Why are creationists so threatened by science?

[RickG]

I am not threatened by science at all. Real science proves creation!

.....makes me wonder what you mean by real science.

 

[variant]

Maybe it's because it says that the Only source of love that I have ever recieved, and know to exist, is being disreguarded. And then replaced by a group of people that want to reduce me to a monkey's uncle.

Your source dosen't say enough about biology to be athoritative.

I have a personal relationship with God, and I wish you could experiance it. By saying my know experiance that is more real to me than any words, doesn't exist. Is insulting. And it's hollow of you to disrespect my believes by comeing to a Christian Forum to do it.

I am not disrespecting your beliefs, I am saying they are irrelevant to the facts and evidence.

You call me biased, but all I am biased towards is objective evidence, and you sit here and expect me to take your subjective experience of God proper as good reason to disregard good evidence that I can access.

And then, you lecture me on science?

And real science proves my stance. And you just cant show a color blind person color.

I have considerable doubts as to your ability to even conduct objective testing on this subject let alone judge others abilities.

But one thing stands true "If you are wrong, you aren't going to be happy!"

Wrong about what? I may be an atheist but this is a discussion about biology. If I am wrong about biology then the worst that happens is that I am wrong about biology and will have to adjust my views when new evidence comes to light.

Are you capable of that?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Maybe it's because it says that the Only source of love that I have ever recieved, and know to exist, is being disreguarded. And then replaced by a group of people that want to reduce me to a monkey's uncle.

I have a personal relationship with God, and I wish you could experiance it. By saying my know experiance that is more real to me than any words, doesn't exist. Is insulting. And it's hollow of you to disrespect my believes by comeing to a Christian Forum to do it.

Science doesn't care about being respectful, it doesn't hide the truth just because it might offend someone. The evidence points to evolution, abiogenesis, and a 4.54 billion year old Earth, regardless of what this does or does not mean for your faith.

So alleging that evolution is false because it upsets you is a rather poor claim to make - reality doesn't bend to our wishes.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Maybe it's because it says that the Only source of love that I have ever recieved, and know to exist, is being disreguarded.

The only source you ever received? Sounds like you've never received a lot of love in your life -- no offense intended.

And then replaced by a group of people that want to reduce me to a monkey's uncle.

Distant cousin, actually -- but I suspect you're not interested in the details.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't think creationists are threatened by science. I think the threats come from belief systems that try to use science as a foundation. Look at any "peer reviewed"/ pop science article and you'll see large parts that are just conjectures, guessing, presumptions and the like. For goodness sake its a tragedy that a culture that prides itself on reason and logic would fall to such fallacious ways.

Why are you conflating peer-reviewed literature with "pop science?" They are not the same.

 

[Split Rock]

Except for...abiogenesis...

Abiogenesis has nothing to do directly with the theory of evolution. Is there something about abiogenesis hypotheses that contradict the theory of evolution?

stasis in fossil record...living fossils..

This is called stabilizing selection. If there is no pressure to change, then change doesn't occur. However, even in the case of so-called "living fossils," there are differences between them and their ancestors in the fossil record. They are just not very dramatic.

.and what else?

I don't know... so far you haven't actually come up with any...

 

[Ken-1122]

Evolution runs on so many gaps (missing links), you could drive a universe through it.

Whether you agree with everything science puts out or not, you gotta admit; at the end of the day science can sit back and proclaim (as I said before) it has filled many holes once occupied by religion; forcing religion to scamper off looking for new holes to fill. Do you suspect religion will ever be able to say that about science?
Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I am not threatened by science at all. Real science proves creation!

Can you give an example of science proving creation? Hint; one of the reasons creationism is not taught in science class in public schools is because (real) science does not prove creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can you give an example of science proving creation? Hint; one of the reasons creationism is not taught in science class in public schools is because (real) science does not prove creation.

Well isn't it obvious that if science does not prove creation that that is not real science

Someone needs to learn what science is and I don't think it is you Ken

 

[CabVet]

.....makes me wonder what you mean by real science.

Probably the science that agrees with his interpretation of creation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I Look at any "peer reviewed"/ pop science article and you'll see large parts that are just conjectures, guessing, presumptions and the like.

Perhaps you could cite a specific peer reviewed article and show us what you are talking about?

As far as faith without evidence. This is stealing a definition that isn't extolled in the Bible. Read some of Proverbs it talks heavily of wisdom and knowledge. 1 peter 3:15 tells us (Christians) to have a reason for the hope that is in us. Now I'll grant you that today to many Christians check their brains at the church door, but they also leave their faith at church (that is a big problem).

I was thinking more of Hebrews 11:1 (NIV)

"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

I think this fits in very well with how I have defined it in previous posts. Faith is a belief, or hope, based on unverifiable or subjective evidence.

I think even if someone met God face to face they would even have a hard time holding true to their faith. Look at Israel guided out of Egypt by a pillar of smoke and fire, Red sea was divided in front of them, water came out of a rock, they witnessed plagues sent by God, etc. Miracle after miracle and they still fell away (golden calf and other things).

This atheist would happily convert to christianity if he witnessed these events. Just sayin'.

What if one day science showed that there must be a God? How would the world react?

The same way it would react if science showed that there must be a Roman Pantheon. Would you convert to a Zeus worshipper?

At one time in history that seemed to be the case, with the Big Bang it was the anti religious who stood up and fought the implications (that there was a beginning and someone aka God must have caused it). I think we are seeing the same thing happen in the ID movement today.

The difference being that the Big Bang model produced testable predictions and fruitful research. ID has yet to do that.

 

[RickG]

Probably the science that agrees with his interpretation of creation.

That is kind of what I suspect.

 

[Mediaeval]

They're not. What makes you think they are?

This is why I mentioned their correlation - all these techniques based on unrelated physical phenomena, correlate to the same date.

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

What were your sources? If your claims came from creationist sits you should know to take them with a huge pound of salt.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

can you explain?

 

[46AND2]

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

Give an example, with the source from which you are reading. I'm guessing it was written by a non-scientist apologist.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

What conjectures, specifically? I'm a nuclear physicist, so I'd be happy to go through your objections, but I need a little more than 'there are problems' - what's the source of your information, and what are the exact problems it levies against radiometric dating? If it doesn't give any specifics, then why believe it at all?

Again, I refer you to the correlation of results; if the foundational theory of radiometric dating is flawed, why does it work? Why do the various techniques, based on many independant techniques (C14 dating works on atmospheric carbon, Fe212 dating works on stellar synthesis, etc), as well as non-radiometric techniques, all give the same dates for the same objects? Why do the dates all correlate, if, as you assert, they're fundamentally wrong?

After all, don't forget we can use these techniques to date things of known age, and verify their accuracy. If they shouldn't work, as you claim, we do they?

 

[Mediaeval]

What were your sources? If your claims came from creationist sits you should know to take them with a huge pound of salt.

I found conjecture mentioned in connection with radiometric dating on William Lane Craig's website. I believe he is a theistic evolutionist. The salt issue is important, though. I am actually quite the skeptic and do not accept the ipse dixit of either creationists or evolutionists uncritically. A psalmist once remarked, "All men are liars" (Psalm 116). I can believe God (hence I am a YEC) but, as for my fellow brothers in Adam--bias, fallibility, etc. all detract from the authority of their assertions. Science is not conclusive, as G.K. Chesterton observed, because science has not concluded. Meanwhile, scientists who are Christians have at least an a priori advantage favoring their creditworthiness in that, according to their principles, to lie would be a sin against God. Atheists, however, do not believe that they are answerable to God for what they say.

 

[RickG]

What I have read on the subject suggests that radiometric dating involves conjecture just as evolution does.

I see, could you give an example of this conjecture? I am very curious as I have never come across any such suggestion in the scientific literature.

 

[RickG]

I found conjecture mentioned in connection with radiometric dating on William Lane Craig's website. I believe he is a theistic evolutionist. The salt issue is important, though. I am actually quite the skeptic and do not accept the ipse dixit of either creationists or evolutionists uncritically. A psalmist once remarked, "All men are liars" (Psalm 116). I can believe God (hence I am a YEC) but, as for my fellow brothers in Adam--bias, fallibility, etc. all detract from the authority of their assertions. Science is not conclusive, as G.K. Chesterton observed, because science has not concluded. Meanwhile, scientists who are Christians have at least an a priori advantage favoring their creditworthiness in that, according to their principles, to lie would be a sin against God. Atheists, however, do not believe that they are answerable to God for what they say.

Okay, to start with lets drop all comments and discussion concerning evolution. Evolution being true or false has no bearing on radiometric dating whatsoever. Let's also drop the apologetics and whether one is a Christian, atheist, or whatever. Let's discuss the science and only the science.

Now, what has salt got to do with radiometric dating? Why would it be an issue? No radiometric dating methods are based on a salt of any kind, whether it be inorganic, organic, monoatomic or polyatomic.