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

[pitabread]

If something (science for example) is only true at the time… was it ever really true to begin with?

I had a professor in college who liked to exclaim "All theories are false!"

What he meant by this was that theories in science are simplifications of reality, designed to explain particular observable phenomenon based on the best information we have at a given point in time. Yet because we don't have 100% perfect knowledge of reality, scientific theories would never be 100% representations of reality. The only thing that is 100% representative of reality is reality itself.

It is through this lens that I view science: science is not an absolute representation of reality. Rather, science is simply the best explanations for observable phenomena based on the best collective data we have at a given point in time.

If you can understand this perspective, you can understand how things in science can be "true" but not necessarily be absolute truth.

 

[inquiring mind]

I understand your perspective, I'm just emphasizing that we have different reference points.

 

[pitabread]

I understand your perspective, I'm just emphasizing that we have different reference points.

Indeed. Although to me this reinforces that the whole creationism vs science isn't about things like different interpretations of evidence and some such. Rather it's about fundamental differences in mindset.

 

[inquiring mind]

Indeed. Although to me this reinforces that the whole creationism vs science isn't about things like different interpretations of evidence and some such. Rather it's about fundamental differences in mindset.

For example, consider my earlier discussion with ‘FrumiousBandersnatch’ about space-time dimples and expanding the heavens.

Here’s what I said, “According to Einstein bending spacetime is a reality, so I suppose it's science on the one hand, provided the extra mass was added to the earth some way to expand the heavens,…” I was using science and referring to the addition of mass to expand space (the heavens), creating a larger dimple to absorb the extra heat created during the Flood.

Where could the extra mass come from… possibly the waters above the firmament (heaven), as described in Genesis 1:7. Was Moses a physicist, why would he write that? So to me, science, no matter how in depth, is always lagging behind the Bible. Look at it in a way other than just being an ancient book of religious bunk. Begin with it for understanding and then apply all the science you want. You’ll be surprised what the Bible says when you look.

 

[pitabread]

Begin with it for understanding and then apply all the science you want. You’ll be surprised what the Bible says when you look.

That's not how science works. You don't start with a conclusion and then do science after the fact.

This is emphatically demonstrated in creationist faith statements. They proclaim their ideological view of the history of the planet, then try to shoe-horn their observations into that ideology.

That's not science.

 

[inquiring mind]

That's not how science works. You don't start with a conclusion and then do science after the fact.

This is emphatically demonstrated in creationist faith statements. They proclaim their ideological view of the history of the planet, then try to shoe-horn their observations into that ideology.

That's not science.

Yes, I know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

What you are calling 'dimples' in spacetime is misleading; mass causes the curvature of spacetime - but spacetime is not like a rubber sheet that stretches when a mass is dropped on it. That's just a simple analogy for something much more difficult to visualise.

But like I said, if you want chapter & verse you'll have to ask sjastro.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here’s what I said, “According to Einstein bending spacetime is a reality, so I suppose it's science on the one hand, provided the extra mass was added to the earth some way to expand the heavens,…” I was using science and referring to the addition of mass to expand space (the heavens), creating a larger dimple to absorb the extra heat created during the Flood.

You need to understand the science before you can justify applying it to some situation; guessing how the world works from a science soundbite referring to something you don't understand is a recipe for pseudoscience.

 

[inquiring mind]

What you are calling 'dimples' in spacetime is misleading; mass causes the curvature of spacetime - but spacetime is not like a rubber sheet that stretches when a mass is dropped on it. That's just a simple analogy for something much more difficult to visualise.

But like I said, if you want chapter & verse you'll have to ask sjastro.

You're the only one that's mentioned a rubber sheet.

 

[inquiring mind]

You need to understand the science before you can justify applying it to some situation; guessing how the world works from a science soundbite referring to something you don't understand is a recipe for pseudoscience.

That goes both ways. But, you're welcome to dispute anything I've said with actual info.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You're the only one that's mentioned a rubber sheet.

I'm just trying to understand what you mean by a 'dimple' in spacetime; the most common physical analogy of how mass warps spacetime is the rubber sheet analogy, which is pretty limited:

But since you seem unfamiliar with that, perhaps you could draw a spacetime diagram to illustrate how you think space becomes 'bigger' in a spacetime 'dimple', or give the maths for it?

IOW you can't just assume that it does unless you understand what the curvature of spacetime means.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm just trying to understand what you mean by a 'dimple' in spacetime; the most common physical analogy of how mass warps spacetime is the rubber sheet analogy, which is pretty limited:

I don't understand; you're offering evidence of something you deny.

But since you seem unfamiliar with that, perhaps you could draw a spacetime diagram to illustrate how you think space becomes 'bigger' in a spacetime 'dimple', or give the maths for it?

IOW you can't just assume that it does unless you understand what the curvature of spacetime means.

Or you could present the math contrary to what I've said, then I may assume otherwise.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't understand; you're offering evidence of something you deny.

I'm not denying anything other than the validity of guessing about science you don't understand.

Or you could present the math contrary to what I've said, then I may assume otherwise.

I don't have the maths - which is why I keep telling you to ask someone who does!

I just know that applying general relativity tends to give counter-intuitive results, so making assumptions about how it works is a bad idea.

 

[inquiring mind]

I'm not denying anything other than the validity of guessing about science you don't understand.

I don't have the maths - which is why I keep telling you to ask someone who does!

I just know that applying general relativity tends to give counter-intuitive results, so making assumptions about how it works is a bad idea.

I'm glad Einstein didn't have that outlook. Oh well, you can have the last word on it. I was just talking about the Rate project and the idea of 'stretching the heavens,' and how high temperatures on the earth might have been absorbed during the Flood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm glad Einstein didn't have that outlook.

Well I'm no Einstein - and, I'm pretty sure, neither are you.

But you could surprise us - give us an idea of how space increases with mass, then follow through and tell us by how much the mass the Earth would have to increase, and where that mass would come from and where it would go afterwards. Then we can consider the effects of such an increase in gravity...

I was just talking about the Rate project and the idea of 'stretching the heavens,' and how high temperatures on the earth might have been absorbed during the Flood.

I know; but why not just invoke a miracle and have done with it? There's no natural explanation that could account for a literal biblical global flood.

 

[BobRyan]

A common theme among creationist sources is misrepresentations of science and specific theories within science (especially the Theory of Evolution).

I'd be curious to see if it's possible for a creationist criticism of science and evolution while at the same time representing it in a fair and accurate manner. I'm wondering if has anyone ever come across any creationist sources that do present an accurate picture of how science functions and of the scientific theories in question.

As an example of what this looks like, I suggest reading the works of Todd Wood. He is a young Earth creationist with a biology degree who generally portrays science and evolution quite fairly and accurately. I'm curious if there are any other creationist resources along those lines.

hint: Almost all major branches of science were started by creationists - and do not misrepresent science.

creationists promote science - they don't criticize it.

details matter.

Not ONE branch of science endorsed by creationists has its world-class leading scientists in the 20th century claiming "I know one thing - it (some major aspect of that science) ought not be taught in high school". No not under any context, nor under any conditions.

 

[pitabread]

Almost all major branches of science were started by creationists - and do not misrepresent science.

That's not the subject of the thread.

The topic of the thread is modern creationist sites and organizations, and whether any exist that do not misrepresent science.

If you have specific examples, feel free to present them.

This is NOT a thread to discuss the history of science. Please take that to a different thread.

 

[BobRyan]

hint: Almost all major branches of science were started by creationists - and do not misrepresent science.

creationists promote science - they don't criticize it.

details matter.

Not ONE branch of science endorsed by creationists has its world-class leading scientists in the 20th century claiming "I know one thing - it (some major aspect of that science) ought not be taught in high school". No not under any context, nor under any conditions.

That's not the subject of the thread.
.

ok thanks

 

[Speedwell]

hint: Almost all major branches of science were started by creationists - and do not misrepresent science.

No, that is simply not true. Almost all major branches of science were started by theists, many of them Christians. Creationism, as it is promoted today, didn't even exist until the '60s