Do creationist beliefs encourage anti-intellectualism?

[Sidon]

Once again, this just reads like a complete strawman.

and you sound exactly like the same deceived mouth piece, who wrote a lie, that became THE homosexual national anthem pop song.

You would know her as "lady gaga", and she penned, "Born this way", which is the deceived universal Satanic national anthem ....regarding all who practice the lifestyle of depraved sexual immorality., as defined clearly by Paul, in Romans 1.

 

[Ophiolite]

and you sound exactly like the same deceived mouth piece, who wrote a lie, that became THE homosexual national anthem pop song.

You would know her as "lady gaga", and she penned, "Born this way", which is the deceived universal Satanic national anthem ....regarding all who practice the lifestyle of depraved sexual immorality., as defined clearly by Paul, in Romans 1.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
William Shakespeare

 

[Sidon]

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
William Shakespeare

"to thine own self be true"....-Will Shakespeare.

 

[Ophiolite]

"to thine own self be true"....-Will Shakespeare.

"I am."
Ophiolite

 

[pitabread]

and you sound exactly like the same deceived mouth piece,

You're making claims about scientific findings that are gross strawman. The only person doing any deceiving here appears to be you (and/or whatever sources you're getting this from).

You would know her as "lady gaga", and she penned, "Born this way", which is the deceived universal Satanic national anthem ....regarding all who practice the lifestyle of depraved sexual immorality., as defined clearly by Paul, in Romans 1.

Wrong thread/forum kiddo. If you want to spew your bigoted rants, do it elsewhere thanks.

And FWIW, did you know that homophobia is associated with latent homosexual arousal/tendencies? So you can act the homophobe if you want, but it just comes across that you might be a closeted homosexual yourself.

 

[pitabread]

Reason and argumentation. Questions of semantics, grammatics, historical assumptions. Is it absolutely definite Genesis is meant to be read literally and not allegorically? Nah, it just seems the stronger possibility.

But this goes back to the notion that starting with a literal Genesis could lead to incorrect conclusions.

This is something that seems plague Young Earth creationist organizations ad nauseum. A prime example is the conclusions from ICR's RATE project where they admit they have billions of years of radioactivity to deal with, but then try to come up with ad hoc ways to cram it into a 6000 year time frame based on their starting assumption of a young Earth.

Yet they reject the obvious conclusion that there is billions of years of radioactivity on Earth because the Earth just might be billions of years old. :/

 

[pitabread]

I have to say that of all the various creationist/non-creationist polls I've started on this forum, this is the most divisive one so far.

Almost all non-creationists believe that creationism encourages anti-intellectualism, while almost all creationists believe the opposite.

 

[Fervent]

It may be possible, but there is no indication of that. And if someone believed that the burden of proof would be upon that person. Why would you believe that? Remember, that since others think that they have personal revelation from God that is different from yours such claims are worthless. There is no rational reason to believe them.

Burden of proof is on the claimant, so if I were to doubt that proposition it is up to the individual to prove it. You are under no obligation to accept my claims, but I have no obligation to take yours either. The issue is atheists, rather than trying to prove their metaphysical positions, insist everyone else must prove theirs. The question of God is not entirely relevant to the question of whether the laws that supposedly govern the universe are an actual restriction.

 

[Fervent]

But this goes back to the notion that starting with a literal Genesis could lead to incorrect conclusions.

This is something that seems plague Young Earth creationist organizations ad nauseum. A prime example is the conclusions from ICR's RATE project where they admit they have billions of years of radioactivity to deal with, but then try to come up with ad hoc ways to cram it into a 6000 year time frame based on their starting assumption of a young Earth.

Yet they reject the obvious conclusion that there is billions of years of radioactivity on Earth because the Earth just might be billions of years old. :/

Yes, there are inappropriate attempts to force-fit to a theory, but accepting a God that created the universe gives cause to not onboard assumptions like a uniform procession of history. Certainly, data shouldn't be force-fit but we have no objective basis to truly know what the historic state of Earth is. If it is created, rather than an accident of irrational forces, then we would be required to know the initial state before we could make conclusions on what came after. Regardless, it depends on starting assumptions and "what if your assumptions are wrong?" applies equally to both positions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for proving my point. "Dismiss the heretics and pay no mind to them. This they are lost fools who will never compare to our scientific greatness." The Priests of Secular Humanism aka... you.

LOL! You had no point. I did not dismiss anyone. I simply stated facts.

The reasons that creationists are laughed at in the world of science is because of the fact that creationists simply do not do science. But then you probably have almost no science education so you do not understand how what I said is true.

Why don't we go over the basics of science. You should be able to understand why what I claimed was true. Are you game? Or do you want to keep making laughably false claims?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Burden of proof is on the claimant, so if I were to doubt that proposition it is up to the individual to prove it. You are under no obligation to accept my claims, but I have no obligation to take yours either. The issue is atheists, rather than trying to prove their metaphysical positions, insist everyone else must prove theirs. The question of God is not entirely relevant to the question of whether the laws that supposedly govern the universe are an actual restriction.

I can provide evidence for my claims. I am not sure what your are, but I am fairly sure that you cannot prove yours. You can only rely on a version of nihilism to try to pretend that your argument is rational. It is not.

 

[pitabread]

Yes, there are inappropriate attempts to force-fit to a theory, but accepting a God that created the universe gives cause to not onboard assumptions like a uniform procession of history.

The assumption isn't specifically "uniform procession of history". The assumption is the objectivity of the universe.

If the universe appears to have a uniform procession of history (e.g. things in the past worked the same as in the present), then that's essentially taken at face value from a scientific perspective.

If things did work differently in the past, then we need a way to test that.

Certainly, data shouldn't be force-fit but we have no objective basis to truly know what the historic state of Earth is.

Therein lies the problem with the creationist position. It assumes a non-objective universe without any means of testing the idea. Consequently, it's not uncommon to have creationist ideas that grossly contradict one another or contradict scientific findings with no other means to determine which creationist idea is correct.

A prime example is Young-Earth creationist claims of a young Earth and universe. There are no corroborating dating methodologies for the Earth/universe that support the YEC claim that such is only ~6000 years old. Instead we have findings that contradict YEC claims at every turn. In some cases, this even causes YECs to rethink their position on the matter.

If it is created, rather than an accident of irrational forces, then we would be required to know the initial state before we could make conclusions on what came after. Regardless, it depends on starting assumptions and "what if your assumptions are wrong?" applies equally to both positions.

In the framework of science, the universe is assumed to be objective. All scientific conclusions are provisional within that framework.

If it turns out the universe is non-objective then all bets are off.

 

[Fervent]

The assumption isn't specifically "uniform procession of history". The assumption is the objectivity of the universe.

If the universe appears to have a uniform procession of history (e.g. things in the past worked the same as in the present), then that's essentially taken at face value from a scientific perspective.

If things did work differently in the past, then we need a way to test that.



Therein lies the problem with the creationist position. It assumes a non-objective universe without any means of testing the idea. Consequently, it's not uncommon to have creationist ideas that grossly contradict one another with no means of determination for who is correct.



In the framework of science, the universe is assumed to be objective. All scientific conclusions are provisional within that framework.

If it turns out the universe is non-objective then all bets are off.

The assumption isn't just that the universe is objective, but that the universe is objective and the product of uniform laws. Science can't entertain the possibility that the laws they study are a product of anything other than themselves, nor can it entertain the possibility that at some point in the past or within space there are pockets where the laws don't apply. It assumes that there isn't a central intelligence which may suspend the laws as it sees fit. So how do we test for uniform distribution of laws? And what do we make of experiments that cause us to question objectivity like Wegner's friend?

 

[Quartermaine]

The Father of Jesus, is the "One".

To which the response can be "the father of Thor is the "one".

 

[pitabread]

The assumption isn't just that the universe is objective, but that the universe is objective and the product of uniform laws.

Is the latter specifically true though? I'm not aware of that particular claim as a necessity.

cience can't entertain the possibility that the laws they study are a product of anything other than themselves, nor can it entertain the possibility that at some point in the past or within space there are pockets where the laws don't apply.

In the latter case they definitely can. Quantum mechanics is a prime example, whereby classical physics was promptly turned on its head.

It assumes that there isn't a central intelligence which may suspend the laws as it sees fit.

I don't think is necessarily an assumption of the former. Rather, if one wants to claim the former, how does one test that?

The core nature of the universe is something that is subject to much speculation and inquiry in scientific circles.

 

[Fervent]

I can provide evidence for my claims. I am not sure what your are, but I am fairly sure that you cannot prove yours. You can only rely on a version of nihilism to try to pretend that your argument is rational. It is not.

Oh? I'm open to hear you provide evidence without requiring me to accept the assumption a priori and proceed from there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Bear in mind that to show evolution is false, something needs to be shown that shows it doesn't happen. Not simply proposing a different method by which it happens. Changes to the methodology simply means changes to the theory.

"I merely fail to believe Darwinian Evolution is true."

Bear in mind that to show the existence of God is false, something needs to be shown that shows it to be false.

 

[Quartermaine]

Actually "science" has been trying to prove their theory of a "gay gene" for long then you have been breathing.
Recently, they rebranded the theory with a brand new title.

You are incorrect, science has never postulated a "gay gene" Genes code for the production of proteins in the cell ...period. Human orientation is so innately complex that there is no way a single gene could possible be responsible for it. There is no black gene but we understand that being African American is an inborn and immutable trait.

 

[Fervent]

Is the latter specifically true though? I'm not aware of that particular claim as a necessity.

If there isn't a uniform distribution of laws, all of the conclusions of science are suspect because we cannot test every instance and moment to see if they hold. If they failed for even a moment in history our entire projection backwards cannot be trustworthily re-created. We don't assume what they are, simply that there exists such a set of laws.

In the latter case they definitely can. Quantum mechanics is a prime example, whereby classical physics was promptly turned on its head.

No, while the laws themselves may vary the central assumption that they exist and are uniformly distributed remains in tact.

I don't think is necessarily an assumption of the former. Rather, if one wants to claim the former, how does one test that?

This is where there's a divergence, as the question is how do we know that tests we come up with are reliable without excluding the possibility? If we do not accept at least some assumptions that cannot be tested the furthest we can get is "I think, therefore I am." So why should we take human accessibility as definitive? It also fails to take into consideration the claim in question, as Christianity doesn't claim that we know through our intellect but through direct personal revelation from God. So why should human philosophies take priority?

 

[Quartermaine]

It is clear that the purpose of your request is to pick them apart and use it as ammunition so don't expect anything else from me.

it's clear that you can't produce evidence to back up your claim.

So I have a homework assignment for you. Give me a list of scientists who advocates creationism and intelligent design who presented credible and convincing evidence for intelligent design.

there is no credible evidence much less convincing evidence for intelligent design