Creationists - Ignorant or Brainwashed?

[The_Hamster_King]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
Facts, can we get some facts here.
The theory of creationism can no more be disproven than the theory of evolution. To disprove it you would have to invent a God-o-meter, calibrate it, then sweep the entire universe and demonstrate that there is no trace of a God ever existing. A little hard to do.
Alll we can do is say that the facts don’t fit the theory, and in the case of creationism that’s going to be imposssible to do becasue if nothing else the theory can say 'He can make whatever facts He likes".

Of course if you hew to this standard of “proof” nothing can ever be proven and rational discourse becomes impossible. Maybe the Moon is really made of green cheese but God changed it into rock just before each Apollo landing and back afterwards … after all you can’t disprove it can you? Maybe this should be taught as an alternate theory of lunar geology in our schools?

** I’d be really interested in seeing a cite for Mr2001’s assertion that creationism has been disproved by science.
Just the use of the word ‘majority’ demonsrates we don’t have scientific ‘proof’. Anyone who asserts that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism hasgot his fingers in an inappropriate orifice.**

Okay, try this Gaspode. Go to the Scientific American website (http://www.sciam.com/) and run searches on both “evolution” and “creationism”. Evolution returns 269 articles, spanning a wide variety of disciplines. Some sample titles:

“Evolution and the Origins of Disease”
“Mating Strategies in Butterflies”
“The Architecture of Life”
“Snowball Earth”
“Rulers of the Jurrassic Seas”

Creationism returns 8 hits. Most are articles about efforts by Creationists to force their religious agenda on schoolchildren. None are about scientific research into Creationism.

As samples go, Scientific American is a pretty good cross-section of what the world science community is up to. And the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be, while creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots.

** Oh and Pochacco I’m fairly ceratin you’re a drive-by so I won’t waste much time on you, but the appropriate response in science is NEVER the ridicule of another scientist. **

Creationists are not scientists. They are religious cranks who cover their blinkered beliefs with a veneer of science in an attempt to give it legitimacy with the science-ignorant public. They deserve to be exposed as the liars and charlatans that they are.

[Ms2001]

Gaspode:

I’d be really interested in seeing a cite for Mr2001’s assertion that creationism has been disproved by science.

That wasn’t my assertion; perhaps I was unclear. Randy said that some people believe the fossil records are evidence for creationism (rather than for evolution, I assume), and I said the majority of the scientific world has shown that to be false. Evolution does a fine job of explaining the fossil record.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Pochacco *
It’s as though Creationists were standing in a room full of monkeys with their eyes shut and their fingers in their ears saying "What? What monkeys? I don’t see any monkeys here. I have a book that says there can’t be monkeys in this room so there are definitely no monkeys!"

The technical term for this behavior is cognitive dissonance," “the mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information,” according to Britannica. It would not surprise me if all creationists suffer from this.

I suppose I have too from time to time.

[Gaspode]

*Originally posted by Pochacco *
Of course if you hew to this standard of “proof” nothing can ever be proven and rational discourse becomes impossible. Maybe the Moon is really made of green cheese but God changed it into rock just before each Apollo landing and back afterwards … after all you can’t disprove it can you? Maybe this should be taught as an alternate theory of lunar geology in our schools?

The standard of proof has to be either as per the dictionary definition of proof or as per the ‘reasonable man’ standard of courtrooms. If the former then you misused the word ‘proof’ in your first post. If the latter I suggest you do a search on ‘proving a negative’ in GQ. This has been thrashed out. Consensus and logic tells us many things can be proven.
I am not a giraffe.

As samples go, Scientific American is a pretty good cross-section of what the world science community is up to. And the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be, while creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots.

A classic example of an argument from authority here Pochacco. This is not a cite for creationism being disproved. It is fairly flawed survey of what Scientific American editors believe. We don’t take votes on the facts around here my man, I suggest you refer to Cecil.
You’re going to have to do a lot better. Considering Mr2001 has made it clear that I misunderstood his intent and he never meant to imply any such cite existed, and Polycarp has acknowledged that creationism can’t be disproved you probably shouldn’t waste your time.
The last sentence is particularly purile. This makes it clear you never bothered reading any of the cites I posted, all published in real scientific journals in the past 18 months and all disproving your statement that ‘the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be’.
I’m afraid that the very last section is just too precious to let slip by. Can I have a cite for “creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots” please? I’m dying to see it.

Creationists are not scientists. They are religious cranks who cover their blinkered beliefs with a veneer of science in an attempt to give it legitimacy with the science-ignorant public. They deserve to be exposed as the liars and charlatans that they are.

Quite vitriolic, I’d rate it at about 3.5 for a pit thread. Unfortunately saying these things in GD is going to leave you with egg on your face. I am a scientist. I am a creationist. Dr. Spetner is a scientist. Dr. Spetner is a creationist. Charles Darwin was a scientist, Charles Darwin was a creationist.
You see Pochacco what you are now indulging in is known as ‘arguing the question’. That assertion is a rephrasing of the OP. I have already demonstrated the OP wrong and by extension this little rant is wrong. If you want to retire gracefully from this debate now, and I suggest you do so, then feel free. If you intend to post here again you’re going to have to provide cites for “Creationists are not scientists.’ , a cite for ‘they are religious cranks who cover their blinkered beliefs with a veneer of science in an attempt to give it legitimacy with the science-ignorant public” and also a cite for “They deserve to be exposed as the liars and charlatans that they are.”
Let me guess, without checking your profile, you’re not actually a scientist are you?
I kind of wish you had been a drive-by since you apparently have nothing to add to this debate aside from assertion and bile.

[Randy]

Gaspode
This is WAY off the Thread here, but is your user name the Russian word for “Lord”?

I was in Russia, in 1996, in two small towns, then in Moscow. What an unforgettable experience.

[HalberMensch242]

*Originally posted by Randy *
**Gaspode
This is WAY off the Thread here, but is your user name the Russian word for “Lord”?

I was in Russia, in 1996, in two small towns, then in Moscow. What an unforgettable experience.

**

Ahem…just dropping by…readin this enthralling thread…
Oh…and the russian word for god…would be phonetically spelled in this way…“Gospod”…oh and thanx for dissing Mother Russia…my slav heart has never felt such pride…

[Gaspode]

[quot]
Gaspode

This is WAY off the Thread here, but is your user name the Russian word for “Lord”?
[/quote]

Nope, it’s the name of a talking dog in the Discworld novels.

“Gaspode, named after the famous Gaspode”

[El_Kabong]

Because they were taught evolution in public school and not creation because the liberal govt didn’t want to give the average kid a chance to question it? I mean y’all evolutionist are hellbent for leather on evolution being taught in school with tax dollars when you know no one really needs this information unless they maybe want to be a doctor or debate evolution on the SDMB.

OK, so that’s one more for ignorance, while advocating brainwashing, apparently.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
I am a scientist. I am a creationist. Dr. Spetner is a scientist. Dr. Spetner is a creationist. Charles Darwin was a scientist, Charles Darwin was a creationist.

Charles Darwin lived a VERY long time ago, long before many discoveries were made that we now take for granted. For example, while he probably had heard of DNA, (discovered in 1869), he could not have known its role in inheritance because that was not determined until 1943.

Today’s creationists have no such excuses. Today, claiming you are a creationist and a scientist is like saying you are a witch doctor who graduated from Harvard Medical School; or maybe an astrologer who uses the latest telescopes to make better horoscopes. Or perhaps an astronomer who spends his days looking for signs in the Heavens that Jesus is returning.

A creationist cannot be a scientist because a true scientist never resorts to miracles to explain phenomena. The true scientist admits “We can’t say for sure at this time. More investigation is necessary.”

As for ignorance, I’ve been debating Noah and the Flood over at The Pizza Parlor, a message board that seems to be down at the moment. I pointed out that it takes millions of years for mountains to form; some YECs claim they were all formed during the Flood. Some YECs think the pre-Flood Earth was a tropical paradise, but that would mean that Ice Age animals could not have lived before the Flood. Some YECs say the early Earth was a tropical paradise the vapor canopy of water created a greenhouse effect, but the greenhouse effect is not caused by water vapor but by carbon dioxide and methane.

And there are more examples of YEC ignorance. But it would take more time than I have just to list them all.

[Opus1]

Randy wrote:

Myself, I can’t believe one word of it was written that was not inspired by God. If that makes me a Literalist, than I will embrace that title wholeheartedly.

Slightly off-topic, but Randy’s argument (and whole world-view for that matter) pretty much rests on the assumption that the Bible is the divine, inspired word of Yahweh.

Some random Bible quotes…

Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. (1 Sam. 15:3)

And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. (Jg. 19:29)

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Ps. 137:9)

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (Dt. 23:1)

For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.
(Ez. 23:20)

And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (Dt. 2:19)

And Moses gave inheritance unto the tribe of Gad, even unto the children of Gad according to their families.
And their coast was Jazer, and all the cities of Gilead, and half the land of the children of Ammon, unto Aroer that is before Rabbah; (Js. 13:24-25)

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say,Go number Israel and Judah. (2 Sam. 24:1)

And Satan stood up against Israel and provoked David to number Israel." (1 Chr. 21:1)

Somehow, this falls a little short of what I would expect an omnipotent deity to be capable of. But then again, who says that Yahweh is omnipotent?:

And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. (Jg. 1:19)

More good reading that should dispel the myth of divine inspiration at http://www.awitness.org/bible.html

[The_Hamster_King]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
**

*Originally posted by Pochacco *
Of course if you hew to this standard of “proof” nothing can ever be proven and rational discourse becomes impossible. Maybe the Moon is really made of green cheese but God changed it into rock just before each Apollo landing and back afterwards … after all you can’t disprove it can you? Maybe this should be taught as an alternate theory of lunar geology in our schools?

The standard of proof has to be either as per the dictionary definition of proof or as per the ‘reasonable man’ standard of courtrooms. If the former then you misused the word ‘proof’ in your first post. If the latter I suggest you do a search on ‘proving a negative’ in GQ. This has been thrashed out. Consensus and logic tells us many things can be proven.
I am not a giraffe.
**

Actually I was assuming a Popperian standard of scientific proof – essentially that “positive support” for all scientific theories is fundamentally unattainable and that the best we can ever hope for is to formulate error-free theories. The introduction of supernatural elements into the theories makes falsification (and therefore science) impossible.
**

As samples go, Scientific American is a pretty good cross-section of what the world science community is up to. And the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be, while creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots.

A classic example of an argument from authority here Pochacco. This is not a cite for creationism being disproved. It is fairly flawed survey of what Scientific American editors believe. We don’t take votes on the facts around here my man, I suggest you refer to Cecil.
**

You misunderstand my point. I wasn’t suggesting that lack of articles in Scientific American disproves Creationism. It was in response to your post stating that “Anyone who asserts that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism has got his fingers in an inappropriate orifice”. I think it’s clear from the article counts that the vast majority of scientists take evolution as a given.
**

You’re going to have to do a lot better. Considering Mr2001 has made it clear that I misunderstood his intent and he never meant to imply any such cite existed, and Polycarp has acknowledged that creationism can’t be disproved you probably shouldn’t waste your time.
The last sentence is particularly purile. This makes it clear you never bothered reading any of the cites I posted, all published in real scientific journals in the past 18 months and all disproving your statement that ‘the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be’.
**

The papers you cite are all scientists suggesting evidence that is at odds with the standard mutation/natural selection model of evolution. None of them are saying “here’s evidence of life being created by a supernatual being”. Questioning the accepted mechanism of evolution is not the same as rejecting it entirely.

Please pay attention to the title of the thread – it’s not “Scientists who disagree with natural selection – Ignorant or Brainwashed?”

**
I’m afraid that the very last section is just too precious to let slip by. Can I have a cite for “creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots” please? I’m dying to see it.
**

I think the utter lack of research into Creationism by reputable scientists is evidence enough. After all, even a discipline as fringy as parapsychology has a few footholds in real academia – the Univerity of Edinburgh, the University of Nevada. Creationism can’t even manage that.

Note that I’m not saying that there aren’t reputable scientists who believe in Creationism. What I’m saying is that there aren’t any reputable scientists working on Creationism. Cites to the contrary would be appreciated, of course … .

**
[/QUOTE]

[Gaspode]

You misunderstand my point. I wasn’t suggesting that lack of articles in Scientific American disproves Creationism. It was in response to your post stating that “Anyone who asserts that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism has got his fingers in an inappropriate orifice”. I think it’s clear from the article counts that the vast majority of scientists take evolution as a given.

And I will repeat, anyone who asserts that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism has got his fingers in an inappropriate orifice. I care very little what point you were trying to make. You posted that ‘Scientific American’ rubbish as evidence ‘that the majority of the scientific world has disproved creationism’. It is not evidence of any such thing. If you have any real evidence then please post it. The opinions of the editors of ‘Scientific American’ or of a group of scientists is irrelevant to the facts. Added to this ‘taking evolution as a given’ is a far cry from ‘disproving creationism’ so what you posted was totally and utterly irrelvant in all respects. If you have some facts to back up the assertion that was made then post it. Otherwise please stop dragging in irrelevant information.

The papers you cite are all scientists suggesting evidence that is at odds with the standard mutation/natural selection model of evolution. None of them are saying “here’s evidence of life being created by a supernatual being”. Questioning the accepted mechanism of evolution is not the same as rejecting it entirely.

Sorry, you don’t get to squirm out of it that easily. You stated “And the world science community takes evolution to be about as well-proven as any theory can ever be.” The papers I cited demonstrate that any given theory of evolution is not ‘about as well-proven as any theory can ever be’ and that argument still rages about even the most fundamental points. I’m sure even you can think of several theories that are far more well proven than that. If you have any cites to back up your sweeping statement please post them. If not concede that your statement is baseless assertion and leave with some dignity.

I’m afraid that the very last section is just too precious to let slip by. Can I have a cite for “creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots” please? I’m dying to see it.

I think the utter lack of research into Creationism by reputable scientists is evidence enough.

And I will repeat: what you think doesn’t mean jack in GD. What you think constitutes evidence means even less. You made a sweeping statement and presented it, not as opinion, but as fact. You have been called on it and started babbling on about parapsychology. You made the assertion, either cite or pull your pants up.

Note that I’m not saying that there aren’t reputable scientists who believe in Creationism. What I’m saying is that there aren’t any reputable scientists working on Creationism. Cites to the contrary would be appreciated, of course … .

1. What you said in fact was “Creationists are not scientists.”. ie the two groups are mutually exclusive. You followed this with “creationism is the province of cranks and crack-pots”.
2. Who ever said there were “reputable scientists working on Creationism”? You seem to be attempting to argue with yourself to cover up the fact that you have made several sweeping and baseless statements that cannot be supported with facts.
3. Hi Opal.
4. I’m only obliged to provide cites for the statements I make. You have made the statement “there aren’t any reputable scientists working on Creationism” now I would appreciate a cite to back that up.

Basically, Pochacco, it appears you have come into this debate with no facts, a fair amount of vitriol, have made numerous sweeping statements and are now attempting to back them up with opinion and assertion. Can you actually provide cites to back up anything you have said?

[jab1]

You’ve stated you are a scientist and a creationist, so tell us, please, what field of science is your expertise and which creation story do you believe?

I am an athiest and I am not a scientist.

[Gaspode]

Not that I can see what relevance it has to the debate, but my ‘expertise’ is in tropical woodland ecology. I’m a botanist come ecologist (the line is a bit blurry) but my formal education has been in Applied Biology and Rural Science, with current studies in Ecology.
The creation story I believe is largely based on Tarambal Aboriginal belief.

[jab1]

Actually, it does have relevance. 95% (more or less) of the people who come here claiming they are creationists also claim to be Christians. Most of them say they believe the world (the whole universe, in fact) was made only 6,000+ years ago in just six days and that at one point, the entire world was flooded for a year roughly 4,500 years ago. So when you come here saying you are a creationist, we naturally assumed you were another Christian. It means we have to get different evidence to argue for or against your claims.

It also means some of us are gonna have to study and learn just what the Aboriginal creation story is. I haven’t a clue. (Why do I get the feeling that it claims that life began in Australia? Is it because that EVERY creation myth claims that life began at or near where its believers live? Why else would the Garden of Eden alleged to be in Mesopotamia?)

As for your profession, I fail to understand how someone can be a botanist and not believe evolution happens. How else did we get such a variety of plant life?

[Gaspode]

jab1

I know most creationists here claim to be Christian and I can understand that assumption being made by Americans even if I do find it a little blinkered, but I’ve stated elsewhere on this thread that I’m not a Christian.
In this debate it’s not a case of arguing for or against my claims. I haven’t made any aside from the general one that the OP is wrong and that any statements leading from it are inherently wrong. You don’t need to have any knowledge of my religious beliefs to argue against the statements I have made since my faith has no bearing on them. I could just as easily have been an atheist and made the same statements with the same justification. The OP is wrong.
I find it interesting that you want to find evidence to prove my faith wrong when it is at best tangential to the debate.
Unfortunately you aren’t able to find out what my creation beliefs are. I’m not allowed to discuss them with you, nor is anyone else who shares them. There are a range of beliefs amongst clans/nations across the continent and although I gather they are all similar I have not heard of any that can be discussed with outsiders. You will probably find information on various myths and stories, but from those that I can verify they are only related to belief in the same way that the Easter bunny is related to Christian theology.
And I’m going to get really shitty if I have to state one more time on this thread that I have never said that I do not believe in evolution.. When are you Yanks going to finally get it through your head that being a creationist and a belief in evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. This is particularly annoying when the majority of creationists on this board apparently have no problem with evolution.
jab1 I think you are looking for an argument with my beliefs, however this is not the appropriate thread for you to do so even if that were possible.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Gaspode *
I haven’t made any aside from the general one that the OP is wrong and that any statements leading from it are inherently wrong. You don’t need to have any knowledge of my religious beliefs to argue against the statements I have made since my faith has no bearing on them. I could just as easily have been an atheist and made the same statements with the same justification. The OP is wrong.

If you recall, I backed you up by pointing out two additional choices, “both” or “none.”

Unfortunately you aren’t able to find out what my creation beliefs are. I’m not allowed to discuss them with you, nor is anyone else who shares them.

I had no idea. I won’t ask again.

You will probably find information on various myths and stories, but from those that I can verify they are only related to belief in the same way that the Easter bunny is related to Christian theology.

Got it.

When are you Yanks going to finally get it through your head that being a creationist and a belief in evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive.

I do have a problem accepting that one can believe in both evolution and creationism.

[Gaspode]

jab1

I appreciate that you suuported my viewpoint re the OP. My comment above was made in response to your infernce that my beliefs had some bearing on my rejection of the OP. Since a self-confessed atheist like yourself agreed with me it seems apparent they have no bearing whatsoever. That’s the reason why I couldn’t quite see the relevance of what brand of creation I believed in.
There’s no problem with asking about my religious/philosophical beliefs, and there’s a fair bit of other stuff like Christianity and Buddhism thrown in there as well, but on some points you just won’t get an answer.

[hardcore]

jab1:

I do have a problem accepting that one can believe in both evolution and creationism.

The reason you are having such difficulty with this concept is because Gaspode has so badly mangled the meaning of the word creationist that it becomes utterly useless. Anyone who can claim with a straight face that Darwin was a creationist is obviously playing loose with their definition of the term.

[Gaspode]

A mangled definition Hardcore?

New Oxford Dictionary of English.
creationism1 noun [mass noun] the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation.
creationism2 another term for creation science.
-DERIVATIVES creationist noun amp adjective.

Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary
Main Entry: cre.a.tion.ism
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1880
: a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis – compare EVOLUTION 4b

• cre.a.tion.ist /-sh&-nist/ noun or adjective

I would be interested in seeing your definition of creationist Hardcore, and to see you explain how Darwin, Spetner and myself don’t fit the definition. I can only assume it must be along the lines of ‘One who believes in the creation of life by a supernatural force in six literal days exactly as described in the Bible and without any possible reference to other faith or belief systems, and who utterly rejects any concept of evolution.’