Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-18-2019 4:10 AM
29 online now:
caffeine, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 26 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 853,983 Year: 9,019/19,786 Month: 1,441/2,119 Week: 201/576 Day: 4/98 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How can "Creationism" be supported?
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 1 of 32 (425896)
10-04-2007 1:01 PM


"Jar's persistent use of provocative language runs counter to the civil exchanges we try to encourage here. " Admin

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted ¦

What is an Articulate Informed Creationist?

EvC is supposedly a place where the supporters of Evolution or Creation can present the best argument in defense of their position. But what does that really mean?

Type 1
If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted.

Type 2
A second possible method they could use is to present a series of models that explain what is seen better than the current models, and then actually subject those models to examination through the peer review system. The models though must be demonstrable and explain things even better than the existing models, and should they call on some magic trick like "insert miracle here" they must actually be ready to support with evidence such an incident, or if God is involved, be ready to place God on exhibit to be tested and verified.

Type 3
There is a third tactic we often see, but it is flawed and irrelevant right from the beginning and so should simply be rejected, perhaps with a chuckle, as soon as it is entered. That tactic is to try to attack the existing models. Those that use such a tactic thinking it advances the Creationist position should just be dismissed, hopefully with an explanation that even if the TOE, as an example, were shown to be totally wrong, it would in no way add support or validity to any other competing position. The fact that one might be wrong does not imply that the other might be right.

That third tactic needs to be emphasized.

Showing errors in one system, model, technique or theory does not support some other system, model, technique or theory.

So that leaves only the two other options.

The first is simple denial. Biblical Creationists can simply say "I believe the (insert whatever special creation theory the poster likes) and you cannot convince me otherwise." The problem with that approach is it makes for short or boring threads.

The second option, presenting models that explain the universe we live in better than the existing models is all that is left. Unfortunately, that would require a scientific approach. It would need to have the internal consistency and correlative characteristics of the current models as well as providing naturalistic and testable models for all things seen. Further, it would have to be inclusive. The model presented would need to explain geology, biology, genetics, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and every other area explained by the current models. It also requires that either God be placed in evidence, to be tested just like any rock or slime mold, or God be left out.. If they cannot place God out there to be examined by exactly the same methods used in any of the current models, then God needs to be just tossed aside as another irrelevant part of the model.

So are any of the various approaches possible?

Certainly the first one is valid. It is possible to simply state that you are not going to accept any evidence that refutes your position.

The third is just silly. Disproving one model adds no weight to any other.

The second is conditionally possible. If someone were able to first prove God exists and do so in a way that can be independently tested by believers and non-believers alike, if God can be shown to be just another natural phenomena and not at all super-natural, then God could be part of the model. The alternative approach to the second method is to exclude God totally, and to simply present new models that explain what is seen better than the existing models.

That one, the alternative Second method would be the most likely to actually produce any results. It is though the most difficult of the options available. It would be the most exciting thing to happen in Science to date and something that would be of extreme value.

The problem is that it would have to create models for all of Science. That is a mammoth undertaking. For example, a model is needed to create sand.

Sand seems simple. Under the current model, rock is weathered by forces that can be observed and tested. The main causative factor is expansion and contraction, either of the rock itself by being exposed to hot and cold cycles, or through the expansion of water as it turns to ice. It is a basically simple mechanism, can be tested and shown to work. Once a smaller piece is broken off the larger rock, that piece in turn is split further by the same forces and broken by mechanical forces during transport. The end result is many smaller rocks.

If someone is going to create sand by some other model, they would need to present a model that explains sand as well as the current model.

That step, model creation, would need to be repeated for every thing we see. In addition, all of the different models must be supportive; a model must explain what is seen but also not create conditions that are excluded by other evidence. For example, rocks can also be pulverized into small pieces by a high speed impact, but that will also leave evidence in a change in the type of smaller particles produced.

Water can even be used to cut rock. But again, such a model would have to specify the pressure at the cutting point, the mechanism that produced the phenomena, and demonstrate that the product actually seen, sand that is identical in composition and form to the sand produced by the current model, is produced.

But what do we see at EvC?

We see a few type 1s, those who simply deny the evidence. When it is pointed out that all they have is denial, they often get angry.

Then we get LOTs of type 3s. They try attacking the TOE or dating as though that somehow enhances their position. When it is pointed out that what they are doing is really irrelevant to supporting Creationism, they often get angry.

We get a few of the initial type 2as, those that simply want to "insert miracle here". They spout on about "Fountains of the Deep" and "Pre Flood States" and "Vapor Canopy" but when it is pointed out that they must first produce evidence that any such things even exist, their sole recourse is to quote Bible passages out of context or spin fantasy yarns. Then they get angry.

We have had few members of type 2b post here, so not much can be said about their reactions.

So the question is, how can we allow each type to present the best possible support for their position and is there any reason that their argument should not be countered?

Edited by jar, : Bold Types

Edited by jar, : fix boo-boo

Edited by jar, : still appalin spallin

Edited by jar, : Change topic heading

Edited by jar, : Fix weird punctuation marks


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-04-2007 7:54 PM jar has responded
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 10-07-2007 5:32 PM jar has responded
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 5:01 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 3 of 32 (426020)
10-04-2007 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Adminnemooseus
10-04-2007 7:54 PM


Re: Your previous venting topic
LOL

Right.

Let's leave this open and see what other Admin's think.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Adminnemooseus, posted 10-04-2007 7:54 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by AdminNem, posted 10-04-2007 10:04 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 5 of 32 (426059)
10-04-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNem
10-04-2007 10:04 PM


Re: Your previous venting topic
Not yet.

Let's see what other Admins think.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by AdminNem, posted 10-04-2007 10:04 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 6 of 32 (426267)
10-05-2007 9:08 PM


Bump for the next Admin
Let's promote this. We need to discuss just how the Creationist side could be supported.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 7 of 32 (426395)
10-06-2007 1:29 PM


Bump yet again.
I would still like to see this promoted since I think it is both an important issue, and one that could help the "Creationists" here at EvC.

If there is going to be any hope of a "Creationist" presence here at EvC, somebody needs to give them an outline of what would be needed to give "Creationism" any semblance of either legitimacy or credibility, as well as what would be needed for "Creationism" to become an actual challenge to any of the existing models.

Maybe we could assign a Mentor to all new "Creationists" at EvC who could help them prepare posts that have some chance of actually having an impact.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Doddy, posted 10-07-2007 8:49 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 11 of 32 (426506)
10-07-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Doddy
10-07-2007 8:49 AM


Re: Bump yet again.
No.

I think the mentor should be one of the evolutionists, preferably a practicing scientist who could help teach the poster how to frame a model.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Doddy, posted 10-07-2007 8:49 AM Doddy has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 12 of 32 (426509)
10-07-2007 9:28 AM


An example of building a model.
In the thread Seashells on tops of mountains. an assertion was made by Buz that part of the explanation is that the mountains were lower. When asked for a model for that, Buz seemed unable to even begin building such a model but one of our new members, TheWay made the first step in Message 77 pointing out that the answer is in the title.

So the first step in explaining seashells on the tops of mountains is tho realize that at one time the tops of the mountains were at or below sea level.

The next step would be to build a list of further questions to ask. For example; are the shells on the mountain top or in the rock itself?

Well, when cores are drilled what has always been found is that the shells are actually in the rock and that different types of shells, fossils, diatoms and other microscopic critters.

This is seen pretty much everywhere, when drilling from the tops of mountains to drilling in the plains to drilling in the seabed.

When a core is taken what is seen is that there will be examples of once living critters distributed throughout the core pretty much from end to end.

So that leads us to the next question.

What model would explain finding sea living critter carcasses pretty much throughout a core?

There are several possibilities.

  • the whole column that the core was taken from could have been built at one time.
  • the core could be a series of layers where the areas where the critter carcasses were found were once at sea level or below.

If the first option was correct, what should we see in terms of arrangements of the critter carcasses?

Well, it just so happens that we can test that.

First we can look and see what is happening right now. We can look, for example at shore lines and sea beds and see how things get arranged today. While that is no assurance that it was the method that created what we see in the whole column, it will tell us what is happening and so what definitely could have happened in the past.

We can also test other possibilities. We can take examples of all the critter carcasses found in the column, put them in a tank with water, mud, sand and all the other materials found in the column, and then manipulate the mixture in various ways. We can shake it and stir it and jiggle it and jostle it and let it settle and see what we get.

We can, for example, go to places where we know a flood happened, both recently and in the past, and look and see what is found there.

Once these and other such experiments are carried out, the next step is to look at the results, and have others look at the results and see which method most closely resembles what is actually seen in the core.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 14 of 32 (426576)
10-07-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
10-07-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Type 3 = "Two Model Approach"
Jar raises a very important question, especially important for creationists. If they really want to prove or at least support their position, then they need to roll up their sleeves and do some honest work. Emphasis on "honest".

I think the emphasis needs to be on work.

For reference, here is the Type 3 tactic:

Type 3
There is a third tactic we often see, but it is flawed and irrelevant right from the beginning and so should simply be rejected, perhaps with a chuckle, as soon as it is entered. That tactic is to try to attack the existing models. Those that use such a tactic thinking it advances the Creationist position should just be dismissed, hopefully with an explanation that even if the TOE, as an example, were shown to be totally wrong, it would in no way add support or validity to any other competing position. The fact that one might be wrong does not imply that the other might be right.

First, when such behavior is noticed, we often make the situation worse by continuing the discussion without including the qualifier "Even if Model A is shown to be false it adds no support to any other competing model."

Certainly it is important to try to help educate the folk one the current models, but unless we constantly remind the folk we are discussing issues with, we accept the initial false premise by default.

Would it help if EvC made a button or code available to allow posters to include the disclaimer in any response?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 10-07-2007 5:32 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 17 of 32 (426762)
10-08-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2007 5:01 PM


Heading towards the topic.
The topic Ray is how can Biblical Creationism be supported?

Do you have anything to contribute that discussion.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 5:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 9:59 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 21 of 32 (426837)
10-08-2007 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2007 9:59 PM


Re: Heading towards the topic.
In a previous topic I argued that Creationism is supported scientifically by the overwhelming observation of design seen in nature.

However how do you differentiate between the appearance of design and design?

In reply, I might add, evolutionists special plead: design does not indicate invisible Designer.

Can you support that assertion?

First you need to show design, don't you?

If it is possible to explain what is seen without some imagined designer, why insert one?

So far all you are doing is making unsupported assertions.

Where is the model that supports your assertions?

The current models explain what is seen without resorting to some imaginary designer.

What is the model that explains what is seen BETTER than the existing models?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 9:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 10:14 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 23 of 32 (426845)
10-08-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object
10-08-2007 10:14 PM


Re: Heading towards the topic.
Straightforward logic says there is no difference.

That is simply an assertion. Do you have any support?

Evolutionists do not agree that design indicates invisible Designer.

But you have not shown design or that design requires a designer?

You already agreed that the appearance of design exists.

No, I asked how you could support the assertion that the appearance of design equals design.

AbE: Ray

The topic is related to methodology.

How do you develop models that support your assertions?

Edited by jar, : add hint towards the topic.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-08-2007 10:14 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 25 of 32 (431120)
10-29-2007 12:41 PM


Bump in the hope there is a Type 2 Creationist
Bumping this topic in the hope that there is a Creationist that can actually provide models that support Creationism.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 10-29-2007 5:33 PM jar has responded
 Message 29 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-07-2007 3:23 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 27 of 32 (431747)
11-01-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by bluescat48
10-29-2007 5:33 PM


Is there any hope a Biblical Creationist will ever step up
It sure would be nice if we ever saw a Biblical Creationist actually stepped up and presented a model that was not simply Special Pleading or if one of the many who have only Special Pleading would just admit it and not try to pretend they are using science, but I guess that is too much to hope for.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by bluescat48, posted 10-29-2007 5:33 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 11-02-2007 1:09 PM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 30 of 32 (434976)
11-18-2007 12:44 PM


Bump for Beretta or any other Creationist.
This is the place where you can help Biblical Creationists, if anywhere.

The issue is pretty much laid out in Message 1 and the methods needed are outlined in:

Type 1
If someone is going to support some form of Biblical Creation, they have several choices; they can take the emotional route and use special pleadings to the Bible. This relies solely on appealing to authority, saying that regardless of the evidence the Biblical Creation myth(s) will be all that is accepted.

Type 2
A second possible method they could use is to present a series of models that explain what is seen better than the current models, and then actually subject those models to examination through the peer review system. The models though must be demonstrable and explain things even better than the existing models, and should they call on some magic trick like ā€œinsert miracle hereā€ they must actually be ready to support with evidence such an incident, or if God is involved, be ready to place God on exhibit to be tested and verified.

Type 3
There is a third tactic we often see, but it is flawed and irrelevant right from the beginning and so should simply be rejected, perhaps with a chuckle, as soon as it is entered. That tactic is to try to attack the existing models. Those that use such a tactic thinking it advances the Creationist position should just be dismissed, hopefully with an explanation that even if the TOE, as an example, were shown to be totally wrong, it would in no way add support or validity to any other competing position. The fact that one might be wrong does not imply that the other might be right.

Although it is necessary for you to understand the reasoning for most folk just laughing at the Type 3 attempts, and accepting the Type 1 defense as reasonable but certainly not scientific, it is in the area of Type 2 methodology that there is ANY hope for Biblical Creationism ever being taken seriously.

Please take the time and read carefully what is included in the OP.

Unless you can present a Type 2 argument you have nothing of any worth.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
  
jar
Member
Posts: 30981
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 32 of 32 (593261)
11-25-2010 5:39 PM


Bump thread as a way to help Buzsaw
Considering your latest Proposed New Topic (How SMs Of IDists and Counterparts Differ), the lessons outlined in the Opening Post of this thread might help you.

Of course, using correct grammar and explaining the abbreviations you use would help too.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019