Start communicating

[Ledifni]

Now many claims have been made that the toc makes no testable predictions, a simple web search shows us just the opposite. But this is not a discussion about whether it is or is not scientific, so I will leave you to look for yourself. Suffice to say that there are testable predictions made and it is easy to find information that evidences this.

Wrong. Not one testable and tested scientific prediction has ever been made using this so-called "Theory of Creation." If you think there is one, I invite you to share it with us.

 

[Physics_guy]

So then, if it makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory? Your above explaination does not isolate the toc from science unless...you assume the only thing the toc says is that God did it. Is this your premise?

But no "theory of creation" ever presented makes testable predictions. That is because inherent in the nature of "testable predictions" is the possibility of results that would falsify the theory. That is how science works.

Unfortunately, that is not how supernatural beliefs work. No possible data or result from a test could falsify any belief that allows for supernatural intervention. That is why to equate the scientific theory of evolution with some nebulous theory of creation is simply an equivocation and a poor use of language. They are fundamentally different and not comparable in any way.

Now, that does not mean that the ToE is in any way "better" - it just means that it is scientific. Your concept of creation may indeed be correct, but the physical evidence does not lead one to that conclusion.

 

[razzelflabben]

Forget all of that. The so-called "Theory of Creation" is neither a theory nor science, because it meets none of the conditions for a theory nor was it developed using the rules by which science discovers reliable knowledge about nature. Science has these rules because common sense and intuition ARE NOT RELIABLE. Thus, there are rules -- which we call the Scientific Method -- that define how we must do science in order for it to accomplish its purpose. As creationism flatly ignores these rules, it is not science.

As far as where I'm getting my ideas -- for the love of God, go to college, man. But in the meantime, this should explain the matter to you.

Sorry to disappoint you but I have been to college, I have already studied the site you reference, and dispite what you might think I am saying or doing here, it is apparent that you have no idea. I can show you through additional websites where the criteria for scientific method is followed by the toc. Yet you deny that it exists, that is your opinion and I have nothing to say to you other than that evidence esists that would be to the contrary of your opinions.

He claimed that evolution is unscientific and that creationism is, in the post I responded to. On the contrary, evolution is science and is fully accepted by the worldwide scientific community, whild creationism is not science is any way whatsoever.

I read the post several times and didn't see that. Please point it out specifically.

I am telling you that creationism is religion, because it is. It is not science, it is a faith-based belief. And that is not a "new claim" -- it is what any reputable scientist will tell you.

I asked you to define religion because I have never heard of a claim that creationism is religion before. I have never known of anyone worshiping creation, though I guess it happens, or that claims that accepting creationism will get you to heaven, narvana, paradise, etc. Which is usually a part of the religous experience. So either we understand religion differently or our communication is not effective. Can anyone show me the religion of creationism? where do you go to meetings for such a religion? Who leads it, it there a priest, pastor, scientist, lay, leader? What resource do they use to guide them through life? I would like to know more about the religion of creationism. Thanks

But you're trying to get people to listen to what is false, confusing, and misleading. Rather, you would do better to exhort people to learn the correct terms and definitions and facts so that they can correctly discuss science. This idea of getting science to compromise with nonscience is a very bad idea, believe me.

How? I invited evolutionist and creationists alike, I respect all opinions even yours. I ask for clarifications that I am not sure about on all sides of the issue. I am not asking science to compromise anything. I am asking people to clarify what they are saying. I have worked with words for a long time now, my husband as well, and one thing that we are always surprised at is how often what appears to be clearly stated is misinterpreted. This occurs for many reasons, but words are not and "exact" science as it were. Words have different meanings and understandings and as such are interpreted in different ways. This thread is an attempt to communicate on a level that few debating the issue of our origins have ever done. Nothing more nothing less.

As long as we're talking about evolution vs. creationism (which is the subject of this board) then the word "theory" is limited to science. When we start using the colloquial definition of "theory" it becomes impossible to discuss science, since that definition has absolutely nothing to do with science and is so ambiguous as to be virtually useless as a word even in common speech.

I think that is a bit overstated, but a good point non the less.

Yes, there is a meaning, of course. The meaning is well-defined and easy to learn. Unfortunately, creationists willfully misunderstand the meaning continually -- and you want us to solve this problem by using the completely useless definition used by creationists. Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

I must wonder where all the hate and anamosity is coming from?!? I have heard many different definitions for the toc, many from creationists themselves, so how is it irrelavent to discuss the meaning? Do you believe that the toc is scientific or not? We know what you think but that is not an understanding shared by all.

Razzelflabben, I won't play this game. The scientific method is not in question, and if I answer your question as you've phrased it then I am implicitly claiming that what I say is merely my opinion. It's not. It's the way science is strictly defined by all scientists so it can proceed accurately. Now, go do some research, it really isn't that difficult, and learn something about how science works. Then we can discuss the scientific method and actually get somewhere.

I am not playing a game, I am trying to get people to communicate. for example I distinguish between prediction and explaination. A prediction preceeding an observation. An expalianation by contract, explaining how the observation fits the theory. It seems to me that given the vast amount of possible tests and observations that all theories would include some of both.

Correction: you are trying to establish meaningless communication, which does nobody any good at all.

If you think communication does no one any good why are you posting to this thread? Why are you on the forum at all? Meaningless or meaningful, the forum is all about communication. Why be here if you find no value in communication?

 

[Edx]

I try very hard not to argue at all but instead to discuss and I have discussed many times with both sides.

I once tried to "discuss". It becomes futile once you realise their faith means they have to obstinately stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence there is. This is why ICR and AIG both have their followers accept a sworn statement that say that no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. That is not scientific.

. Isn't hard to do, btw, they consider the evolutionist view the same as you do, that the evolutionist wants their unscientific nonsence taught in the science lessons and the reasons are very much so the same. Take some time to listen and you might be able to better explain your side of the issue.

They say that but they have no postion. Their organizations are lying either way. Either they are lying about understanding what they are talking about, or they do know what they are talking about, but they are lying about science anyway. They are inherently unscientific as they have to sign statements that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough and swear that they will always believe that their literal interpretation is correct. If Creationists had any real scientific criticisms they wouldnt need to resort to misrepresentations and these antiscientific attitudes in order to make their arguments. Why do you think they dont submit to peer review? Its because they wont correct themselves. Its not a coincidence that there are no credible Creationists to be found anywhere.

Not necessarily, what you are missing in this idea is that creation has nothing to do with our orgins. The term creation is not specific to origins. Creation means to make something.

You still arent understanding. For the non-Creationist Christian god created the universe like you would go about creating that book. Your actions to make the book are like the natural laws god uses, IE. Evolution for example. For the the Creationist, they believe you just poofed the book into existence out of nothing.

The theory of creation then explores a smaller, more detailed, specific creation, that of the world and life

No. There is no theory of Creation. Why do you keep calling it that? It isnt a scientific theory. It isnt even a theory since it isnt open to question, nor is it falsifiable. All "Creationism" is is a strict adherence to their literal interpretation and a refusal to ever change their mind. They use science because they are trying to pretend it holds more weight than blind faith, but they have to twist science because it simply does not support their beliefs. In short, "scientific Creationism, is just their attempt to make their literal interpretation taken seriously.

. Much as the general understanding of evolution is different from the theory of evolution. More is included and excluded alike. So the book we made, is not assumed to be in existance magically because the creationist doesn't apply the idea of "magical existance" to everything created.

Evolution means change. That is why we hear scientists talking about the "evolution" of the universe, or people talking about the "evolution" of the nature fast food plays in our society. "The Theory of Evolution" however is biological and that is all.

Creationists do apply magic to everything, they have to thats the point. They even start with the premise that Goddidit, but they first need to provide a scientific method for knowing if god exists before they do anything else. Of course they dont bother with that. Most of their time is spent twisting science like Kent Hovind, for lay people, that dont know any better. They are a odd curiosity just about everywhere accept America.

Does that make sense now? The creationist is dealing not with creation alone, but with the creation of our world.

Sure. But not the way you told it. Creation doesnt have to be unnatural, which is what most Christians think. Creationism is a belief god did it through magic - "poof!".

That is why it is important to understand that whether or not you see the theory of creation as scientific, it does have a meaning. That meaning to you might only be that we are removing certain variables to isolate out what we are talking about, but it does have meaning.

They can call it a theory if they want to, but it is neither scientific nor a theory. They know this, and that is why none of them are credible.

-snip-

As I understand the words, the theory of creation is where those things are addressed and as I understand it, that is the machanics of the creation of the world/life. This is the differences I see between the words creation and the theory of creation.

For Christians that accept evolution, which is most of them, to them Evolution IS the theory of Creation. Because to them that is HOW God Created. To them what science shows is how to interpret the Bible. So if it was unclear how to interpret Geneis before, science cleared that up by showing that it was wrong to interpret literally. YECs proved the earth was old before Darwin wrote Origins, and changed their minds. Its only todays obstinate Creationists that insist science must be wrong, and lie to people that you cant be a real Christian if you dont have the same interpretation as them.

Ed

 

[Edx]

This can be disputed, but it is your opinion, just as mine is that God has evidenced himself to us.

Not all opinions are worth the same. If I tell you I can fly, and you say I cant, whose opinion is worth more?

Creationism is inherently unscientific because they posit things that cannot be known, tested, observed or evidenced in any way. Theres nothing to show and nothing to know. They have already made up their minds, and sign statments that no evidence will sway them - yet this alone renders them inherently unscientific.

To discuss it further is outside the purpose of this thread which is why I offered to discuss it in a pm. .

Why? That wasnt my point. If your evidence for god is good enough for you thats fine, but if it isnt objective then it isnt any better than any other religious person that tells me that have this "personal evidence" about their God or belief.

Ed

 

[razzelflabben]

Oh, really? As you're so much older and wiser than me, why don't you explain this?

These are the misconceptions that I am asking to be clarified. I never said, nor do I believe that I am wiser than anyone, including you. This is assumed by you and not part of what I said or intended. Older, yep, that is no big deal, I wear my age proudly. I worked hard for every year. But that does not always equal maturity or wisdom and you would do well to learn the differences.

Please, tell me how the definition of "species" is today "much different" from what it was when you were in school. What was the definition then, and what is it now?

I believe it was Glady's post in which I gave a reference that does a much better job of defining the differences, start there. YOu seem to love to study, research it and study it for yourself.

(The accusation of a "changing definition of species" is one of the typical creationist PRATTs, so your reply to me should be amusing)

Being that I am not a crationist and do not know the things that you consider creationist Pratts, I am not sure how to address this issue with you. the definition for species has evolved, and it is a matter of record, look it up.

There is really no issue here except that you people refuse to learn about or understand the subject you're discussing. If you would, there would be no confusion.

What people?

Not when the discipline they are discussing is impossible to discuss or properly conduct without using the correct definition, old one. When one does not know one's subject, old one, such as you do not, one needs to learn that subject before discussing it, isn't that so? You would do well to get an education.

I guess we can say this for every person alive, because there is always something new to learn, but I think that is the point of changing definitions and understandings, it is the point of revisions and communication, so that we never assume to know it all and always look to learn more. Education is great, it comes in many different packages and places, and should never cease to be sought after. At least that is my opinion.

Pretty much. Everything you've posted so far has been full of typical creationist misunderstandings and PRATTs. If you accept evolution but have this many misconceptions, you might as well be a creationist for the purposes of this discussion. But I don't for one second believe you're not a creationist.

I have said very little about what I believe until ask today to define the words I put forth, so what are you basing these assumptions on? What have I said that leads you to this conclusion? I have asked questions of clarification, but until today little else. So are you claiming that questions of clarification are creationist pratts? That's an interesting concept. Thanks for offering it into our discussion.

Why? I don't know, my dear, but I suspect that you see no problem with creationists entrenching themselves in ignorance because you believe that their ignorance is actually wisdom.

Actually, I do not think that wisdom is scientific or learned at all. I think wisdom is impossible to learn, you can acquite wisdom, but it is not learned as such. Now to finish the question off, let me say that I do not think ignorance is every acceptable where there is opertunity to learn and learning is always best done when our ideas and conclusions are challenged. Yet so many people fear this challenge, your posts suggest you do as well, why is that? Why do so many people fear challenge of their ideas and thoughts?

You've perhaps run into nonscientists pretending to be scientists (creationists, for example) who think such a ridiculous thing. But you haven't run into any scientists who think that. For such a thing to be true, the person would have to be completely ignorant of the scientific method, which would mean that he/she is a nonscientist by definition.

Believe what you will, it is not my burden to convince you that I speak the truth, it is my burden to speak the truth. What you believe is the burden you alone must carry.

I don't know who on here is or is not a scientist. There's no way to verify claims about who somebody is over the Internet. I can point to people who are not scientists, due to their obvious ignorance of science, but I can't point with certainty to anyone who is a scientist IRL.

But your post seemed to indicate that only scientists were alowed to discuss our origins on this forum? Are you changing your mind now, or was there unclear understanding of what you were saying?

I won't play this game, lady. I will not let you ask me questions about matters on which science must remain consistent if you are going to phrase it as "my belief" or "my opinion." I will not stake the very foundations of science on how wise others think me. I suggest you do the research yourself.

Now, let's step back a moment, the definition of species has changed, so for me to ask someone which definition they hold to is changing the consistance in science how? it is commonly accepted on the forum and by science that revision is a part of science and theory. So to ask for clarification of these revisions is to change the consistancy how? Do you understand that even science is inconsistant, that is why our theories are revised?

 

[razzelflabben]

Wrong. Not one testable and tested scientific prediction has ever been made using this so-called "Theory of Creation." If you think there is one, I invite you to share it with us.

Where are your boasts of education now. (Sorry, I stepped out of line there for a moment) research it for yourself. I put forth a link to begin the study for those willing to learn.

 

[razzelflabben]

But no "theory of creation" ever presented makes testable predictions. That is because inherent in the nature of "testable predictions" is the possibility of results that would falsify the theory. That is how science works.

But I gave a link (just as an example) of testable predictions that the toc does make. Are you claiming they are not claims made by the toc or that they are not testable because we can always fall back on the God did it claim?

Unfortunately, that is not how supernatural beliefs work. No possible data or result from a test could falsify any belief that allows for supernatural intervention. That is why to equate the scientific theory of evolution with some nebulous theory of creation is simply an equivocation and a poor use of language. They are fundamentally different and not comparable in any way.

This sounds like you are saying that the toc can fall back on the God did it explaination to therefore it is not a testable claim. Is that correct?

Now, that does not mean that the ToE is in any way "better" - it just means that it is scientific. Your concept of creation may indeed be correct, but the physical evidence does not lead one to that conclusion.

Personally, I see the toe as historical in nature and therefore find it hard to view as a scientific theory. I have issues with the toc being scientific as well, though for different reasons.

 

[Physics_guy]

But I gave a link (just as an example) of testable predictions that the toc does make. Are you claiming they are not claims made by the toc or that they are not testable because we can always fall back on the God did it claim?

They are not testable because there exists no possible result of any test that would falsify any supernatural explanation.

This sounds like you are saying that the toc can fall back on the God did it explaination to therefore it is not a testable claim. Is that correct?

As long as it is not a potentially falsifiable test (i.e. one in which some result of the test would falsify the hypothesis) it is not a testable claim. Supernatural explanations are consistent with all possible test results - therefore, they provide you with no answers whatsoever.

The only truly important tests are like this:

1. hypothesis A gives and explanation of observation X
2. hypothesis A is then tested to show if it is consistent and valid
3. hypothesis A makes a prediction Y for a test
4. if the results of the test is not Y then hypothesis A is false

The problem is that creationism does not have tests like this. Any data that is not consistent with observation is explained by supernatural intervention. For example: the numerous problems caused by the concept of a worldwide flood (heat released from that much water falling, pressure, where the water went, etc) are simply glossed over with appeals to supernatural intervention. Therefore, even if it is true, we learn nothing from the hypothesis - we can't use it to make any predictions about wha we would find in the geological record nor can any technology be developed.

Personally, I see the toe as historical in nature and therefore find it hard to view as a scientific theory.

Don't take this the wrong way but, if you believe this then you likely do not know much about either science or the theory of evolution.

The ToE is an explanation of what we see around us that was developed using the scientific method. It is continually tested and makes valuable predictions. It is useful in the generation of new technology and has provided a valuable framework in which to develop other predictively accurate and technologically useful theories. It is most certainly scientific by any meaningful definition of the word.

Would you say that our understanding of the heliocentric model of the solar system is historical because all the data we have is historical in nature (it all happenned in the past - even the light you see when you look at the sun right now actually left the sun 8 minutes ago)? We cannot be 100% certain that before people started making measurements of the sun and stars that the sun didn't actually go around the Earth then, but it would be completely unreasonable that the current heliocentric theory was not valid then simply because we weren't looking at it. Remember, eye-witness testimony is actually some of the least reliable evidence there is.

I have issues with the toc being scientific as well, though for different reasons.

I think you need to learn a little bit more about what science actually is before you make these pronouncements.

 

[gluadys]

Now many claims have been made that the toc makes no testable predictions, a simple web search shows us just the opposite.

I am reasonably familiar with presentations of creationism and have only seen one testable (and false) prediction derived from any “theory of creation”. (see below) I know you like people to do their own research, but I have researched this and not found any other. So I would appreciate it if you would point to any other testable prediction of the “theory of creationism” that you are familiar with.

But this is not a discussion about whether it is or is not scientific,

Since you wish to discuss an understanding of a toc along with the theory of evolution, it is very much a discussion about whether or not it is scientific. If the toc is not scientific, well then, it is not scientific and there is no more to say about it. Meanwhile the theory of evolution is a scientific theory---one of the best we have.

I understand what you are saying, at least I think I do, you are saying that science cannot evidence the supernatural.

Science cannot test for the super-natural. Remember what I said about risky predictions. To be useful, a prediction must be capable of being wrong. When it comes to the supernatural, it is not possible to make a prediction that could turn out wrong. Hence, there is no scientific test for the supernatural.

1. the theory of creation does not have to be considered scientific in order to be considered a theory. So your understand of the theory of creation must be that the term is only refering to the scientific nature of the creation of the world? or life? or both?

It must be scientific to be credible in a scientific discussion. Outside of science, it is no longer a scientific theory; it is mere philosophical/theological speculation. So, yes, within the framework of a scientific discussion about the creation of the world and the creation of life, a theory must be scientific. Creationism is not a scientific theory and, therefore, does not qualify as an entrant in scientific discussion.

2. That the theory of creation offers more to us than simply "God did it" which apparently you do not understand. Would that also be correct? You see the theory of creation only as saying "God did it"?

In the first place I would not refer to either creation or creationism as a theory. Neither is. Creation is a doctrine; creationism is a theology.
The doctrine of creation affirms that God “created heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.”
The theology of creationism adds to this. Beyond saying “God created” it also affirms that God created by supernatural means. That is, it posits direct “special creation” rather than a natural (though God-guided) process. Young-earth creationism adds a limited time-framework of 6 days about 6,000 years ago. So creationism predicts that species can be set into groups (which they call kinds), which cannot be related to each other as each is a special and distinct supernatural creation. This prediction has been falsified by the evidence pointing to a universal common ancestor—which means that all living things on earth are related to one another through common ancestry. Hence, creationism can no longer be considered a scientific theory and is only subscribed to on the basis of theology.

Right, but theories don't have to be restricted to scientific in my opinion and in fact, I have heard those on this thread express the idea that the toc is not scientific theory. So it would seem that your understanding is that only scientific theory exists?

It is my understanding that only scientific theories are scientific.

If I form a hypotheses, and test that huypotheses, and observe within and without that hypotheses, when what makes it not scientific?

You have to submit it to public scrutiny. You have to write up a paper describing your hypothesis, what steps you took to test it, what the results of the tests were, and what conclusions you draw from that. Then you have to submit it for presentation at a scientific conference or publication in a scientific journal. You have to allow it to be reviewed by other experts in the field, and consider their criticisms. Other scientists will try to replicate your study to see if they get the same results.

Only when all this is done—especially getting the same results--will your hypothesis become part of the body of scientific knowledge.

By the criteria you presented of your understanding, I can identify my "opinion" theory as scientific if I follow through with scientific methods.

As long as you complete the whole process of the scientific method. Science is never a matter of purely private investigation.

So then, if it makes testable predictions, what seperates it from scientific theory? Your above explaination does not isolate the toc from science unless...you assume the only thing the toc says is that God did it. Is this your premise?

Well, first you have to decide whether by toc you mean the doctrine of creation or the pseudo-scientific theory of creationism. As to the latter, it does say more than “God did it”, but the one testable prediction it does make has been shown to be incorrect. So the current status of creationism is not that of a theory, but that of a theology. The doctrine of creation does limit itself to saying “God did it” but it makes no scientific predictions, so it is not a scientific theory.

Since the doctrine of creation says only “God did it” without making any prediction as to how God created, evolution is one of the possible ways in which God “did it”.

So it is entirely consistent to hold to both the doctrine of creation and the theory of evolution, since they do not contradict one another.

It is not possible to hold to both the theology of creationism and the theory of evolution since they do contradict each other.

 

[gluadys]

This is new to me, the idea that religion cannot revise itself.

Oh, religion revises itself all the time. But a revision of doctrine is usually considered heresy. Which of the doctrines of the Apostles’ or Nicene creed have been revised by the bulk of the Christian church (i.e not counting such spin-offs as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians or Mormons which are rejected by most Christians).

You are shifting the goal posts here by broadening the discussion beyond its original reference.

Right, so back to the original question when is "evidence" not sufficient to verify a theory.

Apparently you misunderstood my previous answer. Theories are devised to explain evidence. When a prediction derived from a theory proves correct, the verified prediction is considered supportive evidence for the theory. Evidence is considered not sufficient to verify a theory when the prediction is incorrect. In fact, we can use stronger terminology. The results which negate a prediction go further than being “not sufficient” to support a theory; they contradict the theory and show that it must be revised.

Let's see if I can clarify the question even more. I would predict that my fingerprint would be found at the scene of the crime, how does that evidence tell us anything about who stole the banana? When is evidence to weak to tell us anything about the original theory?

So then by this explaination, then even my fingerprint at my grandmothers house is evidence of the crime because it is predicted by the theory that I was at my grandmothers home around the time of the crime? Is that what you are saying?

No, your fingerprint is evidence of your presence at your grandmother’s house. Nothing more. It is enough to identify you as a suspect. But the investigator needs to know more than that you were at your grandmother’s house. The investigator needs to know if you were there at the time of the theft. This requires a second investigation. And if it can be shown that you were not there at the time of the theft, you will be removed from the list of suspects.

Right but many scientists work this way, they begin with a theory and seek a way to support it.

No, they look for a way to falsify it. That is how post-Popperian science works.

Case in point, I watched a documentary on Mars, the scientists, when they didn't find what they expected, didn't say, humm, we may have been wrong, let's keep looking, instead they said, keep looking it has to be there somewhere.

They didn’t find what they hoped to find in one particular place. Is that a reason not to look in other places?

 

[gluadys]

Yes this is my broad understanding of the toc. For specifics, we would need a new thread.

I have talked about my understand of the words evolution, toe, creation, toc, let's see, what other words did I include on the list.

To me evidence is either hard or soft. Hard evidence be directly observed, where as soft evidence is like circumstancial, it need explaination or interpretation in order to link it to the original theory.

speciation: The evolution of one species into another as is currently defined by science for the term species. This type of speciation relies heavily on genetic mutations caused by a host of different possible variables.

kind: usually refered to as a general group. Though not well defined, is close in understanding to the old definition for species.

Theory; an explaination of the machanics of what we observe.

Scientific method; this one throws me a bit because we can talk about what it is or we can talk about what it is suppose to be but you and I have already covered that.

This is a good start. But you know what would be really helpful.

Gather all you understandings about all the topics you named in the OP into one post. Then we don't have to scramble through nearly a hundred posts to find them. We just need to refer back to that one.

 

[gluadys]

I must have expressed that poorly, relying too much on the referenced site and not enough on my ideas of species. We were taught the old definition.

No you were not taught "the old definition". You are not old enough to have been taught an "old definition" which does not include the fact that species are defined by their reproductive habits. No such definition has been taught in at least 300 years, and I would venture to say that no such definition has been taught since humans realized that males are necessary to reproduction.

Look at Genesis 1 in the bible: it clearly speaks of each sort of living thing reproducing "after its kind" i.e. each species reproduces itself. It says nothing about whether they look like one another at all.

So the definition has not changed since Genesis was written.

You were not taught an old definition. You were taught an incorrect definition.

 

[razzelflabben]

I once tried to "discuss". It becomes futile once you realise their faith means they have to obstinately stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence there is.

Actually I have found this true on both sides of the issue and why I am trying to encourage discussion rather than arguements.

This is why ICR and AIG both have their followers accept a sworn statement that say that no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. That is not scientific.

So are you saying that the only creationists are those who follow the ICR and/or AIG? I know of many in fact, most that I know do not hold to either of these groups. That would be like saying that the only way to find out how to drive a car is to talk to triple A.

They say that but they have no postion. Their organizations are lying either way. Either they are lying about understanding what they are talking about, or they do know what they are talking about, but they are lying about science anyway. They are inherently unscientific as they have to sign statements that no amount of evidence will ever be good enough and swear that they will always believe that their literal interpretation is correct. If Creationists had any real scientific criticisms they wouldnt need to resort to misrepresentations and these antiscientific attitudes in order to make their arguments. Why do you think they dont submit to peer review? Its because they wont correct themselves. Its not a coincidence that there are no credible Creationists to be found anywhere.

A quick web search shows us reputable, well educated scientists that hold to the toc or id, I wonder why you only see the toc through the eyes of AIG or ICR? Are there only one or two organizations that all evolutionists belong too so we can compare their claims to all evolutionists?

You still arent understanding. For the non-Creationist Christian god created the universe like you would go about creating that book. Your actions to make the book are like the natural laws god uses, IE. Evolution for example. For the the Creationist, they believe you just poofed the book into existence out of nothing.

I understand what you are saying, and I respect that opinion, but where I am differing in my opinion you don't seem to understand. What I understand about the term creation is that it means in essence to make. It does not specify who what when or where it was made. The who what when and wheres are reserved for the toc (not discussing whether or not it is scientific here, that is a discussion about scientific method and how the theory fits our understanding of scientific method). The toc deals with the mechanics and hypothesis, predictions, etc. That is how I understand the terms creation and the toc.

No. There is no theory of Creation. Why do you keep calling it that? It isnt a scientific theory. It isnt even a theory since it isnt open to question, nor is it falsifiable. All "Creationism" is is a strict adherence to their literal interpretation and a refusal to ever change their mind. They use science because they are trying to pretend it holds more weight than blind faith, but they have to twist science because it simply does not support their beliefs. In short, "scientific Creationism, is just their attempt to make their literal interpretation taken seriously.

This is a totally false impression of the majority of creationists that I kmow. Could be the circles of people we talk to, the understandings of the words and ideas being spoken, the difference between communication and assumptions, or something else altogether. Interesting.

Creationists do apply magic to everything, they have to thats the point. They even start with the premise that Goddidit, but they first need to provide a scientific method for knowing if god exists before they do anything else. Of course they dont bother with that. Most of their time is spent twisting science like Kent Hovind, for lay people, that dont know any better. They are a odd curiosity just about everywhere accept America.

I know a lot of creationists that do not assert the idea that every answer is Goddidit. It seems to me that this is a common misunderstanding and miscommunication. We can wait and see what the creationists say on the issue.

Sure. But not the way you told it. Creation doesnt have to be unnatural, which is what most Christians think. Creationism is a belief god did it through magic - "poof!".

Actually not through magic, in fact, magic is viewed by many in the church as evil and Satanic (though not all see it that way) It is more accurate to say that it was spoken into existance, or that is was a divine act of creation, not magic and poof. The use of such words insight emotion and show little to no understanding for the ideas and thoughts being presented by the creationist.

They can call it a theory if they want to, but it is neither scientific nor a theory. They know this, and that is why none of them are credible.

Hummmmmm.....not my any definition I have seen for thoery other than scientific theory of which I have a couple of so far unanswered questions still waiting for explaination on. I do not see anything in the actual defintion that leaves the toc not as a scientific theory though I do not think it scientific, I find it unscientific for other reasons that how it fits the definition for scientific theory.

For Christians that accept evolution, which is most of them, to them Evolution IS the theory of Creation. Because to them that is HOW God Created. To them what science shows is how to interpret the Bible. So if it was unclear how to interpret Geneis before, science cleared that up by showing that it was wrong to interpret literally. YECs proved the earth was old before Darwin wrote Origins, and changed their minds. Its only todays obstinate Creationists that insist science must be wrong, and lie to people that you cant be a real Christian if you dont have the same interpretation as them.

Ed

Interesting, I have never seen this being said by the creationists. Very interesting.

 

[razzelflabben]

Not all opinions are worth the same. If I tell you I can fly, and you say I cant, whose opinion is worth more?

Creationism is inherently scientific because they posit things that cannot be known, tested, observed or evidenced in any way. Theres nothing to show and nothing to know. They have already made up their minds, and sign statments that no evidence will sway them - yet this alone renders them inherently unscientific.



Why? That wasnt my point. If your evidence for god is good enough for you thats fine, but if it isnt objective then it isnt any better than any other religious person that tells me that have this "personal evidence" about their God or belief.

Ed

Unless you examine the evidence provided, you can not know how much weight to put on the opinion. That is why communication on the issue is vital. Many creationist are walking around debating evolutionists without ever knowing what the evolutionist believes. At the same time, many evolutionists go around argueing creationist without ever understanding what the creationist believes. This is a total lack of communication and doesn't get us anywhere. Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition) not what the organizations tell you, or what the evolutionist tells you to believe, but what the creationist actually believes and make it a bit more challenging, why do they say they believe what they do (the number one arguement against the toe).

 

[Physics_guy]

Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition)

Depends upon the creationist. There are then a host of answers to that question. On this forum, the most common use of the term "creationist" is to describe young-earth christian creationists that base their beliefs on a literal reading of Genesis. This group is quite prolific in its writings, making it quite easy to learn what they believe.

Other creationists can vary greatly in their beliefs. Common other forms of creationism include Day-Age, Old Earth, or Intelligent Design. These vary quite a bit.

One could also call any believer that a god of some sort was responsible for the creation of the Universe as a creationist, but this is a much less used definition of the term - although it is the most broad and inclusive.

 

[gluadys]

Some odds and ends from various posts:

post 69

Even if we specify creation to be the world and/or life, we have not addressed the who what when and wheres. As I understand the words, the theory of creation is where those things are addressed and as I understand it, that is the machanics of the creation of the world/life. This is the differences I see between the words creation and the theory of creation.

Emphasis added
Sounds like an ID position. The theory of evolution does deal with the what, when and where of creation, and is very well supported by all the evidence it has correctly predicted. Also, although the theory of evolution does not predict who is responsible for evolution, it is compatible with the belief that God is.

When you say "theory of creation" I believe you are actually referring to creationism, which attempts to deal with the who, what,when and wheres. But it is problematical for two reasons.

1. It does predict that God is responsible for the existence of species. Since this prediction is not testable, it has no place in a scientific theory.

2. Its predictions on the other questions have been shown to be incorrect.

Now, if by "theory of creation" you mean something other than creationism, you will have to correct me and inform me of what you do mean.


Post 70

God has evidenced himself to us.

The question remains if God has "evidenced" (do you mean "revealed"?) himself in a scientifically testable way.


Post 83

it is apparent that you have no idea. I can show you through additional websites where the criteria for scientific method is followed by the toc. Yet you deny that it exists, that is your opinion and I have nothing to say to you other than that evidence esists that would be to the contrary of your opinions.

Perhaps you are not aware that most of the regulars here are very well acquainted with creationist web sites, both young-earth and old-earth varieties. There is good reason to say that no scientific method is used on any of these sites.

If you disagree--present what you think is evidence of them using scientific methods. We have already reviewed your links and found no such evidence.

I asked you to define religion because I have never heard of a claim that creationism is religion before. I have never known of anyone worshiping creation, though I guess it happens, or that claims that accepting creationism will get you to heaven, narvana, paradise, etc. Which is usually a part of the religous experience. So either we understand religion differently or our communication is not effective.

You might have asked what people mean when they call creationism a religion, instead of presuming that this is the definition they hold. Did you not say communication is a two-way street and that we should listen to each other? You need to learn to practise what you preach. Instead of listening to people who disagree with you, you jump to conclusions as to what they mean. That is a waste of everyone's energy.

Worshipping creation is not the same thing as creationism.

Can anyone show me the religion of creationism?

Yes. Here are three web sites (2 young earth and 1 old earth) which offer a good presentation of the religion of creationism. (There are many others as well)

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.reasons.org/

where do you go to meetings for such a religion?

To churches which support those website ministries. e.g. the Baptist church my husband and I once attended.

Who leads it, it there a priest, pastor, scientist, lay, leader?

With the exception of the scientist, all of the above.

What resource do they use to guide them through life?

I expect the written resource they use is the bible. Of course, there are also other non-written guides such as the Holy Spirit.


Post 86

Now, let's step back a moment, the definition of species has changed, so for me to ask someone which definition they hold to is changing the consistance in science how?

No, the definition was not changed. For some reason, after at least 2500 years (going back to Genesis) of using a definition of species based on reproduction, you were taught by some ill-informed and untrained teacher a definition which is incorrect. i.e. that species are defined by appearance, not by reproduction.


post 77

Yes this is my broad understanding of the toc. For specifics, we would need a new thread.

So to the definitions you have posted below we can add:
theory of creation: the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

I have talked about my understand of the words evolution, toe, creation, toc, let's see, what other words did I include on the list.

The list is easy to find. It is in your opening post. Just respond to this post with any not already listed here, and we will have them all in one place.

Now for some comments on your definitions.

theory of creation: the mechanism and predictions as to how the world and life came into existance, centering on a creator rather than chance. (note nothing about whether it is scientific or not, that is a different discussion)

It is interesting that in your original list you did not include a "theory of chance", but you did include the theory of evolution. You do know that evolution does not occur by chance don't you?

Although a scientific theory cannot comment on a creator, if the opposite to creation is chance, then there is no contradiction between the theory of evolution and the doctrine of creation.

Any "theory" that centres on a creator is, by definition, not scientific. But that does not make it anti-scientific either, just as a scientific theory which describes regular natural processes such as evolution are not anti-creation either.

To me evidence is either hard or soft. Hard evidence be directly observed, where as soft evidence is like circumstancial, it need explaination or interpretation in order to link it to the original theory.

This is not a definition of evidence. It is only an explanation of why you value one sort of evidence above another. Could you be more clear on what you understand evidence ---any evidence---to be?

speciation: The evolution of one species into another as is currently defined by science for the term species. This type of speciation relies heavily on genetic mutations caused by a host of different possible variables.

It is interesting to see that this is your understanding. It is very different from a scientific definition. Perhaps you would be interested in learning a scientific definition of speciation?

kind: usually refered to as a general group. Though not well defined, is close in understanding to the old definition for species.

Do you mean the old Genesis-based definition which defines species by reproduction or the incorrect definition you were taught which defines species by appearance?

I would agree, by the way, that "kind" is often based on appearance rather than on breeding populations, and is therefore not a scientific definition of anything at all.

Theory; an explaination of the machanics of what we observe.

I think that is a step in the right direction, but I also think there is much more to it than that. For example, that a theory makes testable predictions, brings together concepts that had not been seen to be related before, suggest new lines of research, etc.

Scientific method; this one throws me a bit because we can talk about what it is or we can talk about what it is suppose to be but you and I have already covered that.

Since practicing the scientific method sometimes falls short of the ideal, it is better to set out your understanding of what it is supposed to be. We can chalk up the differences between ideal and actuality to human weakness.

 

[razzelflabben]

They are not testable because there exists no possible result of any test that would falsify any supernatural explanation.

So again I am asking you if by this you are saying that creationists always rely on the Goddidit idea and since we cannot falsify there being a God, then the theory is unscientific? This is what it sounds like you are saying, but I don't want to read into what you are saying and make assumptions as to your understandings.

As long as it is not a potentially falsifiable test (i.e. one in which some result of the test would falsify the hypothesis) it is not a testable claim. Supernatural explanations are consistent with all possible test results - therefore, they provide you with no answers whatsoever.

The claim is that there are testable predictions. Now, to claim God did it dispite the observations would most certainly fall into this catagory of not scientific, however, there are also most certainly creationists that do not rely on the God did it answer to every question presented. In fact, equating the creationist mindset to the religious, the bible tells us to study and search for answers to the questions we have about the world around us. If the christian does this, he must also be willing to accept the answers that he finds. This claim, from a biblical theology understanding would not be made if the observaitons would disagree and as to my study, I have not seen observations that falsify the toc as put forth in the book of gen. I have seen many things that do not line up with the traditional creationist so before jumping to a conclusion about what I believe, listen to what I am saying. I have yet to see scientific observations that falsify the toc as put forth in Gen. Nothing more nothing less for this part of the discussion.

The problem is that creationism does not have tests like this. Any data that is not consistent with observation is explained by supernatural intervention. For example: the numerous problems caused by the concept of a worldwide flood (heat released from that much water falling, pressure, where the water went, etc) are simply glossed over with appeals to supernatural intervention. Therefore, even if it is true, we learn nothing from the hypothesis - we can't use it to make any predictions about wha we would find in the geological record nor can any technology be developed.

Not always.

Don't take this the wrong way but, if you believe this then you likely do not know much about either science or the theory of evolution.

I have given my understanding for both

I think you need to learn a little bit more about what science actually is before you make these pronouncements.

I spoke about my belief that a theory about our history is not scientific in nature. The history of how we can to be is not empirical by nature, it is historical. To study and theorize how our world evolves, is changing, will change, is scientific in nature. I have even read evolutionist papers that talk about our inability to go back in time, or sciences inability to know history. So I voice this idea and I am told I don't understand what science is. What makes my opinion unscientific when the same opinion voiced by a scientist is scientific understanding?

 

[gluadys]

For Christians that accept evolution, which is most of them, to them Evolution IS the theory of Creation. Because to them that is HOW God Created. To them what science shows is how to interpret the Bible. So if it was unclear how to interpret Geneis before, science cleared that up by showing that it was wrong to interpret literally. YECs proved the earth was old before Darwin wrote Origins, and changed their minds. Its only todays obstinate Creationists that insist science must be wrong, and lie to people that you cant be a real Christian if you dont have the same interpretation as them.

Ed

Interesting, I have never seen this being said by the creationists. Very interesting.

Then you must visit the Origins Theology board in the Christian-Only section.

This is a very common creationist assertion.

 

[gluadys]

Let me ask you this, what does creation, toc, the creationist believe about our origins. (Choose whatever word you accept as having a definition) not what the organizations tell you, or what the evolutionist tells you to believe, but what the creationist actually believes and make it a bit more challenging, why do they say they believe what they do (the number one arguement against the toe).

Number one reason:

The bible (which they often mislabel "God") says that....

And by that they mean "The bible --as read literally--says...."