My Certification Challenge

[JackRT]

Simple question:

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

Unlike religious belief, science is open to new evidence. At the present time science is aware of several massive local floods in the ancient middle east but is unaware of any global flood. The hypothetical global flood is actually much more recent than the local floods which is very very odd. Until new evidence is available science is forced into a provisional hypothesis that the Noah flood must be based either on tribal legend or is pure allegory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Unlike religious belief, science is open to new evidence. At the present time science is aware of several massive local floods in the ancient middle east but is unaware of any global flood. The hypothetical global flood is actually much more recent than the local floods which is very very odd. Until new evidence is available science is forced into a provisional hypothesis that the Noah flood must be based either on tribal legend or is pure allegory.

Is that a YES or NO?

 

[JackRT]

Is that a YES or NO?

Read my last sentence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Read my last sentence.

Is your last sentence a YES or a NO?

I mean, I only asked about creationism and you chimed in with the Flood.

I only asked about a myth, and you chimed in with "tribal legend" or "pure allegory."

So you must me some kind of scientist, I take it?

ETA: Nevermind ... I just read your profile ... thought so.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

AV, hard as this may be for you to believe, but I have answered your challenge already on the first page in the second post.
I said "You can't scientifically certify a myth". That is the truth.
Science does not concern itself with myths. If you want to talk about myths, either talk to a literary professor or a historian. They are the ones who study myths, not scientists. So you already lost your own 'challenge' right from the start since your criteria cannot be met anyway.

Your ridiculous need to feel that you are stigmatized by scientists is just horribly infantile and laughably transparent.

 

[bhsmte]

AV, hard as this may be for you to believe, but I have answered your challenge already on the first page in the second post.
I said "You can't scientifically certify a myth". That is the truth.
Science does not concern itself with myths. If you want to talk about myths, either talk to a literary professor or a historian. They are the ones who study myths, not scientists. So you already lost your own 'challenge' right from the start since your criteria cannot be met anyway.

Your ridiculous need to feel that you are stigmatized by scientists is just horribly infantile and laughably transparent.

It is kind of entertaining though.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is kind of entertaining though.

Like watching a dog or a cat run repeatedly in to a glass door.

 

[Astrophile]

Simple question:

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

And I said "myth" ... not lie ... not legend ... not story ... not [whatever] ... myth.

Here's an example for emphasis:

Scientist One: He had to study creationism and other legends.
Scientist Two: Creationism isn't a legend, it's a myth.
Scientist One: Whatever.
Scientist Two: No, not "whatever" ... myth.

So a simple YES or NO.

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

(And if you have to ask for clarification, I'm going to assume NO, since the clarification would come with the certification.)

There are many creation myths, in which a god creates the universe. However, creationism is not a myth; it is a pseudoscience, like astrology.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many creation myths, in which a god creates the universe. However, creationism is not a myth; it is a pseudoscience, like astrology.

How about "no science," rather than "pseudoscience."

(I'm adamant in the belief that God did not use science to create the universe.)

Intelligent Design and Creation science are jokes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Now you know why I call these threads "challenges," don't you?

Because even although you set the question you find the answers challenging?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because even although you set the question you find the answers challenging?

Evasive.

 

[Ophiolite]

Evasive.

Yes, but it is what most of us expect from you. Although it is rude of you, I do forgive you.

 

[RickG]

Simple question:

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

And I said "myth" ... not lie ... not legend ... not story ... not [whatever] ... myth.

Here's an example for emphasis:

Scientist One: He had to study creationism and other legends.
Scientist Two: Creationism isn't a legend, it's a myth.
Scientist One: Whatever.
Scientist Two: No, not "whatever" ... myth.

So a simple YES or NO.

Is creationism a scientifically certified myth?

(And if you have to ask for clarification, I'm going to assume NO, since the clarification would come with the certification.)

Depends upon what your definition of creationism is. I personally use two different definitions. (1) Strict literal interpretation of the Bible, or (2) Misrepresented science to support a literal interpretation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Depends upon what your definition of creationism is. I personally use two different definitions. (1) Strict literal interpretation of the Bible, or (2) Misrepresented science to support a literal interpretation.

I would assume, if science certified creationism as a myth, you would know which one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I started a thread asking if creatonism is a scientifically certified myth.

Is there something wrong with that?

I don't think there is a scientific definition for the term "myth", so no. Science has debunked various aspects of specific creation myths, which could be attributed to partly why we consider them to be myth, but science doesn't define something as being a myth. That is more of a literature definition.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think there is a scientific definition for the term "myth", so no. Science has debunked various aspects of specific creation myths, which could be attributed to partly why we consider them to be myth, but science doesn't define something as being a myth. That is more of a literature definition.

Then does the literary world officially consider creationism a myth?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then does the literary world officially consider creationism a myth?

There are a lot of creation stories. I don't know if the one in the bible is officially labeled as a myth or not in the literary community, that's a completely different major than mine. It might even vary by region, as literary definitions are less stable than scientific ones, and more prone to subjectivity.

 

[florida2]

Are alleles scientifically certified?

And don't even ask me what an allele is.

I've read about them several times and still don't get it.

Alleles are simply different versions of the same gene (a bit of DNA that controls a certain characteristic).

Eye colour genes can be, for example, for brown eyes or blue eyes. They are different alleles of the eye colour genes.

It's like different foods and drinks can come in a variety of flavours. Chocolate, strawberry and banana milkshake are all different versions of milkshakes which are fundamentally doing the same thing but have different outcomes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Alleles are simply different versions of the same gene (a bit of DNA that controls a certain characteristic).

Eye colour genes can be, for example, for brown eyes or blue eyes. They are different alleles of the eye colour genes.

It's like different foods and drinks can come in a variety of flavours. Chocolate, strawberry and banana milkshake are all different versions of milkshakes which are fundamentally doing the same thing but have different outcomes.

Thank you, sir!

 

[RickG]

I would assume, if science certified creationism as a myth, you would know which one.

Then perhaps your definition of a "myth" would be helpful. Nevertheless, FTW, yes, science can classify things as myths. However, I am unaware of any published peer review physical science that looks at the Christian Bible as a myth or makes any statement as such. As for creation science, I personally classify it as deliberate dishonesty. Mainstream science would probably term it as non-scholarly.

Questions?