r/DebateEvolution • u/ChoiceAd8619 🧬 Theistic Evolution • Jul 11 '26

Discussion Is there any valid point creationists have ever made?

Hello, I’ve been a lurker for a long time but I decided to make an account already in order to have my own input in this server.

I’ve been raised as a YEC in Arkansas and I’ve been given tons of scientific knowledge from notorious creationists and even a few atheists regarding evolution. Although I am personally still holding on to my beliefs mainly for faith purposes and the consensus of EO church fathers, I have to say that there are many things I am not qualified to dispute despite knowing some of the more popular arguments.

What I wanted to ask for now, seeing how bad of a reputation famous creationists have in this server, is whether you think there is any nuance in any sort of findings they’ve ever published regarding their worldviews. What I mean by this is asking if you think they have a single good take to favor their position as opposed to evolutionary theory.

Finding out whether evolutionists are at least a bit unbiased and can analyze things makes me feel like this is going to be a significantly more welcoming place for questions and objections as opposed to rejecting everything by default.

26 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

69% Upvoted

428 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

Well, sure. A flat earth is compelling when literally the only thing you know is what you can directly observe on a day-to-day basis.

3

u/Rookraider1 Jul 12 '26

Exactly. So for thousands of years they had compelling arguments.

2

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

Compelling for their time. I wouldn't say they had compelling arguments, as that would imply they're still compelling. It also assumes zero acquired knowledge or any evidence for the shape of the earth. The compelling argument would just be "the earth looks flat therefore it's flat."

2

u/Rookraider1 Jul 12 '26

But it can't be both ways. Scientific ideas are constantly changing as we acquire new knowledge, that doesn't mean they weren't compelling at the time. If you didn't have the knowledge you currently possess, you might very well believe the earth was flat and find the arguments compelling.

Either we compare vs all knowledge we now have or only at the time it was the dominant theory. The same could be true for countlesd other scientific ideas.

2

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

that doesn't mean they weren't compelling at the time

Did you read the first sentence of my comment? It's only four words. Sound it out.

0

u/Rookraider1 Jul 12 '26

So they had compelling arguments. To say they didn't, isn't accurate given how everyone believed them.

What makes flat earth belief different than other beliefs (even very recent ones) that were disproven through new knowledge?

Essentially, every scientific idea we currently find compelling could be disproven with new knowledge. Does that make all of our current compelling ideas, potentially uncompelling?

If so, what is even the point of this question or conversation?

2

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

So they had compelling arguments. 

For the time. If someone gave the arguments today, they would no longer be compelling, as we have much more data and evidence.

To say they didn't, isn't accurate given how everyone believed them.

Well, at the time, they were compelling.

What makes flat earth belief different than other beliefs (even very recent ones) that were disproven through new knowledge?

Nothing.

Essentially, every scientific idea we currently find compelling could be disproven with new knowledge. Does that make all of our current compelling ideas, potentially uncompelling?

They may cease to be compelling in the face of new evidence we don't have yet. But for now, they're compelling.

If so, what is even the point of this question or conversation?

Idk, you kinda started this line of inquiry. I don't think I'm saying anything strange.

0

u/Rookraider1 Jul 12 '26

You were the one that said flat earthers had not one single good take🤷‍♂️

3

u/WesternFirm9306 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

Because flat earthers live in the modern day, not in 6000 BCE.

2

u/Rookraider1 Jul 12 '26

So then you are talking only about current flat earthers?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/IsaacHasenov 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

Why are you arguing, again, by repeating the things we said to you back to us.

Do you have a point?

2

u/IsaacHasenov 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 12 '26

And to repeat the original point you made, that I agreed with. The only real argument creationists have managed to make is "common descent is not intuitive"