|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is creationism science? | |||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: That sounds reasonable to me. If evidence turns up to show that you are wrong, then shouldn't you admit it? What sort of nutcake insists that she is right even when the facts demonstrate quite conclusively that she is wrong? This is the problem with creationists -- they cannot admit that they are wrong about the history of the universe despite clear evidence that they are. -
quote: How do you know that? According to creationists, God did just that when he dictated Genesis to Moses. -
quote: The physical evidence, though, shows that he was mostly right. -
quote: That is the problem. Despite creationism being obviously wrong, people insist that it is correct. That seems to be a sign of mental instability to me. -
quote: Actually, the opposite phenomenon is usually the case. That is, pop history usually tries to portray ealier periods as more silly and less sophisticated than the present in order to give the impression that we are at the end of a long road of progress. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, Reserve, and welcome to EvC.
quote: This is true. Unfortunately, these assumptions then lead to interpretations that are at odds with what we see. For instance, we know that the speed of light is finite. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then we should not be able to see any stars that are more than a few thousand light-years away. But we can. Creationists try to explain this away by coming up with explanations that themselves lead to inconsistent observations. For example, some claim that maybe the speed of light was different in the past. Unfortunately, we should be able to see signs that the speed of light was different, signs that we do not see. Similarly, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then reliable radiometric dates should indicate that no rock is more than a few thousand years old, or, perhaps, that the radiometric measurements should be a random jumble giving no consistent dates. Instead, we have consistent measurements that give the ages of rock units up to four billion years old. Again, some would try to argue that the decay rates of radioactive elements was different in the past, but, like the speed of light, if this were true then there would be evidence seen today that would indicate that the rates were different. Scientists, for their own reasons, would like to know whether the laws of physics (like the decay rates and the speed of light) have changed and have studied this pretty extensively. The results of these types of studies indicate that these constants have been constant in the past. -
quote: Actually, evolutionists assume no such thing. All an evolutionary scientist assumes is that the evidence that we see in the present can give us information about the past. There is no reason to expect that such an assumption, if it were not true, would give a consistent picture of the history of life on earth, yet it does. -
quote: But detailed analysis of the geologic record shows that there was no global flood. A global flood would have left definite signs that are lacking. -
quote: I find it odd to hear creationists claim this, since most conservative Christians seem to complain about post-modernism. I, for one, believe that there is a reality that exists independent of what we may believe about it, and that there was a definite history that has occurred regardless of what one believes about it. I also believe that the past leaves behind evidence that can be examined in the present, and that this past can be used to eliminate possible scenarios at the very least, and can even be used to reconstruct the past in many cases. Creationists proceed by ignoring evidence. The evidence shows pretty clearly that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, that life has evolved over several billion years, and that there was no global flood. Not all pasts are consistent with the evidence that we have today, and creationism is not consistent with what we see today. If creationism were true we would expect to see certain evidence, and we either do not see that evidence or we see the opposite evidence. If evolution were true, we would expect to see certain evidence, and we actually do see that evidence. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: And how has Humphreys tested his theory against the standard Big Bang model? If he hasn't tested it, then he is making stuff up. -
quote: And your opinion means what? -
quote: So it seems that you are given to bold statements yourself. Are your bold statements justified? How much do you know about the sciences that you are disputing? What is the evidence in favor of the standard scientific understanding, and what is the evidence against? Unless you understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence, then your opinions are just opinions. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Excellent! I have been on these boards for four and a half years (and on this particular board for three and a half years), and I have not yet seen a creationist argue against the theory of evolution or the theories of an ancient earth or ancient universe from a standpoint of knowledge of the evidence and reasoning. I am looking forward to your posts on discussing why the evidence is insufficient or why the reasoning is flawed. -
quote: There is are two members here, cavediver and Son Goku, who are very knowledgeable about GR and Humphrey's claims and why they do not hold up. I know they would be very happy to discuss Humphrey's theories with you if you were interested in starting a thread in the Cosmology forum. -
quote: Actually, I used to be a creationist (and a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian). I dropped creationism because I realized that the statements made by the "evolutionists" weren't "bold" but reasonable inferences based on actual data. And that creationists usually have their facts wrong and use faulty logic to draw conclusions. The difference between evolutionary scientists and creationists is that evolutionary scientists allow the data to lead them to their conclusions, while creationists start with their conclusions and then either force the data into their conclusions or ignore them altogether. If you want to discuss data and/or the conclusions we can draw from the data there are plenty of threads and forums here to do just that; I find it enjoyable myself. On the other hand, if you just want to state your opinions, then that's alright, too. Just don't expect anyone to congratulate you on coming to conclusions without really understanding the data or the reasoning. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: You should read that entire thread. Confidence engaged in what is called Making Stuff Up. We explained to him why what he was doing was Making Stuff Up, and why it was a bad way to argue. In response he just Made More Stuff Up. If there is something that wasn't clear in the responses, you are free to post in that thread. It is still open. -
quote: That is a pretty good bet, actually. I have read a lot of Sarfati, and he talks a good game, but basically he doesn't know what he is talking about. Again, either his facts are wrong, or he makes serious errors in his reasoning. He doesn't know about science very well, either the facts in the fields that he is talking about, or the overall philosophy and methodology of science. He has a PhD, but he seems to be a case where he is out of his depth once he strays outside his narrow area of expertise. But the questions you have are all good topics to bring up in the appropriate threads and I welcome you to do so. -
quote: I am waiting for your on radiometric dating to be promoted. I plan on giving a short answer to your questions there (an answer without math -- I can add the math if it turns out to be useful in the subsequent discussion), but I will be interested to see what you think the questions in dating lie. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
A better analogy would be a nut who claims that the car was magically assembled by elves and runs off of pixy dust (and who will never change her mind) versus an engineer who describes the workings of an internal combustion engine, giving us the exact specs when she examines the car, and correcting some of her earlier estimates.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I think my analogy is more apt than yours. -
quote: Well, that is what intelligent people do. Intelligent people recognize that they are wrong when the data show that they are wrong and make corrections. Creationists, on the other hand, insist that they are correct even when the data shows that they are wrong. That seems to me to be the opposite of intelligent. Edited by Chiroptera, : Less confrontational. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I know what creationists believe. If creationists believe that God says that he created the earth 6000 years ago, then they are wrong. Either God is wrong, or that is not what God is saying. -
quote: That is not what the scientific method would say, and we are not talking about mom scrambling eggs. We're talking about conclusive evidence that the earth is billions of years old and that life has had a long history during that time. Creationists claim that God is a liar. -
quote: Sure. Except that I have good evidence that mom exists and scrambled the eggs. Hell, the creationists cannot even make a decent argument whether God exists. Edited by Chiroptera, : Removed inappropriate comments. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
And just to fix the analogy to better reflect how people act in the real world:
it is the scientists who, on observing mom, her spatula, and the cooked scrambled eggs in the skillet would conclude that mom made the scrambled eggs. Creationists would insist that different people would interpret the evidence according to their "worldviews", and then claim that pixies made the scrambled eggs magically appear in six days. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024