Why are creationists always wrong?

[thaumaturgy]

But in the meantime, you'll [have no choice but to] consider us "wrong," right?

Au contraire. Creationists, if they were to provide data in support of their claims, and provide it in a scientifically robust manner it would be considered.

Everything is open to question. But that does not mean all hypotheses are equal.

 

[Ryal Kane]

I was thinking about this the other day, given that there's been a dearth of letters to the local paper on the crevo debate.
I'm pretty sure that I've never met a creationist who understood the theory of evolution. They rail against it with a passion but have no idea what it actually says. at best they battle a straw man.

I can understand it for some people but it seems to me that 100% of creationists have a faulty understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

When Mendeleev devised his periodic table he left empty spaces and predicted the properties of elements that would go there.

And guess what happened? New elements (eg. gallium and germanium) were found and Mendeleev had got their properties quite right.

Mendeleev knew that his table was incomplete. He knew he didn't know everything. He was correct within the knowledge of the time, and he remained to be correct when more knowledge was gained. His theory wasn't so much corrected as expanded. Ain't that cool?

I think the periodic table is one of the best ideas of all science.

 

[Naraoia]

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.

Well, yeah, phlogiston is a better example. That one was actually found to be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I can understand it for some people but it seems to me that 100% of creationists have a faulty understanding of the theory of evolution.

And there's nothing wrong with that. As Paul put it ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:2[/bible]

I don't need to know the composition of ink to know that it doesn't belong in my cereal.

 

[Naraoia]

And there's nothing wrong with that. As Paul put it ---

[bible]1 Corinthians 2:2[/bible]

I don't need to know the composition of ink to know that it doesn't belong in my cereal.

There's nothing wrong with not understanding the ToE.

The problem starts when they insist it's wrong without understanding it. It's like me telling a physicist that there are no black holes.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem starts when they insist it's wrong without understanding it. It's like me telling a physicist that there are no black holes.

Once again, I don't need to know the composition of ink to know it doesn't belong in my cereal; and I don't need to know the composition of evolution to know it doesn't belong in the Bible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't need to know the composition of ink to know that it doesn't belong in my cereal.

But what if I came along and told you that as the administrator of your neice's school I was going to "teach the controversy" of putting ink into kids milk cartons?

How would you argue against me doing so?

I suspect you'd learn a whole lot about ink composition and all the nasty chemicals that can be in ink real fast and you'd marshall all the science you could to keep me from giving your neice ink-laced milk.

 

[thaumaturgy]

and I don't need to know the composition of evolution to know it doesn't belong in the Bible.

But what if hidden inside "evolution" is a creamy center of holiness? What if, as many theistic evolutionists believe, evolution is how God made all the life around us?

Hmm? Wouldn't you want to know what you are excluding before you exclude it? What if it's good stuff?

 

[Naraoia]

Once again, I don't need to know the composition of ink to know it doesn't belong in my cereal; and I don't need to know the composition of evolution to know it doesn't belong in the Bible.

Evolution isn't supposed to belong in the Bible. It's a model of the real world, you know. So is the Bible. And you do need to understand the ToE to show that the Bible is a better model of the real world. Otherwise the people who understand evolution will never take you seriously.

Of course if you don't want to argue against evolution you are fine to disagree without understanding.

 

[LittleNipper]

You're right I was a bit sweeping in my generalisation. But certainly when it comes to their attempts to knock evolution down they're always factually incorrect in some way.

I'm still fairly sure they've scored no points.

It certainly doesn't lend their position any credence when they're continually proven wrong.

Well, evolutionists may continue to disagree; however, what exactly is their alternative?

 

[Naraoia]

Well, evolutionists may continue to disagree; however, what exactly is their alternative?

I think you should know that pretty well after a few years in this community

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was thinking about this the other day, given that there's been a dearth of letters to the local paper on the crevo debate.
I'm pretty sure that I've never met a creationist who understood the theory of evolution. They rail against it with a passion but have no idea what it actually says. at best they battle a straw man.

I can understand it for some people but it seems to me that 100% of creationists have a faulty understanding of the theory of evolution.

Generalization is really going wild on here lately.

 

[Phred]

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.

So... the Bible... once thought the earth was the center of the universe. Now not so much. You'll tell me the Bible was always correct and mankind was simply wrong in his interpretation of it.

So how is that different from what you've described above? Man's knowledge of the universe is incomplete. As it becomes more complete we fill in what we don't know. When we find we've been incorrect, we correct ourselves. When we find our knowledge is incomplete, we add on.

We'll correct it as many times as necessary. Unlike some I know who will hold to bronze-age mythology no matter how wrong it may be shown to be.

 

[Phred]

Well, evolutionists may continue to disagree; however, what exactly is their alternative?

Creationism is a lie. There is no need of an alternative.

 

[Phred]

Generalization is really going wild on here lately.

Prove him wrong.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Generalization is really going wild on here lately.

I can only talk from personal experience and that's the way I've found it to be. Every creationist I've ever talked to has had a faulty understanding of evolution.
There may be some online or even on this board who I have seen engaged in enough debate to guage their understanding of the TOE.
I however have yet to meet one.

Your implication is that you are an exception to this. If so, please explain your understanding of evolution and why you disbelieve it.

 

[Dragar]

Asimov wrote a wonderful piece entitled The Relativity of Wrong.

"...when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

 

[mpok1519]

I don't think the creationists are wrong.

Why cant the story of creation viewed symbollically coexist with the actuall law of evolution?

the garden of eden was a symbol for man's fall into sin.

evolution is real too.

case closed! both are real and have something to teach and learn from!

 

[Split Rock]

Generalization is really going wild on here lately.

LOL! You have said many times that you are not a typical creationist...