Are Creationists the Great Pretenders?

[Shad]

Well how disturbing is this? Let me ask a few questions. If science has the answer for the theory of evolution why is it still a theory and why does science still exist? What I see that is ironic here is that the majority of Nobel prize winning scientists are christian while it seems to be those who follow the religion of athiesm and agnosticism try to use the theories behind science as a crutch to try prove that there is no God. Can science prove or not prove that there is a God? There is not one shred of data anywhere that has proved that there is no God. If so than why pretend that there is? From what I can read here the great pretenders are the ones supporting the OP of this very thread. To think otherwise is not to be very well informed.

You have to link the religion with the reason for the Nobel prize. If an award is for a development that isn't based on any religious view then your point is moot. You are ignoring other factors. Population figures. Economics. Environment. Social structure. Etc. Buddhists for example have not been the majority in developed nation-states while Christians are/have been (environment).

Theory has a different meaning in science.

Null hypothesis counters your argument from ignorance

 

[shmogie]

I think you are greatly exaggerating the effort
made to produce life in a lab.
I could look into it, but it seems to me unlikely
that anyone has a grant funding that particular
thing.

Now, one thing that IS heavily funded is
continuous hydrogen fusion. We know
it happens in nature,but cannot seem to
get it going in a lab.

Interesting observation about restructuring.
In what way,may I ask?

Seems to me, it wont take much. At one
time only God could make lighting, but
God seems unfazed by that being deleted
from his sole provenance.

You think I exaggerated the effort.

A synthetic cell has been created , but the DNA for it was taken from a living cell.

This effort took ten years with a myriad of scientists working up to 16 hours a day to do it.

That is a pretty big effort to me.

For many bio chemists, and others, biogenesis is the holy grail, and they are working on it all over the world.

I don´t know what kind of restructuring I might do, before the fact, That is a hypothetical.

I guess I could become an old earth creationist, or an agnostic, or even revert to atheism.

I am not much worried about it.

 

[blü 2]

If science demonstrates abiogenesis, it will by intelligent design.

What test will tell a scientist whether any particular result has involved intelligent design (in this sense of the expression) or not?

The question is especially pertinent, given there's not even one accepted example of real intelligent design on the table.

Thousands of extremely well educated people, using sophisticated lab equipment over a century to produce a living organism. Is that how it would have worked in nature ?

No. Why would you think it might? The formation of the galaxies, all the elements higher than helium, the solar system, snowflakes, have all occurred naturally and I can't think of any other credible way for abiogenesis to happen either.

Nevertheless, if it happens ( I doubt it will ever occur) I, as a creationist, would have to reconsider my belief structure.

Thank you for that. It's refreshingly frank.

 

[Audie]

You think I exaggerated the effort.

A synthetic cell has been created , but the DNA for it was taken from a living cell.

This effort took ten years with a myriad of scientists working up to 16 hours a day to do it.

That is a pretty big effort to me.

For many bio chemists, and others, biogenesis is the holy grail, and they are working on it all over the world.

I don´t know what kind of restructuring I might do, before the fact, That is a hypothetical.

I guess I could become an old earth creationist, or an agnostic, or even revert to atheism.

I am not much worried about it.

Yes, you did exaggerate. But never mind.

I sure dont get it why it would have such an
extreme effect on you if it were to be done.

"God" has been deleted as a necessary causitive agent
in a lot of things, and nobody had to go all atheist over
that, did they?

At one time, it was considered impossible that there
could be sunspots, or non circular planetary orbits,
for lo, gods creations are perfect! A poor and weak
faith that gets bothered by such things!

 

[shmogie]

You do not always sound like you are, as in your
hypothetical first life. Plus your use of "myth" instead
of hypothesis, and related editorial cant.

But never mind.

I am focused on "proof" in science.
This is important to me, as it is so abundantly
obvious that you have misunderstood this
concept.
If you you are just never going to concede
this point, I would have to write you off as
an honest debater, something I would hate
to have to do.

Whoa ! Agree with me, or you are dishonest.

Of course, by you framing it that way, other than what I have already conceded, I cannot ever agree with you on this now, you have made it a matter of principle.

Blackmail is blackmail, I never have ever bowed to this kind of stuff, and I won´t now.

Why is this, and what you perceive to be my understanding and honesty on this subject so important to you ??

Do what you have to do.

 

[shmogie]

What test will tell a scientist whether any particular result has involved intelligent design (in this sense of the expression) or not?

The question is especially pertinent, given there's not even one accepted example of real intelligent design on the table.
No. Why would you think it might? The formation of the galaxies, all the elements higher than helium, the solar system, snowflakes, have all occurred naturally and I can't think of any other credible way for abiogenesis to happen either.

Thank you for that. It's refreshingly frank.

Any experiment in a lab is defacto by intelligent design. Intelligence designs the experiment, selects the equipment to use, selects what chemical compounds to use and in what amounts, produces an environment for actions to occur.

 

[Audie]

Whoa ! Agree with me, or you are dishonest.

Of course, by you framing it that way, other than what I have already conceded, I cannot ever agree with you on this now, you have made it a matter of principle.

Blackmail is blackmail, I never have ever bowed to this kind of stuff, and I won´t now.

Why is this, and what you perceive to be my understanding and honesty on this subject so important to you ??

Do what you have to do.

My goodness.
Anything to get out of admitting you were
wrong.

We see this so often in creationists, it seems they
have constructed a hard brittle shell of "reality"
about themselves, and the tiniest flaw of any sort
in it threatens its entire collapse.

In many posts I have more or less gently tried to
move you to understand that science does not
do proof, tho you insist that it does. It is so simple
and obvious, why do you suppose you had to
avoid admitting your mistake over and over and over?


Finally, I got kind of exasperated with your evasions
and challenged you. So you call it blackmail, as an
excuse to evade yet again.

"Cannot ever agree with me now", for any reason
other than that I am wrong is, friend, exactly the
intellectual dishonesty that so characterizes the average
creationist. Sorry to see you are so shallow as that.

But who knows. Maybe you will reconsider.
Nope springs eternal, and all. And you surely
like what is true and real better than you love
your own mistakes.

 

[shmogie]

Do you not believe it's possible that nature - and therefore abiogenesis, if true - could be merely the expression of God's will?

Yes, I believe old earthers believe this. It would be troubling for me though.

 

[shmogie]

My goodness.
Anything to get out of admitting you were
wrong.

We see this so often in creationists, it seems they
have constructed a hard brittle shell of "reality"
about themselves, and the tiniest flaw of any sort
in it threatens its entire collapse.

In many posts I have more or less gently tried to
move you to understand that science does not
do proof, tho you insist that it does. It is so simple
and obvious, why do you suppose you had to
avoid admitting your mistake over and over and over?


Finally, I got kind of exasperated with your evasions
and challenged you. So you call it blackmail, as an
excuse to evade yet again.

I have already said OK in agreement with your position, what more do you want ?? Blood ?

Evasions ? I am not evading anything, I see proof differently from my perspective than how you perceive it from yours. You invoke the scientific method, ergo, science apparently sees it differently.

However, for me personally, I don´t care much. For me proof has connotations that make sense to me.

So, for my evaluation of anything, the term has value.

You don´t like it, OK. However you are not part of my reasoning or evaluation of anything.

I think in terms that I believe will give me the most reliable picture of what I am considering.


"Cannot ever agree with me now", for any reason
other than that I am wrong is, friend, exactly the
intellectual dishonesty that so characterizes the average
creationist. Sorry to see you are so shallow as that.

But who knows. Maybe you will reconsider.
Nope springs eternal, and all. And you surely
like what is true and real better than you love
your own mistakes.

 

[shmogie]

What possible meaning does a tempest in a teapot about the word proof have to do with creationists ?

You are indicting me and millions of others of dishonesty, because you don´t like how i use the word proof ?

Amazing.

 

[Audie]

We all use words in informal ways.

"Proof" as applied to science has a specific
meaning.

You invoke the scientific method, ergo, science apparently sees it differently.

Yes, in science "proof" is different from its use in whiskey,
math, and various other applications.

May we assume you will cease to claim that science
ever tries to prove things?

 

[Audie]

What possible meaning does a tempest in a teapot about the word proof have to do with creationists ?

You are indicting me and millions of others of dishonesty, because you don´t like how i use the word proof ?

Amazing.

It has relatively little to do with creationism as such,
other than as an example of the misrepresentation
and general ignorance of science that is so typical
of creationists.

A detail of the profound difference between creationist
thinking and those who attempt the disciplined thinking
of science has to do with ability to adjust one's thinking
to the evidence.

Typically, a creationist will never concede anything.
I have yet-unless you just did-come across one who
would admit they got it wrong about Proof as a
part of how science works!

I thought, still do,that you are better than that.
I wanted to find out, tho it has been kinda like
pulling teeth.

As for " indicting me and millions of others" etc,
no. Not at all, way way off point there. And it
sure is not about what I happen to "like".

Swinging too wide a loop, there, pard!

No, as I understood it, you refused to concede
that you were wrong because you did not like
how I spoke.
Is refuse to concede the same as "i will keep
believing despite all evidence"? Coz if so, that
is,yes, intellectual dishonesty.
But maybe I misunderstood your thing about how
you would never change

But only temporary, as you do seem to have
accepted it that science does not do proof.

Can we take that as settled, and be friends?

.

 

[Audie]

BTW and FWIW, I asked an organic chemist
acquaintance if he knew of anyone working
to create life in a lab.

His response was basically-

"Well, yeah, sort of, but I would call it
basic research that may touch on related
things, such as under what conditions
which amino acids may be created."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are making things up and suggesting them for someone else. That comes from your own ignorance. If you would like to know what was suggested with what was said, in the context of what was replied to ~ all you have to do is ask rather than make up stuff.

I am not making things up. I am responding to what you post. I am aware of what was posted, what was suggested and what the context is. It is from that knowledge and awareness that I constructed my response. Your false dismissal will not fly.

But since you brought this up ~ perhaps you can explain the importance as to what’s at stake. People can live their entire lives just fine without knowing anything about evolution theory (being ignorant to it all.) Is there some kind of consequence for this ignorance? Why do those see such a problem and suffer over someone being ignorant to evolution theory?

Knowledge. Understanding. Intellectual progress. Not just of the individual, but of the human race. All of these are at stake. I am at a loss to explain how some people do not see the obvious or do not want to see it. I suppose it is dogmatic adherence to ideology and the erroneous notion that a fellow believer that is wrong should not be corrected, because they are a believer.

I agree with you. People can remain ignorant of science and they are free to. They never have to learn a thing about the theory and evidence of evolution. People are free to remain ignorant of the entire vast world around them and any subject under the sun. I recognize your right to do that, though in good conscience, I cannot actively support it.

If a person is ignorant of science, that means they do not know much or anything about that science. Right?

When that ignorant person starts making assertions about science that make no sense, are wrong and in some instances appear to be lies, according to you they are doing no harm and should be left to do as they are doing. That does not make sense, and is not that uncommon.

But what if other people listen to them and start repeating these erroneous ideas? What if a movement forms around these erroneous ideas? What if that movement gets tied to a theological view for emotional support? What if all that effort swings to revising history and science based on what a few people believe and not on the facts and reason?

That is all actually going on the world.

Now think of that all again and replace science with your church and see if you can figure out what is at stake. See if your message about sitting on your hands and suffering in silence will work for you then.

 

[Audie]

I am not making things up. I am responding to what you post. I am aware of what was posted, what was suggested and what the context is. It is from that knowledge and awareness that I constructed my response. Your false dismissal will not fly.
Knowledge. Understanding. Intellectual progress. Not just of the individual, but of the human race. All of these are at stake. I am at a loss to explain how some people do not see the obvious or do not want to see it. I suppose it is dogmatic adherence to ideology and the erroneous notion that a fellow believer that is wrong should not be corrected, because they are a believer.

I agree with you. People can remain ignorant of science and they are free to. They never have to learn a thing about the theory and evidence of evolution. People are free to remain ignorant of the entire vast world around them and any subject under the sun. I recognize your right to do that, though in good conscience, I cannot actively support it.

If a person is ignorant of science, that means they do not know much or anything about that science. Right?

When that ignorant person starts making assertions about science that make no sense, are wrong and in some instances appear to be lies, according to you they are doing no harm and should be left to do as they are doing. That does not make sense, and is not that uncommon.

But what if other people listen to them and start repeating these erroneous ideas? What if a movement forms around these erroneous ideas? What if that movement gets tied to a theological view for emotional support? What if all that effort swings to revising history and science based on what a few people believe and not on the facts and reason?

That is all actually going on the world.

Now think of that all again and replace science with your church and see if you can figure out what is at stake. See if your message about sitting on your hands and suffering in silence will work for you then.

Hey, from the pov of people outside the USA,
and not necessarily friendly to American interests,
regressive anti intellectualism is great!

Let all of America become the great trailer
park of the mind!

There will be no angel with a flaming sword
(that turns this way and that) to guard the
gates of THAT park, when the smarter, more
ambitious and better educated come to take
all that Americans hold so precious away from
them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Very much "uncommon sense" right there!


And there we have it - the ol' stand by escape clause, first used by wacky creationist Randy Wysong in 1976...

That is some pretty uncommon sense all right. Of course, this applies to gravity as well. He probably has not thought this all the way through. I know. I never would have suspected short-sighted, irrational thinking from a creationist either.

On a positive note, I think he is well on his way to finding how to remove human intelligence from the conversation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Hey, from the pov of people outside the USA,
and not necessarily friendly to American interests,
regressive anti intellectualism is great!

Let all of America become the great trailer
park of the mind!

There will be no angel with a flaming sword
(that turns this way and that) to guard the
gates of THAT park, when the smarter, more
ambitious and better educated come to take
all that Americans they hold so precious away from
them.

I cannot imagine our competitors are broken up about the rise of anti-education, anti-science, anti-history and all the ensuing cultural conflicts associated with those efforts. A good thing to facilitate and encourage. Besides, the creationists are waiting around from doom anyway, so it is all good.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For many bio chemists, and others, biogenesis is the holy grail, and they are working on it all over the world.

Scientists tend to remarkably not as excited as things like that as the general public. And why should they? The biogenesis is, after all, nothing more than a drop in vast and endless ocean of questions that will still remain in need of answers. If we find out abiogenesis happened, Cool! But really it's such a small and insignificant thing once we turn our attention towards the biogenesis of life in this universe. And then that becomes utterly insignificant rubbish once we are able to explore outside of this universe (which actually at this point we don't know if there is an outside of if and how we can escape).
And really, that's what makes science so exciting and fascinating. The quest for knowledge is perpetual. We often say there is always a bigger fish, but in science there is always a bigger question. Holy Grails are for those content to stop early, having a defined and definite end point along a linear path, and sell themselves short instead of continuing on to see what's next.

 

[Audie]

Scientists tend to remarkably not as excited as things like that as the general public. And why should they? The biogenesis is, after all, nothing more than a drop in vast and endless ocean of questions that will still remain in need of answers. If we find out abiogenesis happened, Cool! But really it's such a small and insignificant thing once we turn our attention towards the biogenesis of life in this universe. And then that becomes utterly insignificant rubbish once we are able to explore outside of this universe (which actually at this point we don't know if there is an outside of if and how we can escape).
And really, that's what makes science so exciting and fascinating. The quest for knowledge is perpetual. We often say there is always a bigger fish, but in science there is always a bigger question. Holy Grails are for those content to stop early, having a defined and definite end point along a linear path, and sell themselves short instead of continuing on to see what's next.

The image of all these thousands of white lab coat
people feverishly working 16 hour days on the
zealous / quasi religious Quest for a holy grail
is a bit weird.

Reminds me of a creationist who posted that
someone had seen a basement paleo lab
full of technicians grinding away of fossils
to try to make them fit into an evoluitonist
scenario.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The image of all these thousands of white lab coat
people feverishly working 16 hour days on the
zealous / quasi religious Quest for a holy grail
is a bit weird.

Truly it is. But it does help to understand why they would think god must be an original with no reason to think or look further for anything else if something that will probably be rather quaint in 1000 years from now is considered a "holy grail." They may be content to stop when they find what they're looking for, but anyone with a passion and appreciation for knowledge knows at best they merely found a place to make camp for the night as the adventure will continue on tomorrow. When and where does it stop? It would be a great tragedy if ever does come to an end and we have learned and discovered everything (I'll declare it know, in the incredibly unlikely event that it does actually happen, that's probably when most people will find life without meaning and purpose).