Sources vs Science

[firedragon]

The sciences cannot prove an idea right, but they can show that an idea as presented is wrong. Many creationists make the error of assuming that scientists are trying to "disprove God". That is not the case. But they may show that a particular version of God is wrong. If one believes in the God of the creation myth that version has been shown to be wrong. But that does not mean that the Christian God or the Muslim God or any God has been refuted.

There are Flat Earthers that have that belief dues to their religion. Disproving a Flat Earth does not "disprove God". Well neither does disproving the myths of Genesis.

You said generally "creationists seem to be afraid of evidence".

In which case? Is it regarding evolution or science or something else? You made a general statement so I am seeking an explanation on what!

Thanks.

 

[firedragon]

There is no point in supplying you with evidence if you do not even understand the concept. Creationists as a rule do not understand the concept and tend to run away when assistance in understanding is offered.

Ah. So you are saying creationists as a whole run away because they dont understand the concept? Is that your answer to that question about the universe?

Are you saying creationists forever has been and will be like that running away and being scared of evidence? So your answer is a cuss.

Someone asks a question and your answer is "all of your kind are fools so you would not understand".

Do you know that is the definition of bigotry?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I'm not. That's why Young Earth Creationism is even a term... it's designed to distinguish between young Earth creationists and all OTHER creationists. Read the link below.

Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No, I'm not. That's why Young Earth Creationism is even a term... it's designed to distinguish between young Earth creationists and all OTHER creationists. Read the link below.

Creationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Once again that pretty much refutes your claim. They start out with the phrase:

"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. " And then spend the rest of the article explaining why that is not really the case you

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said generally "creationists seem to be afraid of evidence".

In which case? Is it regarding evolution or science or something else? You made a general statement so I am seeking an explanation on what!

Thanks.

They are afraid of it when it comes to the sciences since all of the sciences refute their beliefs. If you want to get more specific then you will have to learn what is and what is not evidence, at least in the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. So you are saying creationists as a whole run away because they dont understand the concept? Is that your answer to that question about the universe?

Are you saying creationists forever has been and will be like that running away and being scared of evidence? So your answer is a cuss.

Someone asks a question and your answer is "all of your kind are fools so you would not understand".

Do you know that is the definition of bigotry?

Creationists run away because they are demonstrably wrong. If they did not run away they would have to openly lie and most of them will not go that far. Most would rather not learn since that gives them plausible deniability in their minds.

And no, that is not my answer. My answer is "let's go over the basics of science first and go from there". I do not think that people are too stupid. Very few of them are. Most simply know deep down that they are wrong and do not want to admit it. Learning the basics of science would force them to do that.

There is a saying that you may have heard "There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist". I have seen scientists that know better openly lie. They make errors that undergrads would not make and yet they have PhD's in their field. Their errors are so gross that the only answer is that they are lying.

 

[firedragon]

They are afraid of it when it comes to the sciences since all of the sciences refute their beliefs. If you want to get more specific then you will have to learn what is and what is not evidence, at least in the sciences.

Okay. Let me learn.

So be specific.

 

[firedragon]

Creationists run away because they are demonstrably wrong. If they did not run away they would have to openly lie and most of them will not go that far. Most would rather not learn since that gives them plausible deniability in their minds.

And no, that is not my answer. My answer is "let's go over the basics of science first and go from there". I do not think that people are too stupid. Very few of them are. Most simply know deep down that they are wrong and do not want to admit it. Learning the basics of science would force them to do that.

There is a saying that you may have heard "There is no such thing as an honest and informed creationist". I have seen scientists that know better openly lie. They make errors that undergrads would not make and yet they have PhD's in their field. Their errors are so gross that the only answer is that they are lying.

So basically your point is creationists by default dont know the basics of science, and there are no "honest and informed creationists".

Your statements are just bigotry mate. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay. Let me learn.

So be specific.

Alright let's start with the concept of evidence. In the sciences one cannot have evidence without a testable concept. If one cannot think of a reasonable test that could refute one's beliefs then by definition one does not have evidence.

This keeps scientists honest. That is real scientists. Wikipedia has an excellent article on scientific evidence, but I can find many others that have the same definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method. "

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So basically your point is creationists by default dont know the basics of science, and there are no "honest and informed creationists".

Your statements are just bigotry mate. Nothing more, nothing less.

I have yet to see a creationist that follows the scientific method and can support their beliefs with scientific evidence. I could be wrong. There could be one somewhere.

But I seriously doubt it.

The standards of using scientific evidence and the scientific method is not at all unreasonable. Why do you think that creationists cannot do this? And you could find one that does so. I would be greatly surprised, but I have been wrong before.

It is very late for me. Going to bed maybe we can continue this discussion. You have plenty of time to find creationists that are honest about their work

 

[firedragon]

I have yet to see a creationist that follows the scientific method and can support their beliefs with scientific evidence. I could be wrong. There could be one somewhere.

But I seriously doubt it.

The standards of using scientific evidence and the scientific method is not at all unreasonable. Why do you think that creationists cannot do this? And you could find one that does so. I would be greatly surprised, but I have been wrong before.

It is very late for me. Going to bed maybe we can continue this discussion. You have plenty of time to find creationists that are honest about their work

So you think Newton didnt know the basics of science and afraid of evidence right?

 

[firedragon]

Alright let's start with the concept of evidence. In the sciences one cannot have evidence without a testable concept. If one cannot think of a reasonable test that could refute one's beliefs then by definition one does not have evidence.

This keeps scientists honest. That is real scientists. Wikipedia has an excellent article on scientific evidence, but I can find many others that have the same definition:

"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method. "

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

So basically no creationist has an idea what scientific evidence is right? Creationists are all duds. They dont even know to read a wikipedia article. Thats your whole point.

There was an old saying in another language which if I translate to English would mean "the intellect of a woman is as lengthy as a spoon". Thats a very sexist, male chauvinistic statement. Your statements are very similar just that you are making it about general people you call "creationists".

Very nice.

 

[Brian2]

No, Brian, I wasn’t trying to change the story...

...all I was saying that your interpretation that Genesis Flood was a large local flood, doesn’t make sense in the light of the description of Genesis 6 to 8.

I am not disputing the story of Noah, the ark and Flood, I am disputing your rationality about your interpretations.

You are saying that the world wide flood did not happen and that a large local flood does not fit the Bible story.
But a large local flood does fit the Bible story, esp if there were many of them around the world (which geology suggests did happen) and if the world's populations were concentrated in the warmer regions because of the ice age and in the lower regions closer to the ocean, since the oceans were lower.
You make up something about the rationality of Noah staying if God knew the flood was not going to be for 100 years. That makes sense for someone who wants to deny the whole flood story, but is based on assumptions of what God wanted to achieve.

 

[Brian2]

My definition is up to date. Definitions are due to both common usage and origins of terms. Your definition fails on both counts. A person does not get to make up their own definitions.

So though there may be many NASCAR fans that are racists it is not because they enjoy auto racing. In the same sense there are many Christians that are creationists, but it is not because they believe in an ultimate creator.

OK I'll have to update my definition.

 

[Brian2]

There is no point in supplying you with evidence if you do not even understand the concept. Creationists as a rule do not understand the concept and tend to run away when assistance in understanding is offered.

I thought that we had just established that I was not a creationist. Is Intelligent Design creationism? I imagine there are many forms of intelligent design believers, and that would probably include all people who are not YEC but who believe God created everything.
But it's OK about the evidence, I know there really isn't any and that the naturalistic interpretation of evidence is just another world view (like a belief in a creator) which wants to see something in the science which just is not there.

 

[Valjean]

What question did I ask?

ChristineM said: ↑
But there is evidence that no world flood occurred. No big boat is a deduction based on the evidence.

nPeace: "How was that tested and observed?" -- Post #34.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you think Newton didnt know the basics of science and afraid of evidence right?

Please, this is not proper. You should know better than this.

Do you realize that you are confirming my claims about creationists running away from the concept of evidence? Why on Earth would you bring Newton into the discussion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So basically no creationist has an idea what scientific evidence is right? Creationists are all duds. They dont even know to read a wikipedia article. Thats your whole point.

There was an old saying in another language which if I translate to English would mean "the intellect of a woman is as lengthy as a spoon". Thats a very sexist, male chauvinistic statement. Your statements are very similar just that you are making it about general people you call "creationists".

Very nice.

I did not say that or even imply that. There are a few. Those have to be openly dishonest. People can read and not learn. Creationists are an excellent example of that.

I thought that you wanted to learn what is and what is not evidence. You can do better than this. You are currently running away.

And no, my claims are in no way similar to the example that you gave. Do you know why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought that we had just established that I was not a creationist. Is Intelligent Design creationism? I imagine there are many forms of intelligent design believers, and that would probably include all people who are not YEC but who believe God created everything.
But it's OK about the evidence, I know there really isn't any and that the naturalistic interpretation of evidence is just another world view (like a belief in a creator) which wants to see something in the science which just is not there.

It depends. ID is a very nebulous idea. And there is very strong evidence for the theory of evolution and the Big Bang. There is no reliable evidence for the various forms of creationism. Now the good news is that God is not refuted by science. Only poor concepts of God are refuted. I like to refer to the Flat Earthers. Almost everyone knows that the flerfers are wrong. That can be demonstrated quite a few ways Many, but not all, flerfers believe in a Flat Earth because they take the Bible too literally. Some of them will even argue that you are "trying to disprove God" with a globe. That is clearly not the case. The fact that life as we know it is the product of evolution does not refute God. It only refutes the Genesis myths. It does not even refute Christianity.

EDIT: And as to whether or not you are a creationist, some creationists try to hide behind definitions. They either make creationism too inclusive, counting those that accept evolution for example, to dilute their rejection of it, or they try to make to narrow of a definition of "creationism" counting only YEC's.

Since creationism arose as an opposition to the theory of evolution if one believes that there ever were only one man and one woman then I would say that that person is a creationist. In reality there is no hard line between species as they evolve. That means that there was no "first man".

 

[QuestioningMind]

Once again that pretty much refutes your claim. They start out with the phrase:

"At a broad level, a Creationist is someone who believes in a god who is absolute creator of heaven and earth, out of nothing, by an act of free will. " And then spend the rest of the article explaining why that is not really the case you

ROFL... Wow, you REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension.

Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs. These include, first, that a short time has elapsed since the beginning of everything. ‘Young Earth Creationists’ think that Archbishop Ussher’s sixteenth-century calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate.

Note what it says in the second paragraph. So BROADLY speaking, a creationist is simply someone who believes that a god being created everything... and in a MORE RESTRICTIVE sense... that is to say, a SUB CATATGORY of creationists... are YEC who have a problem with evolution. Stating that YEC are a subcategory pf creationists in NO WAY indicates that the original claim is 'really not the case'. It IS the case... that's why it was included in the very first paragraph.

 

[Subduction Zone]

ROFL... Wow, you REALLY need to work on your reading comprehension.

Creationism in this more restricted sense entails a number of beliefs. These include, first, that a short time has elapsed since the beginning of everything. ‘Young Earth Creationists’ think that Archbishop Ussher’s sixteenth-century calculation of about 6000 years is a good estimate.

Note what it says in the second paragraph. So BROADLY speaking, a creationist is simply someone who believes that a god being created everything... and in a MORE RESTRICTIVE sense... that is to say, a SUB CATATGORY of creationists... are YEC who have a problem with evolution. Stating that YEC are a subcategory pf creationists in NO WAY indicates that the original claim is 'really not the case'. It IS the case... that's why it was included in the very first paragraph.

Yes, the article says that there are those that try to abuse the concept. It explains why it is not correct. Not fully, but nice cherry picking. I am not the one with a reading comprehension problem. Look at the history of the term. That gives you a good indication of its meaning and usage.