The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> [bricncalgary] I look at the DNA + RNA and am completely impressed with how God made it

What about the idea that god created a process which created DNA + RNA? Isn't that even more impressive than just making something? I presume that you don't believe that god carves out rivers and mountains and instead, that god created the processes that allow them to happen. If so, how come arriving at DNA + RNA through some process is different from arriving at rivers and mountains through some process?

I really don't have a problem with that. I admit that I am sticking with the Genesis account of creation. The only way I will change my view is when I stand before God and He says to me. "this is how I did it".

Just a comment on scofflaws earlier post about

scofflaw wrote:

However, the minute Creationism stops being a private belief and has a public impact, my tolerance for it entirely vanishes - it stops being a question of your personal belief, and becomes a socio-political question.

No matter what one believes they wish to make their views that are formed by their beliefs 'public' as they think that their views are the correct views. So you're personal views about there being no god become the view that forms all your opinions. You in turn carry this into every aspect of your life.

scofflaw wrote:

I do not care what your religious beliefs are, and would not ordinarily intrude. However, the Creationist chooses to intrude on science, debasing and demeaning it in the name of his religious beliefs - an unwarranted and aggressive intrusion leading nowhere useful. ?

And here you show your true colours. Christian viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science and you will not tolerate it.

I find this interesting that we Christians are constatntly accused of being intolerant. Think about it, we have had this whole thread on a Christian forum which has attacked the Christain faith from all sides and everyone is still here, and welcome because there is a certain civility that has occured.

However you admit to being intolerant and Christians not welcome.

Please explain?

Son Goku

However, the Creationist chooses to intrude on science,

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here you show your true colours. Christian viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science and you will not tolerate it.

Most scientists are Christian so it would be difficult to not welcome Christian viewpoints on science. It is Creationism, in the sense of 6,000 year old Earth that supports itself on rhetoric and criticising elements of science without taking the criticisms to their full conclusion, that isn't welcomed.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

No matter what one believes they wish to make their views that are formed by their beliefs 'public' as they think that their views are the correct views. So you're personal views about there being no god become the view that forms all your opinions. You in turn carry this into every aspect of your life.

True - but I do not impose my atheism. Quite aside from anything else, I am not strictly an atheist.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here you show your true colours. Christian viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science and you will not tolerate it.

Not at all. Most of the scientists I know are Christian, and I do not have any problems with their viewpoint.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I find this interesting that we Christians are constatntly accused of being intolerant. Think about it, we have had this whole thread on a Christian forum which has attacked the Christain faith from all sides and everyone is still here, and welcome because there is a certain civility that has occured.

However you admit to being intolerant and Christians not welcome.

Please explain?

You are stretching my words in the usual way. I have stated that Creationism, the doctrine of a small number of Christians, is not welcome when it attempts to lay spurious claim to scientific accuracy. It is not welcome because these claims are polemic, and distort the nature of science in the public view.

Creationism is, therefore, a harmful doctrine. That you believe it is scientifically accurate is evidence of its harmful nature, not of its truth - your views have been systematically distorted.

To claim that this is the same as being intolerant, and unwelcoming of Christians, is the same as claiming that I am intolerant of Islam if I dislike the burqa (actually, worse, since the burqa does less obvious harm). It is a self-serving distortion, and I wish I were surprised.

regards,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

So you're personal views about there being no god become the view that forms all your opinions. You in turn carry this into every aspect of your life.

But that is irrelivent in science.

Science is the exact opposite of religion in this regard, so I can understand how some religious people would be confused, but it doesn't matter who says something, it only matters what they say.

A scientific model or theory must work, independent of who stated it. A theory from a scientists who is a Christian must work when used by an atheist or a Hindu or a Muslim. The fact that the scientist is a Christian should have no bearing at all on their theory.

If a theory can only work if one accepts a certain religion (such as the Genesis theory of creation) then that is scientific nonsense. It is totally unscientific for the offset, it is instead a religious theory.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here you show your true colours. Christian viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science and you will not tolerate it.

Viewpoints are irrelivent. Religion is irrelivent. The only think that matters is the theory and models put forward.

Genesis as a scientific model DOES NOT WORK. 200 pages later and the Genesis model of the universe still doesn't work, and Creationists are no closer to figuring out a way that it can work, except for the "God did it" excuse which is rejected by science as being totally unscientific and by all other religions as being a theory specific to the Abrahmic religions and irrelivent.

The fact that this is a Christian theory is irrelivent. It could be a Hindu theory, it could be an athiests theory. It either works or it doesn't. The fact that a lot of people believe or want to believe that this is how the world was made is irrelivent. Science is not a democracy. Tolerance of a particular religious belief is irrelivent. It does not work as a scientific theory, and on that basis and that basis alone it is discarded.

The aspect that Scofflaw, Bonkey, Son, Robin and myself are "intolerant" of is the idea that a religious theory that would otherwise be rejected as not being correct should be included in science study just because.

I mean do you think any meterologists in the world would give a modern day Viking (and there are a few btw) serious consideration if they put forward the "Thor theory" of how the weather works? Would that be gross religious intolerance if the weather man simply said "Sorry but we know that that isn't how the weather works"

Christian creationists for some bizare reasons think their religion is some how special, that the rules don't apply to them. They can't get Genesis to work without the "God did it" excuse, but no matter it should be included in science anyway, their theories and beliefs should be considered, even if they don't work and are shown to be incorrect.

This is unacceptable, it always has been and it is rather insulting that you term this in the same category as religious intolerance:mad:

If science doesn't comfirm a literal reading of a particular holy book or religious passage that is a problem for the religous followers. You have to find a why to deal with that. Expecting science to simply include Creationists theories, or any religious theories from Genesis to Thor, just because is not acceptable.

I asked you before Brian, why is your religion special?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

And here you show your true colours. Christian viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science and you will not tolerate it.

I would imagine Scoff's true colours are that non-scientific viewpoints are not welcome in the realm of science. That their origins are Christian are irrelevant. They could just as easily be wiccan, pastafarian, atheist...anything really.

My true colours are that I have no problem with non-scientific beliefs being held up as non-scientific beliefs. Where the problem comes in is where people try and steal the mantle of respectability that science has, or cheapen it, in order to further a non-scientific belief.

Creationism is non-scientific. If creationists accept this, I have no beef with them. I have no problem with them invoking a capricious God who did something but made all the scientific evidence suggest otherwise as long as they accept that to do so is non-scientific. It doesn't lessen, cheapen or undermine the scientific model in any way.

But thats not what happens.

What happens is one of two things :

1) The respectability of science is undermined
2) The respectability of science is borrowed

This dichotomy fascinates me. On one hand, Creationists complain about science not being all its cracked up to be, and on the other hand they fight tooth and nail to be called scientific.

How does that work?

Why do they want into a club that they say is so untrustworthy, cheap and false?

I've never heard an explanation, so maybe you could offer me one.

If science is so untrustworthy, misleading and fundamentally wrong.....why would any Creationist want to be associated with it?

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

You are stretching my words in the usual way.

regards,
Scofflaw

I am not stretching your words. You made the statement that you were intolerant of something, I merely asked you to explain. You were given the opportunity to clarify your position.

To qoute wicknight:
The aspect that Scofflaw, Bonkey, Son, Robin and myself are "intolerant" of is the idea that a religious theory that would otherwise be rejected as not being correct should be included in science study just because.

I did not call the rest of you intolerant, just asked for a clarification from scofflaw on his statement. And I apologize if I was not clear on what I was asking.

JimiTime

bonkey wrote:

I'll answer the question, but I want to ask one in return. Actually...two, but they're quite similar.

Do you accept that such a belief is inherently non-scientific

Absolutely!

Do you understand why such a belief is inherently non-scientific?

I would hazard a guess at the fact that the answer is there, and you must make your evidence fit that answer??? Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God so it must seek to answer questions with the information thats currently available.

Hows my aim?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

I am not stretching your words. You made the statement that you were intolerant of something, I merely asked you to explain. You were given the opportunity to clarify your position.

To qoute wicknight:
The aspect that Scofflaw, Bonkey, Son, Robin and myself are "intolerant" of is the idea that a religious theory that would otherwise be rejected as not being correct should be included in science study just because.

I did not call the rest of you intolerant, just asked for a clarification from scofflaw on his statement. And I apologize if I was not clear on what I was asking.

I think it must have been pretty clear that I am intolerant of Creationism's claims to scientific truth. Everyone else seems to have understood this.

You, on the other hand, stated that I was:

BrianCalgary wrote:

...intolerant and Christians not welcome.

As I said, this is stretching my words to an interpretation they will not support, unless you assume that the "scientific truth of creationism" is the be-all and end-all of Christianity - which I think even you will admit that it is not.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane

JimiTime, you have seen all the rebuttals of Creationism offered here, from the detailed scientific ones on star-light, fossil-formation, etc. to denial of the character or scientific credentials of Creationist scientists.

There is little point me going over them again, pointing out the articles where the error is exposed. Check it out for yourself. The main Creationist sites deal with all these issues and offer their own rebuttals. It comes down to how you acount for the Christian scientists who support Creationism (leaving out the question of how this would impact on the veracity of the Bible). Are they lying? Are they insane? Are they moral cowards who have espoused a scientific theory for fear of rejection by their peers? Or are they telling it as they find it, free from the fear of man?

Check out the sites:
http://www.rae.org/revevlnk.html
http://trueorigin.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/
http://www.icr.org/

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime, you have seen all the rebuttals of Creationism offered here, from the detailed scientific ones on star-light, fossil-formation, etc. to denial of the character or scientific credentials of Creationist scientists.

There is little point me going over them again, pointing out the articles where the error is exposed. Check it out for yourself. The main Creationist sites deal with all these issues and offer their own rebuttals. It comes down to how you acount for the Christian scientists who support Creationism (leaving out the question of how this would impact on the veracity of the Bible). Are they lying? Are they insane? Are they moral cowards who have espoused a scientific theory for fear of rejection by their peers? Or are they telling it as they find it, free from the fear of man?

Or, indeed, are they simply convinced that the word of the Bible trumps all others?

cordially,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

And...?

That is a (very flawed) criticism of the computer simulation Ev. Aside from the fact that the paper is deeply flawed its conclusions are largely invalidated by the fact that increase in genetic material has been observed since it was published in 2001.

Was this increase the one discussed and rebutted in this article? - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_22October2001.asp

The physics behind your TV are the same physics that explain how far stars are away from us, how light travels (and at what speed) and the same physics that date the Earth.

This shows how your careless logic leads you to erroneous conclusions: you confuse the physics with the explanation. The physics is the facts, but the interpretation of it may not be. The physics can tell us the actual speed of light, how it travels, etc. but from that we infer several things: the distance to the stars and consequently how far they are away (assuming that the speed of light is constant over space and time). Even the very nature of the universe - its expansion, etc. are very much debated by non-creationists.

Creationists always focus on Evolution as if that is the important bit. They ignore the fact that aside from evolutionary theory, most of science invalidates the Genesis model.

Most of the interpretation of science. Other scientists interpret it differently and it fits the Genesis model.

The same scientific models that allows people to build your TV also tells us that the stars are millions of light years away, and it also tells us that the light from these stars has been travelling for millions of years.

See above.

The same scientific models that allows people to build your microwave also allows us to date the radioactive decay of substances found on Earth and found in the solar system, which tell us that these substances have existed for millions of years.

They only tell us what the present decay rates of the isotopes are, not if they were the same in the past nor how much of the element was originally there. Both these factors can make rubbish of the dating.

The same scientific models that allow us to extract the energy in the petrol in your car also tell us that the petrol is made up of organic matter that existed hundreds of thousands of years ago.

The age of the organic matter is an interpretation of the facts, not the facts themselves. Because science says something that is known to be true, does not mean scientists are right about all their prognostications, as mountains of overturned theories demonstrate.

I could go on (and on and on and on....)

I'm sure you could - I prefer not to follow you round in circles.:D

No, it doesn't

In a recently created universe we would only see approx 0.1% of the stars in the milky way. The night sky would be black apart from a few twinkles here and there. The milky way is one of a trillion galaxies, none of which would be visible to use because the light produced by these stars would still be travelling across the cosmos, and would not reach us for thousands of years.

In a recently created universe we would have observed things that have never actually happened. Stars that appear to have exploded hundreds of thousands of years ago and who's light has only just reached us in the last 150 years, would have actually never existed in the first place. If you want to explain that I'm all ears.

I'll leave it to the scientists: Starlight Wars: Starlight and Time withstands attacks
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4389starlight10-10-2000.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/Default.aspx?qt=starlight

It is only self-contradictory because you make it so. It is only self-contradictory because you are looking for the easy answer. As I said, who said faith was supposed to be easy?

Maybe good and evil, truth and error, black and white, fact and fiction can be the same to you, but in my world they are radically opposed.

So are you saying that you would not believe in God unless the Bible existed to tell you to believe in God?

How is that faith?

The message of the Bible would have to exist if I where to (savingly) believe in God. Believing His message is how He defines faith:
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

The message of the gospel must be heard/read. If we do not have that, we are left without hope, in condemnation.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Or, indeed, are they simply convinced that the word of the Bible trumps all others?

They are of course convinced of that. But if the science they were observing did not support the Biblical account, then they would be lying to say it did. They would have to say something like: All current explanation of the evidence contradicts the Biblical account. We know that the Bible is the accurate one but cannot yet show this from science.

They instead clearly state that the evidence can at least be interpreted as much in support of Creation as against.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Scofflaw said:

They are of course convinced of that. But if the science they were observing did not support the Biblical account, then they would be lying to say it did. They would have to say something like: All current explanation of the evidence contradicts the Biblical account. We know that the Bible is the accurate one but cannot yet show this from science.

They instead clearly state that the evidence can at least be interpreted as much in support of Creation as against.

In essence, either (a) scientists who claim the evidence does not support Creationism are lying or deluded, or (b) scientists who claim the evidence does support Creationism are lying or deluded. One or the other.

How does one resolve this conundrum?

1. One can base one's decision on one's personal experience of scientists. I studied science at school in the UK, at college here in Ireland, and worked as a geologist and environmental scientist here, in the UK, and in Norway. I know a lot of scientists. Not one of them is a Creationist, although most of them are Christian of some denomination or other - nor does any of them consider Creationism anything other than unsupportable by the evidence. Most of them are of good or high honesty and integrity, capable, and intelligent. So, to me, that is one point in favour - your experience will be more relevant to you, and presumably weighs in the other direction.

2. One can base one's decision on one's own judgement. I've looked at a lot of rocks, and thousands of fossils, and would say, in my personal judgement as a trained geologist, that nothing I have looked at fits with the Flood story. Every time people talk about the Flood, they return time and again to the Grand Canyon - spectacular scenery, which actually looks the part. The Wicklow mountains, Donegal, Connemara, Norway, Scotland, Cyprus - not one of these, all of which I have personally crawled over and examined, looks the least bit like it is the result of a single, global Flood.

3. One can go on the basis of numbers - if there is lying, collusion, conspiracy or delusion involved, is it more likely that a small number are deluded, or the majority both now and for the past century? Statistically, it is the former. While the minority opinion has very occasionally proven to be right, it is not the norm. As far as minority opinions go - plate tectonics was a minority opinion in the 1960's, starting at about the same time as the present burst of "scientific" creationism. One of those theories went on to revolutionise the field of geology, and the other remains a fringe opinion.

4. One can triangulate - that is to say, one can consider how many sources that we would expect to conflict actually agree. In the case of Creationism, 99% of those scientists who are creationists are Christians, usually of a specific persuasion - the other 1% come from the other two Abrahamic religions. On the other hand, the camp of people who disagree contains Christians, but also contains every other religion and irreligion under the sun. So certainly we can dismiss out of hand the notion that this is an "atheist conspiracy", because the vast majority of scientists are religious, but do not agree that the evidence supports creationism.

5. One can examine motive. Again, most Christians who are scientists have no reason to deny evidence that supports their religion - indeed, many of them otherwise follow the Bible as faithfully as possible. Again, it is only those who are already convinced of the truth of the Bible who are convinced the evidence supports that truth. These people are wedded to the concept that Genesis is literally true - and if literally true, then it must be scientifically true. For them, there is a lot at stake - as you keep saying, you could not believe the rest of the Bible if you did not believe Genesis to be literally true, so you must find the evidence or abandon your faith. So, you, and other Creationists, have a huge motive for finding that the evidence fits, whereas those whose motive to do so exists, but is weaker, do not find that the evidence supports Creationism.

6. Finally, one can consider mechanism - how can an honest person claim what is not true? There are a variety of answers to this question. First, one can claim not to know the science oneself, but to trust those who do (and who agree with you). Second, one can have only a passing knowledge of the science outside one's particular discipline (which itself might not be very relevant to the questions involved), and assume that the evidence is there even though one doesn't see it oneself. Third, one can avoid overclose examination of anything that doesn't seem to agree, but study very closely that which does - this is 'cognitive dissonance'. Fourth, one can simply assume that any piece of evidence that doesn't seem to fit with the mainstream theory is actually a crippling blow to it, and that the alternative is necessarily one's own theory. Fifth, one can consider a part of the question open (say, that of design), and from that allow oneself to assume, again, that one's preferred theory is therefore admissible. Sixth, and most commonly, one can assume that one's beliefs are true, and rather than looking at the evidence for ones own belief, one can hunt for evidence that challenges the other belief.

So, at length, I personally conclude that

(1) those scientists I know personally, and whose honesty I have no reason to doubt, do not think the evidence supports creationism

(2) I personally have seen that the geological evidence doesn't fit Genesis, in my judgement as a geologist

(3) it is more likely that the 0.01% of scientists who are creationists are deluding themselves, than that everyone else is, over a matter where the evidence should be extremely clear

(4) the 99.99% of scientists who don't think the evidence supports creationism include representatives of almost every religion, including some who are Biblical fundamentalists otherwise, whereas the 0.01% who think the evidence does support creationism consists almost entirely of Christians from Biblically fundamentalist sects

(5) the 99.99% of scientists who don't think the evidence supports creationism include many who would have a motive for finding that it does, whereas the 0.01% who think the evidence does support creationism consists entirely of those with an extremely strong motive to believe that this is the case

(6) I don't think it is necessary to assume either dishonesty or insanity amongst those who believe that the evidence supports creationism. In nearly all cases, creationists do not seek evidence that supports or refutes their own beliefs - they concentrate on finding evidence against the mainstream belief, and simply assume that problems for evolution equate to support for creationism, because creationism is the default position for Biblical fundamentalists.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

Was this increase the one discussed and rebutted in this article? - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_22October2001.asp

No.

wolfsbane wrote:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlight.asp

You have got to be kidding me? Seriously you have got to be frecking kidding me?

These guys invent there own new form of physics to make this works. They throws out standard theory and simply says things like "light can travel at infinate speed." Nothing to back this up. Nothing to support that claim, other than the Bible. No acknowledgement of the established theory that such a claim contradicts. Seriously, are you kidding me?

I mean seriously Wolfsbane, if it was that easy we would all be doing it :- "Got a new theory Wicknight?" "I sure do!" "Great, have you shown it works?" "Yup, had to invent my own form of physics, but it follows my made up laws perfectly" .... :rolleyes:

BTW the two articles you posted both contradict each other (Newton even states Humphrey's is wrong), and then Newton then goes on to not answer the question.

His theory is that the universe is actually 10 billion years old as proper science claims, but to someone standing on Earth 6,000 years ago it appears that the universe was created in 6 days, as God went through the universe creating stars at different points in time so that all the light from these stars hits Earth at exactly the right time, 4 days after the Earth was created. So 4.3 years before day 1 of Genesis he made Alpha century, and 100,000 years before day 1 of Genesis he made the edge of the milky way.

God must have also made stars that had exploded, ie the remains of exploded stars that never actually existed, because we can see them. So the question still remains, why made it look like star that never existed exploded? Newton doesn't answer this question, though at the start he claims he would. Nonsense

BC, if you want to see what the great object to Creationism, what has got all the scientists with bees in their bonnets, this is a perfect example. Making a new physical law up on the spot just to make the theory work. Nonsense, utter nonsense. Even AnswersInGenesis in later articles were backing away from this, claiming that Newton was "refining his theory" (read realised it is complete nonsense and is trying to figure out a way to fix it)

BTW since Humphrey's "theory" (I use the term losely) and Newtons "theory" are both contradictory, which do you believe?

wolfsbane wrote:

Maybe good and evil, truth and error, black and white, fact and fiction can be the same to you, but in my world they are radically opposed.

They why do you continue to be lead that is the lie of Creationism.

Is following a comfortable lie easier to you than following a difficult truth? As I said, who said faith was supposed to be easy?

CiDeRmAn

I guess the point of science, the answering of questions about the world around us using logic and experimentation to probe problems and further question previous answers runs straight against the christian ideal that the bible fundamentally can't be called into question, it can't be wrong or mistaken in any way, therefore the only thing to do is prove that the data from experimentation is in fact wrong.
This would be akin to someone in a scientific field becoming so fixated on a pet theory that, despite evidence pointing to at the very least the requirement to finetune or alter his pet theory, he has so much invested in it that he refuses to see his own fault and contiues to try to prove the evidence misleading, a universal picture of "Bad Science".
And this is precisely what creation scientists are, scientists performing bad science, the very term "creation scientist" is itself an oxymoron.

bonkey

In 1916, Albert Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity. The effect on mainstream science is hard to overstate. While we know, with hindsight, that Einstein's work was a major leap forward, at the time it was far from clear that any weight should be given to anyone - no matter how respected - suggesting that Newton was fundamentally wrong.

For three years, there was the same type of showdown as we see in this thread between proponents and opponents of Creationism. After three years, an eclipse offered the first opportunity to empirically test a situation where Einstein's Theory of Relativity differed in its prediction from Newton's established models.

The rest, as they say, is history.

A lot of Creationist proponents here are arguing that Creationism is scientific. I believe there is a simple challenge which can test this belief. It should already be clear what it is.

I challenge any Creationist to point to any falsifiable prediction of Creationism which differs to the falsifiable predictions of mainstream science.

Please note - the existence of "macro evolution" is not such a test, unless one clearly defines in advance what constitutes macro-evolution.

The observation of increasing genetic complexity may be such a test, but again, some pre-definition and discussion there would be necessary (given, for example, that mainstream science accepts that genetic complexity is almost entirely distinct from gene-length).

Indeed, given that I believe that a disagreement with evolution is fundamentally at the heart of the issue, I would suggest that it does not constitute a suitable test-space. Creationists already reject many findings in mainstream evolution, so finding that they disagree on an issue wouldn't be terribly surprising.

No..what I had in mind was more to do with the other areas of science. I'm wondering if there is a single area where Creationism makes testable, falsifiable predictions, rather than simply trying to "remodel" what science has already determined. For example, do the papers he drew reference to in his last post make any falsifiable predictions? If so, what are they and do they disagree with mainstream science? If they do disagree, are they testable? If they are testable, have they been tested?

Ultimately, Creationism seems to me to be a reactive process - where it seeks to re-explain the already-explained. I'd like to be proven wrong. I'd like to be shown that it has made - or is making - testable, falsifiable predictions, and that these predictions are holding up.

There are no shortage of topics where mainstream science is making predictions, testing those predictions, and finding time after time after time that their ideas stand up. Can Creationism say the same? As it redefines area after area in order to ensure that the old-universe theory is undermined, does it make any predictions of its own? Or does it simply attempt to re-explain those tested predictions of maintstream science when they're inconvenient?

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote:

JimiTime, you have seen all the rebuttals of Creationism offered here, from the detailed scientific ones on star-light, fossil-formation, etc. to denial of the character or scientific credentials of Creationist scientists.

There is little point me going over them again, pointing out the articles where the error is exposed. Check it out for yourself. The main Creationist sites deal with all these issues and offer their own rebuttals. It comes down to how you acount for the Christian scientists who support Creationism (leaving out the question of how this would impact on the veracity of the Bible). Are they lying? Are they insane? Are they moral cowards who have espoused a scientific theory for fear of rejection by their peers? Or are they telling it as they find it, free from the fear of man?

TBH, I have Faith in God and Christ. Nothing is going to change that. I believe in Adam and Eve though scientists would ridicule the notion. However, I will not speak as a creationist scientist. I would only be regurgitating the works of a man I don't know and the science of which I am in ignorance, so I'd prefer not to contradict the scientists on the forum, just probe them in their scientific understanding. If there was a creationist scientist here, I'd do the same. But there isn't unfortunately. Thanks for the links though.

Zombrex

For some reason this thread, and Creationism in general, reminds me of the old joke everyone used to do in school

"What is blue and fluffy?"

"Umm... don't know?"

"Blue fluff! What is green and fluffy?"

"Ummm... green fluff?

"No! Blue fluff died green. What is yellow and fluffy?"

"Ummm, green fluff died yellow?"

"No! Yellow fluff"

And so on ......

Also if God mades a blue ball and then makes it that the ball always appears to be green, what colour is the ball?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

For some reason this thread, and Creationism in general, reminds me of the old joke everyone used to do in school

"What is blue and fluffy?"

"Umm... don't know?"

"Blue fluff! What is green and fluffy?"

"Ummm... green fluff?

"No! Blue fluff died green. What is yellow and fluffy?"

"Ummm, green fluff died yellow?"

"No! Yellow fluff"

And so on ......

Also if God mades a blue ball and then makes it that the ball always appears to be green, what colour is the ball?

Depends on who is looking at the fluffy ball.:D

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Depends on who is looking at the fluffy ball.:D

Indeed it does.

A scientist will conclude its green, as every observational test will confirm this as per Hobbes definition.

Thus, logically, anyone who concludes it is not green is not approaching the issue scientifically*.

So you can indeed say "its not green, it just looks that way", but you can't say so scientifically.

So once we accept that anyone who does not agree that the ball is green is not approaching the problem scientifically, we've no problem.

jc

* The blind, colour-blind, etc. excepted. Such people should instead conclude they are not equipped to tell what colour it is for sure.

bonkey

Incidentally....do creationists have an explanation / method for ice-core dating?

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

Incidentally....do creationists have an explanation / method for ice-core dating?

As far as I remember, they argue that the banding in ice cores actually represent days, or even single snowfalls, rather than yearly layering. The same argument is used against varves.

This argument rests solely on the "common sense" that of course one snowfall should be separate from another, and the "observation" that in fresh snow, this produces a form of banding.

Now, one can determine that the layers are annual by a variety of methods - isotopic ratios (O18/O16 ratios are different in summer and winter snow), chemical changes, etc, but these are all dismissed as "interpretation".

No counter-proof is offered that the layers are daily/snowfall rather than annual, other than "it stands to reason".

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote:

As far as I remember, they argue that the banding in ice cores actually represent days, or even single snowfalls, rather than yearly layering. The same argument is used against varves.

This argument rests solely on the "common sense" that of course one snowfall should be separate from another, and the "observation" that in fresh snow, this produces a form of banding.

Now, one can determine that the layers are annual by a variety of methods - isotopic ratios (O18/O16 ratios are different in summer and winter snow), chemical changes, etc, but these are all dismissed as "interpretation".

No counter-proof is offered that the layers are daily/snowfall rather than annual, other than "it stands to reason".

cordially,
Scofflaw

So that would make it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis which differs from that of mainstram science.

Interesting.

Considering that one would imagine creationists actually want to show that mainstream science is wrong, and that their version is right, it is somewhat unfathomable that they not persue these situations, where they can establish that their claims are valid.

One could argue that they don't have the resources to do this, but then one would have to explain why the Creationist Museum was fundable, but the alleged science it purports to be reflecting was not.

Strange, eh?

JimiTime

Something I've just thought of as regards science in general. By the definitions that scientists have been giving for science, is the 'assumption' of anything inherrently non-scientific?

Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.

If we take the definition above, does this not contradict the scientific model? or is there a better way to describe what has been described as 'assumption' in science? Just a thought.

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Something I've just thought of as regards science in general. By the definitions that scientists have been giving for science, is the 'assumption' of anything inherrently non-scientific?

Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.

If we take the definition above, does this not contradict the scientific model? or is there a better way to describe what has been described as 'assumption' in science? Just a thought.

It's a good question.

Strictly speaking, theories are not science. Science is a method for testing theories.

You may generate hypotheses as you like, using whatever assumptions you like - whether your hypotheses are scientific or not depends on whether they can be tested by science.

(This sounds a little strange, I know, but it produces the following possible outcomes for any hypothesis:

1. not testable = not scientific
2. testable & fails = scientific, but invalid
3. testable & has not failed yet = scientific, and valid

"Valid" here means "acceptable as a possible explanation".)

Now, the assumptions you use are part of your hypothesis, so ideally they should be testable also. An untestable assumption does not invalidate a hypothesis as such, as long as it does not impart this untestability to the hypothesis.

Any theory in which we assumed a substance X would be unscientific if we simply ascribed to X every property necessary to make our hypothesis work, plus the additional property of being undetectable, particularly if we had no reason to do so. If there was a reason why it might be undetectable with current instruments, then our hypothesis is suspect, but not outrightly ridiculous.

A good example of this is the Higgs boson. It is predicted by various theories, but is also predicted to be undetectable by current equipment. Is it unscientific? Well, it should be detectable by the Large Hadron Collider, when built, so it is given the benefit of the doubt both on that basis, and on the basis that the rest of the theory works. Even so, a fair number of scientists regard it as unscientific (and call it the 'God particle').

Another good example is the germ theory of disease. It assumed microscopically tiny creatures, which were simply not observable at the time. It made predictions (about transmission etc) that were testable, so it gathered some support before the advent of adequate microscopy - but the acid test was the observation of microbes - that is to say, the testing of what had originally been an assumption.

Assumptions, therefore, may initially be made as part of the process of hypothesising. However, the assumptions should be defensible - not obviously false, nor gratuitously untestable, nor so loosely specified that they could mean anything. On the positive side, they must be explicitly stated and obvious to anyone reading the work.

It is also worth pointing out that there are different types of assumptions:

First, there are cases where the assumption is what is actually being examined - we say "assume stars are big balls of gas : what will their properties be if that is the case?" and then test the predicted properties against the observed properties.

Second, there are cases when the "assumptions" are the outcome of previous work. Here, the assumption is that the previous work is correct.

Third, there are major assumptions like uniformitarianism - that the rules applied in the past as they do now. Again, most of these have been tested, so they are moving closer to the second type.

I apologise for the long explanation - really, all that is necessary is the first statement!

Science is a method for testing theories (hypotheses). If you don't test your hypotheses scientifically, then you are not doing science, because science is the testing, not the hypothesising.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote:

Something I've just thought of as regards science in general. By the definitions that scientists have been giving for science, is the 'assumption' of anything inherrently non-scientific?

Assume: to take for granted or without proof; suppose; postulate; posit: to assume that everyone wants peace.

If we take the definition above, does this not contradict the scientific model? or is there a better way to describe what has been described as 'assumption' in science? Just a thought.

All science is is assumption, since it is the in build realisation that we can never know anything for certain (we can never know that we have all the rules of the chess game)

But there is a difference between assumption and unfounded assumption. There is a very good reason that science assumes that the speed of light is the same outside the solar system as it is inside the solar system (given the same conditions of course). There is not a very good reason to assume it isn't (some might disagree, but genesis is not "a very good reason")

There is a very good reason that science assumes that gravity will not just disappear tomorrow, even though we don't actually know gravity won't dissappear tomorrow. If it did our model of the universe would be updated (assuming anyone was left alive to do so)

If we didn't assume these things we would never get anything done. If we didn't assume that the speed of light would be the same tomorrow there would be little point in building your computer or TV set.

The issue isn't finding thing that are definiately correct. That is actually impossible. The issue is building models that help us predict and understand the universe around us better. We naturally have to make assumptions doing that, but we have to back these assumptions up with reason.

Take the ball example given above. Say there are two theories with ball, one that it is green, and the other that God made it to only appear green and that it is actually blue. Both are assumptions.

The first assumes that the ball is reflecting photons back at a particular wavelenght, and that this wave length is the same wave lenght for the colour green. We assume that the nature of light has not changed since we last defined what "green" is, we also assume that the ball is reflecting light based on the normal model of how this happens with other material. We assume that nothing unidentifiable is effecting the light between the ball and us, since we cannot identifiy anything doing this.

The second theory then adds in the "God made it originally blue" bit. This is also an assumption, but what is the reason given for this assumption? The ball is not blue to the scientists. We have not identified anything between the ball and us changing the light, and all known scientific models and our understanding of light energy is telling us the ball is green. We have no model of "God" or how something would happen if God did it, so we have no system to tell if God has or has not done something. The only thing the blue ball theory has going for us is the religous faith of those who follow the religion. Is that a good enough reason to accept the assumptions needed for this theory to be accepted? Most scientists would say no. The important thing to remember here is that that does not mean science is saying that God did not make the ball blue and then make it appear green. Science is saying we have no valid reason to accept the assumptions necessary for that theory, and as such they are not included in the model.

Son Goku

What do Creationists make of the fact that humans have vestigal tails?
Including cases where the tail isn't surpressed in the womb and the child is born with a 7 inch tail?

These have complete musculature, nerves and blood vessels and are moveable.

They're obviously sinners, and their parents too

wolfsbane

Son Goku said:

What do Creationists make of the fact that humans have vestigal tails?
Including cases where the tail isn't surpressed in the womb and the child is born with a 7 inch tail?

These have complete musculature, nerves and blood vessels and are moveable.

Just another evolutionary tale.:D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3284435&dopt=Abstract
http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro07.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-development.asp

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Just another evolutionary tale.:D

It's not going to be that easy. I said what do you make of it. I'm not using it to prove we evolved from apes or any other animal, because it isn't decent evidence of that, I'm asking what do you think it is.

The fact is certain humans are born with these tail like structures, what do Creationists make of these tail like structures. Their existence isn't an evolutionary fairy-tale, even though the link to ape ancestors might be.

In other words what do you think they are?

And here is a child doctors report in a medical journal:
http://www.jbjs.org.uk/cgi/reprint/62-B/4/508.pdf
Nothing to do with evolution.