Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[James Wilson]

James Wilson wrote: When is a scientific argument won by "You're a liar!"

girne responded: "No arguments are ever won by "You're a liar" however, what else can be said to a person who is telling lies? You can wrap "You're a liar" in really nice words and make them sound really nice but if the outcome is that the person still thinks you are saying "You're a liar" then what's the point? it's much easier and more to the point just to say "You're a liar". If the person happens to be a creationist then saying "You're a liar" is not really necessary as denying, twisting and altering the truth are part and parcel of being a creationist."

This is so important to the future of Science, I have to hit it a 2nd time (perhaps I should have made my first reply terribly long).

We scientists are all searchers (apparently I have to put my bonafides down in order to be amongst the august scientists. I have almost 40 papers published in national and international science journals (none of them creationists). One of the papers involved the correction of a computer code used throughout the world for calculating accident frequencies for nuclear power. My company of 7,000 employees (Idaho National Engineering Lab) paid my salary and a programmer's salary to make the fix in that internationally used computer code.

And we are all believers because we all have a 'belief box' that the scientific method NEVER looks into. Read the following re-post from another thread.

'Belief Box' Explained

​

James Wilson said: "You would be a smarter person if you realized you have a belief box."

FrenchyBearpaw replied: "I think outside the box."

Nostromo replied: "Who said I make such an assumption, and how would I test it if I did?"

Mzungu MADE A VERY INSIGHTFUL STATEMENT: "Having a belief box is a very vague description. It all depends on many things such as principles, social influence, upbringing, etc. An example being:"

"A die-hard creationist will stick to his "Belief Box" no matter what, while a moderate may accept to change some of his "belief box" views. This generally applies to all people in general."

"It is unfair to claim that all creationists are the same. In fact just by reading the thousands of posts debating creationism; I have come to the conclusion that there is great variation between creationists."

AV1611VET ALSO ASKED AN INSIGHTFUL QUESTION (HIS SECOND ONE): "What is a "belief box"?"

"Is that the sum total of all the beliefs held by a person at any given time?"

Mzungu REPOSTED IN RESPONSE TO AV1611VET’s TWO QUESTIONS: "That is a good way of putting it. Like I said "belief box" is a very vague term."

I (James Wilson) would like to address all of these comments in one post, if I may.

Thomas Kuhn was a scientific historian, that is, he studied Science in the past to learn lessons for today. He popularized the term, “paradigm shift”.
A paradigm is a model. A paradigm shift is a rapid increase in scientific knowledge without necessarily using any new facts, just by enclosing those facts in a new model or paradigm. An example of such a shift is the move from Newtonian Science to Relativity Science (I use ‘Relativity Science’ instead of ‘Quantum Science’ because many more facts had come to light by the time of the paradigm shift of ‘Quantum Science’).
One thing constantly puzzled Kuhn, “Why are the intellectual giants of the past so wrong?” Their soaring intellectual achievements were always mixed with atrocious error.
In 1962 he proposed in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that scientists are influenced more by their Culture’s assumptions than the facts before them. And then they label these assumptions as ‘fact’.
“Insane!” shouted angry scientists throughout the world, “We are only influenced by pure fact!” The uproar forced him to recant shortly before his death. Just as the Church forced Galileo to turn against his new, controversial ideas, now Science denies free thinking in our educational system (in awarding of degrees, grading of tests and in our peer-process used to approve publications and awards).
What does this interchange teach us? That a large part of what we accept as true, is only firmly held belief. Widespread, supported by our peers, but belief and assumption, nonetheless. Yet it’s true that in essentially every field of study, little of sense and significance can be declared without some basic assumptions.

I gave an example recently in this thread ("The reason creationists do not win debates") about the ‘belief box’ assumption of a closed universe.

I’d like to give a fresh example that lies at the heart of the equation E=mc2:

Hendrik Lorentz derived two solutions for his famous equation, one solution a real number, the other imaginary (involving the square root of “-1”). Since the imaginary number didn’t make sense, he discarded it.
Albert Einstein looked at this “impossible” solution involving an imaginary number and asked, “What if?” His relativity equations (published in 1905) gave birth to nuclear power (E=mc2) and were based upon the “impossible”. We must be very careful not to arbitrarily exclude areas of scientific research, just because they seem “impossible” or bordering on the religious.

Lorentz had in his ‘belief box’ the statement: “Imaginary numbers cannot be used to describe reality”.

Einstein did not have the imaginary-numbers statement in his ‘belief box’.

As other postings have stated, this ‘belief box’ is of necessity a very vague term. It is not my intent to try to discern what assumptions are in your ‘belief box’. All I want to say is: EVERYONE HAS A BELIEF BOX. LORENTZ DID (PREVENTING HIM FROM MAKING THE VERY REASONABLE, MATHEMATICAL DISCOVERY OF E=MC2!). EVOLUTIONISTS HAVE THEM, EINSTEIN HAD ONE, CREATIONISTS HAVE THEM.

As a consequence of everyone having a ‘belief box’ that influences their logical derivations, NO ONE CAN SAY, “I’m right because I used logic to determine every one of my principles truths”!!!!!

One more illustration, and then I’m done with this post:

Descartes (1596-1650), the Father of French Science, discovered the refractive index of water and created analyti­cal geometry. It bothered him that scientists of his day could not separate facts, assumptions and superstition. So he decided to do the same for Science that he had for analytical geometry: eliminate all assumptions and superstition, creating the perfect Science.
In trying to strip away all assumptions in life, he got stuck on how to prove his own existence. We’ve all experienced this: We find ourselves in a truly drastic situation, to realize later that it’s only been a dream.
After a long time wrestling with this problem, he came up with his rallying cry, “I think, therefore I am!” But philosophers since then have countered, “Just because you think doesn’t mean you exist. You may be dreaming you are thinking!”
So, if you would like to purge all assumptions from Science, you’d have to go back to Descartes’ problem, first prove that you really exist right now, and build up Science from there.

This statement is extreme (I believe it’s true, but if it upsets you, just skip over it and read the last paragraph).

It is very difficult to escape the influence of your ‘belief box’. Many of the assumptions therein have been drilled into us by our educational system (Thomas Kuhn made this astounding declaration in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).However, a very powerful and enabling first step is to recognize that YOU DO HAVE A BELIEF BOX! From this understanding, you can move on to reduce the biasing effects of that ‘belief box’.

​

One added thought: If you truly understand this belief box you'll recognize that the scientific method is completely defenseless to correct the assumptions in that belief box. If any of you biased evolutionary scientists get this far, ask me how the assumptions in the belief box can be 'corrected' and I will give you the standard approach.

 

[sandwiches]

USincognito asked: "James, did you miss this post? It's been up for two days and you haven't addressed a single bit of it."

I guess I was disappointed in the intellectual content of the debate. I made a sincere statement and the response came back, "You lied!"

I might have missed the post(s?) but I didn't see anyone say you lied in this thread. Care to quote them or link to them?

 

[Nostromo]

I'll take that as confirmation of my statement.

Would that make him a Holocaust denier too?

 

[sandwiches]

I'll take that as confirmation of my statement.
Here's a hair you may split. _____________

That you think it's merely splitting hairs, Sky, points to your inability to understand even basic English. He saying that he's never seen or written any scientific papers that say that the supernatural doesn't exist. Merely that no scientific paper uses the supernatural as an explanation for anything.

Did you get that or does it need to broken down a bit more for you?

 

[James Wilson]

James Wilson said, “I guess I was disappointed in the intellectual content of the debate. I made a sincere statement and the response came back, "You lied!"”
Sandwich said, “I might have missed the post(s?) but I didn't see anyone say you lied in this thread. Care to quote them or link to them?”



Before I answer that, I'd like to ask, "Is this an important point in my post? I don't think so (after all, shortly after I posted this, girne responded with "You are a liar" several times in one paragraph). I spent over an hour collecting all the evidence of being called a liar. A waste of time, I think. Can you try to make you posts on a more meaningful topic next time?



First of all, so far, only girne called me a liar in this thread. I was addressing my general discouragement of being called a liar on the Christian Forum. The first occurrence came on a different thread.



Since it seems important to you, I will try to reconstruct it (it will have to be by cut-and-paste because I do not yet have 'link' priviledges).



In the thread, "Is Genesis consistent with mainstream scientific knowledge??" Wiccan Child charged repeatedly that I was lying.



It started after this comment:
James Wilson said, The only question is, is a Bible-believer CONSISTENT in believing in a God smart enough to create a world that can fool an evolutionist into believing in a falsity. After all, the Bible claims that God loves to prove men foolish in their wisdom.

Wiccan Child said, “Then God is a trickster deity, an author of confusion, and utterly untrustworthy. If he would deceive us in every molecule of creation, why should we believe him when he says, "I am the way, the truth, and the light. No one goes to the Father except through me"?

James Wilson said, "You complained that the Bible must be wrong because it said that God proves men foolish in their wisdom, for that would make God a deceiver."

Wiccan called me a liar again for my paraphrasing of his comment immediately above. I thought I had honestly tried to represent Wiccan's position as I understood it, but he emphatically said I had lied.

In the next case, I again attempted to understand and refer back to something Wiccan had said, as follows:


Wiccan Child said, “Did he [God] also create the light from supernovae that never actually existed?
James Wilson said, "You argued that God could not create a nova with light already approaching Earth." (I said this because I thought that Wiccan felt a Young Earth must by definition exclude supernovae millions of lightyears away. I would allow supernovae at that supposed distance because of the "creation with age" theory. This "creation with age" theory may be illustrated by Eve being created for Adam as a mate he could immediately enjoy, not as a baby).

However, this was another case where Wiccan called me a liar for misunderstanding what he was saying.

 

[USincognito]

[/FONT][/COLOR]Wiccan Child said, “Did he [God] also create the light from supernovae that never actually existed?
James Wilson said, "You argued that God could not create a nova with light already approaching Earth." (I said this because I thought that Wiccan felt a Young Earth must by definition exclude supernovae millions of lightyears away. I would allow supernovae at that supposed distance because of the "creation with age" theory. This "creation with age" theory may be illustrated by Eve being created for Adam as a mate he could immediately enjoy, not as a baby).

However, this was another case where Wiccan called me a liar for misunderstanding what he was saying.

Creation with age is the work of a trickster. AV, after years of having his butt handed too him, finally came up with the "Creation with maturity" dodge. That's not the work of a trickster, but it's also not what we observe. What we observe is "Creation with history". That is a fiat adult Adam with a navel (classic Omphalos conundrum) and a scar from when he fell on a rock when he was a toddler and a healed broken wrist from when he fell out of the Tree of Knowledge as a tween.

Check out Supernova 1987A for an example of what WC was talking about and the problem with the age/maturity vs. history issue.

 

[SkyWriting]

Creation with age is the work of a trickster.

Not really. Is "dirt" a trick? God created dirt.
Was Adam a trick? "Word" is he could talk and walk.
Is Oxygen a trick? Its made by plants over time.
Was Jesus a trickster or is a proper sized eye a good idea for a blind man.

Sorry. The "trick" claim fails.
Everything God does would be a "trick" because it comes from God instead of by pure chance.
"Creation with history" is not at all accurate. Look up "history".

 

[SkyWriting]

That you think it's merely splitting hairs, Sky, points to your inability to understand even basic English. He saying that he's never seen or written any scientific papers that say that the supernatural doesn't exist. Merely that no scientific paper uses the supernatural as an explanation for anything.

Did you get that or does it need to broken down a bit more for you?

That being by agreement of the parties. An open Cabal Conspiracy.
Check my Englishy terms.

 

[SkyWriting]

.....That's called intellectual dishonesty, quote mining and is the logical fallacy of a straw man. If you think that "get(s) to a point", good for you. Just don't expect the honest reader to take your comments seriously.

Thanks Advice-man. Call it as many names as you can think of.

 

[SkyWriting]

Would that make him a Holocaust denier too?

Inflammatory efforts get one banned in many forums.
I should write the staff.

 

[Belk]

Not really. Is "dirt" a trick? God created dirt.
Was Adam a trick? "Word" is he could talk and walk.
Is Oxygen a trick? Its made by plants over time.
Was Jesus a trickster or is a proper sized eye a good idea for a blind man.

Sorry. The "trick" claim fails.
Everything God does would be a "trick" because it comes from God instead of by pure chance.
"Creation with history" is not at all accurate. Look up "history".

Look up 1989A&A...220...83B Page 83

 

[SkyWriting]

As a consequence of everyone having a ‘belief box’ that influences their logical derivations, NO ONE CAN SAY, “I’m right because I used logic to determine every one of my principles truths”!

Glad to see that in print. It's a common statement by people who refuse to give details.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks Advice-man. Call it as many names as you can think of.

If you look at Cog's stats, he does just over 6 posts per day.

Given that CF currently has 290,895 members, and in light of the fact that he would aim any of his posts at you or me, out of that many members, I would say we're pretty important people in his eyes, wouldn't you?

We need to thank him for making us look so special --

 

[Nostromo]

Inflammatory efforts get one banned in many forums.
I should write the staff.

Then use any example you like. Would you call him a French-language-denier if he refuses to use French in his papers?

 

[James Wilson]

USincognito said, "Creation with age is the work of a trickster."

I immediately paged down to respond, but found SkyWriting had already beat me to it with an excellent reply:

Not really. Is "dirt" a trick? God created dirt.
Was Adam a trick? "Word" is he could talk and walk.
Is Oxygen a trick? Its made by plants over time.
Was Jesus a trickster or is a proper sized eye a good idea for a blind man.

Sorry. The "trick" claim fails.
Everything God does would be a "trick" because it comes from God instead of by pure chance.
"Creation with history" is not at all accurate. Look up "history".

 

[SkyWriting]

If you look at Cog's stats, he does just over 6 posts per day.Given that CF currently has 290,895 members, and in light of the fact that he would aim any of his posts at you or me, out of that many members, I would say we're pretty important people in his eyes, wouldn't you? We need to thank him for making us look so special --

Granted. Except it usually means I haven't done my homework.
I can't count the times my well researched posts with links
to relevant, respected information sources get zero response.
( a future effort...maybe)

 

[USincognito]

Oh my, the semantic and red herring responses in this reply are flabbergasting. And the fact that JW finds them "excellent" is astounding.

Not really. Is "dirt" a trick? God created dirt.

No it isn't nor did he. "Dirt" is the combination of rock broken down into small particles combined with broken down organic material. "Soil" as we know it, didn't exist until about 400 million years ago when a combination of eroded rock, minerals and organic material first formed it.

This again plays into my point about "dirt" having the appearance of history, not of "maturity" or "age". It has the latter two, but not without the former.

Was Adam a trick? "Word" is he could talk and walk.

Oh wow! You got me. Except you completely ignored the salient point I made about Adam having the appearance of history from his scars resulting from a childhood that supposedly didn't exist. That is what we see on the earth and in life. It didn't just "appear" ready to chat up created ladies and magical fruit. There's a history to the solar system, the planet and to life on it that predates and nullifies any fiat scenario.

Is Oxygen a trick? Its made by plants over time.

Yet another red herring that scientist RW finds "excellent"? Wow. You're really not that good at this debate as you think. Oxygen was not part of the original atmosphere of the earth and didn't come around until the earliest beings like stromatolite bacteria and algae had evolved.

Was Jesus a trickster or is a proper sized eye a good idea for a blind man.

Was the blind man created by fiat in 30 A.D. with a navel, scars on his knees from a fall in 15 A.D. and pock marks from a bout of smallpox he suffered two years earlier? If not then this is another red herring not actually addressing the issue of age/maturity vs. history.

Sorry. The "trick" claim fails.

Your hubris amuses me.

Everything God does would be a "trick" because it comes from God instead of by pure chance.
"Creation with history" is not at all accurate. Look up "history".

Huh? Do you realize you're repudiating millenia of Christian doctrine?

 

[USincognito]

That being by agreement of the parties. An open Cabal Conspiracy.
Check my Englishy terms.

An "open Cabal Conspriacy"? That is an "Englishy" term.

 

[USincognito]

USincognito said, "Creation with age is the work of a trickster."

Wow. You Creationists love the quote mining don't you...

Creation with age is the work of a trickster. AV, after years of having his butt handed too him, finally came up with the "Creation with maturity" dodge. That's not the work of a trickster, but it's also not what we observe. What we observe is "Creation with history".

Since I've eviscerated SW's non response - filled with red herrings and straw men as it was - perhaps you JW, since you're a scientist, you'd like to address Supernova 1987A and it's ramifiactions regarding the "appearance of age" vs. the appearance of history.

Looks like Mr. "I can't count the times my well researched posts with links
to relevant, respected information sources get zero response." doesn't have his irony meter calibrated.

 

[James Wilson]

USincognito said, “Check out Supernova 1987A for an example of what WC was talking about and the problem with the age/maturity vs. history issue.”

Belk said, “Look up 1989A&A...220...83B Page 83"

Aside from the fact that Belk’s reference labeled “1989A” went to an article talking about “1984A”, USincognito seemed to think it should be 1987A. I read Belk’s link and was impressed with the number of times the author used the words, “this is controversial”, “with these assumptions” (or words to that effect).

I went to Wikipedia (Horrors! I know I’m breaking all the rules by trusting Wikipedia, but I want a second opinion, an overview and something current). I noticed the following things of interest about 1987A (in case this was what Belk was really trying to say):
1. The star was determined to be a ‘blue supergiant’, an impossibility by current science
2. Speculations are rampant: “the star may have merged with a companion star prior to the supernova” and “blue giant Sanduleak -69° 202a was about one-tenth as luminous as the average observed type-II supernova, which is associated with the denser makeup of the star”. Much speculation resulted from there being no evidence of a neutron star, “A number of possibilities for the 'missing' neutron star are being considered, although none is clearly favored. The first is that the neutron star is enshrouded in dense dust clouds so that it cannot be seen. Another is that a pulsar was formed, but with either an unusually large or small magnetic field. It is also possible that large amounts of material fell back on the neutron star, so that it further collapsed into a black hole. Neutron stars and black holes often give off light when material falls onto them. If there is a compact object in the supernova remnant, but no material to fall onto it, it could be very dim and therefore avoid detection. Other scenarios have also been considered, such as if the collapsed core became a quark star."

Now let me see: Distance to all of these astronomical features is important because it helps astronomers determine brightness (is it a very bright star very far away or a dim star closer?), velocity (the closer a speeding object is, the greater its apparent speed), and size/mass.

Dr. Halton Arp, a pioneer in this field and the first to use red-shifted light to calculate distance, questioned his own calculations because of the indefensibility of his initial assumption that the red-shifted star must be fleeing away from the Earth at near the speed of light. He questions then the distance calculations most astronomers use, which could be biasing the results they calculate. See his website for additional data backing his view (haltonarp.com)


Is there any other ‘strange’ stuff possibly resulting from these miscalculated distances:

• Star mass moving at greater than light speeds (sorry, you perfectionists, I read this years ago and don’t have a reference. But you guys asked me to look up 1987A on my own, so you can do the same).
• Dark matter needed to fill in the gaps of this artificially expanded universe
• Established and trusted rules breaking down with new sightings

One of the key ‘tells’ to a theory that is breaking down is just this kind of ‘strange’ behavior and new data coming in that violates the theory.

Then you guys come to us and cite these collapsing theories as proof of your ‘vision’. Get your science straightened out before seeking new converts!