Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 2:28 AM
19 online now:
Dredge, Heathen, PaulK (3 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,135 Year: 5,172/19,786 Month: 1,294/873 Week: 190/460 Day: 6/29 Hour: 0/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23Next
Author Topic:   How can "Creationism" be supported?
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3879
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 32 (426017)
10-04-2007 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-04-2007 1:01 PM


Your previous venting topic
Moderation Procedures to level the playing field.

I don't see reason for another new topic.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 1:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 7:56 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 32 (426055)
10-04-2007 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by jar
10-04-2007 7:56 PM


Re: Your previous venting topic
Let's leave this open and see what other Admin's think.

Well, I see that you've put some effort in to the thread, however, I do agree with the Moose that we already have a few threads devoted to this as it is.

So, how about a compromise?

Why don't you copy and paste the text in to an appropriate thread so that you don't lose all of that information.

Sound reasonable?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 7:56 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 10:06 PM AdminNem has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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

  
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 8 of 32 (426500)
10-07-2007 6:56 AM


There seems to be some demand for this topic, so without further ado...
    
AdminModulous
Administrator (Idle past 213 days)
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 9 of 32 (426501)
10-07-2007 6:56 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Doddy
Member (Idle past 4019 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 10 of 32 (426505)
10-07-2007 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
10-06-2007 1:29 PM


Re: Bump yet again.
jar writes:

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.

Would that member have to be the same type of creationist? So, if the newbie was a type 1 creo, a type 2 creo might not be a good mentor, right?

Although, I think even one of the evolutionists could make the creationists arguments have more impact.


Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!

What do you mean "You can't prove a negative"? Have you searched the whole universe for proofs of a negative statement? No? How do you know that they don't exist then?!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 10-06-2007 1:29 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 10-07-2007 8:53 AM Doddy has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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
  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3405
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 8.6


Message 13 of 32 (426575)
10-07-2007 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-04-2007 1:01 PM


Type 3 = "Two Model Approach"
Uh, Type 3 is "creation science".

That's the "Two Model Approach" that they were pushing for "balanced treatment" back in the 70's and would still be pushing if they hadn't made it state law in Arkansas and Louisiana around 1981 and thus the courts discovered the religious fraud that they were perpetrating.

That's the "Two Model Approach" upon which creationist writers and debators have based the vast majority of their presentations. Every single presentation I've ever seen, heard, or read by the ICR demigods Gish and H. Morris have started with their "there are two and only two mutually exclusive models for origins, etc".

That's the approach that is virtually the only one taken by creationists -- not surprising, since that is normally the only one that "creation science" had ever taught them. Assume the False Dichotomy that there are two and only two mutually exclusive possibilities and thus you can prove one by disproving the other. Without ever having to present any evidence for the model you're trying to prove. Or even present the model itself.

And so, like their "creation science" teachers, they concentrate solely on attacking science and the false "evolution model" strawman caricature they've been taught and they avoid presenting, supporting, or discussing their "creation model" and any evidence for that model. In a letter, Henry Morris even insisted that any and all negative evidence against evolution was positive evidence for creation. And as the masters teach, so practice their minions.

Even when they shifted their tactics away from the traditional "two-model" arguments made in the Arkansas and Lousiana laws and embraced the newer false arguments of "intelligent design", they continue to employ the two-model approach, only more stealthily.

We all recently saw a consequence of this approach when creationists were asked to present positive evidence for creation and were unable to do so -- with extremely few takers, the best that any creationist could do was to say that if you look at nature in just the right way then you might be able to think it's the result of design. Creation science has been around since about 1970 and was built upon the work of anti-evolutionists since the end of World War One. And despite the fervent efforts of an army of zealous creationists for almost a century, none of them have found any actual evidence to support their "model". Despite their repeated claims that they have such an abundance of evidence, they end up having none to present -- after a debate featuring Gish and Morris, my creationist friend, clearly distraught, kept muttering "They have so much evidence. Why didn't they present any of it? They have so much evidence ... ".

Also, this "Two Model Approach" backfires on them. By their very own approach and arguments, all it takes to prove that God does not exist (which is what they claim that evolution says, even though that is also a false claim) is to show that the "creation model" is false. Where would we care to start? Young earth? Noah's Flood? Joshua's Long Day? Kinds? Let's face it, "creation science" does a great job of disproving God, such that it's been credited with being the single greatest contributor to the spread of atheism, even to the point of destroying the faith of devout fundamentalist Christians.

As jar points out, this approach of theirs is intellectually bankrupt, dishonest, and, I would add, would be an affront to the "God of Truth" (they do, after all, preach that their god is The Truth, don't they?)

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".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 1:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 10-07-2007 5:50 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30936
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


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

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 15 of 32 (426753)
10-08-2007 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
10-04-2007 1:01 PM


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

Does this apply to evolution as well?

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.

Why is explaining the universe through a scientific approach "unfortunate"?

Creationism explanation of scientifc evidence compared alongside of evolutionary explanations of the same data are far superior. Of course this is why I am a Creationist.

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.

Why would any Creationist or person accept naturalism filtered explanations since they predetermine the interpretation and conclusion?

Science uses supernaturalism suppositions because the world looks designed and that observation indicates invisible Designer. Why would any Christian object to this logic?

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 10-04-2007 1:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Chiroptera, posted 10-08-2007 5:10 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 17 by jar, posted 10-08-2007 5:19 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2007 5:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 19 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-08-2007 5:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
1
23Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019