Pastor’s horse ride supports creationism in schools

[Mechanical Bliss]

Creationism is pure fact.

Creationism was demonstrated to be false nearly two centuries ago.

Evolution can not be exactly proven either.

You've just revealed how little you understand about the scientific method. Nothing can be proven in science, so your dispute on this front is meaningless. The existence of atoms cannot be exactly proven either, to use your words, but that doesn't make atomic theory meaningless or in any way wrong. Both the theory of evolution and atomic theory are derived from the same methodology.

Our kids are being brainwashed by people who have no grip of reality.

Creationists are the ones who don't have a grip on reality. They ignore evidence and lie to push an agenda whose goal is to win converts, not to be scientific.

Reality is a world where athiests and those who support evolution surely dont live.

That's one of the most insane comments I've read at this forum.

It is ashamed at how kids are lied to being told that they evolved from a monkey.

Since the theory of evolution states nothing of the sort, you are the one lying by propagating such nonsense.

Evolution is one of the biggest frauds of our time.

Then why is it supported by all available evidence and why has no one demonstrated it to be false?

The reality is found in Genesis. Genesis is in the error free book that God gave us to live by.

Then why is it so easy to disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis? A global flood didn't happen. That's a fact. The earth is not 6,000 years old. That's a fact. Species on earth were not specially created separately. That's a fact. If you truly think you can defend creationism, answer the numerous falsifications of it on the science forum. I won't hold my breath though.

Read it sometime and believe it. It will do you some good if you just trust what it says as pure fact. Evolution comes from pure ignorance to the facts of how we got here.

If creationism deals with "pure fact" then why is it so easy to prove that it is wrong and why do creationists ignore facts?

Your empty rhetoric is meaningless, especially when you clearly don't have the knowledge to make honest conclusions about the topic.

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

There is a web site you may want to check out to see my point. http://www.creationscience.com I was amazed at what I read on it.

 

[troodon]

There is a web site you may want to check out to see my point. http://www.creationscience.com I was amazed at what I read on it.

Have you ever considered the possibility that we have visited www.creationscience.com as well as other prominant sites (Hovind's, AiG, ICR to name a few)? Their attempts to save YEC are as sad as their attempts to falsify evolution.

BTW, the liquefaction sorting that they describe on www.creationscience.com is among the funniest things I've ever read on a serious website.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You were probably amazed at what you read on it because they told you what you wanted to hear rather than taking the effort to educate yourself in the sciences. Rather than present arguments in your own words, you paste a link to a worthless website not grounded in any facts whatsoever and actually expect us to take that seriously. There's nothing there we haven't seen and refuted before.

Of course what a mechanical engineer is doing speaking on topics like geology and biology is beyond me. Of course more than anything, he's trying to sell a book rather than act like a scientist and try to get his ideas published in scientific literature.

There are multiple falsifications of the arguments at that website here on the science forum. Creationism is indefensible.

 

[JEREMY O'ROURKE]

I also have found some other great websites that deal with this. http://www.trueorigin.org http://www.genisisfiles.com and http://sixdaycreation.com and http://creationist.org and http://originresource.org I could go on and on.

 

[troodon]

I also have found some other great websites that deal with this. http://www.trueorigin.org http://www.genisisfiles.com and http://sixdaycreation.com and http://creationist.org and http://originresource.org I could go on and on.

Yay! Creationism has more websites; they win!

Then again by that logic the moon landing never happened. http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ and http://www.primeline-america.com/moon-ldg/ and http://batesmotel.8m.com/ and http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm I could go on and on

Tell you what, you go to the Science, Creation, and Evolution forum and give defending YEC your best shot.

 

[revolutio]

I also have found some other great websites that deal with this. http://www.trueorigin.org http://www.genisisfiles.com and http://sixdaycreation.com and http://creationist.org and http://originresource.org I could go on and on.

Most of those sights already have threads about them in the Science, Creation, and Evolution section. Alot of them flat out lie.

Instead of just posting websites, why don't you go to that forum and debate for yourself the individual issues.

 

[Bushido216]

Has anyone bothered to ask what the connection between a horse (which, by the way, has a clear fossil history showing its evolution throughout the ages) and creation science?

 

[burrow_owl]

a. "Creationism was demonstrated to be false nearly two centuries ago."

really? must have missed that. or it didn't happen. please document.

b. "Nothing can be proven in science, so your dispute on this front is meaningless."

not so much. creationists don't proceed from a general sceptic POV - they proceed by generally accepted scientific principles (i'm assuming).

 

[Paul12]

Not in science class. How could you scientifically test whether or not God (let alone which god) made everything? That's why God is kept out of the science class. Not because of some atheistic conspiracy, but because science cannot test the supernatural.

True. Thats why I think there should be an elective sociology class or something of the sort in high school that deals with this. A class that addresses religions, including atheism, because knowledge prevents intolerance. Maybe there is, but I went to a high school of 1000 kids, and we didn't have anything of the sort.

 

[revolutio]

they proceed by generally accepted scientific principles (i'm assuming).

Only on rare occasions and, even then, likely by accident.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

a. "Creationism was demonstrated to be false nearly two centuries ago."

really? must have missed that. or it didn't happen. please document.

Creationism was the foundational bases for geology and biology. Geologists like Sedgwick, Lyell and biologists like Wallace and Darwin were the ones to put the nails in the coffin of creationism in the 19th century. Issues such as a young earth, a global flood, the geologic record produced from such a catastrophe, and the separate creation of species were all disproven. Geology and biology threw out creationism during the history of those sciences once it was found to be false.

b. "Nothing can be proven in science, so your dispute on this front is meaningless."

not so much. creationists don't proceed from a general sceptic POV - they proceed by generally accepted scientific principles (i'm assuming).

If they proceed by generally accepted scientific principles, then they ought to follow the scientific method. However, since creationism has been long since falsified, modern day creationists no longer follow the scientific method. Instead of deducing the most logical conclusion from all available data, creationists have a fixed conclusion that they will not alter which means that they must practice intellectual dishonesty by way of ignoring evidence and omitting relevant, contradictory evidence from their articles. That just isn't practicing science. Evidence that they throw out data they don't like:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

Other creationist organizations share their same "statement of faith" and thus no longer practice science because they deliberately disregard information that proves that creationism is wrong in order to beat a dead horse.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I also have found some other great websites that deal with this. http://www.trueorigin.org http://www.genisisfiles.com and http://sixdaycreation.com and http://creationist.org and http://originresource.org I could go on and on.

They are "great websites" insomuch as they tell you what you want to hear by relying on the facts that (1) you wouldn't know enough about the subject to know whether they are right and (2) you wouldn't put forth the effort to research their claims to see whether they are right.

If you want to validate creationism, you're going to have to use science. However, since it has already been demonstrated to be false, that's going to be extremely difficult. Spamming the forum with a bunch of website addresses just isn't going to help your case. It only reinforces the assumption that your knowledge in these areas is minimal, which is probably why you refused to reveal your educational background when asked.

 

[revolutio]

Now if he was riding Sleipnir, then I might have to reconsider my religious views.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Now if he was riding Sleipnir, then I might have to reconsider my religious views.

Whoo-Yeah! Go Odin!

 

[burrow_owl]

ok, i'm not gonna lie - i'm not too up on this jazz, but aren't those falsifications of which you speak just falsifications of early versions of creationism? i mean, there are certainly aspects of darwinism that have been discredited, yet we allow the discipline theoretical room to alter its mechanisms and even some of its core tenets. so, even though the other version of evolution that coincided with Darwinism (was it Lamark or something? the guy that had a teleological version of evolutionism...) was thoroughly discredited, we don't just throw out the big idea.

so isn't it disingenuous to say that creationism writ large has been falsified just because some early versions were? like i said, i don't know this stuff too well, so consider this a good chance to set me right.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

It depends on how you define "creationism." The central tenets of classical creationism are essentially the same as modern creationism. They exist even know at organizations such as Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research, and the websites posted above. Issues such as a young earth, global flood, the catastrophic construction of the geologic record, and the separate creation of organisms are all main tenets of early Christian creationism and they are identical to the tenets of modern creationism as expressed by such organizations, and they have been known to be false by the scientific community for nearly two centuries.

Now there are other "flavors" of creationism that might not depend on a young earth or a global flood, but the main feature of creationism is the denial of the theory of evolution. However, since the theory of evolution has not been discredited, no matter how much it has been altered (although its central concepts have not been), there is no reason to believe that organisms were specially created and did not evolve from other organisms. The theory of evolution and its supporting evidence clearly falsifies that notion. Now creationist organizations have begun to slightly alter their definitions to allow the formation of new species from other species but deny other changes observed and evidenced in the fossil record simply because they must.

However since creationism does exist today as it did when it was the foundation for geology and biology, there's no reason to consider it valid.

 

[troodon]

ok, i'm not gonna lie - i'm not too up on this jazz, but aren't those falsifications of which you speak just falsifications of early versions of creationism?

The organization of fossils spanning the American midwest

The world's biogeography showing that a global flood could not have occured

Features of the Grand Canyon that could not exist if a global flood occured

Lines of evidence revolving around the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

Further evidence from the Hawaiian Islands which falsify a global flood

The presence of angular nonconformities falsify a global flood

The presence of varves falsify a global flood

The sheer mathematical impossibility of a global flood falsifies it

Extensive salt deposits falsify a global flood

Massive volcanic events and large impact craters falsify a young earth

Here can be seen Frumious Bandersnatches analysis of massive, quick tectonic changes required to quickly raise mountains

Y chromosome DNA falsifies the theory that the MRCA for humanity lived 4,500 years ago

Useless features (such as my elephant bird's humerus) falsify an "intelligent" designer

Same with these whale hindlimbs

Same with these vestigial structures (genetic and otherwise)

Cultures extending through the proposed date of a global flood falsify it

The inability of YECs to determine which strata are pre, post, and flood strata make's their stance on scientific ground shaky

This set of dinosaur footprints falsifies a global flood

The cosmic microwave background falsifies a young universe

Stellar distances falsify a young universe

The following characteristics of certain genes, proteins, and endogenous retroviruses provide evidence for evolution and falsify a "non-deceptive" creator

The enormous amount of transitional fossils falsify special creation by anything but a creator looking to trick us

Corresponding dates arrived with radiometric dating falsify beyond a shadow of a doubt a young earth

Dendrochronology falsifies a young earth

i mean, there are certainly aspects of darwinism that have been discredited

Only gradualism; and even that may be the case in some specific examples (theropods losing digit 5 on their hind legs for example)

so, even though the other version of evolution that coincided with Darwinism (was it Lamark or something? the guy that had a teleological version of evolutionism...) was thoroughly discredited, we don't just throw out the big idea.

Lamarck's theory was substantially different from Darwin's. Modern YEC basically consists of a variety of ideas thrown together in a mad dash effort to try and avoid old falsifications (like there not being enough water to cover the earth). The problem is that modern YEC can be falsified just as easily (as you can see in the links). This is not the case with Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian. Lamarck was falsified because acquired characteristics cannot be passed down to offspring; Darwinian relies on non-acquired traits and thus is not falsified in the same manner.

so isn't it disingenuous to say that creationism writ large has been falsified just because some early versions were?

Not at all. Once a global flood was falsified both old and modern YEC were falsified because modern YEC still depends on a global flood to create the fossil record.

like i said, i don't know this stuff too well, so consider this a good chance to set me right.

Oh, I will

 

[Philosoft]

so isn't it disingenuous to say that creationism writ large has been falsified just because some early versions were? like i said, i don't know this stuff too well, so consider this a good chance to set me right.

Again, Creationism is a term historically used to represent a specific set of claims about the origins of life, the universe and everything. When we say "Creationism has been falsified," we mean, 'the Creationism that contains this particluar set of claims has been falsified.' This does not mean we have falsified the theory, "God created living things." That more general statement is covered by the term Creation. The only theory that has been falsified is "God created living things using the methods outlined in the Bible."

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Has anyone bothered to ask what the connection between a horse (which, by the way, has a clear fossil history showing its evolution throughout the ages) and creation science?

Archaic method of transportation promoting archaic science that was disproved 200 years ago... hmmm...