# Idiotic Creationist post... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 20, 2001, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127 "2001-08-20T13:41:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2002, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/301 "2002-11-29T23:58:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Science is an organized systematic way of finding out the truth. What is learned is irrevelant. It is a method, a tool, an organized way of thinking. I guess this writing disturbs me the most. It suggests the same old saw: "I am the truth, because I follow whatever … etc. What if your methods are not correct? Not flexible enough? Not advanced enough to cover all the possible knowledge that might be encountered in the universe? Observe the observer. Love ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/302 "2002-11-30T00:00:10Z")
There is a difference, lekatt. I have studied religion and God. The very idea that you would not be surprised to find “an alter to science” at my workplace proves the point that you are clueless on this better than any thing I could have written. You sound like a “great conspiratist” with lines like that. There is no directly competition between faith and science. The only way you could keep insisting that is because you don’t know what science is. You probably see the competition, because people can use science to point out how stupid ideas are that people attach to faith that have no business being there. If people would put an end to that sorry practice, you would not see science in the light that you do. Science is a learned skill, a way of thinking. It is much like learning to play an instrument or make art, or playing chess. Some people have more talent for it than others. As you can see, about the only thing the other skills have in common is that they are learned skills that require some talent to be good at it. Otherwise, completely dissimilar. Would you accuse people who know how to write music of having an alter to their trombone in their house or workplace? How about an alter to a chessboard, or a set of paintbrushes? Learning how to use pen and ink enables you to make art. Learning composition or how to play an instrument allows one to make or perform music. Learning how science works, allows a person to figure out how things work. There is no more to science than that. The reason you so disrepect it, is probably because you know so little about it. The benefits to you are more obviously tied to a source, that is they have a “face”, when you enjoy a beautiful song, or painting. You may not have any idea how they are were done, but you can appreciate the artist. And the biggest reason is that science shines a bright light on alot of cherished rubbish that is held by ignorant people. If you want to know if science is right or wrong on any of these things, you are free… no encouraged… to check for yourself. Every bit of information on how the answer was figure, or task accomplished is completely detailed and publicly available. There is no excuse to attack a subject that is so completely transparent to anyone who cares to look and be so ignorant of it. If I did not know the contents of the bible, religious beliefs, and a good deal of world history (very important to having an informed opinion on religion and God), I would not pretend I had an opinion that was worth airing. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/303 "2002-11-30T00:00:21Z")
> [@](#): > > The quote below, still being taught, has stood for thousands of years. How long will your writing last? Well, aside from the charge of navel-gazing that I will refrain from leveling at Socrates, I will note that we only know anything about him because one of his students set out to establish what we do know (or should know) and wrote down lots of things to be known. There is a difference between the examination of one’s life and actually living it. Whatever else can be said of Socrates, he did actually engage in living–something that required him to “know” what food or water was safe to eat, how to handle weapons to avoid death in battle, how to take shelter from the weather, etc. You are the one who confuses the false dichotomy of introspection vs praxis on the one hand, while attempting to force belief into science on the other. It would seem that you should take some time out to figure out what you really want to say, because you are portraying yourself as someone who is simply too confused to participate. Go back to the beginning of this thread. Identify a _genuine_ position to hold or to oppose, think it through, then come back with a statement. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/304 "2002-11-30T00:02:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Boy, you guys really do worship science. And I thought I might be exagerating a bit. > > The quote below, still being taught, has stood for thousands of years. How long will your writing last? > “The only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.” – Socrates \*\* Which would of course apply to your argument as well, which creates a bit of a problem since it seems both sides does not know anything. I think the point ol Plato was making, that you are missing, is that only by admitting that you don’t know anything can you start the search for those answers. The admission of ignorance allows you to approach it and approach that knowledge. Allowing yourself to fall into a “I know all the answers” mentality does not allow for a motivation towards learning. Since one things they know it all. So let me say this; SCIENCE DOES NOT CLAIM TO HAVE THE ANSWERS. Only possible explinations. A glaringly obvious point you are either missing, or deliberately avoiding. (which would make you a troll) Personally I think you fall into the same trap you are unknowingly accusing those that uphold science of- falling into thinking you have the answers. You think you have found the wellspring of knowledge and have bathed in the wellspring of ultimate wisdom, and thus reject, blindly, anything that contradicts it. You have closed your own mind, and fallen for that which plato warns us about, and turn around and try to make the scientists look like the ones. A bit of a Freudian twist that I find pretty interesting. So, tell me about your Plato… ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/305 "2002-11-30T00:09:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*?Um, **lekatt**? Those of us who argue that science must not be subverted by or subjugated to religion generally make the same point that you appear to be _now_ making, that belief and science are different and separate. So why have you spent the last few posts confusing the issue if you agree with us? (And I do love your missed substitution in this last sentence.) > > Your claim that \*\*scotth[/h] probably worships science is really far off the mark. I suspect that your views on the subject are the result of having never engaged in actual science. (And I am not claiming that no person has ever worshipped science; I am only noting that such people are rare and that none of them seem to be posting to this thread.) \*\* Any time one claims they are right and no one else can be. Any time one claims their method is true and others are wrong. Any time one thinks only they are the true and belittles others, I am including religion here, then they are worshipping themselves and the methods they use. I believe the way to knowledge is the humble path, considering all thoughts and ideas equally. Science is to be commended for a lot of advances, but science is not God, and God is not science. They can live in peaceful respect for each other. Love ---
**Author:** ![Dryga\_Yes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@Dryga\_Yes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dryga_Yes)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/306 "2002-11-30T00:10:28Z")
Lekatt, you don’t have to tell scientists about how we’re all just primates and that we can’t ever REALLY trust our conclusions. 99,9 percent of all scientists know this already, and in many cases that’s why they are scientists! The entire point of science is to recognise that we’re just humans, that we’re fallible, and to _remove_ as much as possible of human error; e.g. by using things like peer review on a massive scale, constantly repeated experimentation, sharing of all the data you’ve found, and creating an environment where scepticism is a virtue and disproving a current theory will give you as much respect and fame as coming up with a new one. It’s true that human error still is there, and I don’t think anyone is denying that either. But the point is that while science may always be partially incomplete, it’s still the closest you’ll get to The Truth during your brief existance on this planet. If you talk about how science is just a religion, you’re essentially throwing away the hard work of untold tens of thousands of researchers, many of whom who have devoted their lives to finding out about some seemingly insignificant property of the universe – only because you think that it requires as much faith to accept their emprical conclusions as it does to accept any ancient myth. And I say that as a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/307 "2002-11-30T00:13:12Z")
> [@](#): > > You probably see the competition, because people can use science to point out how stupid ideas are that people attach to faith that have no business being there. Yes, and I am sure they are superior intelligence science people. You prove my point exactly. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/308 "2002-11-30T00:24:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dryga\_Yes \* > \*\* > It’s true that human error still is there, and I don’t think anyone is denying that either. But the point is that while science may always be partially incomplete, it’s still the closest you’ll get to The Truth during your brief existance on this planet. What you say here is conjecture. If the data is incomplete, how can you compare it with anything that just might be truer. > [@](#): > > If you talk about how science is just a religion, you’re essentially throwing away the hard work of untold tens of thousands of researchers, many of whom who have devoted their lives to finding out about some seemingly insignificant property of the universe – only because you think that it requires as much faith to accept their emprical conclusions as it does to accept any ancient myth. > > And I say that as a Christian. \*\* I do not think science is a religion, but I do think its followers treat it like one. Big difference. You miss my point completely here, I do have faith, but not blind faith. I like to see evidence. Love ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/309 "2002-11-30T00:37:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Yes, and I am sure they are superior intelligence science people. > > You prove my point exactly. No. You, once more, miss the actual point, completely. **scotth** is referring to people who _deny the evidence_ of science when they claim that dinosaurs lived contemporaneous with humans or that the Grand Canyon was carved out in a few days by the receding waters of the Great Flood. When scientists point out the facts that demolish those claims, some _stupid_ people insist that their beliefs are superior to science. You have created an enormous straw man that you claim is the advocate of science and you continually demolish arguments that we have never made. > [@](#): > > Any time one claims they are right and no one else can be. And who has made such a claim, based on scientific evidence? ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/310 "2002-11-30T00:56:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*No. You, once more, miss the actual point, completely. **scotth** is referring to people who _deny the evidence_ of science when they claim that dinosaurs lived contemporaneous with humans or that the Grand Canyon was carved out in a few days by the receding waters of the Great Flood. When scientists point out the facts that demolish those claims, some _stupid_ people insist that their beliefs are superior to science. > > You have created an enormous straw man that you claim is the advocate of science and you continually demolish arguments that we have never made.And who has made such a claim, based on scientific evidence? \*\* What evidence of science, you mean the assumptions made based on observed data in the present and transfered to all times and all ages. OK, if it works for you, but you calling people who disagree with you stupid, continues to prove my original point, whatever that was. Love ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/311 "2002-11-30T03:18:49Z")
> [@](#): > > OK, if it works for you, but you calling people who disagree with you stupid, continues to prove my original point, whatever that was. I have called no one stupid. However, if you are claiming that you can no longer remember your original point, I may be willing to make a future exception. > [@](#): > > What evidence of science, you mean the assumptions made based on observed data in the present and transfered to all times and all ages. You purport to support the notion of philosophy; you really need to read some Hopper. In science, one does not infer that an event represents all events for all ages. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/312 "2002-11-30T09:00:45Z")
Sorry, but I think you meant Popper. ---
**Author:** ![Epimetheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c4cdca/32.png) [@Epimetheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Epimetheus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/313 "2002-11-30T13:11:20Z")
No No, Hopper Is Popper’s brother. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/314 "2002-11-30T14:22:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*Boy, you guys really do worship science. And I thought I might be exagerating a bit. > > The quote below, still being taught, has stood for thousands of years. How long will your writing last? > “The only true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.” – Socrates \*\* You are begining to sound really desperate. You know what’s funny about the Socrates qoute? You didn’t write it. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/315 "2002-11-30T14:39:05Z")
I think your misunderstandings of science, that others have pointed out, should clearly reveal to you that you need to learn more about the subject before you begin to cast aspertions. I do not “worship” science, I do not even know how that is possible. I worship the Christian God-not because I believe in every word of some error ridden book. Personal experiences, that probably mean nothing to you, have shaped my life. With that said, I will no longer justify my worship to you. I don’t think it would do any good. I think that you feel you are being attacked, when in reality, your ideas about science are. There are a lot of people here on this board who work in a science related field, and your misunderstandings of science is probably irrating them. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/316 "2002-11-30T14:41:57Z")
Science is not a bogy-man. It is a way to reliably see the world. No one, except you, has claimed that it is infallible. By the way, when I said irrating before, I should’ve wrote “provoking them to respond”, which is probably more accurate. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/317 "2002-11-30T14:56:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Meatros \* > \*\*I think your misunderstandings of science, that others have pointed out, should clearly reveal to you that you need to learn more about the subject before you begin to cast aspertions. > > I do not “worship” science, I do not even know how that is possible. I worship the Christian God-not because I believe in every word of some error ridden book. Personal experiences, that probably mean nothing to you, have shaped my life. > > With that said, I will no longer justify my worship to you. I don’t think it would do any good. I think that you feel you are being attacked, when in reality, your ideas about science are. > > There are a lot of people here on this board who work in a science related field, and your misunderstandings of science is probably irrating them. \*\* When someone disagrees with you it is natural to say they don’t know “whatever” the subject is, I do it myself all the time. Science, like religion, is not infallable. I guess my main objection is the way science is held up as a know-all, cure-all panacea for our society. I do not deny the contributions made, but would like to see more open-mindedness. More credit given to the individual instead of the institution. I don’t know how my knowledge of science compares with others, but I have work in labs and on projects. Personal experiences shape all our lives, the largest for me was my near death experience, not recognized by most scientists as being real. But very real for me. I would like to hear more about peoples personal experiences than about the glory of science. Love ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/318 "2002-11-30T16:11:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Sorry, but I think you meant Popper. I’m just lucky I misstyped the first letter as an H rather than the third letter as an O. Yeah, I meant Karl Popper. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/319 "2002-11-30T16:17:30Z")
Oh, and just to nudge **lekatt** in the right direction: You might want to look over [The Karl Popper Web](http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~tkpw/) site (although **Lib** might be able to point to a better one) that includes this introduction: > [@](#): > > In 1934 Popper published what many regard as his Magnum Opus _ **The Logic of Scientific Discovery** _. The famous chemist Wachtershauser said that this is a “gem” and that it liberated him from a sterile accounting view of science. Wachtershauser subsequently went on to develop one of the main theories of the origin of life. Frank Tipler, the famous cosmologist, regards this as the most important book this century. In one majestic and systematic attack, psychologism, naturalism, inductionism, and logical positivism are swept away and replaced by a set of methodological rules called Falsificationism. Falsificationism is the idea that science advances by unjustified, exaggerated guesses followed by unstinting criticism. Only hypotheses capable of clashing with observation reports are allowed to count as scientific. “Gold is soluble in hydrochloric acid” is scientific (though false); “Some homeopathic medicine does work” is, taken on its own, unscientific (though possibly true). The first is scientific because we can eliminate it if it is false; the second is unscientific because even if it were false we could not get rid of it by confronting it with an observation report that contradicted it. Unfalsifiable theories are like the computer programs with no uninstall option that just clog up the computer’s precious storage space. Falsifiable theories, on the other hand, enhance our control over error while expanding the richness of what we can say about the world. > > Any “positive support” for theories is both unobtainable and superfluous; all we can and need do is create theories and eliminate error - and even this is hypothetical, though often successful. Many superficial commentaries are keen to point out that other people stressed the importance of seeking refutations before Popper. They overlook the fact that Popper was the first to argue that this is sufficient. > > This idea of conjecture and refutation is elaborated with an orchestration suggestive of someone who loves great music. (Popper loved Mozart and Bach, and took great pleasure in composing his own music.) The common idea that Popper neglected to consider whether Falsificationism itself is falsifiable is already scotched here. You can falsify a description, but not a rule of method as such (though obviously a rule can be criticized in other ways). The notion that science offers proof is now only advanced by popular treatments of science on TV and in (many) newspapers - most journalists (with a few important exceptions) are sadly completely devoid of theoretical knowledge: a side-effect of overspecializing on the immediate moment. But then, anyone can improve! ---
**Author:** ![scotth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@scotth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotth)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2002, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127/320 "2002-11-30T16:51:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by lekatt \* > \*\*I would like to hear more about peoples personal experiences than about the glory of science. \*\* It would be much more healthy to be interested in hearing **both**. Science is just like a murder mystery. You might think the butcher did it. He had the means and the motive. Everything looks beautiful until you find out that he is on video tape in a gas station 100 miles from the scene of the crime at the time the crime happened. Boom, he is **eliminated** as a possible answer. It doesn’t matter that the dead guy was having an affair with the butchers wife. All that is now meaningless. You have proof that he didn’t do it. Move on to the next guess. Maybe your next idea is that the baker did it, or even that the butcher paid someone else to do it. Investigate those ideas. Look really close to make sure that it really was the baker in the videotape. But, failing a successful effort to show that it wasn’t the baker in the tape, he must be eliminated as a possible direct suspect. Modern investigative techniques in crime carry nearly all the hallmarks of good science. YEC’s say the earth is at most 10,000 years old, the whole universe in fact. That is a scientific idea. It is testable and falsifiable. If the universe is that young, it would leave extremely obvious evidence if you know where to look. We’ve looked in those places. A 10,000 year old universe is positively ruled out. No way, no how. A young universe is not our “suspect”. The moron with the “malachite man” stuff has the same problem. He says he has old green bones that that are 150,000,000 years old. The evidence: 1. He has modern human bones (no arguement there). 2. They were pulled out of a rock layer that is 150,000,000 years old. (probable) 3. The bones could not have been buried in the deposit after it formed. (The people who actually dug the bones up, say otherwise… the bones were in a loose packed deposit inconsistent with this) The killer for this idea: 1. The bones when examined in the lab are not even fossils. They are just bones. (Its over right here… but there is more) 2. Their interesting green color is just copper stain. 3. When radio carbon dated, they are just 200 years old or so. Malachite man is false as a theory. Time to drop it. If you want to argue with any of it, the data is FULLY available for your review. The techniques used to determine everything is fully available for you to learn. Claims of “it doesn’t sound right”, or “it doesn’t feel right” are meaningless. There are many discoveries made by science that were extrememly surprising to the people making them. The people doing the investigation had much simpler ideas in mind or satisfying explanations. But, they were eliminated. What is left, is what is left. If you disagree with any of it. Learn enough about to challenge it. One of two things will wind up happening. 1. You will be right, and contribute something wonderful to science. Proving an existing idea wrong, even if you don’t come up with the correct idea is an extremely valuable and welcomed contribution as far as science is concerned. 2. You will look at everything possible to eliminate the answer you don’t like, but find that as unpleasent as it is to you, it is clearly the only reasonable option. You will learn something, and your experiences trying to disprove an idea should be added to the literature. This will help eliminate dead end areas of investigation for the next guy who comes along trying to overturn an idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/idiotic-creationist-post/77127.md?page=17)