For creationists: ToE basic glossary of terms.

[javajo]

And you get this autoritative description of science's limitations from...? So what you're saying is that we could never use science, for example, to solve a murder? How far in the past does something have to be before science becomes useless? I love how YECs assume that scientists are as dishonest as they are. Scientists don't use evidence to create a story that conforms with their worldview. They base their worldview on what the evidence shows.

I wouldn't say I limit science, I would say science has its limits. I just say it is easier to due an experiment with results in the here and now then it is to figure out what happened long ago. Science is great, but its easier to solve a murder from a few days or a couple decades ago than 4 or 6 thousand years ago. As for dishonesty, I think there are people in every worldview that are. I don't think most scientists are dishonest, and I admire that. But we are also spiritual. Now, I do here alot about professors basicaly banned from teaching if there is even a hint that they may believe in the possibility of intelligent design, because of their scientific studies, and I don't like that. They're both theories. The things I perceived as conflicts between science and the Bible when I was younger make sense to me now. Believe me, when I was in my twenties if the two didn't reconcile for me, I would not be who I am today.

 

[javajo]

See, to me, the evidence points to creation and the Flood. And to me there are no seeming contractions in science. I believe Jesus walked on water, what do I care if someone thinks a bone is so many billions of years old? And alot of Christians do believe God used evolution, I just don't happen to be one of them.

 

[Autodidact]

I wouldn't say I limit science, I would say science has its limits. I just say it is easier to due an experiment with results in the here and now then it is to figure out what happened long ago.

If it were easy, it wouldn't be science.

Science is great, but its easier to solve a murder from a few days or a couple decades ago than 4 or 6 thousand years ago. As for dishonesty, I think there are people in every worldview that are.

Of course. That's why the scientific method was invented. Basically, it's the best way we've found to stop us from lying to each other.

I don't think most scientists are dishonest, and I admire that. But we are also spiritual. Now, I do here alot about professors basicaly banned from teaching if there is even a hint that they may believe in the possibility of intelligent design, because of their scientific studies, and I don't like that. They're both theories. The things I perceived as conflicts between science and the Bible when I was younger make sense to me now. Believe me, when I was in my twenties if the two didn't reconcile for me, I would not be who I am today.

Well that's a lie. No one cares what some professor "believes in." That's his business. Now if he wants to teach Biology, he better teach what Biology knows, not some unsupported unscientific fantasy.

No, Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. That's the point of Alceste's thread. It doesn't meet the definition of science. Kitzmiller v Dover. You're free to believe it, just don't call it science. It ain't.

 

[Autodidact]

See, to me, the evidence points to creation and the Flood.

No, it doesn't. It clear that there was never a worldwide flood. Rather than debate it here, if you want to present that non-existent evidence, may I suggest this thread?
So what you're saying is that you know more Geology than the world's Geologists? Geology is just one more science you don't hold with?

And to me there are no seeming contractions in science. I believe Jesus walked on water, what do I care if someone thinks a bone is so many billions of years old?

I don't care whether you care, that's your business. But if you want to say it isn't, you should have some darned strong evidence to discard all of modern paleontology and most of modern physics. Go for it.

And alot of Christians do believe God used evolution, I just don't happen to be one of them.

More pity you. May I suggest this thread as a good place to discuss that?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Now, I do here alot about professors basicaly banned from teaching if there is even a hint that they may believe in the possibility of intelligent design, because of their scientific studies, and I don't like that.

Creationists are under far more pressure than scientists. Since their entire world view is threatened by finding disconfirming evidence, they are very highly motivated not to admit it. Many creationists have taken oaths saying that no evidence could change their dogma (AIG n.d.). At least one admits that he became a scientist not to find the truth, but to destroy Darwinism (Wells n.d.). The commitment to established dogma is pretty well monopolized by creationists.

They're both theories.

1. The word theory, in the context of science, does not imply uncertainty. It means "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" (Barnhart 1948). In the case of the theory of evolution, the following are some of the phenomena involved. All are facts:
   • Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago;
   • Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history;
   • Species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors;
   • Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change.
   Many other facts are explained by the theory of evolution as well.
   
2. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. It has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, and other areas (Bull and Wichman 2001; Eisen and Wu 2002; Searls 2003).
3. Besides the theory, there is the fact of evolution, the observation that life has changed greatly over time. The fact of evolution was recognized even before Darwin's theory. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
4. If "only a theory" were a real objection, creationists would also be issuing disclaimers complaining about the theory of gravity, atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, and the theory of limits (on which calculus is based). The theory of evolution is no less valid than any of these. Even the theory of gravity still receives serious challenges (Milgrom 2002). Yet the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is still a fact.
5. Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless.

The things I perceived as conflicts between science and the Bible when I was younger make sense to me now. Believe me, when I was in my twenties if the two didn't reconcile for me, I would not be who I am today.

Remember, the Bible was never meant to be a science book.

Talk Origins

 

[javajo]

Look, If you believe in evolution, and that all the science backs that up beyond a doubt, fine. I believe God created everything and in Noah's Flood and that science backs that up.

 

[Autodidact]

Look, If you believe in evolution, and that all the science backs that up beyond a doubt, fine. I believe God created everything and in Noah's Flood and that science backs that up.

It's not a case of believing in it, javajo, it's a case of either accepting science or rejecting it. We accept it; you reject it. That's your prerogative. But be honest that that is exactly what you're doing.

No one is requiring you to join the 21st century and accept science at all. You're more than welcome to go back to the time before science brought us so much understanding of the natural world. Can I have your computer?

 

[javajo]

I accept science and have no conflict with it and God. Anyway, like I said, I believe Jesus walked on water and all, so...And I believe he freely saved me and I'll be in Heaven soon. But, nice to talk with you, I respect and hear what yer sayin, but right now its time for me to go smoke a bowl and drink a brewskie! Have a good nite my good man!

 

[Autodidact]

I accept science and have no conflict with it and God.

Of course, there's no conflict between science and God. But there is a lot of conflict between science and "not believing in evolution." Sorry, you're not being honest with yourself. You're rejecting all of biology, geology, astronomy, cosmology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology and most of physics, but you accept science. Sorry, my bullshot button just went off.

Anyway, like I said, I believe Jesus walked on water and all, so...And I believe he freely saved me and I'll be in Heaven soon. But, nice to talk with you, I respect and hear what yer sayin, but right now its time for me to go smoke a bowl and drink a brewskie! Have a good nite my good man!

Fascinating, but take it to another thread. This one's about scientific terminology.

And that would be your good woman, to you!

 

[Draka]

I'm just tyring to understand that when a person that believes in creation does a scientific experiment it is still science. That's all creationism is, doing scientific experiements and tells how they support creationism. Just like evolutionists do scientific experience and tells how they support evolution. The scientific experiments are science on both sides, correct?

Quite simply, the biggest difference in this whole thing is that when doing science a person first observes something, hypothesizes about why or how it is, experiments, verifies experiment results by repeating experiments, records data, adjusts hypothesis accordingly to fit data, and so on until the experiment results and the hypothesis coincide and an acceptable theory can be formed which answers the why or how originally asked.

With creationism/ists, there is a huge flaw in their order. They start out with their theory, already claiming to know the answer, and from there they go and look for tests/experiments they can do specifically in order to prove what they already claim to know is the answer. That is completely backwards from how science works. And therefore, creationism, in no way, can be considered science, nor the ones trying to prove it scientists.

 

[Tristesse]

See, to me, the evidence points to creation and the Flood. And to me there are no seeming contractions in science. I believe Jesus walked on water, what do I care if someone thinks a bone is so many billions of years old? And alot of Christians do believe God used evolution, I just don't happen to be one of them.

Well, it's not so much a matter of beliefs, it's a matter of looking at the evidence, and a matter of whats actually true and whats not. If you don't care whether or not your beliefs are true thats your business. But don't try and get those views taught in a science class, thats all I ask. I'm not implying that thats what you're trying to do. But a lot of people with the same views you have are trying to do that.

 

[Draka]

See, to me, the evidence points to creation and the Flood. And to me there are no seeming contractions in science. I believe Jesus walked on water, what do I care if someone thinks a bone is so many billions of years old? And alot of Christians do believe God used evolution, I just don't happen to be one of them.

There is no honestly validated evidence that points to creation. You believe creation and the flood to be true so you, along with many others, look for stuff you can use to try to validate your belief. The use of half-facts and miscontrued experiment results does not evidence make. You cannot start with your answer and look back for your variables. It's the other way around. You believe the answer is 12, so you look for and come up with a 5 and a 7 and then proclaim you were right all along, but really, there's a 5,7,3,8,and 13 and the answer really is 36. Because of your unwillingness to accept that you could be wrong you will not ever even bother to look for the rest of the variables. This is the main problem with belief in creationism. You limit your own potential for knowledge.

 

[javajo]

Well, most of the world is covered in water...Anyway, although I see much evidence for the Flood, like the Grand Canyon. I look at it and see the Lord's work, someone else looks at it and says, no that river carved it over a long period of time. I see a cataclysmic event, someone else sees something else. Its Historic Science. Not like Practical Science you can measure in the here and now that gave us these computers we are using.

I believe in God and that he made everything. I cannot help that. I sense him with me at all times. I do not know why others don't, but I do and I cannot deny that. Its not science, its more spiritual to me. My Dad saw an angel recently before having heart surgery, in the hospital, it walked right through the room and seemed just as natural and normal as anything. That coming from a man who was a skeptic for decades longer than myself.

 

[fantome profane]

like the Grand Canyon. I look at it and see the Lord's work, someone else looks at it and says, no that river carved it over a long period of time. I see a cataclysmic event, someone else sees something else.

But what we see is not random; our experiences, our knowledge and our understanding determine it. For example, the more you understood about geology the less likely it would be that you would see the Grand Canyon as evidence of a great flood. Speak to people who have a degree in geology and you will find it is impossible for them to see the Grand Canyon as you do. And if you were to gain a sufficient understanding of geological principles you would no longer be able to see things as you do now.

 

[Alceste]

Well, most of the world is covered in water...Anyway, although I see much evidence for the Flood, like the Grand Canyon. I look at it and see the Lord's work, someone else looks at it and says, no that river carved it over a long period of time. I see a cataclysmic event, someone else sees something else. Its Historic Science. Not like Practical Science you can measure in the here and now that gave us these computers we are using.

I believe in God and that he made everything. I cannot help that. I sense him with me at all times. I do not know why others don't, but I do and I cannot deny that. Its not science, its more spiritual to me. My Dad saw an angel recently before having heart surgery, in the hospital, it walked right through the room and seemed just as natural and normal as anything. That coming from a man who was a skeptic for decades longer than myself.

It's not "Historic Science". It's not science at all. It's faith. A scientist would look at the Grand Canyon and say "I wonder what caused this". Then she would investigate - look for "clues", like for example striations in the rock walls that indicate the canyon's age. Once she had gathered enough clues to be pretty sure of herself, and only then would she would draw her conclusions. If the clues said "cataclysmic event", that's what she'd believe. Or, if the clues said "gradual wearing over time", that's what she'd believe. She would have no preference for one answer over another, because she is interested in what is TRUE, not what is compatible with the opinion she had before she started to investigate.

I have no problem with faith - as far as I'm concerned you can believe Paul Bunyan dug the Grand Canyon with his axe. Just, please, stop saying it's science.

Science is a method. If you've already reached your conclusion before you start your "research", you're not using the scientific method.

The reason the scientific method has gathered such universal respect, regardless of culture, religion, language or belief, is because it successfully delivers information that anyone can see for themselves is true. A Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pagan, a Christian and an atheist can all form separate research teams, follow the same method, and (more often than not) all will reach the same conclusion using science, even if it is in conflict with their beliefs.

 

[MSizer]

Well, most of the world is covered in water...Anyway, although I see much evidence for the Flood, like the Grand Canyon. I look at it and see the Lord's work, someone else looks at it and says, no that river carved it over a long period of time. I see a cataclysmic event, someone else sees something else.

You see it that way because you don't know about geology (don't even bother aksing how I think I would know that - it's obvious by your belief).

Abraham Maslow pointed out that "if the the only tool you've ever used is a hammer, all problems will look like nails" and you have never learned to use the tool of the scietific method, which is why you don't see the complete lack of support for your belief.

Think about it this way - if creationist propoganda had not touted that the flood created the grand canyon, would you have even guessed that water was responsible at all? Did you come to the grand canyon created by flood idea on your own? Why not? Because it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Autodidact]

Well, most of the world is covered in water...

But never all at once, because there isn't enough of it.

Anyway, although I see much evidence for the Flood, like the Grand Canyon.

And all those geologists are just a bunch of dummy-heads who don't know what they're talking about.

I look at it and see the Lord's work, someone else looks at it and says, no that river carved it over a long period of time.

You do realize that these don't contradict each other, right?

I see a cataclysmic event,

because you don't know any better

someone else sees something else.

The someone else being every geologist int he world. But since you believe that science doesn't work, their opinion is just as good as yours.

Its Historic Science. Not like Practical Science you can measure in the here and now that gave us these computers we are using.

So for example we can never solve any murders, since they're always in the past. And it's useless to try to use the scientific method to learn about anything that happened in the past, because there is no such thing as evidence, we don't have functioning brains, and it's impossible to use what we don't have to analyse what doesn't exist.

I believe in God and that he made everything.

You believe a lot more than that. You have some very specific beliefs about exactly how He did that, which beliefs conflict with all of modern science. Your beliefs about how God make everything conflict with all of geology, biology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, seismology, astronomy, cosmology and most of physics.

I cannot help that. I sense him with me at all times. I do not know why others don't, but I do and I cannot deny that. Its not science, its more spiritual to me. My Dad saw an angel recently before having heart surgery, in the hospital, it walked right through the room and seemed just as natural and normal as anything. That coming from a man who was a skeptic for decades longer than myself.

Could you be more off topic if you tried?

This thread is not about whether God made everything, only about how. Please ponder that and come back when you have grasped it. Thanks.

 

[javajo]

I think the evidence is not a problem, its the mindset of the ppl looking at it. A geologist who became a Christian said he now sees the evidence everywhere saying, "I would not have seen it if I had not believed it." In my experience, way back in my early twenties, a small part of me hoped I would not find the evidence overwhelmingly for the Deluge, cuz I was a wild and crazy guy. But the fossils, which aren't being made today, they were made as animals were burried alive, very quickly in sediment, point away from evolution (should be a lot of missing links), there are fossil graveyards of animals washed together and were buried and fossilized. Anyway, there are many geologists, and other 'ologists' who after even teaching it on college campuses have rejected ToE and believe that "in the beginning, God...", because of their scientific findings.

 

[Autodidact]

I think the evidence is not a problem, its the mindset of the ppl looking at it. A geologist who became a Christian said he now sees the evidence everywhere saying, "I would not have seen it if I had not believed it."

Can you share his name and account of his experiences? I can. Here's the story of Glenn Morton, former devout YEC, who almost lost his faith when he learned that YEC was completely impossible. How? By studying Geology. He was shocked to learn that YEC is in fact false. "by 1994 I was through with young-earth creationISM. Nothing that young-earth creationists had taught me about geology turned out to be true." I urge you to read the page I link you to.

In my experience, way back in my early twenties, a small part of me hoped I would not find the evidence overwhelmingly for the Deluge, cuz I was a wild and crazy guy. But the fossils, which aren't being made today, they were made as animals were burried alive, very quickly in sediment, point away from evolution (should be a lot of missing links), there are fossil graveyards of animals washed together and were buried and fossilized.

So what you're saying is that you used to accept ToE, but now that you have your Ph.d in Geology you realize that it's false?

Anyway, there are many geologists, and other 'ologists' who after even teaching it on college campuses have rejected ToE and believe that "in the beginning, God...", because of their scientific findings.

There is not a single Geologist in the world who accepts YEC. Why? It's impossible to look at the geological evidence with your own eyes, study the data, and still maintain that it supports YEC.

Alceste: I think you need a definition of science and ToE that explains that neither means or maintains that it is not the case that God created the earth or living things?

 

[imaginaryme]

Jeez. I ain't got no morals, I believe in mathematics. How do I tell right from wrong? Well, let's see...

It's not "Historic Science". It's not science at all. It's faith. A scientist would look at the Grand Canyon and say "I wonder what caused this". Then she would investigate - look for "clues", like for example striations in the rock walls that indicate the canyon's age. Once she had gathered enough clues to be pretty sure of herself, and only then would she would draw her conclusions. If the clues said "cataclysmic event", that's what she'd believe. Or, if the clues said "gradual wearing over time", that's what she'd believe. She would have no preference for one answer over another, because she is interested in what is TRUE, not what is compatible with the opinion she had before she started to investigate.

I have no problem with faith - as far as I'm concerned you can believe Paul Bunyan dug the Grand Canyon with his axe. Just, please, stop saying it's science.

Science is a method. If you've already reached your conclusion before you start your "research", you're not using the scientific method.

The reason the scientific method has gathered such universal respect, regardless of culture, religion, language or belief, is because it successfully delivers information that anyone can see for themselves is true. A Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pagan, a Christian and an atheist can all form separate research teams, follow the same method, and (more often than not) all will reach the same conclusion using science, even if it is in conflict with their beliefs.

Right.

But never all at once, because there isn't enough of it. And all those geologists are just a bunch of dummy-heads who don't know what they're talking about. You do realize that these don't contradict each other, right? because you don't know any better The someone else being every geologist int he world. But since you believe that science doesn't work, their opinion is just as good as yours. So for example we can never solve any murders, since they're always in the past. And it's useless to try to use the scientific method to learn about anything that happened in the past, because there is no such thing as evidence, we don't have functioning brains, and it's impossible to use what we don't have to analyse what doesn't exist.

You believe a lot more than that. You have some very specific beliefs about exactly how He did that, which beliefs conflict with all of modern science. Your beliefs about how God make everything conflict with all of geology, biology, paleontology, archeology, anthropology, seismology, astronomy, cosmology and most of physics. Could you be more off topic if you tried?

This thread is not about whether God made everything, only about how. Please ponder that and come back when you have grasped it. Thanks.

Wrong.
No god necessary. One person talking about the scientific method. One person talking about murder. "Someone" has an axe to grind. Keep yer neck outta this chopping block.