# Creationists: Strut Your Stuff **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2000, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827 "2000-03-11T20:01:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/281 "2000-03-17T01:45:00Z")
DavidB: Actually, evidence WAS posted in favor of creationism. It may not have been very good evidence. It may not have been incontrovertible, but it was evidence. If I say “God told me so,” that is a form of evidence. The similarity between the big bang and God’s “Let there be light!” is evidence. It has often been said that creationists fail when they attempt to discuss creationism out side of its framework of faith. I thought it would be an interesting argument to turn it around and see what happened if you tried to catch a “scientist” justifying science with faith. [Faux-creationist hat on:] Though Singledad and JonR were both careful, they both did it. If science ultimately at some point does have to be justified by faith, I wonder what the ramifications are for things like creation debate. If both sides are based in faith in their particular but ultimately arbitrary belief system than their is no rational basis for choosing one over the other. [Faux-creationist hat off:] ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/282 "2000-03-17T02:23:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Satan: > \*\* > ghoti, who is one of the more intelligent debaters when it comes to these matters over at LBMB, has thrown down a bit of a gauntlet. > > \*\* Shudder… “Relative Epistemic Virtuosity”? I don’t think I want to know what the stupid ones are like- this guy is so full of himself as to be nearly unreadable. It took him an entire screenful to impart pearls of wisdom like: [mock quote] 3. Theory of evolution. When I refer to the theory of evolution, I shall refer to it as “the theory of evolution.” [/mock quote] Ask him if he can explain protein homology. I’ve only met one or two creationists who even know what it is, and those were the ones who said that the evidence is vastly in favor of evolution, but they don’t believe it anyway. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/283 "2000-03-17T02:24:00Z")
Scylla said: > [@](#): > > Actually, evidence WAS posted in favor of creationism. Scuse me. I should have said “scientific evidence.” Carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Ben](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/df788c/32.png) [@Ben](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ben)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/284 "2000-03-17T02:26:00Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally posted by Scylla: > \*\*DavidB: > > Actually, evidence WAS posted in favor of creationism. \*\* It’s sad how often this happens. I asked the creationists on talk.origins to suggest a creation science textbook, and got no reply whatsoever. Finally some evolutionists suggested one. -Ben ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/285 "2000-03-17T02:36:00Z")
JonF wrote: > [@](#): > > Could you also please explain why you think pi is a simple concept, including if you would a discussion of Euler’s identity (e to the power (pi times the sqare root of -1) = 1). Close. It’s e to the power (pi times the sqare root of -1) _plus 1_ = 0. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/286 "2000-03-17T02:42:00Z")
DavidB: Excuse me again for a nitpicker, but I think that scientific evidence was presented. If one mentions the work of Behe, and irreducible complexity as proof of intelligent design, then I would maintain one is making a scientific argument. If one then refuses to accept a reasonable alternative of how irreducible complexity could evolve, then he is no longer being scientific. Equally polonic halos, atmospheric helium, galactic spin, right handed chromosomal structure, Califbloomer’s weak arguments, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. They can all be interpreted to support creationism until they are refuted. Still waiting for a reaction to my science as faith argument. ---
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/287 "2000-03-17T04:27:00Z")
Can you please explain irreducible complexity? I have no access to Behe’s works. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/288 "2000-03-17T05:29:00Z")
David: We seem to be having some communication problems. I know what you are asking David. I know what you want from us creationists. I know what you want, and why you want it. (Well, in this thread at least) You admitted to me that one cannot use science to provide evidence of God’s power. Ealier, on page 4, I said, and you replied: > [@](#): > > ## quote: > > ## David: Stop asking us for the evidence. You either believe in Creation, or you don’t. How am I going to use science to show you that God used His power to create you? I can’t. No one can. It’s all faith, and I know you know it. > > Hell, yes, I know it. I’ve said it repeatedly, fercryingoutloud! You want those who claim to have scientific evidence for creation to show what they’ve got. But, in reality, no evidence _can_ be provided. (As you know) So, why keep asking for the evidence, when you KNOW it can’t be done (scientifically, of course) I know that if someone could, and did provide evidence on this board, in anywhere else, that you would research it, and study it…and most certainly test it. I don’t doubt your ability to perform good science. I’m sorry for letting you believe that I did. I also apologize for the communication problem we are having. Maybe it’s my fault. But, I hope this time we can finaly understand each other. Adam ---
**Author:** ![SingleDad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9e8a1a/32.png) [@SingleDad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SingleDad)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/289 "2000-03-17T05:29:00Z")
The thing that pseudo-creationists 😉 don’t understand about science is that it is, and may always be a work in progress. It has never (barring a few vastly overconfident 19th century pundits) claimed to have complete knowlege of the universe. Rather, science is a _process_ by which we understand the workings of the universe through careful and critical observation. However there are always areas of incompleteness and uncertainty, to which we apply the scientific method and gain more understanding, and usually generate more questions. > [@](#): > > any more than you need to prove that creation is impossible I can certainly prove that **young-earth creationism** is _contradicted_ by evidence, and that _no evidence whatsoever_ supports it on careful examination. > [@](#): > > Nobody predicted that more matter should be created than antimatter. The fact that they are now hypothesizing that this should be so is in response to observational data which is at odds with theory. This fact does indeed puzzles QM theorists. Several theories have been proposed to explain this imbalance, but (and pay attention, this is important) none of them have yet been accepted on faith or other grounds! Experiment is necessary. There are such theories. They have not yet been verified or falsified. There are some intriguing possibilities: [Intriguing Indications of CP Violation in B Mesons](http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1998/split/pnu405-1.htm). But the matter/antimatter asymmetry is not really a problem in the big bang, it’s a problem in QM. Since little is known about QM at the very high energies in the first seconds of the big bang (where the m/am imbalance would have been played out), it really only questions our understanding of those first seconds. If it were conclusively proven that even at the highest energies of the big bang, m/am symmetry **must** be conserved, or observable properties of quanta would be contradicted, then I would concede that, at least at that moment, a “miracle” occured. But QM is nowhere near being able to make such a claim, and indeed, there are glimmers of evidence that m/am can indeed be asymmetric. [query]Attempting to reconcile the theory to the facts is to be commended. Perhaps they will succeed. Your beleif that they will however is faith, not science. Until then, we have unproven theory that does not fit reality as we know it.[/query] No, I don’t have _faith_ in the religious sense that science will discover the correct theory to explain the facts. I have _confidence_ that they will do so. This confidence is based on scientific inductive reasoning which has shown that when the best minds of science set their minds to a problem, they eventually solve it. And what we have is a theory that fits substantial evidence, and needs improvement to handle the remaining puzzles. > [@](#): > > While you may feel comforted by the fact that science provides thousands of theories to possibly account for missing matter and the evolution of the universe, I do not see this as a good thing. Sorry you want everything on a silver platter. Science doesn’t work that way. If you want easy answers, go play with your crystals! 😉 I know you’re just kidding around, I’m just kidding back 😉 But you can’t require that science be both correct and easy. > [@](#): > > Again, if you believe one of those theories is correct (and so many to choose from) why do you do so if not from faith. **NO!** I _don’t_ believe _any_ of those theories until _evidence_ or _experience_ contradicts all but one. If the evidence contradicts them all, then I shall disbelieve them all! > [@](#): > > One more thing. Since you admit that science can’t explain the creation event, but only the evolution of the universe, do you then suggest that both creation and evolution should be taught equally in schools. Wow! You should get the gold medal for Olympic logic leaping! **NOTHING** can explain the origin of the universe. We certainly should not teach _any_ theory that cannot be demonstrated by evidence. The standard theories of Evolution both of life on earth and of the universe itself explain how everything changed over time. Evolutionary theories _never_ ask us to accept that the evidence is false because it doesn’t fit the theory. Creationism _always_ requires us to accept that the evidence is false because it contradicts the theory. Thus Creationism and Evolution contain a significant, relevant difference. In closing: Is Science always absolutely 100% correct in all its particulars? No. Get over it. However, Science is _never_ in contradition to the evidence. A particular theory may be proven wrong, in which case it leaves the domain of Science (except perhaps to serve as a bad example, much like my life 😉 ) The problem with Creationists, is that they want to have total static certainty. Since Science doesn’t give them this, they rely on faith. To accept Science, you have to give up certainty. If you don’t like it, tough. The universe does not reveal itself on a silver platter to the first superstitious moron that comes along. It requires intelligence, commitment, openness, humility, and curiousity. Creationism (as opposed to honest Faith) requires dogmatism, intolerance, arrogance, and closed-mindedness. The Creation/Evolution debate is not a scientific one. It is a war of values. A war that Science is _losing_. This is the Creationists true motive: Not to “prove” Creation pseudo-science, but to throw enough flack into the debate that Science can no longer prevent them from regaining their grip on the psyche of the people. * * * Against stupidity the very gods / Themselves contend in vain. ---
**Author:** ![Bored2001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47774/32.png) [@Bored2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bored2001)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/290 "2000-03-17T06:21:00Z")
> [@](#): > > You want those who claim to have scientific evidence for creation to show what they’ve got. But, in reality, no evidence can be provided. (As you know) So, why keep asking for the evidence, when you KNOW it can’t be done (scientifically, of course) EXACTLY! If no evidence can be provided then I would like to see the creationists stop trying to pass themselves off as being Scientific! Admit it is pure faith and don’t take it a step farther then that. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Dave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/46a35a/32.png) [@Great\_Dave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Dave)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/291 "2000-03-17T06:40:00Z")
Since I still haven’t gotten a response from ARG, CalifBoomer, or pash, I’ll repost my questions: posted 03-14-2000 01:42 AM Let me ask again why you are able to accept evolution up to the point of humans, but not beyond? Where do you draw the line? Austrolepithicus? Or Homo habilus? Or Cro-Magnons? Where does non- human evolution stop and divine creation begin? posted 03-15-2000 03:00 PM You seem to be ignoring mine (and Tom~'s) question regarding the special creation of humans after the evolution of human anscestors. Where do you draw the line? In regards to reconciling my faith with science, try reading Christianity and the Age of the Earth by Davis Young, or The Fourth Day by Howard van Til. It can be challenging unless you realize that science answers “How?” and religion, “Why?” If you have changed your mind because of what you have learned from this thread, it’s ok to admit it. After all, the whole point of this place is fighting ignorance. * * * It’s not how you pick your nose, it’s where you put the boogers ---
**Author:** ![CalifBoomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f1d935/32.png) [@CalifBoomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalifBoomer)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/292 "2000-03-17T09:47:00Z")
Dear David & Associates: You need to stop your impatient, neurotic demands for responses. I, for one, am **not** a scientist, merely an accountant who works some 10 hours a day in a busy office. I do not have the luxury, as some of you apparently do, of spending my entire day pontificating on the SDMB. I am not employed by some government agency, as many of you are, that will allow this activity. A great deal of raw data has been presented here. Unlike many of you, I will afford myself the opportunity of reading and considering it with an open mind. Hell, I’m still back on the 2nd law. You seem to demand responses to _your_ questions, but you refuse to address _my_ questions seriously. Your attitude seems to be that my questions are not as legitimate as your questions. I’m pondering a number of things here, even the process. I wonder if there may be a gap in ‘critical thinking’. I mean, if you start with the assumption that nothing exists outside of observable nature, you must inevitably come to the conclusion you have reached. I’m still thinking about what may have been excluded in the initial premise. You seem to be starting at the point where the particles already existed- the particles that formed the primordial ooze in which the yet unproven ‘abiogenisis’ occurred. This controversy is far from over. Please lighten up your insistent demands for attention. Take a prozac or something. :: ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/293 "2000-03-17T11:41:00Z")
> [@](#): > > I thought it would be an interesting argument to turn it around and see what happened if you tried to catch a “scientist” justifying science with faith. > > Though Singledad and JonR were both careful, they both did it. > > If science ultimately at some point does have to be justified by faith, I wonder what the ramifications are for things like creation debate Significatn correction: “Though Singledad and JonR were both careful, Scylla claimed they both did it”. The only point at which I acknowledged any faith was “My expectation that some theory will be found is indeed faith”, and that is not building my beliefs on a foundation of faith. You did not demonstrate sucvh a foundation of faith, you just claimed it. * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/294 "2000-03-17T11:47:00Z")
[qupte]Close. It’s e to the power (pi times the sqare root of -1) plus 1 = 0. [/quote] Rats. I meant to type -1 and didn’t. * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/295 "2000-03-17T11:53:00Z")
## Scylla: The items you mention indeed should be treated as possible scientific evidence until refuted All the items you mention have been refuted in this thread. jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/296 "2000-03-17T11:58:00Z")
ARG220: > [@](#): > > You want those who claim to have scientific evidence for creation to show what they’ve got. But, in reality, no evidence can be provided. You are still missing the point. There are people (and I do not know if you are one of them) who claim that “creation science” **is science**. Those people have **chosen** to place their “discipline” in the purview of science. David and others are asking **those people** to provide evidence of the self-proclaimed science. We are not asking for a proof of Divine Creation from those who believe on faith. We are asking those **who claim they are scientists** to act like scientists. * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![JonF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/cab0a1/32.png) [@JonF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JonF)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/297 "2000-03-17T12:23:00Z")
CalifBoomer: > [@](#): > > You seem to demand responses to your questions, but you refuse to address my questions seriously. I reviewed the thread, and I submit that _every_ question of yours has been addressed with a serious answer, including the procedural questions at the questions put in an attempt to duck the original question. What questions do you claim have not been a ddressed? On the other hand, I submit that you have made at best one attempt to answer the OP question, and you have not followed up and responded to the responses to your posts. * * * jrf ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/298 "2000-03-17T12:51:00Z")
Scylla said: > [@](#): > > Excuse me again for a nitpicker, but I think that scientific evidence was presented. \< sigh \> **Valid** scientific evidence. Better? ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/299 "2000-03-17T12:53:00Z")
And, incidentally, my previous message specifically noted “by a creationist.” Since you ain’t one, you don’t count. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2000, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827/300 "2000-03-17T13:03:00Z")
ARG said: > [@](#): > > David: We seem to be having some communication problems. No, _we_ don’t. _You_ seem to be having problems understanding, though. > [@](#): > > You want those who claim to have scientific evidence for creation to show what they’ve got. But, in reality, no evidence can be provided. (As you know) Then they should stop claiming it can be. I will stop asking for it when they stop claiming it exists. Understand? CalifBoomer said: > [@](#): > > You need to stop your impatient, neurotic demands for responses. I, for one, am not a scientist, merely an accountant who works some 10 hours a day in a busy office. Hmmm. Then maybe you shouldn’t act like you know beans about science. > [@](#): > > I do not have the luxury, as some of you apparently do, of spending my entire day pontificating on the SDMB. And I do? I was gone for most of the last two days, and a day or so before that? That was my point – even though I was gone all that time and all those messages were posted, still not a peep of good scientific evidence from the creationists. Nor even simple direct answers to the questions I’ve posted to you several times. And don’t try to whine about not having time for those – you responded to other messages and other parts of those very message, but \*_you ignored the questions_ in those messages. Nice try. But we’re just not stupid enough to fall for your whining. > [@](#): > > You seem to demand responses to your questions, but you refuse to address my questions seriously. Your attitude seems to be that my questions are not as legitimate as your questions. Bullshit. We have answered your questions, and I specifically noted that if I had missed any, I _want_ them reposted because it was an accident. So instead of doing that (if indeed there were any I missed), you post a general whine and act like we are doing exactly that which **you** are doing – ignoring the questions. > [@](#): > > I mean, if you start with the assumption that nothing exists outside of observable nature, you must inevitably come to the conclusion you have reached. Except that you are **again** ignoring all of the religious folk around here who accept evolution. I keep pointing that out to you and you keep ignoring it. Why is that? > [@](#): > > You seem to be starting at the point where the particles already existed- the particles that formed the primordial ooze in which the yet unproven ‘abiogenisis’ occurred. Nope. Again, this shows that you have not been paying attention and/or don’t understand what you’re talking about, I’m afraid. > [@](#): > > This controversy is far from over. Please lighten up your insistent demands for attention. Take a prozac or something. How about you just quit whining and answer the questions already? Apparently, that is too much to ask. * * * Ignorance is Bliss. Reality is Better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/creationists-strut-your-stuff/17827.md?page=16)