Are there any creationist resources (sites, books) to do not misrepresent science and evolution?

pitabread said:

It doesn't feel like an interpretation in the context of typical creationist organization faith statements. It's an ideological principle.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think it's scientists presenting an interpretation. They just begin with the Bible as absolute truth, as opposed to relying solely on the scientific method, which is looking for the absolute truth that it will never find.

inquiring mind said:

It would require more mass to make a bigger dimple in the spacetime fabric... wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

I don't think it works like that - a deeper gravity well distorts spacetime more than a shallower one, but that doesn't imply that space is stretched or that there is 'more' space - the metric of spacetime becomes more curved, but it's a complex thing.

You could look at it this way - gravity acts to slow the expansion of space, so you would not expect an increase in gravity to expand space.

inquiring mind said:

Oh, I think it's scientists presenting an interpretation. They just begin with what the Bible as absolute truth, as opposed to relying solely on the scientific method, which is looking for the absolute truth that it will never find.

Click to expand...

The "absolute truth" of the Bible is not a testable proposition, hence it cannot be considered as scientific evidence. If you take as your starting point that the Bible is "absolute truth" then you are not doing science.

inquiring mind said:

Relying on evidence alone will take you anywhere the presenter desires you to go; correct interpretation of that evidence is crucial, or you could end up in Jersey when you thought you were going to Ohio.

Click to expand...

Tinker Grey said it better than I could have.

But when all the evidence points in the same direction and you have both a mechanism and an algorithm that explain why, it takes faith to prefer the mysterious and inexplicable.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

I don't think it works like that - a deeper gravity well distorts spacetime more than a shallower one, but that doesn't imply that space is stretched or that there is 'more' space - the metric of spacetime becomes more curved, but it's a complex thing.

You could look at it this way - gravity acts to slow the expansion of space, so you would not expect an increase in gravity to expand space.

Click to expand...

I hear you, but anyway you look at it a bowling ball-sized dimple is bigger than a marble-sized one.

pitabread said:

Like I said, a lot of these claims (e.g. global flood) are directly part of their faith statements. That's not an interpretation of evidence; that's an ideology.

(And for the record, science has never been about looking for the "absolute truth". I have no idea where you got that idea.)

Click to expand...

To be honest, I've never understood that statement... isn't truth the best answer?

Speedwell said:

The "absolute truth" of the Bible is not a testable proposition, hence it cannot be considered as scientific evidence. If you take as your starting point that the Bible is "absolute truth" then you are not doing science.

Click to expand...

If they ever get to the point where they can't reconcile the two they'll be in a pickle, won't they?

inquiring mind said:

To be honest, I've never understood that statement... isn't truth the best answer?

Click to expand...

In science, it's only truth if it can be tested. There is no way to test the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

inquiring mind said:

If they ever get to the point where they can't reconcile the two they'll be in a pickle, won't they?

Click to expand...

Not very much of one, I think.

Speedwell said:

In science, it's only truth if it can be tested. There is no way to test the literal inerrancy of Genesis.

Click to expand...

Of course, but I was referring to Pita's comment, "science has never been about looking for the "absolute truth"."

inquiring mind said:

Of course, but I was referring to Pita's comment, "science has never been about looking for the "absolute truth"."

Click to expand...

It isn't. Science is based on inductive logic, which by it's nature can never produce absolute truth. The best science can say is that a thing is true based on the evidence on hand right now.

inquiring mind said:

I hear you, but anyway you look at it a bowling ball-sized dimple is bigger than a marble-sized one.

Click to expand...

If you're thinking of the 'rubber sheet' analogy that's often used, it only suggests how curved spacetime influences mass, the topology of spacetime is not that of a rubber sheet.

But if you want chapter & verse you'll have to ask sjastro.

pitabread said:

You didn't just say truth. You said "absolute truth".

Science is not about absolute truth.

Click to expand...

Is there a difference?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

If you're thinking of the 'rubber sheet' analogy that's often used, it only suggests how curved spacetime influences mass, the topology of spacetime is not that of a rubber sheet.

But if you want chapter & verse you'll have to ask sjastro.

Click to expand...

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say. Here’s my understanding. Please spell yours out if you disagree.

1. Gravity is space/time distortion caused by the mass of an object, which in turn creates dimples in space-time.

2. The larger the mass the larger and deeper the dimples.

3. Objects with more mass have more gravity.

4. Einstein called it space/time because gravity distorts both space & time.

Emphasis: the distorting time part.

pitabread said:

Yes. In science "truths" are considered provisional, not absolute.

Click to expand...

If something (science for example) is only true at the time… was it ever really true to begin with? The Bible is absolute truth because it doesn’t change.

inquiring mind said:

If something (science for example) is only true at the time… was it ever really true to begin with? The Bible is absolute truth because it doesn’t change.

Click to expand...

Look at it this way: It is true that there is big rock in my front yard. If I move the rock, it is not true that there is a big rock in my front yard. Was it ever true to begin with? Yes.

If the sun goes "red giant" was it ever true it was a average yellow star?

Processes are different. We can have an incomplete picture, but provisionally think we have an understanding. Consider the following admittedly imperfect example.

Suppose you observe a sequence of numbers. Your observation starts with "3, 5". Ah, the sequence is of odd numbers. You observe "7". Ah, confirmation. Then "11". Oops, all the numbers are odd. Still true, but our examination of reality is yet incomplete. The sequence skipped an odd number, but they are also all primes! And the missing number wasn't! Maybe that's the sequence. Then "15". Nuts. Well maybe the sequence counting by 2s and now they are counting by 4s and we should evaluate whether the pattern changes and does it change consistently. We don't know how long before the "3" the sequence started. If 3 was the first in line for counting by 2 AND counting pattern changes every 3 then the next number will NOT be "19"...at least if the pattern of changes in the pattern doesn't change. So, we could guess 21 if we guess that pattern change is 2, 4, 6. However, if it is 2, 4, 2, then the next number will be 17. If the number IS 19, then perhaps we were counting by 2s longer than what we observed. And so on.

At each stage we observed the data. We adopted a model (counting by odds). We made a prediction (7). We made an observation. It was correct. So we make a new prediction (9). It was wrong. We modified our model (count off the primes). Etc.

At each stage our observations about the data were correct -- in so far as we can tell -- at no point in my example did the numbers become even. When we switched to primes, all the numbers were in fact prime. However, the subsequent prediction of 13 (the next prime) was wrong since what we observed 15. We skipped a prime and the next number was not prime. BUT, the numbers were still all odd. AND, they will stay odd unless the pattern of pattern changes changes. And so on.

We know what we know when we know it. We can make predictions and do make predictions. This may confirm or disconfirm our model. We adjust accordingly. And that is my example of science and how things are true until they aren't.