The science of creationism: where is it?

[Isambard]

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

I gave you three. Thankyou for ignoring them in favour of your absurd dogma.

 

[Alunyel]

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.

Wikipedia usually quotes its sources at the bottom of the page and on the articles where it does quote its sources, it tends to be pretty accurate. If she still disputes Wikipedia so badly, then she's clearly too lazy to read those sources.

 

[Alunyel]

I gave you three. Thankyou for ignoring them in favour of your absurd dogma.

Force of habit.

 

[Split Rock]

Seriously though, Wikipedia? I expected more from you.

I happen to be a registered contributer to Wikipedia, thank you very much!

 

[Hespera]

Brinny sez.....
Originally Posted by Washington

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.QUOTE////////////



Hespera sez...."out of the mouths of babes" etc. A tweeker can tell you its a nice day, dont make it a bad day. Wiki is a good quick reference, usually well organized.
Going after someone for using it only works IF a more authoritative source shows its wrong.

Now, as for expecting better.... can we expect better than the LOLOLOL level of "debate "from you after this?

 

[Hespera]

biggles 53 sez........You are as much a scientist as I am a daschund.....QUOTE/////////


Hespera sez... we will watch for you to scratch your ear with your back leg, and for someone else to say something that sounds like he knows more than street corner preacher would about science.

 

[juvenissun]

I gave you three. Thankyou for ignoring them in favour of your absurd dogma.

All three are not independent. The origin problem still exists.

 

[juvenissun]

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

Here you go: a creationism.

 

[juvenissun]

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.

I simply ask one question: ASSUME that evolution is disproved, where do you think that any alien comes from?

 

[ragarth]

I simply ask one question: ASSUME that evolution is disproved, where do you think that any alien comes from?

Since we don't know the method by which evolution was hypothetically disproven, I can't say. Perhaps these aliens are a form of life that can evolve even though biological life somehow cannot. Perhaps we are the aliens from the future, perhaps these aliens manufactured themselves. Maybe these aliens were created by earlier aliens.

Regardless of all this, the fact still stands: You can't prove something by disproving it. I take the fact that you ignored the meat of my argument to go after a minor detail that wouldn't change the nature of my argument if it failed as a tacit admission of your inability to back up your hilariously fallacious claim.

 

[BananaSlug]

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

3rd alternative- We've always been here.

4th alternative- Another religion's creation story is right and both the Bible and science are wrong.

 

[Isambard]

All three are not independent.

Yes they are.

The origin problem still exists.

No it doesn't.

<staff edit>

 

[Split Rock]

All three are not independent. The origin problem still exists.

Here you go: a creationism.

One can argue that evolution represents creation of species by natural mechanisms. This is in fact an argument that AVET has made a number of times here. In other words, we all believe in creation.

So you are insiting on a false dichotomy of
A. Creation of species by evolution
B. Creation of species by any way other than evolution.

Then you insist that if A. is disproven then alternative B is proven. But alternative B does not represent a method of creation, but many alternative methods of creation.

 

[juvenissun]

One can argue that evolution represents creation of species by natural mechanisms. This is in fact an argument that AVET has made a number of times here. In other words, we all believe in creation.

So you are insiting on a false dichotomy of
A. Creation of species by evolution
B. Creation of species by any way other than evolution.

Then you insist that if A. is disproven then alternative B is proven. But alternative B does not represent a method of creation, but many alternative methods of creation.

Nonsense. Evolution theory has to include the origin of life. That is part of the evolution.

 

[juvenissun]

Since we don't know the method by which evolution was hypothetically disproven, I can't say. Perhaps these aliens are a form of life that can evolve even though biological life somehow cannot. Perhaps we are the aliens from the future, perhaps these aliens manufactured themselves. Maybe these aliens were created by earlier aliens.

Regardless of all this, the fact still stands: You can't prove something by disproving it. I take the fact that you ignored the meat of my argument to go after a minor detail that wouldn't change the nature of my argument if it failed as a tacit admission of your inability to back up your hilariously fallacious claim.

Yes, I can, if it is a T/F question. That is why I questioned the third option.

 

[biggles53]

Nonsense. Evolution theory has to include the origin of life. That is part of the evolution.

No, THAT is nonsense! Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life on this planet - NOT it's origins.

 

[juvenissun]

3rd alternative- We've always been here.

Who or what is "we"? We know it is not true. There was no life in the primordial earth.

4th alternative- Another religion's creation story is right and both the Bible and science are wrong.

This is still creation.

 

[Isambard]

Who or what is "we"? We know it is not true. There was no life in the primordial earth.

Prove it.

 

[ragarth]

Yes, I can, if it is a T/F question. That is why I questioned the third option.

So you're saying that evolution is a true/false question? -.-
I'll just add that to the list of statements in this thread so far out there they've whooshed by Jupiter and are now headed for a tap dance with Pluto.

I think I'm going to slip out of this conversation, it's headed in a path that feels terribly like stepping in warm chewing gum- it's about as enjoyable as slamming your head into a brick wall (repetitively) and provides about as much benefit.

 

[dad]

I'll go along with everything there except 'known' and 'historical'.

Knowing a person (or personal god) isn't the same as knowing a 'fact' like the existence of Adam and Eve.

If you mean the Bible is historical, this cannot be proven. It is useful in helping understand the history of the Middle East in the Bronze Age, but historians can only accept written accounts for what they are - evidence, not proof.

Historians are limited by what they can know, and the limits of science. The only reason it can not be proven by science of present man, is because our knowledge, and abilities, and range, and science, can only go so far. Why pretend otherwise? Science is not able, or equipped to speak of Adam. That does not mean He never was, or that he was. It simply means science can't go there. If you think it can, let's see you do it!