Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Science in Creationism
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 466 of 986 (783843)
05-09-2016 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
05-08-2016 11:15 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
quote:
but the POINT WAS THAT NOBODY SAID THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO SCIENCE BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED THE BIBLE.
Faith, nobody has said such a thing about you or about anyone in this thread either.
What is quite obvious, though, is that you ARE putting your interpretation of the Bible above an honest interpretation of the evidence - ignoring evidence that doesn't fit, no matter how great it is, claiming things about the evidence that just don't make sense.
And in fact you are putting your interpretation of your selected evidence as the only true one, despite the fact that people of far greater knowledge of both the evidence and the facts needed to help interpret it say otherwise - practically without exception. (Indeed, it was a Creationist who shot down the last "evidence" for the Flood. Nobody says that he had no right to do science - and unfortunately for your position, he did)
If you want discussion and understanding you can't go around shouting down everyone who disagrees with you. You really need to explain your position, explain why your interpretation of the evidence is correct, and giving good reasons to ignore any evidence that you choose to ignore.
Two examples :
First, you ignore the order in the fossil record because it does not fit with your Flood conclusion. That is unscientific - ignoring such a massive piece of evidence is simply not acceptable in science (at least not without a massively overriding case, which you don't have, and likely will never have the knowledge to assemble)
Second, you tell us that sequences following WLthers law are somehow evidence if the Flood. But you also tell us that we can't know what the Flood would do - which is a contradiction - and it is hardly obvious that a short-term violent Flood would produce the same results as gradual changes in sea-level, stretched out over millenia. That really needs explanation. And I haven't seen one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 11:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 467 of 986 (783845)
05-09-2016 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Dawn Bertot
05-09-2016 1:10 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Yeap
The same type you do for the conclusion of ONLY natural causes
But because you can't see the difference between processes and conclusions, or should we say your to dishonest to, you never will
So you're not going to show us the evidence?
Y'know, I'm beginning to think you don't have any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-09-2016 1:10 AM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 468 of 986 (783851)
05-09-2016 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
05-02-2016 8:07 PM


Evidence for creation?
I started studying "creation science" in 1981. I've been looking for evidence for creation ever since then. I've never seen any. Creationists have constantly claimed to have evidence for creation. I've never seen any of them ever present any of that "evidence." In my online discussions with creationists since 1986, I have repeatedly requested some positive evidence for creation. In the subsequent three decades, I have never ever seen any such evidence ever be produced.
I asked that question of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) President, Dr. Henry Morris. He immediately invoked their Two Model Approach and tried to claim that all negative "evidence" against "evolution" constituted "positive" evidence for creation.
The "Two Model Approach" is a false dichotomy, an informal fallacy and a demogoguic trick intended to deceive the people. They propose "two completely opposite and mutually exclusive" "models": their "creation model" which they always express in extremely vague terms but which is 100% young-earth creationist including a young earth (no older than 10,000 years) and Noah's literal Flood. As such, even as Dr. Henry Morris himself told me in that letter, their "evolution model" includes everything that is not in their YEC "creation model", but rather it includes "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern." Which would include several Christian creation traditions which just so happen to not include a young earth and a literal Noachian Flood into the "atheistic" "evolution model."
With the "Two Model Approach", creationists seek to "prove" creation solely by "disproving" "evolution" and without ever presenting their "creation model", nor defending it. Indeed, in public debates it has been left to the creationist opponents to present the "creation model" in the debates and every single time the creationist has refused to defend it. Every single time!
So then, Dawn, do please do what no other creationist has ever been able to do: please present positive evidence for creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-02-2016 8:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 469 of 986 (783852)
05-09-2016 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Dawn Bertot
05-09-2016 12:49 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
No this is not what I'm proposing presently.
It's the title of your thread. You raised it three times in the first three sentences of your OP. Don't turn yourself into a liar.
I'm proposing only that both our processes are an investigation about the physical world.
I have never disputed it. I've agreed with it. Is that what you want? To say this and hear me endlessly agreeing with it?
Yours is nothing more than an examination of the processes, like mine.
LIKE???
But that implies you are comparing your process to mine, finding they are similar and using that claim your thesis that they are similar is strengthened.
Hence science in both cases.
And as I have said, if 'looking at things and drawing conclusions' is science, then astrology is science. Which demonstrates the nonsense and you have yet to tackle this problem.
That is unless we use your convoluted definition of the word.
What's that?
From both of our processes, two things can be concluded. In my case, intricate order, in yours change over time. Now we arrive at these the same way, by observation.
Observation is something that is needed in science. But that doesn't make observation science.
Neither process by themselves have a conclusion. But because they are a study of physical properties, they would naturally and logically at some point have a conclusion, because the process started somewhere.
They don't have a conclusion but they will end? What has this got to do with anything?
Asking me to compare my process with yours is nonsensical.
As I pointed out at the start of this post when you say 'You do this just like me, therefore what we do is the same' - that's comparing. Your entire POINT on this thread is to compare what you are doing with what other scientists are doing.
They both observe
They both draw conclusions.
You are comparing them.
If you want to tell me your argument is based on nonsense....you can and I will believe you.
Now pay close attention Modulous. Design is my conclusion, not the process.
Wait, I thought your process didn't have a conclusion,but will have an end?
Anyway, we both conclude design. I'm waiting for you to explain it. The science bit.
All you need to do to demonstrate that my process is not valid, is to somehow dismiss, get rid of the obvious order in natural things. Actually visible order is axiomatic, so I'm not sure how you would do that.
I've accepted it several times and I am waiting for you to progress your argument. You can't because you don't have any more argument. Your observation is all you have, and its something humans noticed thousands of years ago. So its not science.
So to answer your attempt at an argument above, the method my entity employed are of the same evidential type of yours that imply nothing in the form of only natural causes
Same as? Sounds like you are comparing again. I thought doing this was just declared 'nonsense'?
Again - 'evidential type' is not how we determine if something is science. Sorry, it just doesn't matter.
When do we go from the bloody obvious observation to the 'Science in Creationism'? I'd like to get there.
Or is noticing something that's patently obvious all you have?
So if the study of evolution is not for the purposes of disproving design what is the purpose of its process.
Explaining it, as I have said to you many times already.
Can you show me the methods any better than my process, of how evolution came to the conclusion of Solely Natural Causes, given the fact that you weren't there
You are the one that claims evolution comes to that conclusion, so you should do this, not me who disagrees with it.
Remembering that saying you don't believe in Solely Natural Causes is not the same as demonstrating it's NOT a logical conclusion of your process, which it clearly is.
OK.
Again asking me to compare our processes makes no sense
Again, that's all you did in the very post you are saying this in.
I only need to show the validity of my process called visible observable order
And I agree with you about this observation.
Is that it?
Is that the entirety of the 'Science in Creationism'? Because it's just the philosophy of humans. It ain't science. Sorry about that.
Since the theory of evolution is constantly changing and there are disputes amount evolutionist about its processes, again a comparison makes no sense
You haven't even told me what it is, yet. But if comparing the two really is nonsense: Stop doing it and drop the 'science' part.
What would I be comparing my process to, something that you guys Might Change tomorrow?
The scientific process. It hasn't changed that much since yesterday.
You see my process needs no revisions or updates constantly
Yes, millennia old philosophy has that effect. Until you have science your argument fails. Science changes its views based on the evidence. If you don't, you don't have science.
QED.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-09-2016 12:49 AM Dawn Bertot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 490 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-09-2016 9:21 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 470 of 986 (783854)
05-09-2016 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dawn Bertot
05-02-2016 8:07 PM


And so over 400 posts in this topic and where are we?
From Message 1:
quote:
In a previous thread it was loosely argued that several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation
It was further intimated that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined
And lastly it was directly stated in that same thread that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory
From this it was concluded that many creationist had abandoned this website, due to an indefensible doctrine, theory or ideology
Well, it seems that the reality is that even though several factors such as Falsifiability, Parsimony and other factors cause Creationism to fail as science and fail to qualify for any serious scientific investigation and the fact that Creationism cannot stand up to empirical testing and that it could not be considered scientific in the way the term Science is currently defined and the fact that Creationism could not stand the test of debate and that it has failed as a testable theory remaining true, some Creationists still want to post; not to debate or discuss or support Creationism but to whine about Evolution being wrong.
Dawn Bertot writes:
It is my belief that with closer exaimination of these allegations and assertions coupled with the Actual scientic evidence that supports Creation Science, it will be demonstrated that CS very much passes a scientific investigation
Yet even though people have begged Dawn to provide any evidence in support of his position or to actually show that there is Science in Creationism (s)he has present nothing, absolutely no evidence, no model, no theory, no method, no process, no procedure and most of all NO "Actual scientic(I think that was meant to be scientific but not sure) evidence that supports Creation Science".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dawn Bertot, posted 05-02-2016 8:07 PM Dawn Bertot has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(6)
Message 471 of 986 (783858)
05-09-2016 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by Faith
05-08-2016 4:07 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Faith writes:
Today's creationism is not silly at all, it does follow the Bible....
Mountains growing after the flood is not in the Bible. Rapid evolution after the flood is not in the Bible. Those are silly ideas made up by modern creationists to try to contort the Bibkle to fit reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by Faith, posted 05-08-2016 4:07 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 472 of 986 (783861)
05-09-2016 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 471 by ringo
05-09-2016 11:48 AM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Faith writes:
Today's creationism is not silly at all, it does follow the Bible....
Mountains growing after the flood is not in the Bible. Rapid evolution after the flood is not in the Bible. Those are silly ideas made up by modern creationists to try to contort the Bibkle to fit reality.
Could I persuade you to stop and think for half a second? The point I was making about the earlier creationist scientists is that they came up with theories about geology and biology that were not biblical, that actually contradicted the Bible. Weird ideas about fossils that violate the nature of God in the Bible, or the idea that adapted creatures in isolated places were separately created in that condition, which violates the Biblical fact that God finished the Creation in six days and then rested and doesn't create anything any more.
When I said today's creationism doesn't violate the Bible that's what I meant. I didn't mean the Bible provides an entire theory of geology or biology, just that the little it does say is not contradicted by today's creationists.
Mountain building by tectonic pressure after the Flood contradicts nothing in the Bible and in fact supports the usual understanding that the pre-Flood mountains were not very high. The rapidity involved does of course contradict Old Earth geology. But not the Bible.
Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution, it's the ToE that's wrong. All you have to do is isolate some portion of a population for a few years to see that great changes will occur in that short period of time. And of course rapid evolution is what would have to happen to explain the enormous diversity that occurred after the Flood that spread out to all parts of the world. There is certainly no contradiction with the Bible in that view. With the ToE, yes, because they don't know what they are talking about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 471 by ringo, posted 05-09-2016 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 473 by ringo, posted 05-09-2016 12:27 PM Faith has replied
 Message 478 by Modulous, posted 05-09-2016 12:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2016 1:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 488 by Blue Jay, posted 05-09-2016 4:51 PM Faith has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 473 of 986 (783862)
05-09-2016 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:11 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
faith writes:
Mountain building by tectonic pressure after the Flood contradicts nothing in the Bible and in fact supports the usual understanding that the pre-Flood mountains were not very high.
That was not the "usual understanding" until it became clear that there is not enough water on earth to cover the mountains. "Zoom tectonics" is one extra-Biblical contortion. Water appearing magically out of nowhere and disappearing back into nowhere is another possible contortion.
Faith writes:
Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution....
But you have to make up a magical braking mechanism to stop it - because you KNOW it doesn't happen in reality. You just have to make up one fantasy after another.
There is nothing in modern creationism that resembles the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:41 PM ringo has replied
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:44 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 474 of 986 (783864)
05-09-2016 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by ringo
05-09-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
But you have to make up a magical braking mechanism to stop it - because you KNOW it doesn't happen in reality. You just have to make up one fantasy after another.
The "braking system" isn't magical, it's how genetics MUST play out normally. Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated. All this happens in reality, it's only the ToE that denies the reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by ringo, posted 05-09-2016 12:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by ringo, posted 05-09-2016 12:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 481 by Genomicus, posted 05-09-2016 2:05 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 475 of 986 (783865)
05-09-2016 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by ringo
05-09-2016 12:27 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
But you have to make up a magical braking mechanism to stop it - because you KNOW it doesn't happen in reality. You just have to make up one fantasy after another.
The "braking system" isn't magical, it's how genetics MUST play out normally because developing new phenotypes requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes. This is the "braking system," it's a necessary part of evolution itself. Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated. All this happens in reality, it's only the ToE that denies the reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by ringo, posted 05-09-2016 12:27 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2016 12:49 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 479 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-09-2016 1:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 476 of 986 (783866)
05-09-2016 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:44 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Perhaps you can explain why you are so certain that reality agrees with your opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 477 of 986 (783867)
05-09-2016 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:41 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Faith writes:
Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated.
Even IF that was true, it isn't what the Bible says. The Bible says that all of the animals were on the ark. There isn't the remotest suggestion of any new species coming into existence after the flood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:41 PM Faith has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 478 of 986 (783868)
05-09-2016 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:11 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution,
You are right. It is. As you say, there are long periods of little change. A sort of era of equilibrium, these periods of equilibria are punctuated by rapid bursts of change as varieties that have developed in specific and small localities suddenly spring forth and outdo all of the competition.
quote:
. Widely ranging species vary most, and varieties are often at first local, -- both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they do spread, if discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. - Darwin 1859
it's the ToE that's wrong.
Darwin wrote about it. Gould And Eldridge made a career out of it. Creationists mocked it. Yet hear you are, arguing for its necessity.
And of course rapid evolution is what would have to happen to explain the enormous diversity that occurred after the Flood that spread out to all parts of the world.
Unfortunately all the fossils were buried in the flood, so there is no evidence of how life changed AFTER the flood. Sure did a lot of changing before it though, eh?
Ad hoc stuff isn't science without evidence to support it independently of the fact that it needs to be true for your theory to be true.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 479 of 986 (783869)
05-09-2016 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:44 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
The "braking system" isn't magical, it's how genetics MUST play out normally because developing new phenotypes requires the loss of genetic material for other phenotypes. This is the "braking system," it's a necessary part of evolution itself. Rapid evolution occurs wherever small populations are isolated. All this happens in reality, it's only the ToE that denies the reality.
But you remember how you made this up, how it's entirely contrary to observation, how it violates all the known facts about genetics, and how you've been unable to produce a single verifiable example of this ever happening?
Well, if you don't remember this, it's a good job you have us here to remind you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:44 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 480 of 986 (783871)
05-09-2016 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Faith
05-09-2016 12:11 PM


Re: Show Me The Evidence
Weird ideas about fossils that violate the nature of God in the Bible, or the idea that adapted creatures in isolated places were separately created in that condition, which violates the Biblical fact that God finished the Creation in six days and then rested and doesn't create anything any more.
Where does the Bible say that?
Mountain building by tectonic pressure after the Flood contradicts nothing in the Bible ...
But it isn't in there. So calling it Biblical is a bit of an abuse of terminology. If I say that green aardvarks are playing cribbage in my backyard, then this contradicts nothing in the Bible, but I would hardly call it Biblical.
Also, rapid evolution is NORMAL evolution ...
If evolution that rapid was normal, there'd be some evidence of it taking place.
With the ToE, yes, because they don't know what they are talking about.
Yes, those silly biologists base their ideas of evolutionary rates on their observations of reality, when they should instead have been observing the fantastic cloud-cuckooland inside your head, where they could have seen the process of superdupermegaevolution in all its glory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 482 by Faith, posted 05-09-2016 2:23 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024