The Top Three Mistakes Of Creationists?

alexander garcia said:

Hi, can some of you explain a little more what you are speeking of as to your piont, because as far as so called scienceplease remind us how many times your so called science has been proven wrong? EVERY time would be pretty close. is the world still flat? Lets just look at your scientists if the claims of science are so true you must all have the same opinion. NOT! What took out the dinosaurs? Impact, volcano, space flu? Doesn't it depend on who needs a grant?

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that if someone is wrong the first time, they can't be right the second time. Well, Thomas Edison once remarked that it took him 10,000 failed attempts before he invented the light bulb. However, by your reasoning, he actually did not succeed in inventing the light bulb because he got it wrong at first. So, how do you explain that we have light bulbs today?

Sunstone said:

Enhanced Spirit, as someone who is both a non theist most days and a pantheist on Tuesday afternoons and Thursday mornings, I am very sympathetic to the notion that there is a spiritual side to reality. Yet, I am not at all convinced there is any way of proving such a notion. That is, it must at best remain speculative. Therefore, I fail to see how it can be characterized as a mistake on the part of "evolutionists" to reject such speculations as speculative. Could you elaborate a bit for me on why it can indeed be considered a mistake to do so?

Click to expand...

When I was in the 3rd grade, I was talking about repelling and mountain climbing over Thanksgiving Weekend, and I got in trouble, the teacher accused me of lying and gave me detention because I had no proof.

My mother had quite a hay day with that teacher, who admitted that she had never been repelling, so the idea of a 3rd grader doing so seemed preposterous to her. I still do not have proof that I have experienced this. I also cannot prove that I have a relationship with God, or that I have had experiences with spirits, angels, whatever label you want to give. I cannot prove that I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit just like I cannot prove that I put a rope around my waist and jumped of the side of a mountain when I was nine years old.

alexander garcia said:

Hi, can some of you explain a little more what you are speeking of as to your piont, because as far as so called scienceplease remind us how many times your so called science has been proven wrong? EVERY time would be pretty close. is the world still flat? Lets just look at your scientists if the claims of science are so true you must all have the same opinion. NOT! What took out the dinosaurs? Impact, volcano, space flu? Doesn't it depend on who needs a grant?

Click to expand...

You see, the only sensible thing to do is for everybody to have the same opinion, whether it is true or not. That makes sense..... OR DOES IT???

Those stupid scientists, they don't even know what killed the dinosaurs.

Those clever Jews, they know everything of course!

You tell me alexander garcia: is it true that delta time of existence of a particle multiplied by delta energy of the same particle must be lower than modified Planck's constant for the particle to be spontaneously created? I'll check Genesis through Job, you check Psalms through 2 Maccabees.

EnhancedSpirit said:

When I was in the 3rd grade, I was talking about repelling and mountain climbing over Thanksgiving Weekend, and I got in trouble, the teacher accused me of lying and gave me detention because I had no proof.

My mother had quite a hay day with that teacher, who admitted that she had never been repelling, so the idea of a 3rd grader doing so seemed preposterous to her. I still do not have proof that I have experienced this. I also cannot prove that I have a relationship with God, or that I have had experiences with spirits, angels, whatever label you want to give. I cannot prove that I have felt the presence of the Holy Spirit just like I cannot prove that I put a rope around my waist and jumped of the side of a mountain when I was nine years old.

Click to expand...

So if somebody says something, one logically should accept it as possible? /probable?/ true?

stemann said:

So if somebody says something, one logically should accept it as possible? /probable?/ true?

Click to expand...

I'd say you should accept it as a possibility until proven untrue, which might not take too long if, for example, someone claimed they could walk through walls.

But, if you know your quantum mechanics, you'll know that if you walk at a wall an infinte number of times, on one of those tries you will walk through the wall. Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.

And if God is the origin of all possibilities and probabilities, well... you see where i'm going with that.

Halcyon said:

I'd say you should accept it as a possibility until proven untrue, which might not take too long if, for example, someone claimed they could walk through walls.

But, if you know your quantum mechanics, you'll know that if you walk at a wall an infinte number of times, on one of those tries you will walk through the wall. Anything is possible, but not everything is probable.

Click to expand...

Aha exactly! I was aware of the walking-through-walls example in Quantum Mechanics, and I thought it was amusing that the scientific method of saying, "I have tried to walk into this wall X number of times, I have not got through it, therefore it is impossible" was wrong, since you have to discover the reasons behind why it is impossible- not just experimental data. This is what science actually does.

If I say, "It is possible that I will walk through this wall" and then I bang into it a million million times, this does not make me wrong at all. If I say, "God exists" and then science proves all theistic influences on earth are actually human-based, this still does not make me wrong... (Actually God is outside the realm of probability, so my analogy rather sucks... sorry)

Halcyon said:

And if God is the origin of all possibilities and probabilities, well... you see where i'm going with that.

Click to expand...

To be honest I don't see exactly where you're going- I have never heard that phrase, it sounds very interesting... would you care to elaborate?

stemann said:

... since you have to discover the reasons behind why it is impossible- not just experimental data. This is what science actually does.

Click to expand...

What if i said to you that nothing is impossible, but that many things are infinitely improbable?

stemann said:

If I say, "It is possible that I will walk through this wall" and then I bang into it a million million times, this does not make me wrong at all. If I say, "God exists" and then science proves all theistic influences on earth are actually human-based, this still does not make me wrong... (Actually God is outside the realm of probability, so my analogy rather sucks... sorry)

Click to expand...

This depends entirely on the view of God in question. When looking at the creationist arguments, when we find evidence to the contrary it does undermine their view of deity. We can say that their view of God does not exist, or is infinitely unlikely to exist, as events attributed to Him have been shown not to be.
But if i told you that there is no difference between the natural and the divine, the human and God - where do we go from there?

stemann said:

To be honest I don't see exactly where you're going- I have never heard that phrase, it sounds very interesting... would you care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

Well, i just made it up - interesting that others have come up with it before me, i'll have to research.
You pretty much summed it up yourself though "God is outside the realm of probability".
If God is the origin of possibility and the varying probabilities of each possibility occuring in any specified space and time, then by Its very nature It is greater than Its emanations, It is not controlled nor affected by the possibilities or probabilities that are generated from It.

Sunstone said:

We've all seen creationists come onboard and repeat again and again the same mistakes. But if you had to rank the typical mistakes of creationists, which ones would you rank as the top three? Why those three?

Click to expand...

The big three I see would be:

1) Mistaking the story of myth for literal truth.
2) Believing that the Bible was literally 'written by God'.
3) Consequently, thinking that it is possible that we could know anything factual about god.

I love how they are classified as 'mistakes' why not just call them idiots? But that's besides the point, how do you know they are mistakes, why not call them misunderstandings or differerences in interpretation?

Halcyon said:

What if i said to you that nothing is impossible, but that many things are infinitely improbable?

Click to expand...

Why, do you think it's the sort of thing you're likely to say?

But seriously- I would consider the definition of "infinitely improbable" to mean "impossible."

Halcyon said:

This depends entirely on the view of God in question. When looking at the creationist arguments, when we find evidence to the contrary it does undermine their view of deity. We can say that their view of God does not exist, or is infinitely unlikely to exist, as events attributed to Him have been shown not to be.
But if i told you that there is no difference between the natural and the divine, the human and God - where do we go from there?

Click to expand...

I would only guess that we would define what we mean by the natural and the divine, since they both refer to the same "thing"- we would work out what this "thing" is.

Halcyon said:

Well, i just made it up - interesting that others have come up with it before me, i'll have to research.
You pretty much summed it up yourself though "God is outside the realm of probability".
If God is the origin of possibility and the varying probabilities of each possibility occuring in any specified space and time, then by Its very nature It is greater than Its emanations, It is not controlled nor affected by the possibilities or probabilities that are generated from It.

Click to expand...

Yes; presumably the Creator would be greater than the Created.

stemann said:

Why, do you think it's the sort of thing you're likely to say?

Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, i often use it to break the ice when i meet new people.

stemann said:

But seriously- I would consider the definition of "infinitely improbable" to mean "impossible."

Click to expand...

Yeah, i agree that in the day-to-day, practical science usage they are the same.
But in philosophy, theology and theoretical physics they aren't.

stemann said:

I would only guess that we would define what we mean by the natural and the divine, since they both refer to the same "thing"- we would work out what this "thing" is.

Click to expand...

That's the goal of my religion, to work out what that "thing" is, only problem is that once/if i do that, i won't be able to explain it to you because It cannot be explained using human language - so i've been told at least.
Bummer.

Halcyon said:

That's the goal of my religion, to work out what that "thing" is, only problem is that once/if i do that, i won't be able to explain it to you because It cannot be explained using human language - so i've been told at least.
Bummer.

Click to expand...

Subjectivity sucks... it means we have to take an effort to actually learn about the unknown rather than just being told about it. Ah well, that's life.

Halcyon said:

That's the goal of my religion, to work out what that "thing" is, only problem is that once/if i do that, i won't be able to explain it to you because It cannot be explained using human language - so i've been told at least.
Bummer.

Click to expand...

And you believe that to be true?

royol said:

And you believe that to be true?

Click to expand...

No, i just pretend to. Just like on saturdays i pretend to be a forty year old housewife called Marge.

Yes i believe it.

Sunstone said:

We've all seen creationists come onboard and repeat again and again the same mistakes. But if you had to rank the typical mistakes of creationists, which ones would you rank as the top three? Why those three?

Why do creationists make the same mistakes over and over again?

Click to expand...

My top giggle is when they quote "scientists" who oppose "evolution."

As if a hydrologist could have an informed opinion on a matter of biology.

As if "food science" is some kind of actual scientific field.

sheesh...do I really need to explain this further?

There are so many other possibilities I can't even pick the other two.

Booko said:

As if a hydrologist could have an informed opinion on a matter of biology.

Click to expand...

The larger scientific theories are the sum of many disciplines. Evolutionists are fond of saying that the 'rest' of science backs them up. You are mistaken if you think that evolutionary theory is the sole domain of biologists. You don't have to be a biologist to be working on evolutionary theory. It does not surprise me that a non-biologist might have something to say about a pre-historic forensic examination, just as it does not surprise me that a non-biologist might come to the aid of an evolutionary biologist with supporting data. Evolution relies on a long period of time which is why some non-biologists are doubtful of it. By the way, if a hydrologist can't have an informed opinion on a matter of biology, then what hope is there for the rest of us? Do these hydrologists you speak of actually dispute the observed biological evidence placed before them? [citation please]. Of the hundreds of scientists who are skeptical of evolution via mutation/selection a great many of them speak only to their own field, and those that don't have a right to put forward ideas for consideration as long as they respect the rules of science - some people have more than one talent.

rocketman said:

The larger scientific theories are the sum of many disciplines. Evolutionists are fond of saying that the 'rest' of science backs them up. You are mistaken if you think that evolutionary theory is the sole domain of biologists. You don't have to be a biologist to be working on evolutionary theory. It does not surprise me that a non-biologist might have something to say about a pre-historic forensic examination, just as it does not surprise me that a non-biologist might come to the aid of an evolutionary biologist with supporting data. Evolution relies on a long period of time which is why some non-biologists are doubtful of it. By the way, if a hydrologist can't have an informed opinion on a matter of biology, then what hope is there for the rest of us? Do these hydrologists you speak of actually dispute the observed biological evidence placed before them? [citation please]. Of the hundreds of scientists who are skeptical of evolution via mutation/selection a great many of them speak only to their own field, and those that don't have a right to put forward ideas for consideration as long as they respect the rules of science - some people have more than one talent.

Click to expand...

You mean you really can't tell the difference between a technician and a scientist?

Hm, would you accept the word of a computer scientist or two on the validity of evolutionary theories, though biologists do not dispute it?

That seems to be what your message implies, but I'm not at all sure.

I did notice that you omitted the mention of passing off "food scientists" as just "scientists", but again, was not sure if this was intentional on your part or if you were just trying to put forth a more focused reply.

Booko said:

You mean you really can't tell the difference between a technician and a scientist?

Click to expand...

Please don't put words in my mouth. Hydrology is recognised as one of the Earth Sciences. I never mentioned the word 'technician'. And no, hydrology carries no biological authority, but that doesn't mean that a hydrologist can't also contribute to other debates, which is what you seemed to imply. [Maybe I read you wrong? If so, correct me.] I asked you for a citation of where a hydrologist actually disputes observable biological evidence...

Booko said:

Hm, would you accept the word of a computer scientist or two on the validity of evolutionary theories, though biologists do not dispute it?

Click to expand...

Sounds like a strawman. I have no choice but to deconstruct the question: Can a guy who designs handtools help me build a better house, even though he is not a builder? Yep. Did you know that some computer models of mutation accumulation in populations [which are used by biologists] show serious problems with evolutionary theory? Everyone learns from everyone else. Where would cosmolgy be without physicists or astronomers? Where would biology be without chemists and geneticists? In the forensic investigation into pre-historic evolution I'd like to hear from anyone who can put forward a resonable premise on how things might have been.

Booko said:

I did notice that you omitted the mention of passing off "food scientists" as just "scientists", but again, was not sure if this was intentional on your part or if you were just trying to put forth a more focused reply.

Click to expand...

Please don't try to change what you said. You never said they are passed off as just scientists but rather "As if "food science" is some kind of actual scientific field". In any case I was only interested in addressing your vulgar declaration "As if a hydrologist could have an informed opinion on a matter of biology." I think your phrase is insulting to anyone who has cross-field abilities. Perhaps you should have used a tighter definition. But seeing as you have mentioned the food thing again I may as well let you know that there are indeed such people/such a field, and like many fields it is a combo of others, which kind of nicely highlights my overall point. Anyway:

http://stats.bls.gov/oco/ocos046.htm
http://www.nsta.org/main/news/stories/science_teacher.php?category_ID=88&news_story_ID=51710
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pubs/press/current/030818Rao.html
http://www.alis.gov.ab.ca/occinfo/Content/RequestAction.asp?aspAction=GetHTMLProfile&format=html&OCCPRO_ID=71002489

If your overall point is that creationism has some bad actors then I agree with you. Then again, mainstream science makes the same 'mistakes', like that Korean guy who faked his stem-cell research. Dare I mention the scientists who don't think global warming is an issue?

I take issue with the mistaken belief that a person from one field is incapable of making a meaningful contribution to another field, just because they may not be as well qualified in that other field. We must be careful not to confuse a persons' qualification level with their contribution level. The history of science is full of cross-field dependencies and breakthroughs, often from unrelated disciplines.

Peace.

If a scientist has a theory but can only answer 49 out of 50 questions put to him,
his theory is considered to be wrong, even by the scientist,
if a creationist can only answer 1 question in 50 they consider that to be irrefutable proof.

1) Believing the entire Creationism argument IS debatable. Wouldn't want to let facts upset their reasoning.

Click to expand...

I have to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with this criticism since I believe that debate is a method of learning.

Often, we (as in humanity) will arrive at various different conclusions and, due to the limits of our knowledge and imagination, be unable to think critically about the faults of these conclusions. In fact, due to the sheer amount of these conclusions that we make, it would be impossible to think about them all. When we debate these ideas, we will encounter people who have looked at them from an entirely different perspective allowing us to access a huge amount of information in a single conversation that could otherwise take years to compile.

It sometimes is not good enough to read books on the topic since you always feel the need to do your side the greatest amount of justice so, if it is disproven, you can be absolutely sure you are justified in moving on and discarding your argument.

It is impossible for a person to truly understand a coherent logical argument and still reject it. If they do reject it then it shows they do not truly understand it. As a debator, I know I cannot criticise my opponent for lacking the mental ability to understand my argument. I must try harder to put my point across not belittle their position.

If there is a criticism of creationists here it is that more often than not they do not consider creationism to be a debatable topic. Therein lies the problem... not the other way around.