a question for creationists...

[Pesto]

None

Then by what standards should a person judge proposed explanations, scientific or otherwise?

 

[Merlin]

I only wonder what you are doing in a debate forum if you aren't interested in others' beliefs and have no intention of actually debating the topic at hand...

Because this is a debate forum. It's a subforum of something called "Discussion & Debate".

Please forgive my misunderstanding.
I actually thought that 'discussion' and 'debate' are different things.

http://www.onelook.com

Quick definitions (discussion)
noun: an extended communication (often interactive) dealing with some particular topic (Example: "The book contains an excellent discussion of modal logic")
noun: an exchange of views on some topic (Example: "We had a good discussion")

Quick definitions (debate)
noun: the formal presentation of and opposition to a stated proposition (usually followed by a vote)
noun: a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal

 

[Merlin]

So you are a creationist. And we all pretty much know how Creationism views science in general.

So what part of "science" do Creationists dislike the most? The part where everyone is able to test the assumptions of a model? The ability to explain all the variability in the data using only factors that all can agree on?

Why is science so frightening to Creationists? Maybe it's just overwhelming to them, many of the ones I've talked to have virtually no understanding of even simple scientific concepts, let alone more advanced stuff.

Once again you choose to show your prejudices.

Now, of course, there are a few notable exceptions.

What I like most about Creationism is it is so transparent about why it questions the science. It has nothing to do with making a better theory or stronger hypothesis, Creationism is all about religion.

Have I denied this?

And considering that Science doesn't have much to say about religion, it makes one realize that when someone claims to be a Creationist then you know that person is doing it for wholly non-science reasons.

It's all religion.Either they think Evolution will hurt their immortal souls or they think that Evolution means they are "less special" in the grand scheme of things.

Again with the prejudice

That's why I write off Creationism in a science debate. Creationists aren't talking science. Sure they might accidentally use a science word their pastor taught them, but they don't understand the science against which they are debating, and more importantly they don't seem to understand that it isn't a valid critique of a scientific theory if your sole motivation and criticisms are non-scientific.

If it makes you feel yucky to realize you are nothing more than an animal, that doesn't change the solid scientific analyses. If you fear for your immortal soul, that doesn't say anything about the data.

Creationism is, simply put, not just bad science, but anti-science.

Just can't avoid the pre-conceived ideas, can you?

 

[Merlin]

Your point?

Sorry you missed it.


So, until we have better alternatives, xxxxx is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it.


That something is current belief does not make it fact.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Once again you choose to show your prejudices.

So Creationists actually like science? Despite the fact that most of them actively work against it?

Again with the prejudice

So why do you believe in Creationism? Why do you find it preferable to science?

Just can't avoid the pre-conceived ideas, can you?

What is my "preconceived idea"?

The fact that Creationism is not only bad science but anti-science?

Please, correct me, show me where Creationism is put forth for the sake of science and not for religious reasons.

I would love to see that.

But I won't hold my breath. So far, as far as I've seen, pretty much every time you've been asked to back any claim you make you don't even try.

Just watch. You'll back away from this claim like you back away from just about every claim you make.

You'll start off saying something that indicates you can defend it but you don't feel this is the appropriate place or it would be too complex for most of the readers, and then you'll move onto a vague, meaning-free critique of "the current scientific paradigm" and some hand-waiving stuff.

As I said, I no longer actually believe you can defend your points. If you had ever done so substantively I might be willing to assume you could defend this one.

But, as I said, I won't be surprised. I find I seldom am by Creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry you missed it.


So, until we have better alternatives, xxxxx is the only possibility, as there is plenty of evidence that supports it and so far none that convincingly refutes it.

Possiblities abound. It is possible that the world was created last Thursday, complete with false memories. It is possible that our reality is a computer program being run while our brains sit in a jar. It is possible that I am dreaming all of this.

Science is not post-modernism. All possibilities are not equal in science. The best explanation is just that, the best explanation. Science gives preference to the best explanation. The "best explanation" is required to be tentative and falsifiable by experimentation and new evidence.

That something is current belief does not make it fact.

That something is the the best explanation makes it the best explanation.

 

[Naraoia]

Sorry you missed it.
[...]
That something is current belief does not make it fact.

I'm perfectly aware of that, as I hope all scientists are. Perhaps we really should stop saying "evolution by mutation and natural selection is a fact" because the wording might suggest absolutes that aren't there

(As an aside, however, evolution by M+NS is a fact as I understand it. Both mutations and selection are observed, replicated and documented phenomena, and to say they are not facts is stretching the very definition of the word. Now, common descent is a different matter, that one doesn't have such direct evidence in its favour, "only" tons and tons of indirect evidence.)

To the discussion vs debate thing, I think I've spent too much time in education "Discuss" in the instructions for a writing task tends to mean something like this definition from the IB Chemistry syllabus:

[FONT=futura, arial, ms sans serif]Discuss[/FONT] [FONT=futura, arial, ms sans serif]give an account including, where possible, a range of arguments, assessments of the relative importance of various factors or comparisons of alternative hypotheses[/FONT]

This definition does demand some supporting arguments "where possible". The IBO doesn't reward you for not supporting your points, and I've spent two years studying under them plus another year at a science faculty, writing labreports and essays all the time So that's why I've lived under the impression that discussion necessarily involves some substantiation of your claims.

So, fair enough with the definitions.

However, you do seem to pop up in the middle of a debate and then explicitly refuse to debate, and I still don't understand what the point of that would be.

 

[Merlin]

So Creationists actually like science? Despite the fact that most of them actively work against it?

Once again with the predjudies.

With this and your other comments, why should I even bother to attempt discussions with you.

 

[Merlin]

Then by what standards should a person judge proposed explanations, scientific or otherwise?

Pesto,
I'm not suggesting a standard here.
I'm pointing out it's belief being relied on.
Unlike other 'sciences' where you might test in a lab, creation/evolution is a historic event.
As such, it is not testable.

 

[gamespotter10]

Pesto,
I'm not suggesting a standard here.
I'm pointing out it's belief being relied on.
Unlike other 'sciences' where you might test in a lab, creation/evolution is a historic event.
As such, it is not testable.

we have seen evolution in nature. its not just a historical event.

 

[Merlin]

we have seen evolution in nature. its not just a historical event.

But, (correct me if i'm wrong here)
you did not observe the several billions of years of evolution.
You did not/can not observe the past events.

 

[gamespotter10]

But, (correct me if i'm wrong here)
you did not observe the several billions of years of evolution.
You did not/can not observe the past events.

no, but we can observe changing allele frequencies in a population. that is evolution.

 

[LittleNipper]

no, but we can observe changing allele frequencies in a population. that is evolution.

This likely proves only the deterioration of a given population and not the assent of a new one. Man is not getting better. No species has been shown to be improving. Specialized individuals or groups are inferior to their parents. But that doesn't not make them any less a part of that species. A retarded child is no less human than one that is brillant.

 

[Blayz]

This likely proves only the deterioration of a given population and not the assent of a new one. Man is not getting better. No species has been shown to be improving. Specialized individuals or groups are inferior to their parents. But that doesn't not make them any less a part of that species. A retarded child is no less human than one that is brillant.

You are conflating the concepts of "improvement" or "inferior" with judeo-christian concepts of good/perfection. It just doesn't apply. If a genetic change confers a reproductive benefit to an organism, that change will propagate over time in the population. That's all "better" means.

 

[Merlin]

no, but we can observe changing allele frequencies in a population. that is evolution.

So, you choose to believe a past event occurred based on a possibility that it could occur.
ok

 

[Vene]

So, you choose to believe a past event occurred based on a possibility that it could occur.
ok

Can you explain fossils then? Can you explain why all organisms use the same nucleotides? Can you explain why all organisms are made out of cells? Can you explain why land vertebrates have 4 limbs? (or in the case of snakes a skeletal system with vestigial bones). How about vestigial structures at all? Can you explain radiometric dating? (And before you say it's false, why do you trust nuclear medicine and why do nuclear weapons work? It's based on the same principles).

What do we see that points to a creator that a natural cause doesn't explain just as well?

 

[Loudmouth]

So, you choose to believe a past event occurred based on a possibility that it could occur.
ok

This is not how science is done. This is not how evolution is evidence.

The theory of evolution makes specific predictions. Scientists go out and collect observations and then see if the predictions match the observations. In the case of the theory of evolution, the predictions match the observations.

For example, the transitional fossil Tiktaalik rosae was found using the predictions made by the theory of evolution. From the fossil record scientists were able to predict that an important transition between lobe finned fish and terrestrial tetrapods should have occurred in a specific time frame (the Devonian period). Using radiometric dating they found an exposed bed that was from the correct period. In addition, these deposits were once close to other sedimentary beds that had yielded fossils on either side of the transition under question. After 3 years of searching they found the very fossil that evolution predicted one should find, a fish with legs.

Time after time the theory of evolution produces accurate predictions. This is why the theory is accepted by more than 99% of biologists.

 

[gamespotter10]

So, you choose to believe a past event occurred based on a possibility that it could occur.
ok

I believe it based on the possiblity that it occured and the evidence that it occured.

 

[WarEagle]

why is it that you have a problem with the theory of evolution? why not the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity, or the atomic theory, or the theory of quantum wave mechanics? why just evolution?

First of all, Christians are not against science. In fact, many of the great scientists of history were Christians.

My father was a staunch creationist (even before he was a Christian!) and he was a very respected physics professor.

The reason we're against the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory, by the way) is that (a) it goes against scripture, (b) it goes against logic, (c) it goes against science.

The others do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, Christians are not against science. In fact, many of the great scientists of history were Christians.

My father was a staunch creationist (even before he was a Christian!) and he was a very respected physics professor.

How did he explain radiometric dating?

The reason we're against the theory of evolution (and it is just a theory, by the way) is that (a) it goes against scripture, (b) it goes against logic, (c) it goes against science.

The others do not.

How does evolution go against logic and science?