• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do creationists have anything new?

RESOLUTION

Active Member
As you sit at your computer confidently typing away with the secure belief that your words will be read hundreds and thousands of miles away by others at their computers, do you believe by faith that the electronics and information scientists know what they're talking about, or do you have some evidence that they do?

Your confident a computer isn't replying?
How about the ones that gave us engines and motors, sent man to the moon and back, lit up the night, gave us real-time global communication, and developed effective vaccines against polio and smallpox. Can you find any evidence that supports believing them?

Why do you do that? Who gave man the precious metals, ore and oils which create the things man makes?
You see inventions are not creation of humans and the planet. The first scientists were Christians,. You did know that didn't you?
So you cannot use the above as any argument in the face of creation or evolution.
How can you miss it and say that there is no support for such belief except to believe it on faith the way some people believe in gods or astrology?

Because there is not absolute proof. Nor can any man be he scientist or just a layperson provide any that can be conclusive beyond doubt.
Those are faith based beliefs, by which I mean unjustified belief. My opinions about science and scientists are justified by the past performance and brilliant successes of this method lengthening life, making it healthier, safer, more comfortable, and more interesting.

God is not unjustified the millions healed through prayer and laying on of hands show God is real. Scientist with their inventions and vaccines cannot do that, can they? Lengthening life is not a miracle.
I don't need to be a scientist myself or even to have much understanding of science to recognize that such people know what they're talking about and that their opinions should be heeded when they approach consensus. Cutting edge science not so much. That requires further vetting.
Selective faith, doesn't make it any less faith and blind faith if you believe without understanding.
I believe that God has done more for mankind and as the first Christians were scientist, then the inventions you speak about are all made possible by God.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your confident a computer isn't replying?
How is that relevant? I'm confident that whatever is generating posts is getting those posts to me using valid scientific knowledge, which is evidence that science understands what it says whether you or I do or not. That was my pint.

Who gave man the precious metals, ore and oils which create the things man makes?

Irrelevant again to the matter at hand, which is whether science and scientists have to be believed by faith or not at all. Evidence supports belief.

You see inventions are not creation of humans and the planet. The first scientists were Christians,. You did know that didn't you?

Irrelevant again. Belief that scientists know what they are talking about is justified belief.

So you cannot use the above as any argument in the face of creation or evolution.

I don't understand what you mean.

Because there is not absolute proof. Nor can any man be he scientist or just a layperson provide any that can be conclusive beyond doubt.

Also irrelevant. We were discussing justified belief versus unjustified belief (faith). Or I was, anyway.


God is not unjustified the millions healed through prayer and laying on of hands show God is real.

That's faith - unjustified belief. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that the claims regarding prayer are false. There is a placebo effect, and not always a salutary one.

Scientist with their inventions and vaccines cannot do that, can they? Lengthening life is not a miracle.

Miracle is your word. I have no use for it

Selective faith, doesn't make it any less faith and blind faith if you believe without understanding.

Incorrect for reasons I just gave you. All I need to know is about past performance. I don't have to know much about pitching to know that the guy who keeps accumulating winning numbers knows what he is doing. That's justified belief, not blind faith. You should be able to discern the difference.

I believe that God has done more for mankind and as the first Christians were scientist, then the inventions you speak about are all made possible by God.

Gods gave us nothing. We had to discover penicillin and electricity ourselves. Christians being scientists is irrelevant to science.
 
Last edited:

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
...The first scientists were Christians,. You did know that didn't you?...
You know you're just making stuff up? You did know that didn't you?

c. 385 BC, Plato founded the Academy. With Plato's student Aristotle begins the "scientific revolution" of the Hellenistic period culminating in the 3rd to 2nd centuries with scholars such as Eratosthenes, Euclid, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus and Archimedes. Plato and Aristotle.

Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 100 – c. 170) - “I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
You know you're just making stuff up? You did know that didn't you?

c. 385 BC, Plato founded the Academy. With Plato's student Aristotle begins the "scientific revolution" of the Hellenistic period culminating in the 3rd to 2nd centuries with scholars such as Eratosthenes, Euclid, Aristarchus of Samos, Hipparchus and Archimedes. Plato and Aristotle.

Claudius Ptolemy (c. AD 100 – c. 170) - “I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”


Philosophers??????

Are you saying modern science came from those philosophers. Now who is being ridiculous?
 

Thumper

Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Philosophers??????

Are you saying modern science came from those philosophers. Now who is being ridiculous?
Well, you are actually, but I wasn't going to say it.

Yes, the foundations of science are things like logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, observational and experimental evidence, etc. which all began as philosophical arguments that had to be worked out over time.

But even ignoring that obvious foundation, ancient astronomers such as Ptolemy collected data and wrote scientific papers on planetary orbits. Geocentric astronomy was wrong, but the methods and efforts were early attempts at science.
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
Well, you are actually, but I wasn't going to say it.

Yes, the foundations of science are things like logic, deductive and inductive reasoning, observational and experimental evidence, etc. which all began as philosophical arguments that had to be worked out over time.

But even ignoring that obvious foundation, ancient astronomers such as Ptolemy collected data and wrote scientific papers on planetary orbits. Geocentric astronomy was wrong, but the methods and efforts were early attempts at science.


I look at science and philosophy as two separate things.

If reasoning was the foundation of science then we would never have sailed too far for fear of falling of the edge.

We know the Chinese were the first to map the stars not Ptolemy or any of our other famous philosophers and astronomers.
Sailors have used the stars as a guide since they were sailing long before any real famous astronomers.
Shi Shen and Gan De were two of the first to start detailed records.


Modern science is later than Ptolemy, He and the ancient Greeks were not really scientist in today version or definition of the words science and scientist.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
I look at science and philosophy as two separate things.

Science IS a philosophy and nothing else. One that produces viable results in non-metaphysical terms. But it's still a philosophy in itself.

And i do make the claim that the Greek philosophers in particular ARE a basis for modern science in the same way as Arab philosophers and mathematicians are, and the Chinese. You are seriously undermining their role in thinking that they're "just philosophers." They're much more than that. You obviously don't know much of their work if you just think they're some old sages tackling metaphysical issues: They did work with the "natural sciences" as well.

Ptolemy was for example, primarly a mathematician and an astronomer. Yet he's lumped with "the rest". Highlighting your misunderstanding of what they truly do mean when they call them philosophers: You are not taking into account that science is a philosophy.

/E: You make the point that the Chinese were the first to map the stars, yet in the very same post you say that science is later than Ptolemy, and that he and the ancient Greeks weren't really scientists. Well, what are the Chinese you used as an example then? NOT philosophers? I don't get what point you're trying to make at all. Sounds like backpedaling.

/E2: What do you think PhD stands for?
 
Last edited:

RESOLUTION

Active Member
Science IS a philosophy and nothing else. One that produces viable results in non-metaphysical terms. But it's still a philosophy in itself.

And i do make the claim that the Greek philosophers in particular ARE a basis for modern science in the same way as Arab philosophers and mathematicians are, and the Chinese. You are seriously undermining their role in thinking that they're "just philosophers." They're much more than that. You obviously don't know much of their work if you just think they're some old sages tackling metaphysical issues: They did work with the "natural sciences" as well.

I know theory isn't fact and I don't see man scientist posting on these threads.
Modern science is not a philosophy they are always trying to lump them together as they try to make theory fact.
But a set of thoughts or opinions do not constitute evidence.
Ptolemy was for example, primarly a mathematician and an astronomer. Yet he's lumped with "the rest". Highlighting your misunderstanding of what they truly do mean when they call them philosophers: You are not taking into account that science is a philosophy.
Did you google that as it is elementary about Ptolemy.. No! Modern science is not a philosophy.

/E: You make the point that the Chinese were the first to map the stars, yet in the very same post you say that science is later than Ptolemy, and that he and the ancient Greeks weren't really scientists.
They played no part in modern science.No matter how you want to link them they are not attached to modern science.
Don't mistake the word philospher for modern scientist. Science did not come from THOUGHT alone.
The creation itself is the greatest part of modern science not mans thought. Without the 'matter' of the world which includes man then science would have no subject.

Well, what are the Chinese you used as an example then? NOT philosophers? I don't get what point you're trying to make at all. Sounds like backpedaling.

/E2: What do you think PhD stands for?

What Modern science does a PHD in history or music belong to? Being a doctor in that having a doctorate does not make you as scientist.
Science IS a philosophy and nothing else. One that produces viable results in non-metaphysical terms. But it's still a philosophy in itself.

And i do make the claim that the Greek philosophers in particular ARE a basis for modern science in the same way as Arab philosophers and mathematicians are, and the Chinese. You are seriously undermining their role in thinking that they're "just philosophers." They're much more than that. You obviously don't know much of their work if you just think they're some old sages tackling metaphysical issues: They did work with the "natural sciences" as well.

Ptolemy was for example, primarly a mathematician and an astronomer. Yet he's lumped with "the rest". Highlighting your misunderstanding of what they truly do mean when they call them philosophers: You are not taking into account that science is a philosophy.

/E: You make the point that the Chinese were the first to map the stars, yet in the very same post you say that science is later than Ptolemy, and that he and the ancient Greeks weren't really scientists. Well, what are the Chinese you used as an example then? NOT philosophers? I don't get what point you're trying to make at all. Sounds like backpedaling.

/E2: What do you think PhD stands for?

If you thought your way then Music and history are modern science subjects too. Philosophy and science are two separate subjects and without matter neither would exist. Because men think and use created matter does not make the thought the producer of the science because modern science relies on testing and examining things in the real world. As for Ptolemy looks like you only know what you are told. Even with the combining of philosophy and Modern Science. Man wants too much glory and he doesn't deserve it. At best he cannot accept what he knows just to be theory.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
I know theory isn't fact and I don't see man scientist posting on these threads.

What does that have anything to do with what i said?

Modern science is not a philosophy they are always trying to lump them together as they try to make theory fact.

Science is a philosophy. Google "philosophy of science" and read about it. And the last part of this sentence doesn't really make you seem very good at a debate between adults.

But a set of thoughts or opinions do not constitute evidence.

Exactly why most of what you say doesn't count as evidence for you knowing what you are talking about.

Did you google that as it is elementary about Ptolemy.. No! Modern science is not a philosophy.

Yes it is, it was defined, it has rules. It's a philosophy. Looks like it's you who would need to google something.

They played no part in modern science.No matter how you want to link them they are not attached to modern science.

Yes they are. No matter how you want to think that they aren't. If they didn't contribute anything, who did? In your head, the Christian scientists did EVERYTHING? Right?

Don't mistake the word philospher for modern scientist. Science did not come from THOUGHT alone.

Science is a philosophy by definition. There is no way around this. You still don't seem to know what philosophy means.

The creation itself is the greatest part of modern science not mans thought.

Insert rolling eyes smiley. Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Without the 'matter' of the world which includes man then science would have no subject.

I'm still kind of rolling my eyes here.

What Modern science does a PHD in history or music belong to? Being a doctor in that having a doctorate does not make you as scientist.

More rolling eyes.

Music has scientific theory behind it. It's also math. Read about it.

If you thought your way then Music and history are modern science subjects too.

Why do you think they aren't? Ignorance?

Philosophy and science are two separate subjects and without matter neither would exist.

Science is a philosophy.

Because men think and use created matter does not make the thought the producer of the science because modern science relies on testing and examining things in the real world.

Why do you think philosophy only has things to do with thought? Science IS a philosophy as defined by the term itself. It literally means "love of wisdom." Science would be included by definition.

As for Ptolemy looks like you only know what you are told.

Pot calling the kettle black.

Even with the combining of philosophy and Modern Science. Man wants too much glory and he doesn't deserve it. At best he cannot accept what he knows just to be theory.

Science is a philosophy. Philosophy is more than just Descartes + co. It's more than metaphysics.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Because there is not absolute proof. Nor can any man be he scientist or just a layperson provide any that can be conclusive beyond doubt.
Science don't deal in "absolute proof" but it does deal with empirical evidences.

(A) The more evidences that are available and verifiable, that support the statement (statement as in explanation and the predictions to go with the explanation, e.g. found in theory & hypothesis), the more probable is that statement.

(B) If more evidences goes against the statement than support the statement, then the statement is less probable, therefore it shouldn't be accepted. Such statements should be discarded as debunked hypotheses or refuted theories.

(C) And if there are no evidences whatsoever, to support or refute the statements, then those theories or hypotheses should be treated like the (B) - "refuted" and "discarded".

(D) And those statements that are "falsifiable" and "testable", should be considered as debunked, and treated like (C), as not probable but also it should be branded as pseudoscience.​

So sum these 4 scenarios up:
  1. Statements (explanations and predictions in hypotheses or theories) are only accepted in science if the evidences showed that they are "probable".
  2. If the statements are "untestable" (like D), or have zero evidence (like C) or the evidences show that it is "improbable" (like B), then the statements should be considered improbable, refuted and discarded.
You don't keep bringing up the same refuted hypotheses or refuted theories; you would throw them away, and start something new and fresh.

Members of the Discovery Institute (DI) and Intelligent Design (ID) advocates keep bringing Michael Behe's refuted papers on Irreducible Complexity (IC), on the ground that it is unfalsifiable and untestable, and considered nothing more than pseudoscience...and yet they keep bringing to life, only demonstrated the ID adherents are unwilling to accept logic and reality.

The Discovery Institute is not scientific organisation and Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity are not science, so they shouldn't be treated as such.

Creationism, especially the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) and those who accept literal interpretations of Genesis creation and flood, would fall under D category, like Intelligent Design, as pseudoscience, because YEC is not falsifiable and not testable.

For example, if God as the Creator, is responsible and cause for creation of the natural world, then there should empirical evidences for the "cause" (hence for God). But God cannot be tested and it is not possible to find actual evidences for God's existence. That mean the belief in god is based on blind faith, not on evidences.

Science relied on probability and empirical (and verifiable) evidences, not on "absolute proof". Evidences are used to either refute or verify any statement, so the evidences must be testable.

This "absolute proof" fall in the realm of mathematics.

Proofs are mathematical statements, like mathematical equations and mathematical models. It is not real-world solution.

Although science can contain some maths, (proofs like equations and formulas), that's not what make theory being accepted as science. What make theories being "scientific" are the evidences that can be verified.

Evolution is accepted, because the number of evidences that support various mechanisms for biological changes (e.g. Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Natural Selection).

Evidences are not just found in fossils, but also from observation of the current and extant species of plants and animals, and on organisms such as bacteria and viruses.

We know that Germ Theory is factual, and understanding GT relied on understanding evolution.

Natural Selection not only occurred among species of animals, but it also in plant world.

Plants have been observed to change, by adapting to their environment. Some species of plants within the same genus, have changed, because of different soils, for instance, the species can changed due to the acidity of the soil, or there been too much alkaline, or the soil is too dry or too wet. New plants, as offspring, will be different, if they are moved to different locations.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Philosophers??????

Are you saying modern science came from those philosophers. Now who is being ridiculous?

Actually, one of the first 'real' scientists was Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn al-Hasan ibn al-Haytham and was Islamic. He did extensive experiments on optics, and his book was a critical source for early European scientists. he was also a brilliant mathematician and astronomer.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Because there is not absolute proof. Nor can any man be he scientist or just a layperson provide any that can be conclusive beyond doubt.
Sorry, but experimental scientists deal with empirical and verifiable "evidences", not "proof".

Evidences that can be verified, tested, observed, detected, measured, quantified.

Proof is a mathematical statement, like complex mathematical equations being solved, and mainly used by advanced mathematicians and theoretical scientists (particularly physicists working in research of theoretical physics, e.g. Superstring theory, M-theory, Multiverse cosmological models, etc).

Mathematicians and theoretical scientists don't rely on tests and evidences. And proofs are logical, but also very abstract.

Empirical science focused on science that are probable and improbable, and the only way to decide which is true and which is false, is performing rigorous and repeated tests.

Theoretical science, on the other hand, relied more on abstract logics, like mathematical equations and mathematical models, and these models and equations are called "proofs".

The real world is more than just logic.

Evolutionary biology, including mutation, genetic drift and natural selection, is not theoretical science.

The fact there are genetics work, is the basis of understanding evolution. The fact that there are fossil evidences of animals living in different eras and epochs, in certain geological stratas of rocks, required evolution to understand. The fact that viruses mutate, required vaccine researchers to understand evolution.

They are all evidences of evolution at work.

Science - real, everyday science - rely on evidences that show it is "probable" or debunked because they are "improbable".

Real science don't rely on "absolute proof" because proof is not evidence. This "absolute proof" you are harping on is in the realm of mathematics and theoretical physics.

Nothing in (real, as in "empirical" or "experimental") science is "absolute". Any theory or hypothesis can be tested, modified and updated, any statement can be and should be "refutable", in another word - "testable".

Ask any advanced mathematician, and they would explain this to you, what "proof" is.
 

Socratic Berean

Occasional thinker, perpetual seeker
Do you consider as old hat the epigenetics dilemma? Dinosaur soft tissue dating controversy? The article in the peer-reviewed, prestigious journal Science that demonstrated geologically rapid coal formation (though published in, I think, the 70s, it stands unrefuted and is not familiar to many)?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I've been (in various ways) interacting with creationists for over 20 years now. Part of doing that included reading up on the history of creationism and the people who advocate it, so I consider myself to be pretty well versed in creationism and the arguments its adherents put forth. But in looking over the threads here and the discussions therein, something stands out to me......while the creationists who show up and argue for creationism may change over time, the actual arguments they make don't. IOW, the cast changes, but script remains the same.

I've seen many of my fellow science defenders express frustration and/or boredom with how this all goes, where a set of creationists will show up, make a set of arguments, we counter them, and those creationists eventually leave only to be replaced by a new set of creationists who make the same arguments all over again.

Just today I see Guy T. argue that if something isn't experimentally reproduced, it's not science. I've been seeing that sort of ignorant argument from various creationists for years.

I see Deeje saying there are no transitional fossils and making claims about "kinds". Again, I'm sure most of us science defenders have heard that from creationists countless times.

The creationist argument that evolutionary theory is facing "imminent demise" is ridiculed as "the longest running falsehood in creationism", because it can be traced back to 1825! Yet creationists still repeat it today (e.g., the "Dissent from Darwin" list).

For the creationists, I have to ask a couple of things. First, do you even realize that these tired old arguments and talking points have had absolutely zero impact on science? Creationists have been making claims about transitional fossils for over a century, and what impact have they had on paleontology? None. So what exactly do you think will change by repeating them yet again?

Finally.....do you have any new arguments? As noted above, none of your old arguments have impacted science in any way at all, so do you keep repeating them simply because you have nothing else?
Figuring out your arguments, isnt my problem.

I dont have to inform you of the problems in your argument.

If you had the right arguments, in order to rectify those problems, you presumably would have presented them, by now.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I look at science and philosophy as two separate things.

They are now, and have been separated for 400 or so years.

You need to understand, that science and (some) philosophy.

I wrote "some" in parentheses, because only very few philosophies have some things they teach that have scientific merits, while the rest are merely rationality for their personal views.

There are literally thousands of different philosophies. And there are many ancient Greek philosophies, but not all Greek philosophies have scientific worth.

More recent philosophies only speak of science, but they themselves are not science.

The only recent philosophies that I find useful are Epistemology, Empiricism, Methodological Naturalism, and Logical Postivism.

Epistemology is only useful when working with Methodological Naturalism.

I generally find Metaphysics to be too broad and vague, and therefore utterly useless.

In general, I find philosophies to be more talk than actual works.
 

RESOLUTION

Active Member
They are now, and have been separated for 400 or so years.

You need to understand, that science and (some) philosophy.

I wrote "some" in parentheses, because only very few philosophies have some things they teach that have scientific merits, while the rest are merely rationality for their personal views.

There are literally thousands of different philosophies. And there are many ancient Greek philosophies, but not all Greek philosophies have scientific worth.

More recent philosophies only speak of science, but they themselves are not science.

The only recent philosophies that I find useful are Epistemology, Empiricism, Methodological Naturalism, and Logical Postivism.

Epistemology is only useful when working with Methodological Naturalism.

I generally find Metaphysics to be too broad and vague, and therefore utterly useless.

In general, I find philosophies to be more talk than actual works.

I believe the philosophers of old were always talk and thought rather than any actual works.
Not much changed since then,
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe the philosophers of old were always talk and thought rather than any actual works.
Not much changed since then,

Nor should it.

Science is observation, hypothesis formulation and testing, deriving useful generalizations (inductions). The philosopher of science ruminates on the implications of that work.

In the case of quantum mechanics, for example, the scientists wore both hats. They identified the cast of particles and the mathematics that describes their interactions, but also had to grapple with purely philosophical issues such as indeterminism in nature, and the role of consciousness and measurement in physics.

A similar development is occurring in the neurosciences, where some experiments are suggesting that what is experienced as free will may be subconscious mechanisms, that is, processes invisible to the conscious self, send instructions to the self telling it what to want, which the self then acts on (the link below is a brief animation describing the Libet experiment if you are unfamiliar and interested).

This has led to a need to examine more closely just what is meant by the term free will, and what are the implications of these findings. Some of the prominent names having this discussion include Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett. Philosophy is a separate activity from doing science, and necessarily all thought and words, not actions.

 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The first scientists were Christians,. You did know that didn't you?

This is false.

Who was the first scientist depends a bit on how you define the term. Clearly Ptolemy was a scientist in the sense of making mathematical models to help understand the universe. He also tested and modified his ideas using observation.

Ptolemy was not Christian.

Another early scientist was al-Haythami, who wrote some of the most important scientific texts before the modern age. In particular, his research in optics wasn't improved upon until Newton. Need I say that al-Haythami wasn't Christian, but Moslem?
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I believe the philosophers of old were always talk and thought rather than any actual works.
Not much changed since then,
It is still all talk, RESOLUTION.

Modern science began disengaging itself from philosophies, where science began doing the works.

The start of Scientific Revolution with Nicholas Copernicus in 1543, and continued all the way up to Isaac Newton.

A number of scientists during this period were still philosophers too (like Bacon, Galileo, Descartes, Leibniz), but some of them weren't philosophers (Copernicus, Kepler, Newton), and clear separation began to emerge from the late 18th century and onwards to today.

That's not say there is no one were both scientist and philosopher, but generally those who are considered philosophers alone, only talk about science, but not actually doing the works of research and experiments in the fields.
 
Top