The Danger of Creationism

EpicScore

Active Member
Sep 16, 2017
192
182
✟41,079.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
All the talking points of the anti science, anti intellectual
position that the professional creationists promote.

Anyone skilled in the art would recognize this sad performance.

Well, when you dismiss your opponen'ts argument with ad hominem attacks without providing any valid counter-argument, it doesn't exactly reflect you as the more logical, scientific and intellectual person either.

And as someone who work in a science & technological institute (not exactly a young-earth creationist one -- and we're all vaccinated, by the way), I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.

The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe. And even if they managed to do so, the conditions of the "experiment" (e.g. the amount of matter present) is probably different now than it was then, so the results may not be valid.

Who are "we"?

Do btw you say the same of creationist data?

This isn't limited to creationism issue, to be honest. Especially with the advent of internet and search engines, you can pretty much find an opposing viewpoint to every single claim. I'm sure there's probably some article out there that says that eating vegetables is unhealthy and will kill you or something. But since you can't possibly test out every single one of these claims, it really comes down to whose authority you are more willing to trust rather than true empiric evidence, since you can't go through life changing your entire worldview every single time someone raise an issue about it.
 
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
Vaccines, climate science and all have the highest potential for fraud theft and control.

If you're also a Creationist you win the trifecta and reinforce the point of this thread. :)

OB
 
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well, when you dismiss your opponen'ts argument with ad hominem attacks without providing any valid counter-argument, it doesn't exactly reflect you as the more logical, scientific and intellectual person either.

And as someone who work in a science & technological institute (not exactly a young-earth creationist one -- and we're all vaccinated, by the way), I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.

The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe. And even if they managed to do so, the conditions of the "experiment" (e.g. the amount of matter present) is probably different now than it was then, so the results may not be valid.



This isn't limited to creationism issue, to be honest. Especially with the advent of internet and search engines, you can pretty much find an opposing viewpoint to every single claim. I'm sure there's probably some article out there that says that eating vegetables is unhealthy and will kill you or something. But since you can't possibly test out every single one of these claims, it really comes down to whose authority you are more willing to trust rather than true empiric evidence, since you can't go through life changing your entire worldview every single time someone raise an issue about it.

There's no ad hom there.
And those were typical, or stereotypical creationist talking
points. PRATTS. Someone needs 1001 times?
No ad hom in my saying so.

Tho you may have slipped a half baked one directed at me.

But never mind all that.

As for the origin of the universe, that's kind of stereotypical
too. Usually it boils down to " evolution is false coz you didn't
see the origin of the universe".
But creationism v evolution has zero to do with the origin
of the universe.

Creationist "science" is garbage*which may differentiate it
from some other things. The "historical" v empirical or observational or experimental thing is pretty tiresome as there's no way to tease
them apart.

Of course there's an important element of "who do you trust"
in doing research and citing papers.
And you can't test everything.

When it really matters, like your medical diagnosis, or, it's
something in your field of study, of COURSE you don't just assume.
or trust implicitly. That's a fools game.

One is well advised to "Trust but verify" according
to Ronaldus Magnus.
I think he was some Roman.

* if there's one fact from the creationists contrary to ToE
please let me know and "garbage" will quickly be replaced
with someone announcing possibly the greatest scientific discovery
of all time.

ETA. Oh yeah, it was "operational" science.

Wasn't sure what that meant so I looked it up.
It's a term creationists made up.
Looking further....

Ta Da! A Critical Distinction – Operational Science vs. Historical Science | Spirit & Truth

Bus-ted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith) in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative
The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe. And even if they managed to do so, the conditions of the "experiment" (e.g. the amount of matter present) is probably different now than it was then, so the results may not be valid.

The Evolution vs Creation debate has nothing to do with the Big Bang. As is usual with many Creationists you do not understand Evolution. Creationist thinking combines the start of the Universe and the creation of life into one week-long event. Science breaks them up into three separate events separated by billions of years:
  • The Big Bang: an accepted Theory covering the beginnings of the Universe
  • Abiogenesis where life on Earth arose from chemical processes - an unproven, but supported, Hypothesis
  • Evolution : an accepted Theory describing the development of life through a process of genetic change and natural selection
Its possible, for instance, to accept that God created the first life and evolution took over. You can reject the Big Bang and still accept Evolution. They are three separate events. Evolution is just one of these three events.

You may not accept Evolution but when it's evident you don't understand it your arguments don't hold much water.

And as someone who work in a science & technological institute (not exactly a young-earth creationist one -- and we're all vaccinated, by the way), I understand that the conclusion of a scientific hypothesis cannot be valid unless the results are consistent throughout numerous trials that can be reproduced in different labs, assuming the same conditions are met.

You may work in a 'science and technology institute' but I suspect it's not as a scientist. Not all scientists wear white coats and work in laboratories.

To be tested, a hypothesis/theory needs to be falsifiable. This can be done based in the field, through a telescope, from space, underwater or at home with a good calculator. Repeatability doesn't mean you must repeat the event. Big Bang evidence for instance does not require that you recreate the universe. Measuring something like cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is like seeing the fingerprints of the Big Bang. Verification means other scientists taking the same measurements of the radiation with similar results.

Because an event occurred in the past does not mean we must go back in time to get direct measurements. Geology is classic case of producing evidence for historic events from current materials.

OB
 
Upvote 0

Brian Mcnamee

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2017
2,308
1,294
64
usa
✟213,965.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Here we have another example of the types of conspiratorial posts that Dr. Dan highlighted numerous times in the linked video in the OP. And thus further reinforcing the need for vaccine mandates.


Hi there is a documentary called the report from Iron Mountain or perhaps the Iron Mountain report which was made in the early 80's based on a 1960's summit that came together to strategize a plan of how to implement a global government. The findings of this summit determined governments exist to protect people from a common threat. The theorized that the weather and environment were the best places to create real or imagined common threats that would rationalize a global government effort against the common threat.


Now climate models over long periods of time show ice ages over the earth and also great green times when the whole world was a green lush climate. These histories show extreme shifts in global weather apart from man made emissions are normal and part of earths history.


I can look to others who warned about what the coming global agenda is who have accurately predicted many things. Look up the 45 goals of teh communist party and see when they were published and look at the list and you can see most of the objectives are now achieved and at the time written no one believed the threat. So the same projections now made by the likes of the World Economic Forum and teh UN are tipping their hands and these guys are not benevolent. This will be the worst period of human suffering in human history. when the US dollar goes into hyperinflation what do you think comes next? The reset is coming and it is predicted in the Bible you can believe the experts in the white suites or listen to Jesus who said do not be deceived.


These same scientist who are trying to use their version of the facts are also on board with the LGTBQ agenda which is completely contradictory to science as Male and Female are distinct in their biology. Now this is the spiritual foundation of the science you want to follow and lets not talk about the chemtrailing of the planet which can be proven by well water samples and soils samples to prove that aluminum barium and struatium and other metallic compounds have been released intentionally into the atmosphere and then into the soil and water. These factors are not investigated by the media and I have seen the spike in the samples and the patent applications that note chemtrails can be used as weapons systems and climate control. So is it the carbon we need to shut down or perhaps look into what those planes are spraying in the sky all over the planet.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Or just go with the medications that the science shows are effective and have been shown to be safe for years, now, that because the AMA and FDA and WHO knows whay and the powers that bay haven't put their stamp of approval on them, they are no longer safe, no longer reliable, and "the science doesn't show they are effective."

I'm tired of talking points and morning shows ruling the day. Why does the media have to tell us what to believe?
Whether a medicine is "safe" or "effective" is highly situational. If one has cancer, anti cancer drugs are "safe and effective" when compared to the alternative. But a drug useful for one illness is not necessarily safe, and rarely useful, for another illness. Antivaxxers and other science deniers too often use a black and white fallacy assuming that a drug that cures one thing should cure all things. Medicine is much more complicated than that.

And as far as antivaxxers they are not all right wing science deniers, but a large percentage of them are. There are studies that show the Trump counties are suffering much more than the Biden counties. This is not due to services offered but by acceptance of the vaccines.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
When dealing with the motives of men, the most pessimistic and doubting in the room are the ones closest to the truth. Those trusting in the "inherent goodness of man" are naïf persons ripe for the taking.

Vaccine hesitancy is a wise response to shady, money grubbing power brokers manipulating "science" for themselves. All roads lead back to their coffers and control. No evil motives there, no, none at all.
Sorry, but statistics puts the lie to that claim. The people dying now are almost all unvaccinated people. There are some vaccinated people, but they are statistically under represented by a factor of 100 or more the last time that I checked.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

Estrid

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
9,548
3,180
39
Hong Kong
✟147,302.00
Country
Hong Kong
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Hi there is a documentary called the report from Iron Mountain or perhaps the Iron Mountain report which was made in the early 80's based on a 1960's summit that came together to strategize a plan of how to implement a global government. The findings of this summit determined governments exist to protect people from a common threat. The theorized that the weather and environment were the best places to create real or imagined common threats that would rationalize a global government effort against the common threat.


Now climate models over long periods of time show ice ages over the earth and also great green times when the whole world was a green lush climate. These histories show extreme shifts in global weather apart from man made emissions are normal and part of earths history.


I can look to others who warned about what the coming global agenda is who have accurately predicted many things. Look up the 45 goals of teh communist party and see when they were published and look at the list and you can see most of the objectives are now achieved and at the time written no one believed the threat. So the same projections now made by the likes of the World Economic Forum and teh UN are tipping their hands and these guys are not benevolent. This will be the worst period of human suffering in human history. when the US dollar goes into hyperinflation what do you think comes next? The reset is coming and it is predicted in the Bible you can believe the experts in the white suites or listen to Jesus who said do not be deceived.


These same scientist who are trying to use their version of the facts are also on board with the LGTBQ agenda which is completely contradictory to science as Male and Female are distinct in their biology. Now this is the spiritual foundation of the science you want to follow and lets not talk about the chemtrailing of the planet which can be proven by well water samples and soils samples to prove that aluminum barium and struatium and other metallic compounds have been released intentionally into the atmosphere and then into the soil and water. These factors are not investigated by the media and I have seen the spike in the samples and the patent applications that note chemtrails can be used as weapons systems and climate control. So is it the carbon we need to shut down or perhaps look into what those planes are spraying in the sky all over the planet.

Don't worry. Elvis has his eye on them.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The question of origins cannot be verified in the same manner that the efficacy of a vaccine can, because no scientists have managed to re-create the universe.
Have creationists been able to re-create Genesis?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would agree...but.. I also am not a fan of the idea that just because we have the ability to create a vaccine, and print up money to pay for it, that it is the right of every person in the world to receive it, and the obligation of providers to administer it universally.

Some current medications can be tens, of thousands per month, and with DNA research it may be possible to spend 100's of thousands for medication for one person. Are there any lines to draw on how much we will spend on healthcare and will we make it universal for every person in the world to spend all the resources we have on everyone?
A single F-35 costs the taxpayers ~78 million dollars. They were behind schedule and do not perform as advertised. Maintenance costs appear to be 50% more than had been planned for, and may become unsustainably expensive in the next 15 years. And that is just one of the costly weapons systems that Congress has no problem footing the bill for - with your tax money, that is. We shell out more than 3 times what China does on defense, and more than the next 17 countries combined - all of which offer their citizens universal health care of some sort.
You OK with that?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Occams Barber
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Comparing believers of Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxers is a false equivalence.
Perhaps, but if what we see on forums like this and on righty media is any indication, creationists are more likely to be anti-vaxxers than not.
Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science.
You mean they have been busily churning out a false dichotomy as yet another means of trying to legitimize their pseudoscience.
The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith)
You've got all the buzz words and talking points down, I'll give you that.
But are you really equating 'presuppositions' with 'faith'? How about you tell us all what the presuppositions of science/evolution are, and compare them to the presuppositions of creationism are.
in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative. History, after all, are based more on eyewitness accounts, testimonies, written records such as letters and memoirs, rather than actual empirical evidence.
If that is so, then creationism and evolution are not at all similar. There is empirical evidence supporting evolution, There is none for Genesis.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How is it bogus or misinfo? Can the things be distinguished or not? Is it possible to categorize various ideas in that way? If it is then the distinction is legitimate, if it isn't then it either needs to be refined or thrown out. Just because it supports their point doesn't make it bogus or misinfo.
What empirical evidence is there for creation? What memoirs are used to support evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What empirical evidence is there for creation? What memoirs are used to support evolution?

This has nothing to do with what I said. But as for that things were created, see Bl. John Dun Scotus', as for how things came into being in time, I have not studied that enough to comment although I am in the process of studying it and am gaining bits and pieces of knowledge as I go.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You haven't responded to 'why ignore treatments that work?'.
Because they generally don't. Are you relying on anecdotes? One of the big reports that Ivermectin acolytes were hawking was recently retracted due to major problems with one of the studies that this paper relied on:

On July 6, 2021, Open Forum Infectious Diseases published the article “Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials of Ivermectin to Treat SARS-CoV-2 Infection” by Hill, et al. Subsequently, we and the authors have learned that one of the studies on which this analysis was based has been withdrawn due to fraudulent data. The authors will be submitting a revised version excluding this study, and the currently posted paper will be retracted.​

So sad...
If the treatment is shown repeatedly to work, BY SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD, and they get shouted down as 'dangerous', 'ineffective', etc, I don't need to be a medical expert.
OK, well then surely you can provide links to these to the relevant publications of SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS, DOCTORS IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD and then explain to us all why what they claim is correct.

Funny p here you are deferring to SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS... IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD whereas you reject out of hand SCIENTISTS AND EXPERTS...IN THAT PARTICULAR FIELD when it comes to things like evolution.

Funny how cognitive bias works.
Who would you be referring to there? (I hope you are referring to me! :) You would be SO wrong!)
Ha - no, I was referring to Tucker Carlson - the already-vaccinated Swanson Foods heir that tells the mouth breathers that hang on his every word to mistrust the vaccine and dismiss pandemic mitigation efforts. It is almost like he wants Trump's base to die.
I am sure you are svelte and athletic :sorry:


ADDED IN EDIT:
This is the big study on the use of Ivermectin and Hydroxy to treat Covid that was retracted, and also used as part of the above mentioned study:

"Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic"

EDITORIAL NOTE:
Research Square withdrew this preprint on 14 July, 2021 due to an expression of concern communicated directly to our staff. These concerns are now under formal investigation. (note updated 19 July, 2021)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Occams Barber

Newbie
Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,286
7,421
75
Northern NSW
✟981,266.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
This has nothing to do with what I said. But as for that things were created, see Bl. John Dun Scotus', as for how things came into being in time, I have not studied that enough to comment although I am in the process of studying it and am gaining bits and pieces of knowledge as I go.


Seriously?

You're offering a 13th century philosopher/theologian as a source of empirical evidence for Creationism?
Have you considered that Duns Scotus had absolutely no knowledge of the concept of evolution or, for that matter, the concept of scientific enquiry?

OB
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You have the curated data. "It's just facts" won't do when counter data is presented and then summarily dismissed because WE SAY SO.
And how is it that you are confident that the counter-data are accurate and relevant?

Tell us all about it, as I am sure you would not be mentioning such data if you were not able to assess it yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0

Abaxvahl

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2018
874
748
Earth
✟33,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Seriously?

You're offering a 13th century philosopher/theologian as a source of empirical evidence for Creationism?
Have you considered that Duns Scotus had absolutely no knowledge of the concept of evolution or, for that matter, the concept of scientific enquiry?

OB

Not what I said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This has nothing to do with what I said.
Concession accepted.
Let me help you out:

EpicScore said: ↑
Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science.
pitabread said: ↑
That's a bogus distinction though. This just reinforces the notion that creationist organizations are peddling misinformation about science.

This is misinformation.

You said:
How is it bogus or misinfo?


SO, it has everything to do with what you said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Estrid
Upvote 0