Another creationist is wrong

[The Nihilist]

Actually, it is. You may want to believe otherwise, but it doesn't change that it is true.

Scientists are incredibly stubborn. I mean, they're human after all. Any group of stubborn people together is going to behave in such a way. If something doesn't fit in with their interpretation of the evidence, it won't be accepted.

Of course they're stubborn. If the theory is a good enough story and fits enough of the data that it's supposed to, then there's no sense messing with it. Theories don't change until their flaws become evident, no sense screwing up everything they've neatly discovered and organized until you find out it's broken. If you're interested in actually becoming educated on the subject, you'll find Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions highly informative, and then no one will think you're a rube anymore.

 

[Slayton]

Oh boy this is fun! Well to start I am a creationist, I´m also wondering where my fellow creationist are in this thread while everyone just sits there and bashes us. Hm..anyway since it seems most folks here arent Christian the whole, "power of God and the Bible" approach obviously wont work.

So I´ll just start by saying I believe you can be a Christian and an Evolutionist, there is no extremely solid evidence in the Bible that supports creationism (theres enough for me to believe it however). So yea its not a key part of salvation that comes through Christ..not the beginning of the world. So I am no condeming your view, I dont agree with it but I´m not like my brothers (in Christ) who auto flame at the mention of evolution.

Although I will agree science tends to be just as stubborn as most religion...there are as many fools in science as there are in Christianity (ok maybe a few less to be honest, Christianity is plagued with fools...)

I really can´t place an arguement towards non Christians about creationism though, most my belief comes through faith and I know extremely little about science and evolution. I know some aspects of it have been proved wrong before (those bones found in..some place...? See i told you I know nothing of science), and science does tend to change as we become more advanced.

I really loved that quote from the beginning though, it does perfectly describe creationism! I mean the choice of the word ¨parables¨ was just foolish on his part...ha. Anyway, I am always open to hear debate against creationism and support for evolutionism...you won´t change my beliefs but I like to hear different views..it helps me learn more. Ignorance is not bliss...

 

[Bombila]

You're a refreshingly mild-mannered Creationist, Slayton. Are you a YEC or an OEC?

You do realise that it is quite possible to understand and accept the extremely well evidenced theory of evolution while still believing God created everything (set processes in motion, used evolution as means to an end, etc.).

 

[Slayton]

Thank you, yes to many Christians are so closed minded and choose to quickly condemn or ignore other´s views. To me things like creation are not very important in the long haul, however don´t believe I would be so mild mannered if Christ was questioned. But thats not what this forum is about..

Anyway to answer you question, honestly I am not completely sure which I believe. I suppose I do lean more towards old earth creationism, just because it seems to make slightly more logical sense as far the world is concerned.
Then again, faith isn´t really about logic...

 

[WashedBytheSon]

Oh boy this is fun! Well to start I am a creationist, I´m also wondering where my fellow creationist are in this thread while everyone just sits there and bashes us. Hm..anyway since it seems most folks here arent Christian the whole, "power of God and the Bible" approach obviously wont work.

So I´ll just start by saying I believe you can be a Christian and an Evolutionist, there is no extremely solid evidence in the Bible that supports creationism (theres enough for me to believe it however). So yea its not a key part of salvation that comes through Christ..not the beginning of the world. So I am no condeming your view, I dont agree with it but I´m not like my brothers (in Christ) who auto flame at the mention of evolution.

Although I will agree science tends to be just as stubborn as most religion...there are as many fools in science as there are in Christianity (ok maybe a few less to be honest, Christianity is plagued with fools...)

I really can´t place an arguement towards non Christians about creationism though, most my belief comes through faith and I know extremely little about science and evolution. I know some aspects of it have been proved wrong before (those bones found in..some place...? See i told you I know nothing of science), and science does tend to change as we become more advanced.

I really loved that quote from the beginning though, it does perfectly describe creationism! I mean the choice of the word ¨parables¨ was just foolish on his part...ha. Anyway, I am always open to hear debate against creationism and support for evolutionism...you won´t change my beliefs but I like to hear different views..it helps me learn more. Ignorance is not bliss...

I'm a creationist as well, and I also have a generally mild view. I simply believe evolution to be wrong, yet I don't condemn the idea. And some creationists do make the rest of us look like idiots, especially if they are speaking for us as a whole. The only thing I really know is that "Lucy" was eventually figured to be a monkey, not the link between men and monkeys. I'll come back with ammo when I have my thoughts in place

 

[notto]

The only thing I really know is that "Lucy" was eventually figured to be a monkey, not the link between men and monkeys.

Did Lucy have a tail?
(monkeys have tails)

 

[Dannager]

Then again, faith isn´t really about logic...

That's dangerous thinking, there. Logic applies to faith.

 

[fromdownunder]

Actually, it is. You may want to believe otherwise, but it doesn't change that it is true.

Scientists are incredibly stubborn. I mean, they're human after all. Any group of stubborn people together is going to behave in such a way. If something doesn't fit in with their interpretation of the evidence, it won't be accepted.

Actually, I think you will find that many scientists in the hard disciplines work tooth and nail to try and falsify or modify existing theories, or came up with a nice shiny new one.

Why? Nobel Prizes, fame, book contracts, lecture circuits, honorary degrees, MONEY...

Certainly new articles in Nature and Science are analysed line by line prior to publication (and afterward) by some wannabe Darwin, or Hawking, seeking the very fame and fortune that new discovery brings.

Norm

 

[Valkhorn]

I'm a creationist as well, and I also have a generally mild view. I simply believe evolution to be wrong, yet I don't condemn the idea. And some creationists do make the rest of us look like idiots, especially if they are speaking for us as a whole. The only thing I really know is that "Lucy" was eventually figured to be a monkey, not the link between men and monkeys. I'll come back with ammo when I have my thoughts in place

But in order to accept YEC in spite of all of the evidence against it (and there is a lot) you have to come up with some pretty silly assertions that are obviously not true.

 

[AV1611VET]

But in order to accept YEC in spite of all of the evidence against it (and there is a lot) you have to come up with some pretty silly assertions that are obviously not true.

Like phlogiston, spontaneous generation, and a certain object in space not being what we called it for the last 76 years?

That sort of junk?

 

[BradC]

Like all that junk DNA we have, no wait it's not junk anymore! It's, it's, it's......"waiting for us to evolve" oooh! aaaah! wow!

 

[Valkhorn]

Like phlogiston,

Disproved by Science, not by the Bible.

spontaneous generation

Which is what the Bible says, disproved by Science

, and a certain object in space not being what we called it for the last 76 years?

Pluto is a Kuipier belt object. The reason why it isn't a planet anymore is because we found at least a half dozen or more objects JUST like it. Science changes as new evidence is uncovered. I'm sure if they named the other Kuipier belt objects planets you'd complain then, too.

Science changes as evidence is uncovered. If it is wrong, it gets corrected - this is a good thing.

Creationism is rigid and does not change as new evidence is uncovered. If it is wrong - and it often is - it never gets corrected. How can you not see this as a bad thing?

That sort of junk?

I notice you didn't try to defend the tripe that creationists like you are trying to pass off as fact. In fact it was you yourself who tried to claim Greenland was Brazil not too long ago.

 

[Valkhorn]

Like all that junk DNA we have, no wait it's not junk anymore! It's, it's, it's......"waiting for us to evolve" oooh! aaaah! wow!

Maybe you'd like to do some research?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA

Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicator of Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors. I don't know where you got the idea that it is quote 'waiting for us to evolve'.

Seems like you don't really know what Evolution is nor have you done your homework.

 

[BradC]

Have done my homework thank's, haven't the time to go into it with you tonight but here is some reading for you.
Google, ENCODE Project at UCSC

 

[Split Rock]

But in order to accept YEC in spite of all of the evidence against it (and there is a lot) you have to come up with some pretty silly assertions that are obviously not true.

Like phlogiston, spontaneous generation, and a certain object in space not being what we called it for the last 76 years?

That sort of junk?

No, more like your "embedded" age, and dad's infamous "Pre-Split, non Physical-Only" world.

 

[Valkhorn]

Google, ENCODE Project at UCSC

This supports Evolution.

 

[ServantofShangDi]

Of course they're stubborn. If the theory is a good enough story and fits enough of the data that it's supposed to, then there's no sense messing with it. Theories don't change until their flaws become evident, no sense screwing up everything they've neatly discovered and organized until you find out it's broken. If you're interested in actually becoming educated on the subject, you'll find Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions highly informative, and then no one will think you're a rube anymore.

The problem is, some scientific theories are based entirely on the interpretation of the evidence, not the actual evidence presented.

The best example I can give is the Big Bang Theory. I have heard some say that the theory has so much evidence backing it that it is 99% law but can't be recreated so it is only a theory. However, the Big Bang Theory is based entirely on examination of presently existing evidence from a very limited scope.

The problem is, the scientific establishment needs to be proven wrong before they back any new ideas. This means some ideas may not even get backing because it is based on a reinterpretation of the evidence. Until such evidence is presented the old ideas are treated like fact.

 

[BradC]

This supports Evolution.

Sure it does, they have re-defined their therories again because it doesn't support the junk DNA line of thought.

About 93% of the genome is transcribed (not 3%, as expected). Further study with more wide-ranging methods may raise this figure to 100%. Because much energy and coordination is required for transcription this means that probably the whole genome is used by the cell and there is no such thing as ‘junk DNA’.

Remember what you said

Junk DNA is a pretty solid indicator of Evolution. We inherited all of that DNA from our ancestors. I don't know where you got the idea that it is quote 'waiting for us to evolve'.

I guess you'll have to modify your's

 

[Valkhorn]

Sure it does, they have re-defined their therories again because it doesn't support the junk DNA line of thought.

You haven't posted anything which supports this.

Plus, science changes as new evidence is uncovered - it has to. In fact, I'd be more wary of anything that doesn't change in light of new evidence against it - i.e. creationism.

The problem is, some scientific theories are based entirely on the interpretation of the evidence, not the actual evidence presented.

The best example I can give is the Big Bang Theory. I have heard some say that the theory has so much evidence backing it that it is 99% law but can't be recreated so it is only a theory.

Can you cite your sources? No real scientist says that. Theories also aren't upgraded into laws.

However, the Big Bang Theory is based entirely on examination of presently existing evidence from a very limited scope.

And you have all the answers? If so post them in a peer-reviewed journal because if you can disprove the big bang you will probably get a nobel prize.

The problem is, the scientific establishment needs to be proven wrong before they back any new ideas.

And this is a problem how? Every idea must be backed by solid evidence and facts.

This means some ideas may not even get backing because it is based on a reinterpretation of the evidence. Until such evidence is presented the old ideas are treated like fact.

Some of the old ideas are so well supported that they are facts (like the Big Bang and Evolution).

In fact, why don't you or BradC post their evidence against Evolution in this or another thread? So far they haven't posted any nor do they really know what they're talking about.

 

[Tomk80]

Like phlogiston, spontaneous generation, and a certain object in space not being what we called it for the last 76 years?

That sort of junk?

Yes, it is so very bad to correct your views if you are wrong.

I will from now on hold on to my view that gravity does not exists, the earth actually sucks. I know it is wrong, but hey, correcting ideas that I know to be wrong is a bad thing.