After years of reading and engaging in debates, I've come to the conclusion that, by definition, Creationists don't understand science otherwise they wouldn't be Creationists in the first place. They certainly wouldn't be trying to argue evidence for the science of Creation.
I think that the attempts over the last couple of decades to get Creationism taught in science classes have forced those with a poor understanding of science to engage in scientific debates. They're confronted with a jumble of jargon which they try to use in the same manner that scientists use it, but only succeed in confusing themselves and others. I also think that sometimes they are intimidated by the science and look for complexities and difficulties where none exist. As evidence of this have a look at this ancient thread
I do think they understand the argument they're trying to make, but sometimes what they write bears little resemblance to it. Occasionally, they don't seem to understand what they are arguing against, as shown in the thread I linked to.
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
Hello Trixie, I believe it has to do with Scientist are not concerned with preserving religious belief. Whereas creationist are when confronted with science that conflicts with what is written. In other words, scientist "have no dog in this fight."
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
It's due to a difference in goals. A scientist's goal is to learn as much as possible about reality. A creo's goal is to defend their already arrived at conclusion against all perceived attacks.
As a result, the scientist will investigate with a purpose to learn. In the situation you describe, investigation entails reading the bible. And, since science doesn't come loaded with preconceptions, scientists don't read to refute, they read to learn.
The creo doesn't learn science for the purpose of learning science. A creo looks for perceived flaws in science to see what they can use to either attack science's perceived assault on their beliefs or attempt to show that science props up their beliefs.
One approach is infinitely more likely than the other to arrive at accurate conclusions.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
While citing IamJoseph here is about as sporting as shooting a large fish in a small barrel, I thought that this magnificent contribution should not go unrecognized.
Here's my new definition of science:
'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS'.
I was considering having it as my signature.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
One thing that bothers me - why do scientists who debate here in religious threads have such a good grasp of what the Bible is saying, having taken the time to educate themselves, yet the Creationists who jump into science fora haven't done the same?
The average creationists have a lot more material to master than does the average scientist.
The amount of the Bible relevant to a discussion of evolution and cosmology amounts to only a few verses, and there is plenty of resources to help with the difficult parts. Also, it turns out that scientists without reading comprehension get weeded out of the educational process fairly early.
And the funny thing is, it's not as though the scientific-minded person needs to study Genesis, because it's not as though the creationist will ever argue for it. You could talk to a hundred creationists for a week and never once hear the words "talking snake".
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
As far as I can tell, he spends 23 minutes asking questions and giving no answers and in the last 7 minutes he reads out an article written by George Wald in 1954 and then says that George Wald retracted it. Not sure why. (I think it was a twisted Argument From Authority, where the fact that he retracts his original statement lends weight to his final statement. *shrug*) He then says that the origin of life requires an external force (e.g. electricity) and that this means that there must be a god.
Larni writes:
Mind, I stopped listening after he said 'cunt'.
The film is edited ... but they decided to keep that bit in.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
All goes to show that creos are not very good at thinking.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
™ Version 4.2
