Creationism... I guess its true!! ::sigh::

It all boils down to trust. Who do you trust? We creationists trust God did exactly what he said. You evolutionists trust that scientists know what they are talking about, and that they are accurate in their assessment of the supposed "facts" of evolution.

We creationists trust God did exactly what he said.

Click to expand...

You creationists trust the words of man, and your human understanding, to tell you what God said he did.

I think most reasonable people, Christians or otherwise, will take the results of rigorous scientific examination over an interpretation of man's telling of God's message any day.

[posted to wrong thread]...

 

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
You creationists trust the words of man, and your human understanding, to tell you what God said he did.

I think most reasonable people, Christians or otherwise, will take the results of rigorous scientific examination over an interpretation of man's telling of God's message any day.

Click to expand...

Science is not human understanding?

Originally posted by Rize
Science is not human understanding?

Click to expand...

Science has a built in error-correction process. Superstition does not.

Which detective has a higher chance of catching the real criminal: one who is willing to change his suspect when new evidence is uncovered, or one who is not?

The police have two suspects. One is a black, male teenager; the other is a white businessman. Detectives Hovind and Darwin first focus on the teenager because he is a known troublemaker. But, just as they are about to arrest him, a woman comes forward to corroborate the teenager's alibi. Det. Darwin then begins to look into the other suspect, the businessman. However, Det. Hovind refuses to change his mind because, after all, the teenager is black and women can’t be trusted. After further consideration, Det. Darwin discovers that the businessman had means and motive to commit the crime. In addition, he uncovers hard evidence that the businessman was responsible for the crime.

Now Detectives Hovind and Darwin approach their boss, Det. Miller, with their findings. Det. Darwin relates that he has evidence implicating the businessman, who had means and motive. Det. Hovind disagrees saying that the teenager must have done it. When questioned whether he has any evidence, Det. Hovind relates how black teenagers commit all crimes, as any cop with his much experience would know, and that Det. Darwin’s opinion is wrong because he didn’t go to church last week. Det. Miller isn’t impressed with Det. Hovind’s work and decides that Det. Darwin makes a better case. He informs the detectives that he will contact the district attorney’s office about indicting the businessman. Det. Hovind is upset and protests, because he is never wrong. Det. Miller reminds Det. Hovind that his work is routinely shoddy, and he is only a detective because his uncle is Deputy Mayor. (Not to mention that he got his badge from a cereal box.)

Det. Hovind is not happy about not getting his way and decides to take his “findings” strait to Assistant District Attorney Santorum before Det. Miller can file a formal report. Not knowing any better, the ADA announces to the press that he will indict the teenager and that Det. Hovind should be commended for his excellent work. Of course, this all blows up in his face once the public learns that there is a better suspect. The African-American community is extremely outraged that Hovind’s only evidence is that the teenager is black, blacks commit all crimes, and thus the teenager is guilty. District Attorney Scott, having received the actually report, apologizes to the teenager and his family and announces that the businessman will be indicted.

After the successful conviction of the businessman, District Attorney Scott wins reelection, Det. Miller successfully runs for Sheriff, and Det. Darwin is promoted to replace him. For acting rashly, the ADA Santorum, is placed on administrative leave to receive sensitivity training. For usurping his superiors, Det. Hovind is bumped down to the K9 unit where he cares for the city’s beagles.

So, which method of investgation produced better results?

"Humorous yet sad that you don't seem to know anything about what the "best" creationists think. There are plenty of crackpots out there, and more who may or may not be crackpots."

Just wondering who the "best" creationists are. I've read Morris, Gish, Hovind, Ham, and Safarti on the YEC side and found there arguements amazingly uncompelling. Further on the ID side, I've read Behe and Dembski and found little more that is scientifically compelling.

Cheers

Originally posted by Lanakila
It all boils down to trust. Who do you trust? We creationists trust God did exactly what he said. You evolutionists trust that scientists know what they are talking about, and that they are accurate in their assessment of the supposed "facts" of evolution.

Click to expand...

Okay, this is just about enough of this particular load of bull.  I've seen this argument or its equivalent over and over again.  My hope is that we can throw this particular piece of intellectual garbage on the rubbish heap of bad arguments. 

This is not purely an issue of trust.  The models, theories and predictions of science can be verified by anyone willing to spend the time and effort educating themselves on the issues.  Granted the required level of education is very high, but still available. 

Furthermore, scientists put their findings in a public arena of their peers.  They don't ask anyone to "trust them" or "take their word for it"  or "have faith."  Any attempt to suggest that accepting scientific theories is "all about trust" is plainly false. 

No one is asking you to trust anyone.  Read the bloody literature if you want.  Nobody is hiding anything from you or requiring you to have faith.  So stop trying to wedge creationism into an equal realm with science by asserting something that is completely untrue.

-brett 

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
After the successful conviction of the businessman, District Attorney Scott wins reelection, Det. Miller successfully runs for Sheriff, and Det. Darwin is promoted to replace him. For acting rashly, the ADA Santorum, is placed on administrative leave to receive sensitivity training. For usurping his superiors, Det. Hovind is bumped down to the K9 unit where he cares for the city’s beagles.

Click to expand...

And six weeks later District Attorney Scott is ousted in a recall election for being stupid enough to leave Det. Hovind in charge of something as complicated as living creatures.

-brett

Originally posted by Joe_Sixpack
"Humorous yet sad that you don't seem to know anything about what the "best" creationists think. There are plenty of crackpots out there, and more who may or may not be crackpots."

Just wondering who the "best" creationists are. I've read Morris, Gish, Hovind, Ham, and Safarti on the YEC side and found there arguements amazingly uncompelling. Further on the ID side, I've read Behe and Dembski and found little more that is scientifically compelling.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Sorry?

I don't know who the best are, but I know who they aren't when I see them.

Originally posted by euphoric
Okay, this is just about enough of this particular load of bull.  I've seen this argument or its equivalent over and over again.  My hope is that we can throw this particular piece of intellectual garbage on the rubbish heap of bad arguments. 

<snip>

Click to expand...

The flip side of this is that creationism claims that God says "we are right." Asked for a signed statement from God to that effect, they give us documents in human hand-writing, signed anynomously or by human authors, and then they interpret for us what it was that God was saying through these humans. Basically, they are not content to present their interpetation as what they believe about God and nature - they must market their own wisdom as something it is not: God's wisdom.

Tell a Christian you have good exegesis and good hermeneutics in support of your views about nature, and they will counter that they have good exegesis and good hermeneutics too, but they also have the real world evidence, and they conclude in favor of evolution.

Tell a Christian you have an affadavit from God that creationism is the correct view of nature, and, unless they can see through your deception, they will accept "God's Word" over the evidence of nature any day. Never mind that God's responsible for nature, so that they are calling Him a liar in doing so - they prefer to pretend science is reading nature wrongly.

The flip side of this is that creationism claims that God says "we are right."

Click to expand...

I really didn't know that; so thanks for the new information.

Originally posted by Rize
Science is not human understanding?

Click to expand...

The pretense is that creationism is taking the Word of God over the wisdom of man.

The reality is that creationism is taking the wisdom of man over the wisdom of man. Furthermore, it is taking the wisdom of scientifically un-trained men over the wisdom of scientifically trained men on an issue that is ultimately scientific - that is, the facts of nature.

"I don't know who the best are, but I know who they aren't when I see them."

Then is it a bit strange to jump on someone for not knowing what the "best" creationists say if you can't even point him to the "best" creationists? Maybe they are all crackpots like Hovind? If you don't have examples of good ones, that seems like a valid assumption, don't you think?