Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is creationism science?
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 76 of 114 (392456)
03-31-2007 3:20 PM


science
Many people misunderstand science, evolution, and creationism.
The misunderstanding is this: creationism is anti science, and evolution is science.
Science is the process that everyone can do.
Evolution and creationism are assumptions used in science to get interpretations.
For instance, creationists assumption is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore can be used to correctly interpret the evidence around us.
Evolutionists assumption is that there is no God, everything can be explained using a materialistic explanation, mainly that: given enough time and chance, improbabilities become probable. So they explain the same evidence that creationists have in a different way.
Example:
World wide distribution of fossils:
Creationists - world wide catastrophe -> *look in bible* -> Noah's flood
evolutionists - *ignore Bible* - time, erosion and whatever processes that forms fossils. Also, fossils lower down in the strata are older -> sequence to how all life forms formed through mutations into other species. Lower species are generally "simpler".
Notice that Creationist and Evolutionists have the same evidence, BUT their interpretations are different. But both apply science to get their interpretations.

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 03-31-2007 3:50 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 78 by Chiroptera, posted 03-31-2007 3:54 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2007 4:31 PM Reserve has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 114 (392458)
03-31-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Reserve
03-31-2007 3:20 PM


Re: science
Evolutionists assumption is that there is no God, everything can be explained using a materialistic explanation, mainly that: given enough time and chance, improbabilities become probable.
I'm sorry but that is simply FALSE, another example of the Christian Cult of Ignorance.
The people promoting the indoctrination of the Christian Cut of Ignorance keep repeating this falsehood in the vain hope that it will not be challenged and refuted, but sorry folk, that statement is simply nonsense.
To say "Evolutionists assumption is that there is no God,..." is at best a sign of ignorance until the person is told otherwise. When it is repeated by any who claim to be educated, it becomes a lie.
Since you are new here I will assume that it is simply ignorance on your part and try to educate you.
In the words of the Clergy Letter Project, an open letter signed by over 10,000 US Christian Clergy:
We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.
Evolution is NOT anti-religion, anti-God or anti-Christian.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Reserve, posted 03-31-2007 3:20 PM Reserve has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 114 (392461)
03-31-2007 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Reserve
03-31-2007 3:20 PM


Re: science
Hello, Reserve, and welcome to EvC.
quote:
For instance, creationists assumption is that the Bible is the Word of God and therefore can be used to correctly interpret the evidence around us.
This is true. Unfortunately, these assumptions then lead to interpretations that are at odds with what we see. For instance, we know that the speed of light is finite. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then we should not be able to see any stars that are more than a few thousand light-years away. But we can.
Creationists try to explain this away by coming up with explanations that themselves lead to inconsistent observations. For example, some claim that maybe the speed of light was different in the past. Unfortunately, we should be able to see signs that the speed of light was different, signs that we do not see.
Similarly, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then reliable radiometric dates should indicate that no rock is more than a few thousand years old, or, perhaps, that the radiometric measurements should be a random jumble giving no consistent dates. Instead, we have consistent measurements that give the ages of rock units up to four billion years old.
Again, some would try to argue that the decay rates of radioactive elements was different in the past, but, like the speed of light, if this were true then there would be evidence seen today that would indicate that the rates were different.
Scientists, for their own reasons, would like to know whether the laws of physics (like the decay rates and the speed of light) have changed and have studied this pretty extensively. The results of these types of studies indicate that these constants have been constant in the past.
-
quote:
Evolutionists assumption is that there is no God....
Actually, evolutionists assume no such thing. All an evolutionary scientist assumes is that the evidence that we see in the present can give us information about the past. There is no reason to expect that such an assumption, if it were not true, would give a consistent picture of the history of life on earth, yet it does.
-
quote:
Creationists - world wide catastrophe -> *look in bible* -> Noah's flood
But detailed analysis of the geologic record shows that there was no global flood. A global flood would have left definite signs that are lacking.
-
quote:
Notice that Creationist and Evolutionists have the same evidence, BUT their interpretations are different. But both apply science to get their interpretations.
I find it odd to hear creationists claim this, since most conservative Christians seem to complain about post-modernism. I, for one, believe that there is a reality that exists independent of what we may believe about it, and that there was a definite history that has occurred regardless of what one believes about it. I also believe that the past leaves behind evidence that can be examined in the present, and that this past can be used to eliminate possible scenarios at the very least, and can even be used to reconstruct the past in many cases.
Creationists proceed by ignoring evidence. The evidence shows pretty clearly that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, that life has evolved over several billion years, and that there was no global flood. Not all pasts are consistent with the evidence that we have today, and creationism is not consistent with what we see today. If creationism were true we would expect to see certain evidence, and we either do not see that evidence or we see the opposite evidence. If evolution were true, we would expect to see certain evidence, and we actually do see that evidence.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Reserve, posted 03-31-2007 3:20 PM Reserve has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 79 of 114 (392464)
03-31-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Reserve
03-31-2007 3:20 PM


Re: science
Well, almost everything you've said is absolutely false.
Evolution and creationism are assumptions used in science to get interpretations.
This is false. Evolution is the scientific theory that explains the diversity and history of life on Earth by the processes of natural selection and random mutation. It is a conclusion from evidence, not an assumption.
Creationism is a modern religious movement associated with conservative, Evangelical Christianity that promulgates falsehoods. When evidence is shown to creationists that contradicts the Bible, they ignore or attack it.
Evolutionists assumption is that there is no God
This couldn't be more false. Evolution is not a theological position; it makes no assumptions about the existence of God. Rather, it's a scientific model that explains the history and diversity of life, and how all living things are related by common ancestry.
I mean, what you're saying is ridiculous. The majority of American churches, as well as the Catholic church, reject creationism and accept the scientific consensus of evolution. Are you saying that none of those churches believe in God? That the Pope is an atheist? That's nonsense.
Creationists - world wide catastrophe -> *look in bible* -> Noah's flood
The problem is that these creationist "explanations" don't actually explain the pattern of fossils as we find them.
The evolutionary model does, which is why it's accepted by the consensus of scientists and creationism is not.
Many people misunderstand science, evolution, and creationism.
Just you, looks like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Reserve, posted 03-31-2007 3:20 PM Reserve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by b b, posted 04-05-2007 7:20 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 80 of 114 (392555)
04-01-2007 9:59 AM


Science
I stand corrected for the most part. Yes, I do understand that many Christians have embraced evolution as scientifically correct. However, I believe that a believe in evolution started with the rejection of the written Word of God. It was then when the theory of evolution became mainstream that some Christians were compelled to accept it as truth, and then came the tasks of fitting this theory with the Bible. It is too bad that one has to change the meaning of some plain and obvious texts, and twist it to make it fit with the current prevailing theory in science, the evolutionary theory.
From what I have read in literature, we have a lot to learn on the laws of physics, and we have a lot to discover yet. In the 20th century scientists thought that we were at the peak of knowledge concerning nature. This however is no longer the case. We are just starting to understand quantum physics and the many particles associated with it. Right now, it is hard for us to know how deep and how many more "fundamental" particles there might be. And this is the nature of science, continually searching and refining today's theories. The more we know, the better our understanding of the world around us.
For instance, we know that the speed of light is finite. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then we should not be able to see any stars that are more than a few thousand light-years away. But we can.
by Chiroptera
It is true, however you are not familiar with how gravity and time dilation at the beginning of Creation can account for this. The theory proposed by Dr. Humphreys says that galaxies at the edge of the known universe is actually 14 billion years old, however, our galaxy and the earth is not. He came up with this theory by using todays laws of physics, but his assumption was that the universe has an edge and centre. Big Bang cosmology assumes no center and no edge and hence no gravity and time-dilation because everything is "smooth" at large distances.
Dr. Humphreys theory can be seen in the book "Starlight and Time".
I know that some responses from you will be to attack the author, but refrain from that, however, attack the theory.
Similarly, if the earth is only a few thousand years old, then reliable radiometric dates should indicate that no rock is more than a few thousand years old
Perhaps, but radiometric dating is still not fully understood in my opinion. We have yet to find more at the quantum level to see how this actually works. Currently we have no way to tell which atom will decay. As well, we do not know why the half life works the way it does. For instance, why does one atom decay very soon, and another will not decay for a billion years?
I understand that these questions do not provide reasons to doubt the dating method. However, there is current research being done to find out if radioactivity could have increased in the past (i.e. at creation, or during the flood). I am a firm believer that God exists, but also, that He gave us His Word, the Bible. And in my opinion, evolutionary theory is in direct conflict with the Bible, and despite many Christians trying to mold the two and the reasons they give forth, it is not sufficient in my opinion.
The evidence shows pretty clearly that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, that life has evolved over several billion years, and that there was no global flood
This is a bold statement and I have to claim this as utterly false. Currently, science HAS NO explanation on how life evolved. The chemical hurdles to try to explain how life evolved remains an obstacle. The design argument bashes evolution without a designer, however God using evolution still works with this observation. Evoltuionists have put forth many stories on how species could evolve, but no empirical evidence supports this. Story telling and speculation, but far from science. The natural selection process observed today coupled with mutations do not lead from single celled to complex multicellular organisms. BUT it does lead to different species and loss of function. Science observes the latter, not the former. No example in nature or in the lab will show how a lower life form can move up the ladder to more complex form using natural selection and unguided mutations. It only goes down hill, (even though it might benefit a species or a new species might come out of it, this is due to destruction of information or switching on/off of certain genes, but not a gain ).
As for the flood, I believe the global layers and fossils observed is direct evidence of a global flood. And what evidence shows clearly that there was no global flood? What about the moon? do you realize the surface closest to earth is more volcanic, and is more smooth due to the "lakes" of lava that flowed once in the past? Do you realize the far side of the moon is covered with small & large meteorite impacts making the surface rough relative with the close side of the moon? Think of this, and you will come to the conclusion that if all those meteorites came from space, they would hit the moon from any random direction and thus the moon would have an even surface all around. It DOESNT. The best, and I mean this, the best explanation is that an event happened on earth, so violent, that this is the only explanation of how the moon looks. (Perhaps the flood). This is explained in more detail in Walt Brown's "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood".
So I would like to see examples of evolution happening today if there is one. Please refrain from using examples of natural selection or a loss of function which benefit a creature (this does not show a complexity gain required to explain how single celled organisms evolved into multicelled, and so on). Just because we can diversify certain species so much to an extent that they no longer sexually reproduce with one another, but only with a subset and therefore a new species has been made, this does not mean evolution (in a general context of moving up the ladder) has been observed. It could be, but one has to show the extra complexity gained by all these mutations and natural selection to show how life moved up the ladder in the first place.
Edited by Reserve, : Sentence was ambigious

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2007 10:34 AM Reserve has replied
 Message 83 by Coragyps, posted 04-01-2007 12:07 PM Reserve has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 114 (392560)
04-01-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Reserve
04-01-2007 9:59 AM


Re: Science
quote:
The theory proposed by Dr. Humphreys says that galaxies at the edge of the known universe is actually 14 billion years old, however, our galaxy and the earth is not. He came up with this theory by using todays laws of physics, but his assumption was that the universe has an edge and centre.
And how has Humphreys tested his theory against the standard Big Bang model? If he hasn't tested it, then he is making stuff up.
-
quote:
Perhaps, but radiometric dating is still not fully understood in my opinion.
And your opinion means what?
-
quote:
This is a bold statement and I have to claim this as utterly false.
So it seems that you are given to bold statements yourself. Are your bold statements justified? How much do you know about the sciences that you are disputing? What is the evidence in favor of the standard scientific understanding, and what is the evidence against? Unless you understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence, then your opinions are just opinions.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 9:59 AM Reserve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 11:46 AM Chiroptera has replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 82 of 114 (392569)
04-01-2007 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Chiroptera
04-01-2007 10:34 AM


Re: Science
Unless you understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence, then your opinions are just opinions.
This makes no sense, I fully understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence. Does this make it less of an opinion?
And how has Humphreys tested his theory against the standard Big Bang model? If he hasn't tested it, then he is making stuff up.
It seems you are not aware of all reasoning behind his theory, using your logic, I can dismiss any claim you have of the Big Bang or any cosmological theory as just an opinion and move on to the next. The only reason why I put this in there is because I realized you do not understand all the theories that creationists have. And thus your earlier post was not accurate.
However if you make a good point on a weakness of his theory, even if you do not fully understand or have a Phd in the area of astronomy, it should be a valid opinion to think about, to either improve the theory or reject it. Because not everyone can think of all the circumstances, and input from whoever has a good opinion whether negative or positive should be welcome.
But you didnt have a good point at all. So no progress can be made. Thanks for that.
And your opinion means what?
It means that radiometric dating is not fully understood by even the professionals. And this is my opinion, but is it a valid one? Think about it yourself, it is valid in certain ways, for not all aspects of radioactive decay are understood. Even though the general process of radioactive decay is.
So, again, you have not submitted something that I can build on, work with, or understand. Again, thanks for the post.
So it seems that you are given to bold statements yourself. Are your bold statements justified? How much do you know about the sciences that you are disputing? What is the evidence in favor of the standard scientific understanding, and what is the evidence against?
I don't disagree, I make bold statements in your eyes because I question the very foundation that you are putting your trust in (i.e. scientists interpretations that point to evolution). Likewise you make bold statements in my eyes because you question the foundations that I have put my trust in (i.e. the Bible).
To say that one needs to fully understand all aspects is to say that one has to be God and be omniscient. Which is stupid. Because why should I have to know everything on chemistry to believe in God. Likeiwse, why should you have to know everything on biology to believe in evoltuion? Fact is, you don't. Everyone has experience in certain fields while others have a general and less understanding of several fields. But in the end, it is you who interpret with what you know and come to a conclusion. Some people are more ignorant than others and this can be said for all sides, including Christians, evolutionists, OEC, etc. But I believe that all sides have people that are professional and have good opinions we can listen to and learn from. There is no need to say that because I do not have a Phd in any area, all my comments should be disregarded, because some of my comments can come from people who have Phd.
Besides, the general purpose is to answer questions that evolutionists or creationists have concerning the creation/evolution controversy. Including my opinion and yours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2007 10:34 AM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Quetzal, posted 04-01-2007 12:13 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2007 12:36 PM Reserve has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 83 of 114 (392572)
04-01-2007 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Reserve
04-01-2007 9:59 AM


Re: Science
Hi, Reserve! Welcome!
I believe that a believe in evolution started with the rejection of the written Word of God.
Where do you get that? Many of the "naturalists" of the early 1800's - the guys who came up with what we now know as geology, palaeontology, and biology - were Christian ministers. But they followed the evidence they found in rocks, fossils, and life, and realized that parts of their scriptures were metaphorical. Not false, not rejected, but metaphor. Like Jesus's parables are metaphorical.
We have yet to find more at the quantum level to see how this actually works. Currently we have no way to tell which atom will decay. As well, we do not know why the half life works the way it does. For instance, why does one atom decay very soon, and another will not decay for a billion years?
And we don't fully understand how the gravitational attraction of the Sun keeps the Earth in its orbit, or why the angular momentum of the Earth should keep it spinning like it does. Do these failures in understanding cause you to question calendar dating? Will you say, "The Norman conquest might not have been in 1066, because we don't know if gravitons exist or not?" I doubt that you would.....
However, there is current research being done to find out if radioactivity could have increased in the past (i.e. at creation, or during the flood.
Increased how many thousand-fold? If the rate of decay increases, the radiation and resulting heat increase in proportion. How much boiling will an ark of gopher wood withstand? Particularly if it's boiling rock?
And what evidence shows clearly that there was no global flood?
All of geology since about 1815.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 9:59 AM Reserve has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 84 of 114 (392574)
04-01-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Reserve
04-01-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Science
I fully understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence.
And:
I make bold statements in your eyes because I question the very foundation that you are putting your trust in (i.e. scientists interpretations that point to evolution).
You do? I mean, you really understand all the evidence? Excellent! I am not a biologist, although I've been working in a closely-related field for the last dozen years or so. I can't claim to have seen even one tiny fraction of the evidence in support of evolutionary theory. However, I can say that all the myriad of observations I've personally made and all the evidence that I've personally seen, touched, smelled and occasionally been bitten by, is entirely consistent with evolution. Not one single anomaly in all those years with my nose in the dirt. Although this is probably not the appropriate thread, I would be extremely grateful if you or someone would educate me as to what evidence or observations implicitly or explicitly calls into question the ToE. I've been known to be wrong in the past, after all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 11:46 AM Reserve has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 114 (392580)
04-01-2007 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Reserve
04-01-2007 11:46 AM


Re: Science
quote:
I fully understand the actual evidence and the reasoning why it is evidence.
Excellent! I have been on these boards for four and a half years (and on this particular board for three and a half years), and I have not yet seen a creationist argue against the theory of evolution or the theories of an ancient earth or ancient universe from a standpoint of knowledge of the evidence and reasoning. I am looking forward to your posts on discussing why the evidence is insufficient or why the reasoning is flawed.
-
quote:
It seems you are not aware of all reasoning behind his theory....
There is are two members here, cavediver and Son Goku, who are very knowledgeable about GR and Humphrey's claims and why they do not hold up. I know they would be very happy to discuss Humphrey's theories with you if you were interested in starting a thread in the Cosmology forum.
-
quote:
I make bold statements in your eyes because I question the very foundation that you are putting your trust in (i.e. scientists interpretations that point to evolution). Likewise you make bold statements in my eyes because you question the foundations that I have put my trust in (i.e. the Bible).
Actually, I used to be a creationist (and a fundamentalist, evangelical Christian). I dropped creationism because I realized that the statements made by the "evolutionists" weren't "bold" but reasonable inferences based on actual data. And that creationists usually have their facts wrong and use faulty logic to draw conclusions.
The difference between evolutionary scientists and creationists is that evolutionary scientists allow the data to lead them to their conclusions, while creationists start with their conclusions and then either force the data into their conclusions or ignore them altogether.
If you want to discuss data and/or the conclusions we can draw from the data there are plenty of threads and forums here to do just that; I find it enjoyable myself. On the other hand, if you just want to state your opinions, then that's alright, too. Just don't expect anyone to congratulate you on coming to conclusions without really understanding the data or the reasoning.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 11:46 AM Reserve has not replied

  
Reserve
Junior Member (Idle past 6179 days)
Posts: 26
Joined: 03-29-2007


Message 86 of 114 (392588)
04-01-2007 1:08 PM


Science
I know they would be very happy to discuss Humphrey's theories with you if you were interested in starting a thread in the Cosmology forum
Chiroptera
I believe confidence started in this thread:
http://EvC Forum: Starlight Within a Young Universe -->EvC Forum: Starlight Within a Young Universe
Not one single anomaly in all those years with my nose in the dirt.
Quetzal
I can't claim to have seen even one tiny fraction of the evidence in support of evolutionary theory.
So you haven't seen evidence in support of evolution, yet nothing is in conflict with evolution? Well, all this evidence is also in harmony with creationism.
As for some chemical hurdles for evolution to happen
chemical chirality
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
polymerization problem
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Unless Jonathon Sarfati doesn't know what he is talking about.
as for the flood
All of geology since about 1815.
Coragyps
I think you meant to say "All of non-creationists geologists interpretations since 1815"
Do these failures in understanding cause you to question calendar dating?
I never questioned radioactive dating because we did not fully understand them. I did not say that anywhere. Besides the gravity comparison is not the same, since gravity is seen on a massive scale, and therefore knowledge about gravity at the atomic level will not change that. However, radioactive dating is done on a atomic level, and it is at the atomic level where other questions on dating lies.
The measurement of parent/daughter elements is not what I call into question, I understand that we can get those numbers very accurately. However these ratios do not mean dates. One must first call upon some assumptions before we can get dates. It is these assumptions that I do not fully agree with, not because I know better but because they question some of my beliefs that I am not yet willing to give up due to other supporting evidence that contradicts some of these conclusions.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Chiroptera, posted 04-01-2007 1:28 PM Reserve has not replied
 Message 114 by Quetzal, posted 04-09-2007 10:10 AM Reserve has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 114 (392592)
04-01-2007 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Reserve
04-01-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Science
quote:
I believe confidence started in this thread:
http://EvC Forum: Starlight Within a Young Universe -->EvC Forum: Starlight Within a Young Universe
You should read that entire thread. Confidence engaged in what is called Making Stuff Up. We explained to him why what he was doing was Making Stuff Up, and why it was a bad way to argue. In response he just Made More Stuff Up.
If there is something that wasn't clear in the responses, you are free to post in that thread. It is still open.
-
quote:
Unless Jonathon Sarfati doesn't know what he is talking about.
That is a pretty good bet, actually. I have read a lot of Sarfati, and he talks a good game, but basically he doesn't know what he is talking about. Again, either his facts are wrong, or he makes serious errors in his reasoning. He doesn't know about science very well, either the facts in the fields that he is talking about, or the overall philosophy and methodology of science. He has a PhD, but he seems to be a case where he is out of his depth once he strays outside his narrow area of expertise.
But the questions you have are all good topics to bring up in the appropriate threads and I welcome you to do so.
-
quote:
However, radioactive dating is done on a atomic level, and it is at the atomic level where other questions on dating lies.
I am waiting for your on radiometric dating to be promoted. I plan on giving a short answer to your questions there (an answer without math -- I can add the math if it turns out to be useful in the subsequent discussion), but I will be interested to see what you think the questions in dating lie.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Reserve, posted 04-01-2007 1:08 PM Reserve has not replied

  
b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 88 of 114 (393549)
04-05-2007 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Chiroptera
03-26-2007 3:39 PM


That sounds reasonable to me. If evidence turns up to show that you are wrong, then shouldn't you admit it? What sort of nutcake insists that she is right even when the facts demonstrate quite conclusively that she is wrong?
The Creator. If you build an automobile(with full understanding of it because you also made all the parts for it) it may seem to some that it should run off of alcohol(I just picked something). The creator/designer would know that it is designed to run off gas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Chiroptera, posted 03-26-2007 3:39 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Chiroptera, posted 04-05-2007 7:42 PM b b has replied

  
b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 89 of 114 (393558)
04-05-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by nator
03-26-2007 6:09 PM


Another way to look at it is that science gets righter and righter every time it corrects itself.
I agree with this; I look at it the same way. Each correction gets science closer to the truth. With the above automobile situation, once they "discover" that the car works better off of gas they know the truth. The creator/designer already knew this. Also the need of correction shows that before correction it was wrong. Before the correction, I'm pretty sure the "facts" seemed to show something else. The facts aren't wrong we just don't understand them until the correction. So yes, science is getting closer to the truth; truth, in this case, being the "stable" reality of what has always been there. The truth does not change.
I'm not saying science is wrong to study, but it has never been the truth(100%).
For those who don't understand how this does relate, Creationism is (supposedly) derived from the creator. Once you believe this to be true; you understand that creationism was here first(without that name of course) and has a totally different method (knowing the truth first and then trying to prove it). I'd have to say definetly not. Creation is truly not a science. I do believe science falls in "my" definition of a religion. A group of ideas/beliefs which explain life. It would just be the most unstable religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by nator, posted 03-26-2007 6:09 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by nator, posted 04-07-2007 7:49 AM b b has not replied

  
b b
Member (Idle past 6131 days)
Posts: 77
From: baton rouge, La, usa
Joined: 09-25-2005


Message 90 of 114 (393561)
04-05-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by crashfrog
03-31-2007 4:31 PM


Re: science
This is false. Evolution is the scientific theory that explains the diversity and history of life on Earth by the processes of natural selection and random mutation. It is a conclusion from evidence, not an assumption.
An ASSumption based on evidence is still an ASSumption. Creationists see the same evidence evolutionists see. We just get something different. Is it truly wrong or ignorant to get something different in the same evidence you see? If you say yes that just shows the usual scientific arrogance. Arrogance that turns to shame around the likes of Christopher Columbus or any who choose not to believe you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by crashfrog, posted 03-31-2007 4:31 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by DrJones*, posted 04-05-2007 8:42 PM b b has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024