Creation & Evolution ‘Free-for-all’

[inquiring mind]

Because Creationists make claims about science and evidence.

If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?

 

[pitabread]

Why should Creationists try to argue creation in terms of science? Evolutionists never argue conversely and limit all discussion to scientific parameters.

Because creationists are arguing against scientific ideas.

 

[Shemjaza]

If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?

Nothing at all, but they don't.

That's where the criticism comes in.

They don't merely claim that their faith informs them that evolution is false, they claim to have scientific evidence as support.

 

[SkyWriting]

I’m a Creationist and I believe in the Bible, even though I often misinterpret it, and I try to avoid getting into ‘literal or not’ discussions. Having said that, ‘time’ seems to be the most perplexing thing for me in most arguments. I don’t question the Bible, but I question our understanding of time, whether it be a little or a lot, in regard to interpreting it.

It's likely that time does not exist without matter. So it only began after creation. And the rate of time may be directly tied to the matter being created.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't think so. But I'm not one to ask, either. I'm an Anglican, educated by Catholics, and my friends who are Christian tend to be Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodox or Oriental Christians. I don't have much contact with Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, except in forums like this one. It has always been a mystery to me that creationists believe what they do about the Word of God. I know people have tried to deduce the biblical age of the Earth from such things as the genealogies but to suppose that they were put there for that purpose seems unfathomable to me.

True. Dating the earth based on genealogies is not logical.

 

[Astrid]

How often have you seen evolutionists arguing for evolution in faith-based terms?

Not disprove... my point was most choose a faith-based explanation over a science-based theory, so why should they be expected to explain their position in scientific protocol only? That is basically arguing a basketball and baseball game with only basketball rules allowed.

Well, faith-based ideas shouldn't be considered science, but if science can be shown to support such ideas then...

What, I wonder, do you think an "evolutionist" is?
Could you explain your use of this term?

There being considerably more Christians than atheists who
understand the ToE, it is not reasonable to make an evo- chtistian split.

Creationists argue their ideas wit falsehoods, nonsense.
So its logical to counter with facts.
What is your response to faith in nonsense?

Creationism, being based on ignoring the reality that God- if such
there is- wrote unto the very earth itself, could hardly be good
theology.
Deep time and evolution are undeniable except with phony
facts like Paluxy nan tracks, or an assumed infallible ability to
read the Bible the one True way one chooses.

Theological and science reasons show
Yec / creationism is false faith.

You skipped the converse.., " if science supports faith-based ideas"
But when science proves it false, then what ?

 

[Ophiolite]

It's likely that time does not exist without matter.

According to my understanding* of Big Bang Theory the Big Bang "fireball" was too hot for matter to condense from it for some considerable time. How did that time pass, since in your version there could be no time to pass? That is, unless you equivocate "likely" and "a contradiction of Big Bang Theory to suggest". I doubt you intended that.

*Please correct my understanding if you think it faulty in this regard. References to well-informed popular science writing, or technical citations will be equally welcome.

 

[Astrid]

If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?

Data is good, unsuppottsble claims about it is not.

Do you have sn example of data that supports yec or somesuch?

Keeping in mind that it comes to little if it does not falsify
anything about deep time or evolution.

 

[pitabread]

Not disprove... my point was most choose a faith-based explanation over a science-based theory, so why should they be expected to explain their position in scientific protocol only? That is basically arguing a basketball and baseball game with only basketball rules allowed.

It's more like creationists are trying to play basketball by baseball's rules. It doesn't work like that.

If creationists want to play in the realm of science, they need to work within the rules of science. That means coming up with testable hypothesis and actually testing them.

If creationists don't want to do that, that's fine. But then they shouldn't expect the scientific community to take them seriously when it comes to matters of science.

 

[Astrid]

It's more like creationists are trying to basketball by baseball's rules. It doesn't work like that.

If creationists want to play in the realm of science, they need to work within the rules of science. That means coming up with testable hypothesis and actually testing them.

If creationists don't want to do that, that's fine. But then they shouldn't expect the scientific community to take them seriously when it comes to matters of science.

Yeah well I said that too but I used a lot more words.

 

[inquiring mind]

Data is good, unsuppottsble claims about it is not.

Do you have sn example of data that supports yec or somesuch?

Keeping in mind that it comes to little if it does not falsify
anything about deep time or evolution.

I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?

 

[inquiring mind]

Yeah well I said that too but I used a lot more words.

You learn to be as short as you possibly can be here, often at the expense of being called rude.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If a scientist happens to be a creationist... what's wrong with him/her presenting what they consider supportive scientific data in that regard (or a non-professional creationist from using that info)?

The problem is that scientists that are creationists do not use the scientific method when it comes to their creationistic beliefs. To present scientific data one must have a testable model to apply it to. Otherwise what one is doing is merely making an ad hoc explanation. Those are of no value in the sciences.


One cannot have supporting scientific data if one does not have a proper scientific hypothesis. In other words one must have a falsifiable idea that can be tested based on its own merits. The best that I have seen are weak attempts to strawman the evolutionary perspective.

The scientific method and the rules of scientific evidence keeps scientists honest. Scientific evidence is undeniable since one needs to ask and answer only two questions to determine if it is scientific evidence. First is there a testable hypothesis? Can the idea be demonstrated to be wrong using a reasonable test? If so then it is at least a scientific hypothesis. Second does observed evidence support it? If yes, as endlessly in the case of evolution, then one has supporting evidence. If the answer is no, as it is in the few cases when creationists have formed a hypothesis, then there is evidence against the idea. I have never seen a case where creationists formed a testable hypothesis and there was supporting observations for that hypothesis that had not already been refuted by the evidence against it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?

What one needs is evidence, not just "data':

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Data is meaningless without a guiding hypothesis.

 

[inquiring mind]

Creationists argue their ideas wit falsehoods, nonsense.
So its logical to counter with facts.
What is your response to faith in nonsense?

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor 2:14

 

[inquiring mind]

What one needs is evidence, not just "data':

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Data is meaningless without a guiding hypothesis.

I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.

 

[pitabread]

I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.

FWIW, I watched the Todd Wood segment. The funny thing is that Todd Wood's claims in that segment re: mapping physical discontinuity based on fossil skulls is contradicted not just by other creationists but also Todd Wood's own writings: Australopithecus Sediba, Statistical Baraminology, and Challenges to Identifying the Human Holobaramin

The recent discovery and description of Australopithecus sediba proved controversial among creationists after Wood (2010) broke with the majority and proclaimed it human based on an analysis of craniodental characters using statistical baraminology. Since creationists often judge postcranial characters more significant than craniodental characters, a re-analysis of the hominin holobaramin was undertaken using 78 postcranial characters published by Berger, et al. (2010) and 25 characters of the hand published by Kivell, et al. (2011). These character sets, along with subsets of the original craniodental characters evaluated by Wood (2010) were used to calculate baraminic distance correlations (BDC) and multidimensional scaling (MDS). The inconclusive results raise questions about the value of using correlation and clustering methods to identify holobaramins.​

This is another example where I can't just shrug off the knowledge I have (of creationist writings no less!) in the context of that film segment.

 

[inquiring mind]

FWIW, I watched the Todd Wood segment. The funny thing is that Todd Wood's claims in that segment re: mapping physical discontinuity based on fossil skulls is contradicted not just by other creationists but also Todd Wood's own writings.

This is another example where I can't just shrug off the knowledge I have (of creationist writings no less!) in the context of that film segment.

Well, thank you for at least acknowledging it. I just find it interesting that scientists in the documentary interpret data and evidence in less than deep time terms, and therefore supportive of creation.

 

[Astrid]

I'm not a YEC (I've stated often that I don't think we understand time), just to be clear, but what qualifies as data for you?

Nobody understands time. And of course creationist is a
broad term, I'd no thoughts about where you stand on it.

Data -
Nothing different than dictionary
definition and examples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.

And there so called "interpretations" are worthless. They are not scientific explanations. And the qualifications of many of those so called scientists are in rather severe doubt.

Do you think that it is unreasonable that scientist need to follow the scientific method to claim to be doing science? They were not following the scientific method. Do you know why? Because when creationists follow the scientific method they are shown to be wrong. And they know this. If their beliefs were correct they would not be constantly shown on those very rare exceptions when they did follow the scientific method.

 

[Astrid]

I have often referenced the documentary "Is Genesis History?" that has scientists with different interpretations of data than you guys have, but everyone seems to 'snuff' it off.

Interpretations are good. Interpretations go wrong when falsified by data.
Its not enough in science or court to just say you interpret things differrntly.