in either side rhetorically denigrating the explanations of the others - because we both, of logical necessity, utilize the same brittle method to defend our preferred models.

 

It's not a "dodge". It's a valid attempt to answer the question in a way the reconciles the evidence to the model. But it is a "guess", a story, a speculation about what might have happened (how God might have created) - which is OK. But in honest fair-mindedness, it also has to be OK when the other side does it.

 

These are Arguments from Ignorance - and therefore not logically valid rebuttals.

Given the specific and rare requirements for fossilization, we cannot logically claim to know what would, or would not, have undergone fossilization.

Any number of explanations (stories) could account for the disappearance of sub-populations of humans. Sub-populations of species routinely go extinct due to factors such as disease, or extreme weather, or predation, or interbreeding, or violence etc.

They would explain the path from ape to human as occurring through small genomic changes over time.

 

Your story about God completing His work like an artist is absolutely an invention.

 

I'm explaining the logical limitations of the methods we both apply - for the explicit purpose of dissuading empty rhetorical arguments from our side. It's not "spinning in circles" to try and improve the logical quality of our arguments.

 

The "fluff" is when we denigrate the opposing position's explanations as "guesses" and "fairy tales" - all the while we are using the exact same method and logic to support our arguments.

I am not here to debate YEC with you - as I am already an affirmed YEC; and have been for over three decades.

 

You say "easy" for your story. And they say "easy" for their stories. And ultimately, both sides have a bunch of stories that the other side calls "fairy tales". Your story is consistent with your model - guess what, their stories are also consistent with their model.

So then, the conversation can, as you say, move on to more "concrete" issues - or both sides can continue to waste time on the rhetorical merry-go-round.

"Your telling fairy tales". "No, your telling fairy tales". "your inventing stories". "No, you are the one who's just guessing". "I know you are but what am I" etc. etc.

 

My purpose for engaging was to improve the rational quality of your creationist argument.

If you want me to distinguish the facts from the stories as I did with your "painter" explanation, I'll happily do that with any argument you care to provide. But you should be able to do that yourself.

As a creationist, I already know the creationist arguments. That debate is not why I'm here.

 

 

 

 

Hi @Tristen The funny thing is that ppl won't believe in a Creator but then fall for all sorts of odd theories............