The Proof

[ptamper]

Let me make one thing clear. There is no needed. Proof is your belief. But when I debate this topic I am attacked by people who feel very strongly about this.

I handle myself in this. No probelms. But any weapons I can use as defense are much appreciated. I mean to prove my point.

I read once that when scientists take the mountains and ocean structure of the globe and study it they find something which looks like finger of a hand. This is like when you look close at a statue you can actually see the lines made by fingerprints. What is the latest on this?

I also have seen about dinosaurs being blown out of the water as a theory. That even a top scientist said they were just guessing when they put these bones together. I think thre is similar case made with the genes of a monkey and how they are nowhere near those of human.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Let me make one thing clear. There is no needed. Proof is your belief. But when I debate this topic I am attacked by people who feel very strongly about this.

I handle myself in this. No probelms. But any weapons I can use as defense are much appreciated. I mean to prove my point.

I read once that when scientists take the mountains and ocean structure of the globe and study it they find something which looks like finger of a hand. This is like when you look close at a statue you can actually see the lines made by fingerprints. What is the latest on this?

I also have seen about dinosaurs being blown out of the water as a theory. That even a top scientist said they were just guessing when they put these bones together. I think thre is similar case made with the genes of a monkey and how they are nowhere near those of human.

Welcome to Origins Theology, ptamper.

I'm nowhere near a geologist nor a paleontologist, but Juvenissun and Mallon are, respectively. They're probably more aptly suitable for these questions, but I can tell you that scientists are not merely guessing when it comes to dinosaurs. There's 100% proof that dinosaurs existed, the problem between TEs (Theistic Evolutionists) and Creationists (Young- and Old-Earth Creationists) is when they existed. I'm also not a biologist, and I don't know of any in Origins Theology, off the top of my head, but I can assure you that the genes of a monkey and the genes of humans are very similar. You should try looking the answers up for yourself. There are a number of sites that are useful to both TEs and Creationists.

TalkOrigins- TE site. You can try browsing or searching the archive to see a list of questions and answers on the top issues between Creationism and Theistic Evolution. I suggest looking into the geology and paleontology sections to find what you're looking for.

AnswersinGenesis - A Creationist site that offers a lot of various articles that you can read along with their own commentary.

The Institute for Creation Research - Another Creationist site.

Evolution from Berkley Univ. - A good site if you want to better understand what exactly the Theory of Evolution is and how it works.

That should get you started, but feel free to ask any more questions.

P.S. This is the Creationism sub-forum. TEs can post fellowship posts, but we can't actually debate anything. If you'd like to start a formal debate, step over to the Origins Theology forum.

 

[ptamper]

THis is excellent work Scot.

I have seen many of this before but I did learn a great deal. One thing stands out very clear to me. This use of science words which are long and difficult to undertsand. It makes me angry.

This is done for a reason. This is placing a barrier to trick ordinary people into thinking they are stupid for believing the truth. The man in a white coat creates this. Deceivers. Jesus did not need this long kind of words..

And I have seen little research on the fact that earth when looked at properly shows signs of being moulded. THe ridges of finger marks can be clearly seen. THe spacing even matches position of finger and thumb. Surely this is something whcih deserves more study.

 

[Dannager]

I have seen many of this before but I did learn a great deal. One thing stands out very clear to me. This use of science words which are long and difficult to undertsand. It makes me angry.

This is done for a reason. This is placing a barrier to trick ordinary people into thinking they are stupid for believing the truth. The man in a white coat creates this. Deceivers. Jesus did not need this long kind of words..

Wait, seriously? Your problem with science is that it uses words that are too big for you to understand?

 

[ptamper]

Wait, seriously? Your problem with science is that it uses words that are too big for you to understand?

Of course this is problem. Let me give you example. Love. This is a simple word which we can understand.. Then Mr Sceientist takes this word and writes books on it. And creates equations and analyses the chemicals and publishes reports. Mr Scientist even creates new words to help explain all of this they have found.

So to understand what the Mr Scientist means you need to study all of these words. Because they now claim to hold truth.

Do you see? I have given you this complexity all with simple words. Much of science is guilty of this. It is deception of the wost kind and un Godly. I do not accept it.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Of course this is problem. Let me give you example. Love. This is a simple word which we can understand.. Then Mr Sceientist takes this word and writes books on it. And creates equations and analyses the chemicals and publishes reports. Mr Scientist even creates new words to help explain all of this they have found.

So to understand what the Mr Scientist means you need to study all of these words. Because they now claim to hold truth.

Do you see? I have given you this complexity all with simple words. Much of science is guilty of this. It is deception of the wost kind and un Godly. I do not accept it.

Ironically, it's the simple equations that are described as being the most beautiful to scientists. E=mc2 for instance.

You realize that a bunch of big words were needed to make the computer your using, right? Why do you think there are so many acronyms? ROM, RAM, CPU, etc.

 

[ptamper]

You realize that a bunch of big words were needed to make the computer your using, right? Why do you think there are so many acronyms? ROM, RAM, CPU, etc.

Yes, this is interesing. I believe this is a very good point for what I mean.

You look in a book shop and you see all of these PC titles lined up. so many of them. Different codes and languages and models of computer. And you read these and they have so much technology talk.

yes, it seems like another language. And you think these people know somethiing we dont. We can never understand this. But then this is all just invented.

Strip away this and fundamantally we can all undersatand a computer. Because it is just on and off. That is all. One and zero. Yes, time millions and in such compex combinations that we can never master.

Bit this is an essential truth of computer. In the same way as the world being created by God is essential truth.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Yes, this is interesing. I believe this is a very good point for what I mean.

You look in a book shop and you see all of these PC titles lined up. so many of them. Different codes and languages and models of computer. And you read these and they have so much technology talk.

yes, it seems like another language. And you think these people know somethiing we dont. We can never understand this. But then this is all just invented.

Not true. I have a very basic understanding of coding with Java. I can't do much but I can do some things. Does that make me better than you? Absolutely not. You could very easily take the time to learn about all of the things you're preaching against. There's no secret society that has a book that contains all the facts of the world.

Strip away this and fundamantally we can all undersatand a computer. Because it is just on and off. That is all. One and zero. Yes, time millions and in such compex combinations that we can never master.

Bit this is an essential truth of computer. In the same way as the world being created by God is essential truth.

I look forward to your response in binary.

 

[ptamper]

Not true. I have a very basic understanding of coding with Java. I can't do much but I can do some things. Does that make me better than you? Absolutely not. You could very easily take the time to learn about all of the things you're preaching against. There's no secret society that has a book that contains all the facts of the world.




I look forward to your response in binary.

Yes, my keyboard should wear out if I try with code. Laughing..

What I try and say here is that some guy who has spent his life studying computer language and knows so muich great stuff about PC. He really knows no more about the fundamental way PC works than another guy who only understands the basic principle of off and on.

Is this make sense? So it is like this belief that a scientist who spends his life studying something like evolution and writes reports and creates his own language should be put on stool as somebone who knows more. When in fact they may know no more than somebody who only knows the essential truth. You see?

 

[Dannager]

Yes, my keyboard should wear out if I try with code. Laughing..

What I try and say here is that some guy who has spent his life studying computer language and knows so muich great stuff about PC. He really knows no more about the fundamental way PC works than another guy who only understands the basic principle of off and on.

And yet that guy can make a computer do something, whereas the guy who heard you say "A computer is 1s and 0s and that's it" can't actually make a computer do anything it isn't already programmed to do. Having actual expert knowledge lets us live the excellent lives that we have.

Is this make sense? So it is like this belief that a scientist who spends his life studying something like evolution and writes reports and creates his own language should be put on stool as somebone who knows more. When in fact they may know no more than somebody who only knows the essential truth. You see?

No. The scientist actually does know more than you do.

So far, as I understand it, your argument boils down to: "I don't know anything about science, and those big words confuse me. I don't have the motivation to actually learn anything, and am already convinced I know everything that I should. Therefore, scientists are dumb despite all the incredible fruits of their knowledge I enjoy in my everyday life, not the least of which is typing this response on a computer."

Did I miss anything?

It's like you resent scientists for actually having the stones to go out there and learn something, and you want to pretend that, somehow, you're just as good as they are at doing their job.

 

[ptamper]

No. The scientist actually does know more than you do.

So far, as I understand it, your argument boils down to: "I don't know anything about science, and those big words confuse me. I don't have the motivation to actually learn anything, and am already convinced I know everything that I should. Therefore, scientists are dumb despite all the incredible fruits of their knowledge I enjoy in my everyday life, not the least of which is typing this response on a computer."

Did I miss anything?

Yes, what I want to portray is that we should not confuse information with knowledege.

Yes some guy who study PC knows more about PC than me. He can make them do a million things I cant do. He can repair them. He can build them.

But does this guy know more about what a computer is? My answer is no.. We both can only know that it is essentially a machine which processes on and off. You see?

In some ways he may have even lost sight of this. He thinks PC is more than this. He cannot see it as anying other than this highly complex thing. He has so much information that he has lost the essential truith.

I ask you this one. Does somebody who spends there life studying an apple know more about what an apple is than you?

 

[Dannager]

Yes, what I want to portray is that we should not confuse information with knowledege.

Yes some guy who study PC knows more about PC than me. He can make them do a million things I cant do. He can repair them. He can build them.

But does this guy know more about what a computer is? My answer is no.. We both can only know that it is essentially a machine which processes on and off. You see?

Except he knows that you can take this "simple on/off device" and make it do a million productive things if you know what you're doing. You're engaging in dangerous reductionism.

In some ways he may have even lost sight of this. He thinks PC is more than this. He cannot see it as anying other than this highly complex thing. He has so much information that he has lost the essential truith.

No, I'm pretty sure that at no point have computer scientists lost sight of 1s and 0s.

I ask you this one. Does somebody who spends there life studying an apple know more about what an apple is than you?

Yes.

 

[Melethiel]

Scientific jargon is there for a reason - if you take the time to learn it, it's actually much shorter and simpler - especially when you have to write an article. For example, instead of writing "add a base to an acidic solution until I reach the endpoint", I can simply write "titrate," and anyone can know what I mean. And even that original phrase could be "simplified" even more, but it would really make it more complicated. For instance, I could write "add a chemical which has a propensity to accept protons to a chemical diluted in water which has a propensity to give up protons until I reach the point where there are equal amounts of both."

Do you see now why scientists use technical language? It is not to belittle the common man - most of the time, they aren't even speaking to the common man, but to each other. It is to simplify things.

 

[ptamper]

Scientific jargon is there for a reason - if you take the time to learn it, it's actually much shorter and simpler - especially when you have to write an article. For example, instead of writing "add a base to an acidic solution until I reach the endpoint", I can simply write "titrate," and anyone can know what I mean. And even that original phrase could be "simplified" even more, but it would really make it more complicated. For instance, I could write "add a chemical which has a propensity to accept protons to a chemical diluted in water which has a propensity to give up protons until I reach the point where there are equal amounts of both."

Do you see now why scientists use technical language? It is not to belittle the common man - most of the time, they aren't even speaking to the common man, but to each other. It is to simplify things.

Yes. This you have portrayed this in excellent way.

I can see the good reasons for this kind langueage. Very clearly. I have no beef with these science guys. What I try to put across is that we should not place them on such a stool. This is not there fault- this is our fault.

Science has no superior knowledege to religion. It is all about belief. You can have two guys who look at the same set of numbers and graphs and have completely diiferent opinion. Do you see?

And science can only deal with things that you can measure or weigh or put in test tube. What has science got to offer for love or the soul or yes this is my point - religion. You see?

 

[gluadys]

You can have two guys who look at the same set of numbers and graphs and have completely diiferent opinion. Do you see?

You have to be a little careful when saying this. What do they have a different opinion about?

Do they have a different opinion about what the graph says? about what the numbers measure? Usually not.

Do they have a different opinion about what (if anything) should be done with this information? Almost certainly. But this is not a scientific question. It may be an economic question. Both scientists agree with the information that the graph reveals about the medicinal properties of a plant, yet disagree on whether it is worthwhile to invest in it.

Scientists seldom disagree on the actual science. Just on things like how important it is or what should be done with the information.

 

[anonymous1515]

Well ptamper...as a scientist, I must say that I am shocked (and slightly dismayed) by your lack of knowledge. I suggest taking a philosophy of science course.

However, I have to agree with you on one point. Science HAS been placed on a pedastle, and is largely (and falsely) considered to be a better way of knowing the world than other disciplines.

Science is not any BETTER than philosophy. It is not any better than art. Similarly, it is not any *better* than religion. It simply describes a totally different subject matter.

Now, here is where our opinions diverge. You said that "Science has no superior knowledege to religion." That is true. However, don't try and assert that religion is therefore better than science. They are simply different.

 

[busterdog]

Well ptamper...as a scientist, I must say that I am shocked (and slightly dismayed) by your lack of knowledge. I suggest taking a philosophy of science course.

However, I have to agree with you on one point. Science HAS been placed on a pedastle, and is largely (and falsely) considered to be a better way of knowing the world than other disciplines.

Science is not any BETTER than philosophy. It is not any better than art. Similarly, it is not any *better* than religion. It simply describes a totally different subject matter.

Now, here is where our opinions diverge. You said that "Science has no superior knowledege to religion." That is true. However, don't try and assert that religion is therefore better than science. They are simply different.

I would ask you to check the rules before continuing. Maybe this doesn't quite specifically argue for evolution, but it seems to be headed that way.

In the OT forum, my argument has been consistently that science does not construct a boundary to keep itself from intruding into religion. But, it sure erects walls to keep religion out. They pretend that the issue is "good science", not whether quasi religious claims are science, which is s a false distinction. Whether it is bad science or not, you have no right to declare it to be off limits. There are too many examples. You may wish it were so, but that's not the way it works. If you want to apologize for many years of many scientists not following your rules, that is fine. But, it has hardly ever worked as you suggest.

 

[anonymous1515]

Very well. Rather than arguing over specific beliefs, let me ask you this:

How do creationist claims about the nature of the universe fit into the scientific realm? Also, what is a "quasi-religious" claim?

The very reason that the claims are *religious* is the fact that they are based on faith. Otherwise, they WOULD be scientific claims, and hence testable.

I agree that science has made a distinction between religious and non-religious claims. The point is that so have creationists.

Referring to creationist claims as "quasi-religious" seems like side-stepping the issue. A question is scientific if it is testable (falsifiable). You have to look for the opposite of your original conjecture in order to falisy it. I did not originally argue that religoius claims are "off-limits" because of political considerations. I mean they are off-limits precisely because they cannot be tested. They are not-scientific. That is not to say that scientific claims are better. They are just totally different.

**Disclaimer**
Ok, I will use an example, not to make a political case for evolutionism. Rather, I am going to make a point to illustrate falsifiability, with respect to creationism.

*****

Ok, a creationist claim that I have heard alot is the following: "random mutation cannot add information (genetic material) to the genome." That is fine. That IS a scientific question. So, you begin the scientific method.

Question: Can mutation add information to the genome?

Hypothesis/Predictions: If random mutation cannot add information to the genome, then after many, many generations, there should be no NEW information in the genome of any organism in the population.

Methods: take a clonal bacterial culture, and let it grow for many, many generations. Then, assess the variability/differences in the genome after that amount of time.

Conclusions:
If no new information is in the genome, then your hypothesis is supported. Mutation cannot add genetic information.
If new information IS in the genome, then your hypothesis has been falsified. Mutation can add information.

So there you go. You have your test of that particular creationist statement. You see, that claim IS scientific. You can test it. Many others, however, are not.

 

[ClearSky]

Ok, a creationist claim that I have heard alot is the following: "random mutation cannot add information (genetic material) to the genome." That is fine. That IS a scientific question. So, you begin the scientific method.

Question: Can mutation add information to the genome?

Hypothesis/Predictions: If random mutation cannot add information to the genome, then after many, many generations, there should be no NEW information in the genome of any organism in the population.

Methods: take a clonal bacterial culture, and let it grow for many, many generations. Then, assess the variability/differences in the genome after that amount of time.

Conclusions:
If no new information is in the genome, then your hypothesis is supported. Mutation cannot add genetic information.
If new information IS in the genome, then your hypothesis has been falsified. Mutation can add information.

So there you go. You have your test of that particular creationist statement. You see, that claim IS scientific. You can test it. Many others, however, are not.

This is a valid argument, but is it based on misleading information. As a Creationist I think I have to make clear that the claim you've posted is not necessarily a Creationist claim. A Creationist claim would be the following:

"Random mutation HAS NOT caused the addition of major new information (genetic material) to the genome."

The problem that I often encounter on this forum and elsewhere is that there are a lot of pseudo-science theories and claims that are all mixed together as "Creationist". So you can pick some especially wrong or misleading Creationist claim from some website or book, disprove it, and then claim that you've disproved Creationism.

However Creationism is not the bunch of theories that you can find promoted on websites like AiG. At first, Creationism is just the belief in some events that happened several thousand years ago. No more, no less. So it has little to do with physical science, but - if at all - more with historical science. Creationist claims are not falsifiable, and thus not scientific in the sense of a scientific theory.

"Creation science" is not Creationism, it is promotion of Creationism. Or rather, it is promotion of AiG or whatever website wants to sell books and DVDs about it. It's important to understand the difference.

 

[anonymous1515]

Good point. You have touched upon a distinction that I hadn't previously considered. Creationism is faith-based, whereas creation-science claims to be scientifically grounded.

However, many creation-science claims are not falsifiable. Clearly, as you pointed out, the claim that "mutation has not caused the addition of major new information" is not falsifiable, and hence not scientific. So I agree, that should be classified as faith.