Why are creationists always wrong?

[uberd00b]

In several years following this debate I have noticed a bit of a trend.

I have lost count of the many times I have seen threads posted on message boards proclaiming some sort of final and irrefutable refutation of evolution.

There are some on this board at this very moment.

Yet upon reading these threads it becomes quickly apparent that not only are the points made by the creationists incorrect, they're also often completely dishonest and show an ignorance of science in general.

Should any neutral observer come to view these threads (as I was years ago) they can only come to the conclusion that creationism is based on falsehoods or born of ignorance, as the creationists points are soundly refuted over and over again.

Now, I haven't been keeping score, but I'm fairly sure the scoreline would read;

Creationism nil - Science <insert large number here>

But the question is, why do these creationists, with their book which tells them how the world was made, get it so wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because for some people, being loud is more important than being right.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yet upon reading these threads it becomes quickly apparent that not only are the points made by the creationists incorrect, they're also often completely dishonest and show an ignorance of science in general.

Excuse me --- who are the ones with a 100% error rate --- and even claiming that as a "strength"?

Under the guise of "new evidence," "scientists" are always "correcting" themselves.

 

[TheBear]

Excuse me --- who are the ones with a 100% error rate --- and even claiming that as a "strength"?

Under the guise of "new evidence," "scientists" are always "correcting" themselves.

So I can understand you better, please clarify the distinction between correcting, and "correcting". And, what's the distinction between new evidence, and "new evidence"?

Thanks.

 

[uberd00b]

Excuse me --- who are the ones with a 100% error rate --- and even claiming that as a "strength"?

Under the guise of "new evidence," "scientists" are always "correcting" themselves.

Indeed, as science becomes more accurate, never changing creationism always stays exactly as wrong as it's always been.

That's my point, they're simply incorrect (and that's being generous) every single time.

 

[AV1611VET]

So I can understand you better, please clarify the distinction between correcting, and "correcting". And, what's the distinction between new evidence, and "new evidence"?

Thanks.

This is a crude example, but take the Periodic Table for example. It used to have 70-some elements, until others were discovered. So they "corrected" it to reflect the new elements added. Yet still the Table is incomplete, and they end up "correcting" it again, and again, etc. How many times do you "correct" something, before it is finally correct? So evidently there's a difference between something that is correct, and something that is correct.

As far as the "new evidence" --- sorry for the confusion --- I mean that as a direct quote, not a figure of speech.

 

[TheOutsider]

Yet upon reading these threads it becomes quickly apparent that not only are the points made by the creationists incorrect, they're also often completely dishonest and show an ignorance of science in general.

If they weren't ignorant of the science, they wouldn't be Creationists anymore, now would they?

 

[TheOutsider]

This is a crude example, but take the Periodic Table for example. It used to have 70-some elements, until others were discovered. So they "corrected" it to reflect the new elements added. Yet still the Table is incomplete, and they end up "correcting" it again, and again, etc. How many times do you "correct" something, before it is finally correct? So evidently there's a difference between something that is correct, and something that is correct.

As far as the "new evidence" --- sorry for the confusion --- I mean that as a direct quote, not a figure of speech.

Wait, you mean that you actually took Vene's signature seriously?

 

[AV1611VET]

Indeed, as science becomes more accurate, never changing creationism always stays exactly as wrong as it's always been.

That's my point, they're simply incorrect (and that's being generous) every single time.

Is the Periodic Table of the Elements correct as it stands?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait, you mean that you actually took Vene's signature seriously?

It was someone's signature that made me think of the Periodic Table as an example.

 

[necroforest]

This is a crude example, but take the Periodic Table for example. It used to have 70-some elements, until others were discovered. So they "corrected" it to reflect the new elements added. Yet still the Table is incomplete, and they end up "correcting" it again, and again, etc. How many times do you "correct" something, before it is finally correct? So evidently there's a difference between something that is correct, and something that is correct.

As far as the "new evidence" --- sorry for the confusion --- I mean that as a direct quote, not a figure of speech.

It might never be correct. Science asymptotically approaches perfection. Also note that there are different levels of 'correctness'; it's not an absolute true vs. false. There's a really good quote regarding this, which has unfortunately escaped my memory.

 

[[serious]]

yes, the periodic table is correct as it stands.

not only that, it's also complete to current day technologies. It's quite likely every element that has ever existed is on that table. Any further addition will likely only come from us making them.

 

[TheBear]

This is a crude example, but take the Periodic Table for example. It used to have 70-some elements, until others were discovered. So they "corrected" it to reflect the new elements added. Yet still the Table is incomplete, and they end up "correcting" it again, and again, etc. How many times do you "correct" something, before it is finally correct? So evidently there's a difference between something that is correct, and something that is correct.

As far as the "new evidence" --- sorry for the confusion --- I mean that as a direct quote, not a figure of speech.

I think I get it now.

Your approach is of a 'final answer' mindset. You've got your 'final answers' in the Bible. In this mindset, things are either 100% right, or 100% wrong.

If science took that approach, there would be no such thing as 'modern medicine'. Actually, it wouldn't be science at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

It might never be correct. Science asymptotically approaches perfection. Also note that there are different levels of 'correctness'; it's not an absolute true vs. false. There's a really good quote regarding this, which has unfortunately escaped my memory.

Well, in any case, I don't plan on spending an inordinately large amount of time explaining why I put a word in quotations - (for Pete's sake).

 

[AV1611VET]

yes, the periodic table is correct as it stands.

not only that, it's also complete to current day technologies. It's quite likely every element that has ever existed is on that table. Any further addition will likely only come from us making them.

Oh well, I'm sure there are better examples. I immediately though of Phlogiston and heat theories, but am too lazy right now to look them up.

It started out as something, then was corrected to something, then was corrected to Phlogiston, then was corrected to something, and was eventually corrected to what it is now.

(I can't remember right now, but I believe heat is defined as the total amount of kinetic and potential energy in an object; whereas temperature is defined as the average amount of kinetic energy in an object --- or something like that.)

 

[TheOutsider]

It was someone's signature that made me think of the Periodic Table as an example.

Ha! You did take his sig seriously. I can't wait for him to see this.

Anyways, to address your point: No one ever said that the Periodic Table is a completely work. Not one scientists has ever said, "The periodic table is now finished and nothing else will ever be added to it ever. End of story!!" What you are calling "correcting" others would call "filling in". Scientists understand that our knowledge is not complete and do not talk in absolute terms.

 

[AV1611VET]

Your approach is of a 'final answer' mindset. You've got your 'final answers' in the Bible. In this mindset, things are either 100% right, or 100% wrong.

Exactly! Remember how I used to tell people to "get it right the first time"?

If science took that approach, there would be no such thing as 'modern medicine'. Actually, it wouldn't be science at all.

That's fine --- but to claim that something like the Periodic Table is "correct" is, in my opinion, misleading; unless you have more than one definition for the word "correct" - (which you would have to have).

 

[AV1611VET]

Ha! You did take his sig seriously. I can't wait for him to see this.

LOL --- I didn't say I was taking his signature correctly. I said I remembered someone's signature about the Periodic Table, and decided to use the Periodic Table as my answer.

Are you okay?

 

[kingreaper]

Excuse me --- who are the ones with a 100% error rate --- and even claiming that as a "strength"?

I don't know.

It's not scientists certainly.

Scientists have an up to 100% imprecision rate: Every declaration/fact/law/theory arrived at through empirical means is to some extent imprecise: either an approximation or merely part of the story.


But given that Newton's laws are not erroneous, instead being approximate, there's not a 100% error rate is there?


And the strength of science is that when errors do creep in there's a non-zero "error recognition rate" in which errors are found and replaced with accurate information.
Creationism has a 0% error recognition rate and a 90% error rate (the earth seems to exist, as do humans. Outside of that, creationism doesn't get much right)

 

[LittleNipper]

In several years following this debate I have noticed a bit of a trend.

I have lost count of the many times I have seen threads posted on message boards proclaiming some sort of final and irrefutable refutation of evolution.

There are some on this board at this very moment.

Yet upon reading these threads it becomes quickly apparent that not only are the points made by the creationists incorrect, they're also often completely dishonest and show an ignorance of science in general.

Should any neutral observer come to view these threads (as I was years ago) they can only come to the conclusion that creationism is based on falsehoods or born of ignorance, as the creationists points are soundly refuted over and over again.

Now, I haven't been keeping score, but I'm fairly sure the scoreline would read;

Creationism nil - Science <insert large number here>

But the question is, why do these creationists, with their book which tells them how the world was made, get it so wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME?

I would ask you how any honestly sane person could imagine that everything creationists have to say is totally wrong, a lie, and in error. Even creationists do not believe that concerning everything uniformitarians and evolutionists have to say. Doesn't this in fact call into question the biases of evolutionists and their seeming inability to think outside their "naturalist" box in search of truth?