The science of creationism: where is it?

[uke2se]

Possible.

That is one consequence of a long and scattered argument. I might have ignored the link and took on a more obvious weakness. This is not my stuff. If I can give an easier argument, why should I take a harder one?

Uhm... you asked him where his sources were because you wanted to check the data. He gave you his sources. The sources presented are two peer-reviewed scientific articles. That's about as good a source as you could wish for.

If it's not your "stuff", you probably should just conceed the point and admit that you can't provide any counter to his arguments. Science is about finding and interpreting facts, not about providing simplified arguments.

 

[brinny]

Consider the following taken from the opening paragraph of the article in Wikipedia explaining "Creation science."

"Creation science or scientific creationism is the movement within creationism which attempts to provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution."
​

So I would think that in order to "provide support for the religious Genesis account of creation, and disprove accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms on the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution" that one would have to marshal scientific evidence to make any kind of a case. Now there are scientists who are creationists. In fact, several creation web sites like to tout the credentials of their scientifically trained members; however, I have yet to find any peer reviewed work by any scientist, creationist or otherwise, whose findings support creationism to the detriment of evolution; to say nothing of any such scientific work that's been specifically aimed at doing so.

So I again ask: where is all this science that is suppose to give credence to the "science" by which these creationist like to identify themselves? As far as I can see this use of "science" is no more meaningful than had they called their enterprise, "Lollipop creationism." which just might be a more accurate label.

Wikipedia?! Are you kidding me? It's a bit like the swiss cheese of resources....there's holes all in it. C'mon, seriously, is that the only resource you checked out? LOL

 

[Alunyel]

Thank you both. Now you are defending the interpretation of the data.

I don't understand even 5% of your argument. So, I am not going to walk into the trap. But, the conclusion of the discussion is obvious: Any piece of data evolutionist brought up, there ARE different interpretations given by creationist. In most cases, the best response an evolutionist can give is saying nonsense, but no more.

I could not judge the quality of argument by creationist on this topic. So, as long as the argument exist, I am satisfied. On the other hand, if the argument is geological, I don't think your argument can even last longer than one post. I will not ignore your answer, I will beat it to death.

What you're essentially saying is that you have no idea what the evidence actually is, but as soon as a creationist puts forward his point of view, without even attempting to understand that view, or the evidence in the first place, you accept that their view makes the evidence for evolution invalid, without even considering the obvious fact that the creationist doesn't understand the evidence either, in the first place.

There is no "interpretation" on evidence. Evidence is evidence, it leads to a logical conclusion, not an interpretation. The Bible is what takes interpretation, don't try to apply that to evidence. A person's interpretation is subjective, whereas a logical conclusion isn't.

 

[Hespera]

Juv..nobody asked you to change an answer just to GIVE a couple of quick answers so its possible to figure out what you are talking about. You need to make an extra effort as your English is incomprehensible sometimes.

If you want to think of excuses for avoiding committing yourself to any concrete statement, that is understandable. Whether I "laugh" or not, you know and I know that you are no professor, and that i can shred you.

 

[Alunyel]

If you want to think of excuses for avoiding committing yourself to any concrete statement, that is understandable. Whether I "laugh" or not, you know and I know that you are no professor, and that i can shred you.

I'm not putting his poor English against him, I get the impression it's not his first language.

I just try and understand it and wind up having no idea what he's on about and guessing.

 

[Hespera]

Alunyel sez.......I'm not putting his poor English against him, I get the impression it's not his first language.

I just try and understand it and wind up having no idea what he's on about and guessing.QUOTE/////////////

I would not put someone down for that either. I'd have to put down most everyone in my family too!

English isnt my first language either, but i worked very hard to learn it.

I have seen Juv write better when he makes an effort.

NOT making any effort is to me a sort of insult to the audience. Like saying they are not worth any effort. May not be intended, but its an inevitable impression. Turn in a resume scrawled in crayon, see if it shows respect! Or gets respect. I dont think I need to belabour that point.

Also, when something is written poorly it often is ambiguous, or impossible to discern the meaning. I can second guess with the best of them, but asking for some clarification is a lot easier than arguing for a dozen posts over an unintended meaning.

i said earlier that here at the U, speaking for myself and what I observe- people are very forgiving of a foreigner learning English.

I had a stats prof that i could barely understand a word he said.

What WILL get scorn tho is a windbag who doesnt know what he is talking about.
No patience at all for that. i think we are talking with someone who does not know his material. Plenty of indicators of that.

You know, I could pretend i was an, oh, architect. i could sit down with for coffee with some architects. How long do you think it would take them to smoke me out as a fake? Depends on how long it was before I said something. Even a lot of bad English wouldnt save me.

 

[juvenissun]

What you're essentially saying is that you have no idea what the evidence actually is, but as soon as a creationist puts forward his point of view, without even attempting to understand that view, or the evidence in the first place, you accept that their view makes the evidence for evolution invalid, without even considering the obvious fact that the creationist doesn't understand the evidence either, in the first place.

There is no "interpretation" on evidence. Evidence is evidence, it leads to a logical conclusion, not an interpretation. The Bible is what takes interpretation, don't try to apply that to evidence. A person's interpretation is subjective, whereas a logical conclusion isn't.

I don't think you are honest (again). The reference I cited was written by a medical doctor. I believe he knows what he is talking about. On the contrary, I think you are not willing to consider his argument.

 

[Alunyel]

I already did.

It's largely flawed, I explained why in an earlier post. You said you didn't understand either the argument against ERVs being evidence of evolution, or my rebuttal to it but said that the existence of said argument is enough for you to not accept it. That only highlights your unwillingness to learn, especially if you know what it is that you're unwilling to learn goes against what you want to believe. A stereotypical creationist trait.

He claims that because there are ERV markers in modern day species, say chimps, that aren't in the genome of their closest relatives, say humans, that it isn't evidence towards evolution.

That whole argument is very, very wrong, because it assumes that all of the ERV markers were gained in a genome before the common ancestor species branched off into two seperate species. Which is wrong, because since that common ancestor, both chimps and humans have caught ERVs that the other hasn't, after that divergence in their acnestory, so they won't be in the same place. It's the ones that are in the same place that acts as very conclusive evidence towards evolution, the ones that don't appear in the same place within the human and chimp genomes, or are in one genome and not in the other, are largely irrelevant.

If that's all a creationist medical doctor (Probably the owner of a mail-order doctorate.) has to say about it, then creationism is in very big trouble.

 

[Hespera]

Juv sez..I don't think you are honest (again). .QUOTE///////////


hespera sez... The professor cuts straight to his strongest argument... the ad hom.

 

[Hespera]

Alunyel sez...If that's all a creationist medical doctor (Probably the owner of a mail-order doctorate.) has to say about it, then creationism is in very big trouble.QUOTE////////////


hespera sez... aint a case of IF. Creationism has never come up with anything.

unless you count the ad hom, and the ordinary prevarication. those are good. so is
"my interpretation is that it indicates a creator".

But hey since these creds are so important for theocreos, maybe i should join them.
I have a mail order dr of divinity degree. Nice card to go with it. i should be able to hold forth with creo-adequate authority on anything, pretty much. "She is, after all", they will say," a DOCTOR of DIVINITY: So she knows."

 

[Isambard]

To disprove evolution is very very simple. Simply raise a question which they can not answer. That is all it takes.

My recognition is: if I disproved evolution, then I proved creation. Because there is not a third possibility.

Lamarkian evolution.
Aristotlian evolution.
Aliens.

 

[Hespera]

juv sez
Originally Posted by juvenissun

To disprove evolution is very very simple. Simply raise a question which they can not answer. That is all it takes.

My recognition is: if I disproved evolution, then I proved creation. Because there is not a third possibility. QUOTE/////////////////


hespera sez. wow. why on earth didnt we think of this before. the possibilities are endless. lets ask a theist what moses ate for breakfast on his 10th birthday. Cant answer? uh oh.............

I THINK what Juv might be trying to say is, find a way to falsify one significant aspect of the TOE and you may knock the whole thing down.

So go ahead! Falsify something and get the Nobel Rrize!

Take out physics too, ask them something they cant answer, like, "what is the unified field theory" "how do you make cold fusion". They will see that physics is falsified, and go home.






​

 

[ragarth]

To disprove evolution is very very simple. Simply raise a question which they can not answer. That is all it takes.

My recognition is: if I disproved evolution, then I proved creation. Because there is not a third possibility.

... Juv, please, study the philosophy of science before making statements like these. You can't prove a theory by disproving another, that's just ridiculous.

 

[juvenissun]

... Juv, please, study the philosophy of science before making statements like these. You can't prove a theory by disproving another, that's just ridiculous.

Logically, you are right. But until you tell me the third alternative, I am right.

 

[Split Rock]

Logically, you are right. But until you tell me the third alternative, I am right.

Sure, here it is:

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

Open Letter To Kansas School Board - Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

 

[ragarth]

Logically, you are right. But until you tell me the third alternative, I am right.

Okay, I've had enough time to stop giggling like a mad hatter. First off, if we look at your statement there are three possibilities from your given philosophy: You fail to disprove evolution, you disprove evolution, you destroy evolution to the point of unuseability. In every case you do not prove creationism, you only manage to disprove evolution. In the first case obviously evolution is preferable because it is the best known explanation for what we see. In the 2nd case you have failed to prove that creationism is better because you have put forth no positive proof for it, ergo even though evolution is a flawed answer it still answers more than creationism (answering 1 question is better than answering 0) and so evolution will be used till a better solution comes along. In the final possibility evolution is unuseable as an explanation, but you have still failed to provide an effective solution since you have provided no positive proof for any theory. Ergo we will be left with a void of explanations until such time that someone provides positive argumentation for a given hypothesis.

Now, your statement has shown an absolute misunderstanding and lack of knowledge about the scientific process and of the philosophy of science. Your failure to understand the interplay of positive and negative argumentation shows a deep lack of understanding of this subject. I highly suggest you do some serious research before making your next post on this subject.

As per your statement that this is a binary situation of either there's creationism or evolution. Forgetting the possibility of neither, there's panspermia, raelienism, lamarkian evolution, and space toilets from an alien space craft. New theories of speciation can be developed around temporal and transdimensional phenomena, alien super computers, and the spontaneous derivation of species through icecream. Every one of these is a better explanation than creationism. Why? Because they make testable claims, they explain evidence succinctly without being overly broad, and don't rely upon the supernatural.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by juvenissun

Logically, you are right. But until you tell me the third alternative, I am right.QUOTE///
​

Nuh uh, I'm right. Prove me wrong


So now the thread has finally devolved to its essence: 2nd grade level . "

Is so!!!" vs "Is NOT!!"

I thini juv wins on that level, he said it first.

This is below the limits of human dignity to take part any more. bye bye

 

[Washington]

Wikipedia?! Are you kidding me? It's a bit like the swiss cheese of resources....there's holes all in it. C'mon, seriously, is that the only resource you checked out? LOL

If that's the best you can do, using the Appeal to Ridicule, then we have a good idea of how inadequate you feel around the subject. You have my sympathy.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
Wikipedia?! Are you kidding me? It's a bit like the swiss cheese of resources....there's holes all in it. C'mon, seriously, is that the only resource you checked out? LOL

If that's the best you can do, using the Appeal to Ridicule, then we have a good idea of how inadequate you feel around the subject. You have my sympathy.

Seriously though, Wikipedia? I expected more from you.

 

[Washington]

Seriously though, Wikipedia? I expected more from you.

As long as a source is correct, which in this case Wikipedia is, then I have absolutely no problem in using it as an introduction to an issue. That you seem to require a more scholarly source to serve such a simple purpose strikes me as excessive if not a bit snobbish. But be that as it may, please join us, if you're capable, in discussing the actual issues.