Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism

[Canadian-bloke]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


why do people laugh at creationists

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

 

[moe]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


why do people laugh at creationists

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

You should probably ask to have this moved to the religion and philosophy forum.

Moe

 

[DarkWizard12]

I was fixin to say, if creationism is not science, why is it in the science&technology forum?

Maybe Creationism is a technology? hmmmmm....

 

[Southern Man]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.


why do people laugh at creationists

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

How many 10 minute videos to I have to watch to attempt to figure out your argument? Damn, just sum it up for us in one sentence.

 

[moe]

How many 10 minute videos to I have to watch to attempt to figure out your argument? Damn, just sum it up for us in one sentence.

Maybe that is why they laugh at us? post a bunch of 10 minute anti creationist clips and think we are dumb enough to sit there all day watching them??:mrgreen:

Moe

 

[obvious Child]

I was fixin to say, if creationism is not science, why is it in the science&technology forum?

Maybe Creationism is a technology? hmmmmm....

Creationism is a financial tool to relieve fools and the ignorant of their money for nothing more then reinforcement of a belief system. Technology would imply that there is something tangible. That does not exist with Creationism. Nothing other then publications have been rendered from Creationism's "findings." Commercialization in the capitalist free market world have effectively shown Creationism to be a giant fraud.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Creationism is a financial tool to relieve fools and the ignorant of their money for nothing more then reinforcement of a belief system. Technology would imply that there is something tangible. That does not exist with Creationism. Nothing other then publications have been rendered from Creationism's "findings." Commercialization in the capitalist free market world have effectively shown Creationism to be a giant fraud.

Creationism in its true form, is a science. Which is why it can be bashed as well, as many-a creationist has ruined the term to mean christianity, rather than actualy creationism. If creationism is exclusively a religion, specifically christianity as many atheists proclaim, then what do you call all those muslims in Gaza? Surely they don't believe in evolution, or abiogenesis or whatever you call it.

 

[obvious Child]

Creationism in its true form, is a science. Which is why it can be bashed as well, as many-a creationist has ruined the term to mean christianity, rather than actualy creationism. If creationism is exclusively a religion, specifically christianity as many atheists proclaim, then what do you call all those muslims in Gaza? Surely they don't believe in evolution, or abiogenesis or whatever you call it.

Muslim YEC creationists are even dumber then Christian ones as they are now starting to use many of the arguments that YEC Christians have abandoned, such as the moon dust argument. I've never seen an atheist say that YEC creationism is limited purely to Christanity. Genesis is in all of the Abrahamic religions.

 

[DarkWizard12]

Muslim YEC creationists are even dumber then Christian ones as they are now starting to use many of the arguments that YEC Christians have abandoned, such as the moon dust argument. I've never seen an atheist say that YEC creationism is limited purely to Christanity. Genesis is in all of the Abrahamic religions.

So you admit, Muslims can be creationists too, as well as christians and such. What then, makes it a religion, rather than just some hypothesis taken to the extreme?

 

[obvious Child]

So you admit

I never argued that YEC was limited to Christians. I however, haven't met any significant number of Jews that follow the 6,000 year old belief. Muslim YECs however, are IMO, the dumbest of the lot.

What then, makes it a religion, rather than just some hypothesis taken to the extreme?

When it becomes the prime focus of one's belief. I know a so called Christian who is so adamant to the infallibility of a literal interpretation that he threatens all who disagree with his extremely narrow belief and calls them really horrible names. He even accuses other Christians of not being Christians because they aren't YECs. He doesn't follow Christ, he worships a book. When one replaces the moral teachings of their prophet/central religious figure with the infallibility of an object, then well, that's something entirely different.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I never argued that YEC was limited to Christians. I however, haven't met any significant number of Jews that follow the 6,000 year old belief. Muslim YECs however, are IMO, the dumbest of the lot.



When it becomes the prime focus of one's belief. I know a so called Christian who is so adamant to the infallibility of a literal interpretation that he threatens all who disagree with his extremely narrow belief and calls them really horrible names. He even accuses other Christians of not being Christians because they aren't YECs. He doesn't follow Christ, he worships a book. When one replaces the moral teachings of their prophet/central religious figure with the infallibility of an object, then well, that's something entirely different.

So if I was an atheist who used darwin's theory of evolution to threaten every person who disagreed with me and call them nasty names and accuse other scientists of not being scientists if they don't agree with me, would that make evolution a religion?

Creationism is not a religion, just a "hypothesis" taken to extremes by religious people who are so insecure with their religion that they NEED an excuse to go to church.

 

[obvious Child]

So if I was an atheist who used darwin's theory of evolution to threaten every person who disagreed with me and call them nasty names and accuse other scientists of not being scientists if they don't agree with me, would that make evolution a religion?

Depends why you believe. Darwin's theory by the way is essentially little more then history. People confuse Darwin's with the Modern without realizing that contemporary evolutionary theory has removed significant parts of Darwin's ideas and expanded thousands of miles beyond where he started. If you accept and bash people based on the empirical, tested evidence that shows evolution to be almost certainly correct, then it's not a religion as effectively there is no faith involved. You'd be an ***hole for doing that, but it's not a religion. If that person accused scientists of not being scientists based on what they did, they may be correct. For instance, if a scientist who rejected Evolution did so on the basis of dating yet violated the most basic rules on dating, such as using non-cogentic samples, then there may be some truth in such an accusation. If that atheist bashed without understanding evolution or its evidence, then it would be a religion.

Creationism is not a religion, just a "hypothesis" taken to extremes by religious people who are so insecure with their religion that they NEED an excuse to go to church.

Maybe not a religion itself, but certainly part of one that stems from worshiping a Book rather then the God of the bible. That guy I know considers math to be atheism as well. Go figure.

 

[GarzaUK]

So if I was an atheist who used darwin's theory of evolution to threaten every person who disagreed with me and call them nasty names and accuse other scientists of not being scientists if they don't agree with me, would that make evolution a religion?

Creationism is not a religion, just a "hypothesis" taken to extremes by religious people who are so insecure with their religion that they NEED an excuse to go to church.

Creationism is not a hypothesis as it cannot be tested. You cannot set up an experiment to determine the existance or non-existance of god/s or nor test for he/she/them.

It is a mere idea.

 

[Arch Enemy]

Creationism in its true form, is a science. Which is why it can be bashed as well, as many-a creationist has ruined the term to mean christianity, rather than actualy creationism. If creationism is exclusively a religion, specifically christianity as many atheists proclaim, then what do you call all those muslims in Gaza? Surely they don't believe in evolution, or abiogenesis or whatever you call it.

You are wrong.

Science is the naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena thru experiments and tests where one can have controls. You cannot test creationism, therefore it is not a science. If you are referring to Intelligent Design and the idea of complex inductive organs, then you have a better argument but still wrong. Judge John Jones III said during the ruling of the 2005 Kitzmiller VS Dover School Board "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory"
Source (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3isclaimer - Wikisource)

 

[Arch Enemy]

oh and in most Muslim-Countries it is punishable by death to teach evolution. Infact, there are more countries where evolution is illegal.

 

[DarkWizard12]

oh and in most Muslim-Countries it is punishable by death to teach evolution. Infact, there are more countries where evolution is illegal.

thus, proving the point, creationism, or ID, doesn't encompass christianity, therefore it is not christianity.

 

[DarkWizard12]

You are wrong.

Science is the naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena thru experiments and tests where one can have controls. You cannot test creationism, therefore it is not a science. If you are referring to Intelligent Design and the idea of complex inductive organs, then you have a better argument but still wrong. Judge John Jones III said during the ruling of the 2005 Kitzmiller VS Dover School Board "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory"
Source (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/3isclaimer - Wikisource)

But if creationism is true, then it is a natural phenomenon and can be tested.

 

[moe]

Creationism is not a hypothesis as it cannot be tested. You cannot set up an experiment to determine the existance or non-existance of god/s or nor test for he/she/them.

It is a mere idea.

And again Evolutionists trying to apply double standards. Evolutionists intentionally separate themselves from origins of life science to be able to hold to their theory. An Evolutionist will claim that it is not necessary for them to show how life began only how it evolved after it began but for ID proponents we must not only show Intelligent design in species after life began but also prove the origin of life process that is responsible for that design.

Moe

 

[moe]

But if creationism is true, then it is a natural phenomenon and can be tested.

Not really. The only thing that can not be proved is what intelligent agent is responsible for life. If I take inanimate matter and apply a process that transforms that matter into a living life form then I have proved that an Intelligent being can create life. This opens the door to the possibility that an intelligence greater than our own may be responsible for life here. But I can not prove the identity of who or what the intelligent agent is by using science.

Proving intelligent design does not prove God or the Bible. We could very well have been an experiment conducted by another race from some where else and they are either still observing us or have moved on to other things.

If the multi universe idea is true then they may not even be from this universe. Or even within this universe there maybe a superior life form or cosmic conscience that is responsible for it but they have or had nothing to do with our belief in God or writing the bible. Intelligent design does prove life after death, the flood, the Exodus or Jesus Christ. If the church were not so interested in Intelligent design more scientists would be open to it.

Moe

 

[Dezaad]

... An Evolutionist will claim that it is not necessary for them to show how life began only how it evolved after it began but for ID proponents we must not only show Intelligent design in species after life began but also prove the origin of life process that is responsible for that design.

Moe

I consider myself a scientifically minded person. I do not accept any specific theory about how life began. I doubt you can find a scientist who says "Life began when such and such chemicals were present and such and such conditions happened... etc. etc." They do, however, from time to time, put forward an hypothesis and then test it.

Do ID 'scientists' do this? If they conduct themselves as scientists, then they are doing science. Their hypotheses would be less than promising, but they would be doing science. From all credible accounts, however, they do not.

The process would have to go like this (loosely):

1. Observation: Life forms are exceedingly complex.
2. Hypothesis: God is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.
3. Test Formulation: [I can't think of anything, and neither can they]
4. Conduct Test:
5. Accept / reject / modify hypothesis according to results.

ID mangles this process. It observes that life is complex, then says that it is too complex for evolution to explain (which may or may not be true, they haven't proved this - it is merely a hypothesis) then skips over the whole process I described above and accepts yet another hypothesis (without testing it).

What they don't seem to understand is that, even if evolution were abandoned as completely incapable of explaining the complexity of life, it still would be unscientific to then jump to the conclusion that the existence of God explains life's complexity. The scientifically minded person would not jump to this conclusion, they would simply start looking for new hypotheses (perhaps completely unrelated to evolution) that they could test.

Attempting to get people to accept ID has so far not been a scientific activity.

 

[moe]

I consider myself a scientifically minded person. I do not accept any specific theory about how life began. I doubt you can find a scientist who says "Life began when such and such chemicals were present and such and such conditions happened... etc. etc." They do, however, from time to time, put forward an hypothesis and then test it.

Do ID 'scientists' do this? If they conduct themselves as scientists, then they are doing science. Their hypotheses would be less than promising, but they would be doing science. From all credible accounts, however, they do not.

The process would have to go like this (loosely):

1. Observation: Life forms are exceedingly complex.
2. Hypothesis: God is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.
3. Test Formulation: [I can't think of anything, and neither can they]
4. Conduct Test:
5. Accept / reject / modify hypothesis according to results.

ID mangles this process. It observes that life is complex, then says that it is too complex for evolution to explain (which may or may not be true, they haven't proved this - it is merely a hypothesis) then skips over the whole process I described above and accepts yet another hypothesis (without testing it).

What they don't seem to understand is that, even if evolution were abandoned as completely incapable of explaining the complexity of life, it still would be unscientific to then jump to the conclusion that the existence of God explains life's complexity. The scientifically minded person would not jump to this conclusion, they would simply start looking for new hypotheses (perhaps completely unrelated to evolution) that they could test.

Attempting to get people to accept ID has so far not been a scientific activity.

And again you do the same thing. Origins of life with your [*]Hypothesis: God is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.

I specifically stated in my post that ID whether true or false cannot prove God as the responsible agent. How about this.


[*]Observation: Life forms are exceedingly complex.

[*]Hypothesis: an Intelligent agent is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.

[*]Test Formulation: Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years - Science- msnbc.com

[*]Conduct Test: In progress

[*]Accept / reject / modify hypothesis according to results.

ID mangles this process. It observes that life is complex, then says that it is too complex for evolution to explain (which may or may not be true, they haven't proved this - it is merely a hypothesis) then skips over the whole process I described above and accepts yet another hypothesis (without testing it).

No Evolutionists constantly mangle this in an unscientific attempt to discredit ID.

Let's have a proper scientific debate - Opinion - theage.com.au
That's because these are separate debates. Intelligent design may have theological implications beyond science, but that's not the business of scientists. Their business is to examine the arguments of irreducible complexity with an open mind. And suppose they do find evidence of design, then its author may be beyond the realms of science.
Now it is true that religious fundamentalists in the United States have seized on intelligent design and pushed it beyond science, but its claims shouldn't be discredited simply because of its fellow travellers.

Moe

 

[Dezaad]

And again you do the same thing. Origins of life with your
[*]Hypothesis: God is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.

I specifically stated in my post that ID whether true or false cannot prove God as the responsible agent. How about this.

And I specifically stated that my breakdown was loosely contrived. The looseness in this case is not harmful to the discussion. It makes little difference whether one posits God or some other Intelligent Designer. Any discussion at this point working out which of the two of these or others is a tangent without consequence. Irrelevant and meaningless. But, we can go with any Intelligent Designer you like, take your pick.

[*]Observation: Life forms are exceedingly complex.
[*]Hypothesis: an Intelligent agent is a plausible explanation for how complex life forms are.
[*]Test Formulation: Scientists expect to create life in next 10 years - Science- msnbc.com
[*]Conduct Test: In progress
[*]Accept / reject / modify hypothesis according to results.

So, you're saying that if scientists create life that contributes evidence to the hypothesis that an intelligent designer created life. I disagree. Scientists creating clouds from seeding them doesn't contribute anything to the hypothesis that clouds in general are formed by an intelligent cloud orchestrator. It is the same with the genesis of life.

And your notion that it somehow does contribute evidence is evidence of the problem with ID's whole approach to the scientific process. Instead of having as their ideal the notion that we are on an exploration that will lead where it will, they approach it with an agenda. This leads them to make mistakes... and leads them to guide you to make mistakes.

This has consequences for society's desire to have well trained people who are able to solve problems empirically in many many career paths that don't even involve scientific research. I do it every hour of every day in my occupation, and the things I produce save companies alot of money, making them more productive and prosperous, along with their employees and ultimately society. If I wasn't trained to recognize when I am approaching a problem with a preconceived notion, I would be far less effective.

 

[moe]

And I specifically stated that my breakdown was loosely contrived. The looseness in this case is not harmful to the discussion. It makes little difference whether one posits God or some other Intelligent Designer. Any discussion at this point working out which of the two of these or others is a tangent without consequence. Irrelevant and meaningless. But, we can go with any Intelligent Designer you like, take your pick.

No. You are intentionally trying to maneuver the topic to claim that ID specifically points to God as the designer even after I have already stated that ID cannot prove God regardless of whether it is true or not and I even proposed several other possibilities besides God or a Biblical view but you are the one who insists that ID's only possible conclusion is God did it. Do I believe in God? Yes. Does that mean that there really is a God that is responsible for all things just because I believe it? No. Even if ID in the future successfully proves that life on this planet was specifically designed does that mean that my position is now supported by science? No for all the reasons and more that I stated in my previous post.

So, you're saying that if scientists create life that contributes evidence to the hypothesis that an intelligent designer created life. I disagree. Scientists creating clouds from seeding them doesn't contribute anything to the hypothesis that clouds in general are formed by an intelligent cloud orchestrator. It is the same with the genesis of life.

I was not aware that clouds were alive. And again you are the one who keeps talking in absolutes when I am talking only about the possibilities. And again you are using origins. Genesis of life.

And your notion that it somehow does contribute evidence is evidence of the problem with ID's whole approach to the scientific process. Instead of having as their ideal the notion that we are on an exploration that will lead where it will, they approach it with an agenda. This leads them to make mistakes... and leads them to guide you to make mistakes.

Considering that Macro Evolution has never even made it past the very step of the scientific method as has never even been observed one has to wonder who truly has an agenda. The Macro Evolution faithful are actually becoming the new mother church and she can not tolerate any other belief except her own.

This has consequences for society's desire to have well trained people who are able to solve problems empirically in many many career paths that don't even involve scientific research. I do it every hour of every day in my occupation, and the things I produce save companies alot of money, making them more productive and prosperous, along with their employees and ultimately society. If I wasn't trained to recognize when I am approaching a problem with a preconceived notion, I would be far less effective.

You have never approached a problem with out a preconceived notion? Then you must be a robot. You mean to say that you have not ever been presented with a case that you did not already have a central idea as to what you believed the problem may be but then with further proper investigation discovered your original idea wrong? Back to the drawing board? The real problem is when people have preconceived notions and refuse to accept that large amounts of evidence do not support that notion and then fight against any one else that wishes to approach the problem from a different perspective than their own.

Moe

 

[Dezaad]

No. You are intentionally trying to maneuver the topic to claim that ID specifically points to God as the designer even after I have already stated that ID cannot prove God regardless of whether it is true or not and I even proposed several other possibilities besides God or a Biblical view but you are the one who insists that ID's only possible conclusion is God did it.

I can only point to my own words to refute this. I stated that it doesn't matter whether it was God or some other intelligent designer, so I am not insisting that ID's only possible conclusion is God did it. Let me repeat, I am obviously not insisting that God is the only possible Intelligent Designer. Yet.

I am, however, insisting that it doesn't matter to the current point. It only matters as to the question of whether or not ID is religion, which I am not discussing. I am discussing whether ID approaches questions scientifically, and asserting that it does not.

I was not aware that clouds were alive. And again you are the one who keeps talking in absolutes when I am talking only about the possibilities.

The possibility exists that Life was created and was advanced in complexity by an Intelligent Designer whether or not scientists can create life. The possibility is not increased in liklihood if scientists do in fact create life.

And again you are using origins. Genesis of life.

Actually, it was you that brought up origins of life. "Scientists expect to create life in ten years"

Considering that Macro Evolution has never even made it past the very step of the scientific method as has never even been observed one has to wonder who truly has an agenda. The Macro Evolution faithful are actually becoming the new mother church and she can not tolerate any other belief except her own.

You are quite right that macro evolution has never been observed in the lab. At least not that I've read. Is that what you require in order to accept theories concerning the advancement of life? That you be able to observe the actual event occuring in the lab? So, I imagine that you are insisting that ID show you, in the lab, the Intelligent Designer causing life to advance or being created, correct?

But, we're not talking about evolution here, but creationism, which is what ID is a version of.

You have never approached a problem with out a preconceived notion? Then you must be a robot.

Wow. I can't believe that, given what I did say that you came up with this version. Luckily, the words are all still there, and I stand on the fact that what I really said was that I have been trained to recognize when I am approaching questions with preconceived ideas. I leave it to you to find the exact line where I said that, it's really not hard to find.

You mean to say that you have not ever been presented with a case that you did not already have a central idea as to what you believed the problem may be but then with further proper investigation discovered your original idea wrong? Back to the drawing board?

No, that is not what I mean to say. What I said was that I had been trained to know when I am approaching problems with preconceived notions. What that does for me is to be able to recognize when I need to go back to the drawing board.

The real problem is when people have preconceived notions and refuse to accept that large amounts of evidence do not support that notion and then fight against any one else that wishes to approach the problem from a different perspective than their own.

Precisely, but people who are putting ID forth as an alternative exhibit a lack of scientific discipline in their arguments and practice, and thereby cannot be taken seriously. It is for this reason that their arguments are not considered. It is not because people want to believe in evolution. Why would someone want to believe in evolution? They just do, because it fits all the evidence.

Quite frankly, as intelligent designers go, I would actually prefer that everything be created by a loving god (not the god of the Bible, therefore), but am compelled to reject the whole notion of any kind of intelligent designer because the evidence does not support it.

 

[moe]

I can only point to my own words to refute this. I stated that it doesn't matter whether it was God or some other intelligent designer, so I am not insisting that ID's only possible conclusion is God did it. Let me repeat, I am obviously not insisting that God is the only possible Intelligent Designer. Yet.
I am, however, insisting that it doesn't matter to the current point. It only matters as to the question of whether or not ID is religion, which I am not discussing. I am discussing whether ID approaches questions scientifically, and asserting that it does not.

May I suggest that people look at your first post and read your own words. What do you mean by yet?

The possibility exists that Life was created and was advanced in complexity by an Intelligent Designer whether or not scientists can create life. The possibility is not increased in liklihood if scientists do in fact create life.

Agreed. Even if we failed and concluded it could not be done that still does not mean a more intelligent entity elsewhere succeeded

Actually, it was you that brought up origins of life. "Scientists expect to create life in ten years"

We have already proved many times that we can direct the evolution of many different life forms plant and animal. We can clone life, Now we are on the threshold of creating life itself. None of this was accomplished by random chance. We practice Intelligent design everyday in horticulture and agriculture. Science has already shown beyond a shadow of a doubt how an intelligent agent can direct the progress of another species.

You are quite right that macro evolution has never been observed in the lab. At least not that I've read. Is that what you require in order to accept theories concerning the advancement of life? That you be able to observe the actual event occuring in the lab? So, I imagine that you are insisting that ID show you, in the lab, the Intelligent Designer causing life to advance or being created, correct?

Nor in nature. It is all speculation based on a far from cooperative fossil record. Thus Gould and Eldridge came up with the Punctuated Equilibrium theory in attempts to explain away the lack of transitional fossils

But, we're not talking about evolution here, but creationism, which is what ID is a version of.

What was that you were saying about pointing to your own words to refute? Are you aware that the majority of ID scientists were once evolution proponents? That many still hold that there was some evolution involved in the process?

Wow. I can't believe that, given what I did say that you came up with this version. Luckily, the words are all still there, and I stand on the fact that what I really said was that I have been trained to recognize when I am approaching questions with preconceived ideas. I leave it to you to find the exact line where I said that, it's really not hard to find.

Well, go back and read what you said and see if you can figure it out. I find it odd that a person has to be trained to recognize that they are approaching anything with out having some kind of preconceived notion. Even what I am thinking about having for supper is preconceived. A friend could show up between now and then and I may go out and have something completely different.

No, that is not what I mean to say. What I said was that I had been trained to know when I am approaching problems with preconceived notions. What that does for me is to be able to recognize when I need to go back to the drawing board.

I really do not know how to answer this with out sounding offensive. It is not my intent, But really you make it sound like you are not cut out for any kind of work that involves trouble shooting type skills. I work in a mechanical environment surrounded by very expensive equipment that can kill you quickly if you do not know what you are doing. It would really bother me if I had to stop any of my co workers and ask them if they had been trained to stop and reassess a situation/problem if what we they were doing was not producing the desired results.

I guess to be fair though you could say that we are all trained in problem solving to a certain degree. Obviously they do not a take person that is in an entry level position and assign them to something that is obviously beyond their current ability. But most of it really is just common sense. maybe I am misunderstanding you here I don't know.

Precisely, but people who are putting ID forth as an alternative exhibit a lack of scientific discipline in their arguments and practice, and thereby cannot be taken seriously. It is for this reason that their arguments are not considered. It is not because people want to believe in evolution. Why would someone want to believe in evolution? They just do, because it fits all the evidence.

Have you ever read The Cells design by Fazale Rana ? or Behe's the Edge of Evolution?

Quite frankly, as intelligent designers go, I would actually prefer that everything be created by a loving god (not the god of the Bible, therefore), but am compelled to reject the whole notion of any kind of intelligent designer because the evidence does not support it.

That would be nice but as I said ID can not provide that kind of information. As to evidence Dawkins himself admits that everything appears to be designed .

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

He just thinks that we should not be fooled by appearances

Moe