Update On "Discussion" with @ChallengeChurch

I recently engaged in a discussion with twitter user @ChallengeChurch, on this post which claimed "Science backs up Genesis 1", among other considerable failings in rational thought.  My feelings on this can be found here. A further cringe inducing response was made by @ChallengeChurch, titled A response to "@gspellerchecker" (the irony) which is a rogues gallery of the usual fallacies put forward by the less informed theist. I will address some of the "points" made.  There is nothing new unfortunately, and each one falls into well established, rudimentary fallacy territory.

So if science sets out to disprove stuff, they have not YET disproved the creation story

It is not the job of science to disprove every claim made.  It is YOUR claim, it is YOUR responsibility to prove it.  This is known as "The Burden Of Proof".  Please take time to educate yourself on how this means your claim lacks credibility. For example, science is YET to disprove the existence of fairies.  Does this lend credibility to their existence?  This is precisely the strength of your flawed argument.  For clarification, please see below: [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY&w=560&h=315]

I am still waiting to hear what actually caused the ‘big bang’ if it wasn’t a greater being. What caused the collision?

We are all waiting.  Except atheist are not among the group who have invented an imaginary friend to plug the gaps in our knowledge. See God Of The Gaps Fallacy.  By your logic, if we don't have a complete and full understanding of something, then God wins by default.  This is intellectually lazy.  Also, you have managed to dismantle your own argument, as you are unable to explain "what caused god", leaving you right where you started, empty handed.

Exactly! If it is ‘non-random’ then something must being working hard? – Strategic thinking, can non-random stuff happen by coincidence?

You clearly do not understand what is meant by Natural Selection.  Non-random does not mean there must be a divine hand.  This is a huge assumption, which only is not needed to explain complex life, but has no evidence at all.

if it all happened by chance, how could coincidence put the life support machine

This again exposes your lack of education and level of understanding of Natural Selection.  Chance is not the only alternative to a creator.  Natural Selection provides an established understanding of complex life.  Please learn what this means, before making these mistakes again.

The point of my statement was the fact the world was created in the order of what science calls evolution

Please learn what the word "fact" means.  There is no supporting data for the assumption that the world was "created", meaning it is a belief, not a fact.

As for the archaeological evidence for the Garden of Eden:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/eden.htm http://ldolphin.org/eden/ http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Archaeology/eden.htm http://suite101.com/article/the-garden-of-eden-and-recent-excavations-a101150

I'm not sure where to begin with this nonsense.  If there was credible scientific evidence for the existence of the garden of Eden, would that, in your opinion not be worthy of the nobel prize?  I'm yet to see it receive one.  This is not science, nor evidence.  For something to be accepted as scientific fact, it has to be peer-reviewed.  Can you point me to a peer-reviewed study on this subject?  Good luck.

Maybe you can answer my oriniginal question: ‘Can chaos really come to order if somebody doesn’t put it there?’

A quick glance through the hubble telescope will reveal a wealth of unordered chaos.  To claim you can see a divine hand in this process is hubris of the highest order.

At the end of the day, truth is truth, and in even in the 21st century it is widely accepted that if truth is told then no explination is needed.

Truth does not require an explanation?  I think I may have finally put my finger on why you hold beliefs that do not conform to rationale, nor supported by evidence and come undone via the mildest of critical thinking.

Try harder

GS

@GSpellchecker