QUESTIONS

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"so basically , the less people understand science, the more people believe in creationism...

​

i have to hand it to you- you're starting to make sense."
--For me I have found it is the exact opposite...

---

Your personal experience is rather meaningless in this instance, TC.Belief in literal Biblical creation is highest in people who never finished high school.Among life scientists, belief in a literal Biblical creation is almost nonexistant.The percentage of people who believe in a literal Biblical creation goes DOWN as education levels go up.Have a looksee: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"TC- could you tell me why the most experienced scientists laugh at creationism?"
--Because of many factors, when a christian is braught up these days, half are going to believe that science is stupid or does not want part in it because they have the idea that it is contrary to their biblical belief because of evolution.[/QUOTE]

​

I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half.

​

quote:

---

Thus, many are not even going to have the interest to start, which is finally starting to change these days, atleast a small percentage of the general population knows that creation science exists.

---

​

Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be.

​

quote:

---

Also because of problem of religion and bias, a naturalistic explinaiton for anything is much more atractive than anything a supernatural explination (even though there is much less of the super-natural than one would think).

---

​

Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?

​

quote:

---

Fortunatelly creationists are beginning to step on some toes and get some attention.

---

​

Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?

​

[QUOTE]There is also the problem of censoring creationists out of technical journals because they may say instead of 'scientists belive', they would say 'so after God had created', or something along the lines of that.[/b]

---

Poor, maligned Creationists.They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles.Give me a break, TC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"I suppose it depends on how you want to define "Christian", but I would say that only a small percentage of Christians are brought up as Biblical fundamentalists. Far fewer than half."
--Thats because of the statment I just made, if they have the interest, they are going to get sucked into what they are teaching them.[/QUOTE]

​

Did you ever think that most people use the Bible for the moral lessons it provides, not for the literal truth about the natural world that you want to find in it?

​

quote:

---

"Creation science isn't science, TC, no matter how much you want to be."
--If you wan't to make a relevant statement, I have given you the way that creation science is, if your going to argue with me, you must argue with that model.

---

​

I have done so, over and over, for months previous to this, and you have yet to make anything close to a good argument in favor of your position. Yet you keep repeating the notion that Creation "science" is science. I am not going to keep banging my head against this particular brick wall. If you can show me that Creation "science" is not deferential to the bible and based on religion, that it makes testable predictions (hypothese), has positive evidence to support it, and has potential falsifications which haven't already been falsified, then you can say that Creation 'science' is really science.

​

(This should be easy to find, BTW, on AiG or ICR if they are actually doing science.)

​

Then, once you have done that, then we can look at evidence which does not depend upon the ToE, et. al., being falsified. Any scientific notion should stand on it's own.

​

quote:

---

"Why is it bad to be biased in favor of the evidence?"
--This is not what I have said, I said that to most people a naturalistic explination is more attractive than a supernatural explination,

---

​

How is this different from holding a bias in favor of the evidence?

​

Also, I disagree that most people want there to be a naturalistic explanation for things. It goes against our essential self-centered nature. People throughout history have tended to immediately make up a supernatural explanation for every natural occurance that they couldn't explain, and it almost always reflected on us. Gods caused lightning because of something humans did. Gods caused floods because of something humans did. God caused locusts because of something humans did. God created AIDS because of something humans did. And on and on.

​

The idea that naturalistic phenomena have naturalistic explanations is relatively new, and goes against human nature, in a way. We want there to be magic, and to be special. We don't like the mundane and explainable.

​

quote:

---

and I have made the assertion that there is much les of the supernatural than one would think. This is because everything can be explained in naturalistic terms accept say, the origins, or the resurrection, or something of that likeness.

---

​

You have done a lot of "explaining" about how the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and a lot of "explaining" about flood geology. However, your "explanations" are not likely or reasonable, and require a whole lot of "Godidit" to work.

​

quote:

---

"Really? Attention from whom? The public or scientists?"
--Both.

---

​

Attention from the public is meaningless as to scientific validity.

​

I'd like to know in what way are real scientists are having their "toes stepped on" by Creation "scientists", and in what way?

​

[QUOTE]"Poor, maligned Creationists.

​

They say they want to do science but can't seem to stop referring to their Christian Bibles."
--This is science. By your logic, if there even was evidence of a young earth, it would not be plausable because of your pre-conceived idea that it is not possible because we cannot give god a foot-hold.
[/b]

---

Evidence for a young earth should be evident without reference to God at all. That is the whole point, and that is why Creation 'science" isn't science. Science is evidenciary in nature, not revelatory.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-10-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:

quote:

---

We can infer from the fossil record that some animals, and types
of animals existed at times when others did not.

​

That last statement is sufficient to invalidate a literal
interpretation of the creation in genesis.

---

​

I'm afriad I don't follow the quote above.

​

My interpretation is this: In the ordinary course of events, animals usually do not fossilze when they die. Usually there is an unusual event like a volcanic eruption or flood. Fossilization is more likely to occur in some sort of cataclysm than in normal circumstances. So if we find widespread fossilization it would be reasonable to infer widespread cataclysm. And, if we find fossil graveyards with millions of animals jammed together, it would be reasonable to infer cataclysm of titanic proportions. I believe the evidence to be 'supportive' of a global flood. The fossil evidence doesn't prove there was a global flood, but it is consistent with that idea.

​

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 03-11-2002]

---

No, you are mistaken about how fossilization occurs. A cataclism doesn't need to happen. In fact, cataclisms are more likely to destroy than to preserve.Most fossils are of bottom-dwelling marine animals which are the most likely to get buried in calm water/silt with low oxygen levels.Here is a good basic explanation: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/geo3xx/308/cha1.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Punisher:
[B] The fossil record shows nothing. You make an assumption and seek to understand the fossil record in light of that assumption. Suppose you were on a dig 2000 years from now, and you discovered, in different strata, a Shetland pony, a quarterhorse, a thorough-bred, and a Clydesdale. Being completely honest, wouldn't you try to arrange them in some sort of evolutionary fashion - as though the big horse evolved from the smaller one?[/QUOTE]No.They all are basically identical from an evolutionary/paleontological sense.They all have single toes with vestigial tarsal bones on either side. They all have the same skull and tooth construction. They all have the same spinal column construction. etcAnd, most importantly, they would all be found in the same layer of the geologic column.Now, if they were found in different layers, that would be something different.Also, it is incorrect to assume (and paleontologists and Evolutionary Biologists don't) that smaller means older and larger means more recent.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-11-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-11-2002]