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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
I can certainly prove that young-earth creationism is contradicted by evidence, and that no evidence whatsoever supports it on careful examination.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are people (and I do not know if you are one of them) who claim that “creation science” is science. Those people havechosen 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.
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.
No, we don’t. You seem to be having problems understanding, though.
Then they should stop claiming it can be. I will stop asking for it when they stop claiming it exists. Understand?
CalifBoomer said:
Hmmm. Then maybe you shouldn’t act like you know beans about science.
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.
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.
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?
Nope. Again, this shows that you have not been paying attention and/or don’t understand what you’re talking about, I’m afraid.
How about you just quit whining and answer the questions already? Apparently, that is too much to ask.
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.