Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 7:06 AM
17 online now:
AZPaul3, Percy (Admin), Tangle (3 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,658 Year: 3,695/19,786 Month: 690/1,087 Week: 59/221 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2345Next
Author Topic:   Creationism - a clearer picture?
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 64 (5929)
03-01-2002 8:59 PM


It seems to me a vast majority of creationist on this board are dedicated to trying to find fault with evolution, as if disproving TOE would somehow validate "creationist science".
I am willing to listen the the other side of the arguement. I would like for a creationist to please lay down some of the theories of creation science and put forth supporting evidence. Experiments that test solid hypothesis of creation science, along with their data would be wonderful. I am willing to listen to evidence for a creationsist view of the universe. Science is about understanding. Please explain it to me.
  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 64 (5936)
03-01-2002 10:07 PM


you're going to be waiting for a loooong time....

creationists usually know creationism is true because some christian site tells them so....

the fact is, most, if not all, of the shreds of creation evidence are actually evolution evidence twisted and molded to suit the bible.

this would be acceptable if both parties had equal evidence, but that is not the case...

creationists find themselves using evolution evidence to prove the bible. they also find themselves trying to disprove the rest of the evidence that supports evolution, the evidence that they can't manipulate.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-01-2002 10:16 PM quicksink has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Punisher, posted 03-01-2002 11:42 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (5938)
03-01-2002 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
03-01-2002 10:07 PM


Well, for the most part I would agree with you, but as logical and open minded person, I am willing to listen to the other side's evidence if they have it. However, if they aren't willing to step forward and have their evidence peer reviewed (a critically important part of the scientific process) then they should stop trying to pass creationism off as science. I believe I should at least make the offer and be open minded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-01-2002 10:07 PM quicksink has not yet responded

  
Punisher
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 64 (5940)
03-01-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by quicksink
03-01-2002 10:07 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by quicksink:
this would be acceptable if both parties had equal evidence, but that is not the case...
[/B][/QUOTE]

As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts.

To quote Dr. Don Batten "Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by quicksink, posted 03-01-2002 10:07 PM quicksink has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 12:29 AM Punisher has not yet responded
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:38 AM Punisher has not yet responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (5946)
03-02-2002 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Punisher
03-01-2002 11:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Punisher:
As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts.

To quote Dr. Don Batten "Both evolution and creation fall into the category of origins science. Both are driven by philosophical considerations. The same data (observations in the present) are available to everyone, but different interpretations (stories) are devised to explain what happened in the past."


*sigh* If you don't understand the basic principles of scientific investigation , I suppose it means little to you when I say that your statement is a sad commentary for creation "science". What dear Dr. Batten ( a doctor of what, by the way) seems to confuse is the difference between philosophy and science. Philosophy seeks knowlege and truth through logical thought, sometimes intuition. Philosophy also seeks to explain morality. Science is interested in trying to find a framework to explain "past" and current natural phenomena and proccesses, and attempts to make predictions. Those predictions are dependant on observable data. If a hypothesis is invalidated by observation and data, it needs either to be revised or replaced. Evolution falls under the definition of science. The reason TOE is widely accepted is that it is the theory that best explains observerved data , and makes predicitions, that are supported by experiments, observations, and correlating data.
Since creationist science is being put forth as just that, science, I simply ask what is its basic theory. What hyopotesis have been formulated on it, and what experiments have conducted to verify these hypothesis. I ask for scientific evidence in support creationism. I am willing to consider valid scientific evidence and theories. Your commentary doesn't put forth a coherent scientific theory , or evidence, in support of the creationist position.
I find it strange that the even the Roman Catholic church accepts the validity of TOE, and geoligical evidence of and old earth. It seems they don't find a conflict between science and their philosophical beliefs, since TOE isn't a philosophy. Additionaly , TOE makes no predictions about the existance of a God or lack there of, and doesn't put forth a code of morals or beliefs. ( I think the Roman Catholic Church may have had some permenant reservations about TOE if it did. )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Punisher, posted 03-01-2002 11:42 PM Punisher has not yet responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 64 (5947)
03-02-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Punisher
03-01-2002 11:42 PM


"As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts."
--Exactly right, this is the crux of the debate, interperetation.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Punisher, posted 03-01-2002 11:42 PM Punisher has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 12:55 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 8 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 12:56 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 64 (5950)
03-02-2002 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts."
--Exactly right, this is the crux of the debate, interperetation.


Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores...

[This message has been edited by LudvanB, 03-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:38 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:00 AM LudvanB has responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 64 (5951)
03-02-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 12:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"As far as I know both parties in this 'great debate' share the same universe, earth, and facts. This is not a debate about facts; we have the same facts. This is about an interpretation of those facts."
--Exactly right, this is the crux of the debate, interperetation.


Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories. If you have evidence that supports a creationist theory, please share. If there are experiments based upon creationist hypothesis (ie. a creationist "interpretation" of data that explains natural phenomena and puts forth testable predicitions) that has data supporting it ( ie those facts you were talking about) then please tell us about them. I am not asking for anything that wouldn't be required of any scientific theory.
Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 12:38 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 AM Darwin Storm has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 64 (5953)
03-02-2002 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by LudvanB
03-02-2002 12:55 AM


"Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores..."
--I think it would be more accurate to say from theory to theory. Also, I would suggest a good biology book, with a coarse introduction.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 12:55 AM LudvanB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM TrueCreation has responded

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 64 (5954)
03-02-2002 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Darwin Storm
03-02-2002 12:56 AM


"Well, science is about interpretating observed data and formulating hypothesis and theories."
--Right.

"If you have evidence that supports a creationist theory, please share. If there are experiments based upon creationist hypothesis (ie. a creationist "interpretation" of data that explains natural phenomena and puts forth testable predicitions) that has data supporting it ( ie those facts you were talking about) then please tell us about them. I am not asking for anything that wouldn't be required of any scientific theory."
--We've been discussing much regarding theoretical implications in various threads. Try 'Falsifying Creation'.

"Your refusual to put forth suppporting evidence seems to be an indicator that creationism is a "belief" and not science. "
--Creationism is a belief, who told you differently.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002]

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-02-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 12:56 AM Darwin Storm has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 1:33 AM TrueCreation has responded
 Message 13 by Theo, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

  
Darwin Storm
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 64 (5964)
03-02-2002 1:33 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:03 AM


Cool, I will look into the other thread. The main reason I put up this thread is that I have repeatadly heard creationism refered to as "creationism science". If there is such a cat, I just wanted to see his stripes. Scientifically, even creationist genisis would leave tell tale signs that science could observe, and regardless of religious belief, would be supported by physical evidence if it took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 3:53 AM Darwin Storm has responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 64 (5965)
03-02-2002 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:00 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Indeed that may well be the case. Interpretation,which varies from individuals to individuals...like say for instance someone like myself who would interpret a vegetable eating lion as evidence that some animals species can produce some intriguing and unique mutants,while someone else,who shall remain nameless,would interpret said lion as the proof that 4500 years ago,big cats were all herbivores..."
--I think it would be more accurate to say from theory to theory. Also, I would suggest a good biology book, with a coarse introduction.


Oh i did,when i was younger,i couldn't get enough biology. And you know what biology has taught me? That the Lion is a carnivore,that it is born to be a carnivore and that it starves to death if it runs out of meat and that there is no fact in science that would lend credence to the hypothesis that lions or their ancestors ever grazed the fields side by side with the antilopes and the gazelles and that ONE MUTANT LION living on vegetables in a CONTROLED ENVIRONEMENT does NOTHING to alter those FACTS.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:00 AM TrueCreation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 4:02 AM LudvanB has not yet responded

  
Theo
Inactive Junior Member


Message 13 of 64 (5966)
03-02-2002 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by TrueCreation
03-02-2002 1:03 AM


I find the lack of understanding in these posts of what creationism claims to be appalling. The straw man fallacy is repeated over and over.

I suggest that if one want's to understand the creationist view before critiquing it they read Oliver Wendel Bird's two volume set "The Origin of the Species Revisited." Evolutionist scientists recommend it. In volume one he reviews the scientific data. In volume two he reviews the philosophy of science, definitions of science and legalities. He does not address the issue of the Young Earth however.

If one did their homework they would find that creationism does make testable predictions. I have found no one critical of creationism in these posts that even have a clue as to what they are. Shouldn't one know what one is critiquing before one critiques it?

Evolution made predictions, mutation and natural selection for change from a single cell to man and then when science proved that mutation and natural selection could not have done this, evolution simply changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of evidence. Yet Punk Eek cannot provide a mechanism. This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs. That's what evolution has done. Popper's criteria of falsifiability as part of the definition of science apparently doesn't apply to evolution science. Evolution science is to plastic violating definitions of science. For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates.

We'll go from there

------------------
theo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by TrueCreation, posted 03-02-2002 1:03 AM TrueCreation has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by LudvanB, posted 03-02-2002 1:41 AM Theo has not yet responded
 Message 15 by joz, posted 03-02-2002 1:58 AM Theo has not yet responded
 Message 16 by joz, posted 03-02-2002 2:10 AM Theo has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Darwin Storm, posted 03-02-2002 2:26 AM Theo has responded
 Message 20 by Quetzal, posted 03-02-2002 5:30 AM Theo has responded
 Message 52 by quicksink, posted 03-06-2002 4:37 AM Theo has not yet responded

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 64 (5968)
03-02-2002 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theo
03-02-2002 1:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
I find the lack of understanding in these posts of what creationism claims to be appalling. The straw man fallacy is repeated over and over.

I suggest that if one want's to understand the creationist view before critiquing it they read Oliver Wendel Bird's two volume set "The Origin of the Species Revisited." Evolutionist scientists recommend it. In volume one he reviews the scientific data. In volume two he reviews the philosophy of science, definitions of science and legalities. He does not address the issue of the Young Earth however.

If one did their homework they would find that creationism does make testable predictions. I have found no one critical of creationism in these posts that even have a clue as to what they are. Shouldn't one know what one is critiquing before one critiques it?

Evolution made predictions, mutation and natural selection for change from a single cell to man and then when science proved that mutation and natural selection could not have done this, evolution simply changed the theory to punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of evidence. Yet Punk Eek cannot provide a mechanism. This is blind faith and begging the question. One cannot interpret the evidence in light of one's beliefs. That method will always confirm one's original beliefs. That's what evolution has done. Popper's criteria of falsifiability as part of the definition of science apparently doesn't apply to evolution science. Evolution science is to plastic violating definitions of science. For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates.

We'll go from there


Would you care to give us a few exemples of those testable predictions of creationism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theo, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM Theo has not yet responded

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 64 (5969)
03-02-2002 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theo
03-02-2002 1:35 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Theo:
For starters on testable predictions, creationism predicts the first and second laws of thermodynamics which evolution science violates.

We'll go from there


No lets back it up a step and ask why if creationism (presumeably around since the writing of genesis) predicted laws 1 and 2 of thermodynamics so much was made of the scientists who discovered them....

Hey why stop at the first two why not the 0th and 3rd as well? Oh yeah its because creation ex nihilo breaks the 0th law..

But hey why not claim relativity, the Schroedinger wave equation and the big bang while your at it....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theo, posted 03-02-2002 1:35 AM Theo has not yet responded

  
1
2345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019