4.65 billion years ago, God gets bored of sitting around and doing nothing for eternity, so he decides he's going to create life that he can love.

God fills the universe with elements and applies some laws of physics that can start his grand plan. He then sits back and watches as the laws of physics that he applied, draw the elements together creating a big bang.

After this 'big bang', he now has himself a universe. He looks around this universe in order to spot the a planet that life would most likely start on (taking into account the elements he originally filled the empty universe with). He then spots Earth; decides that it was the most suitable for life; then sits back and observes it.

He sees that single-celled life is forming and gets excited: “Yes, this is the right planet”, he thinks to himself. God then sits back for a few billion years and observes what happens. He notices that a certain species is progressing faster than the others. He sees that this particular species discovers how to start fires to cook their food; Then he notices that they invent the wheel. He then gets exited and thinks to himself: “Yes! That's them! They will be my chosen species! When they become intelligent enough, I will reveal myself to them.”

Then, at around 4000BC he reveals himself to his chosen species (but for some reason, only to the people of the Mideast – condemning those before Constantine's exploitation of Christian beliefs to Hell for some irrational reason, since they never could have known about him, or Jesus) and the rest is history...

Yes, there are verses in the Bible that would contradict my little scenario. But you need to remember that the Bible was written by relatively primitive people who didn't know any better, and perhaps God wasn't fussed about the technical errors in the Bible because, overall, it sent his main message to his chosen species.

So now, please explain to me why this would be more absurd than the belief of Creationists?

AJ,
As to why the others have dropped out of this debate, there could be many reasons, but I don’t presume to speak on their behalf.

If I’m being accused of clever debating tactics, thanks for the compliment. However, I reject any accusation of slight of hand or deceitfulness. I think I’ve been fairly open. But no matter, I’ll just add deceitful to the name calling list, to which some in this thread think is appropriate to use in debate.

Thanks for clarifying your point, which was a denial that “Dawkinites” were just as “fundamentalist” about their beliefs as Creationists are.

Either way, the claim is not particularly significant. Its validity will hinge on the definition of the word ‘fundamentalist’, which simply leads to an argument about the meaning of words. Under some very general definitions, possibly yes, under others, probably not. (For a general definition of fundamentalist, possibly try something like: ‘strict adherence to certain basic principles’.)

You say that you are happy with dictionary definitions. In its original sense, ‘fundamentalist’ has a technical meaning. Many creationists would be perfectly happy to be described as fundamentalists under its theological dictionary definition (something like, adhering to certain clear teachings and principles of Scripture, e.g. the virgin birth).

Dawkinites (and mostly all others, understandably) would want to reject the term fundamentalist associated with themselves for no other reason than its negative connotations (e.g. extremism, terrorism, etc.). However, the term may be somewhat appropriate in regard to their strict adherence to the necessity of evolution as a basic principle.

Dear Dan,

There is evidence for evolution as a basic principle. There is no evidence for creationism unless one accepts a book written by humans as evidence. That is only evidence that the mind of man could construct science fiction based on the knowledge available in ancient times.

Dan,

<<If I’m being accused of clever debating tactics, thanks for the compliment.>>

They maybe clever to a certain extent, but during a debate, they only discredit you. If there was any credibility to your beliefs, you wouldn't need to use them... I haven't.

<<However, I reject any accusation of slight of hand or deceitfulness. I think I’ve been fairly open.>>

Then perhaps you're not deliberately doing it? Perhaps you've just managed to get yourself caught up in all the deceitfulness because of the beliefs you have, but don't realise that all the rubbish you're reading on Creationism is in fact deceitful, and uses deceitful tactics.

<<I’ll just add deceitful to the name calling list, to which some in this thread think is appropriate to use in debate.>>

Another slick maneuver.

I didn't say you were a deceitful person. I said the tactics you're using are deceitful. There's a difference. Just as God doesn't hate evil people, he hates what they do.

If you don't want such suggestions levied at you then either demonstrate why your tactics are not deceitful, or stop using them. I provided a link for you earlier that lists many of them so you understand what the fallacies and sneaky tactic are. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

<<For a general definition of fundamentalist, possibly try something like: ‘strict adherence to certain basic principles’.>>

Yes, that's a very broad definition of a fundamentalist. Most definitions of fundamentalism though, point to a strict authoritative and religious doctrine: http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Afundamentalism&btnG=Search&meta=

And if you re-read many of my posts, you will see that I have clearly illustrated (in many different ways) that Creationists fit this description far better than evolutionists since their strictness extends beyond reason, by ignoring so much evidence and relying purely on mythology.

Your argument about Evolutionists being the same, however, relies entirely on the assertion that they will never abandon their philosophy.

Continued...

...Continued

<<However, the term may be somewhat appropriate in regard to their strict adherence to the necessity of evolution as a basic principle.>>

Not entirely. Especially not it the 'religious' way I was using the word – the same 'religious' way that Creationists use it against Evolutionists.

You will only be able to describe Evolutionists that way if they continue to believe in evolution, even when the evidence dis-proves it – or at least starts to make it look extremely shaky. Until then, they are just following a theory that makes perfect sense, and would be stupid to do otherwise.

It would only take one piece of evidence to dis-prove evolution, despite all the overwhelming evidence for it, yet no one can come up with anything.

In regards to your point about interpretation, and since you find it so hard to “swallow” that one species can evolve into another, I've provided a couple of links below to explain it all to you in a very simple way.

These links completely blow your arguments about 'interpretation' and 'witnesses' out of the water, and they're a lot easier to swallow than believing that a magical being did it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

AJ and David,
Your latest posts suggest that all the evidence is pointing one way.

This contention is countered very easily by pointing out the many scientists out there (a small though significant minority) who also view the evidence as compelling, but pointing in the other direction.

However, I strongly suspect that you guys are grown up enough and been around OLO discussions enough to already know this as well as I. It is easily referenced. So I wonder what motivates you to say it. I wonder what motivated me to bother repeating it. But this is more evidence that this discussion is getting stale (or probably now well beyond).

AJ,
I think we are in agreement that many creationists find motivation for what they do in their faith and their acceptance of the accuracy of Scripture. I have always agreed with that, but I also argued that all people have various motivations. It is not necessarily a bad thing. (It actually comes with being human.)

Your contention, as I understand, is that evolutionists differ from creationists in that they don’t have any bias, but are completely as neutral, dispassionate, and unprejudiced as pure driven snow. I think if you really believe this, then you need to get out and meet a few of them. I can tell you about one in particular who has strong religious leanings. His name is Dawkins. His belief is atheism, and he has stated publicly that his understanding of evolution allows him to be an “intellectually fulfilled atheist”. (I’ll find the whole quote if you want.)