Whups- I meant Mangetout, not ultrafilter!
Maybe if we have some artistically inclined Dopers here, we can create a parody of Chick’s “Big Daddy” 
I have been thinking about the so called “polystrate trees.” It seems that in fact they support evolution more so than a global flood model. What is the mechanism for separate strata forming from a single flood? None of the Creationist sites provide anything remotely similar to that.
My favourite tactic against Creationism is “the best defense is a good offense.” Time to start asking Creationists tough questions.
The problem with creationists is that they derrive their axioms from religion. Hence the purpose of a creation scientists (or rather I should say God’s PR men) is to take data and make it max those axioms.
Scientists have no other axioms than the world can be explained rationally. A scientist collects data and theorizes. A scientist can entertain the possibility that he/she is wrong because of data, a religous fanatic can not.
My conclusion: If creationism is true, scientists either should have already, or will one day approach, that truth. Unfortunatly, as of now, no empirical data exists to even begin to merit that conclusion.
Speaking of a good offense, I heard a good stumper for YEC’s the other day:
Where is all the technetium? It’s like there’s a hole smack in the middle of the periodic table- it’s the only element with no natural isotopes before you reach neptunium. The half-life of many technetium isotopes is long enough that it would still be around if the earth is 6,000 years old- but short enough that none would be around if it’s billions of years old.
They could just argue that none was created in nature.
You have to remember this is supposed to be Creation “science,” so they can’t just invoke the great unknown when they are stumped.
—The problem with creationists is that they derrive their axioms from religion. Hence the purpose of a creation scientists (or rather I should say God’s PR men) is to take data and make it max(match?) those axioms.—
Well, that could be an accusation made against them, but what you hear most actual “theistic science” advocates saying is something different. Namely, they say that they already know that god exists, and created the world, and they think it should be viable to simply start doing science from there. Some, like Plantinga, think that they can prove these premises (actually though, Plantinga’s arguement doesn’t even claim to prove a creator, just a god), others see no reason to have to (since science cannot prove it’s basic premises either). W may not agree that “theistic science” is a good idea, but it is at least a little more respectable than simply trying to shill for god’s existence.
—Scientists have no other axioms than the world can be explained rationally.—
That’s not entirely true. First we need some axioms defining “the world” and then some things about the world that make it at least a little bit consistently amenable to our observations.
—A scientist collects data and theorizes. A scientist can entertain the possibility that he/she is wrong because of data, a religous fanatic can not.—
A scientist cannot really admit that the world does not exist without destroyingt the scientific enterprise. A “religious fanatic” simply wants to use their axiom that god exists in the same way.
Apos: When a scientist uses the term “the world”, she refers to everything that exists. If God exists, then God is part of the world. It’s OK to assume that the world exists (although it has to be a qualitatively different existence, so that the world is not a self-membered set), but it’s not OK to assume that any specific part of it exists, unless you have justification. Does that make sense?
Been done.
—It’s OK to assume that the world exists (although it has to be a qualitatively different existence, so that the world is not a self-membered set), but it’s not OK to assume that any specific part of it exists, unless you have justification. Does that make sense?—
Yes, but it’s not going to convince creationists. As they see it, science makes unprovable assumptions, so why can’t they make their own, even if only among themselves?
Many creationists would also argue that existence is inconcievable without god. Plantinga, an advocate of “theistic science,” certainly thinks it’s incoherent to imagine an existence without god.
It’s not that I agree with those views: I just don’t think they should be given as short a shrift as they are.
Well, while it is possible to have a respectable creation science, all of the evidence points towards natural selection as a mechanism for evolution. Anything that denies that is not scientific, and will end up being either silly or dishonest.
—Well, while it is possible to have a respectable creation science, all of the evidence points towards natural selection as a mechanism for evolution.—
Not if you pre-presume the conclusion that the world was created, and merely wish to seek the details. Then all that evidence simply becomes a mystery to explain (often with creative ad hoc-kery).
—Anything that denies that is not scientific, and will end up being either silly or dishonest.—
Maybe. But hope springs eternal.
Quote/Maybe if we have some artistically inclined Dopers here, we can create a parody of Chick’s “Big Daddy” /endquote
I will pay $50, by check, through the mail, to the person who makes the best parody.
(okay i cant back this up because i have no check book, but i really would pay to see this ^_^)
At the non-denominational Christian church where I attend, we teach that neither within species evolution nor natural selection are controversial. It’s that pesky across species evolution upon which we differ. And the origin of the universe, certainly.
I could parrot a few of my patsor’s arguments against inter-species evolution, but what would be the point? You’ve spent the bulk of your life studying evolution and I am a neophyte. It’s kind of like bowling. Regardless of who is the better bowler, as long as one bowler doesn’t know the rules, the one who does know the rules can make it look like he won no matter what.
It takes a certain amount of faith to believe anything, including the theory of evolution. The scientific method is very useful at explaining phenomena, but as one who has studied quantitative analysis through the PhD level, I can say unequivically that science and the scientific method certainly have their limitiations and are not the end all and the be all.
Your analogy is false. Go to talkorigins. Read the article on the 29 specific predictions of evolutionary theory. Provide evidence against any one of those, and you’ve won.
**
Maybe not, but as you yourself admitted, they are good at explaining phenomena, and evolution is nothing if not a phenomenon. Philosophize all you want, but until you provide evidence that can’t be accounted for by the current theories, I’ll place my faith in whatever it is (enlighten us, please) that you have to have faith in to believe in evolution.
Since Charles Darwin posited that all of life’s form and diversity can be extrapolated upward from natural selection (that is, the same mechanism that operates within species to allow adaptation creates new species and evoutionary trends as well), might I assume that you (or your pastor) are a Classical Darwinist? If you follow Darwin’s logic, that’s precisely where you end up: natural selection explains both intra- and inter-species evolution.
Or does your pastor simply not bother with teaching any of the current macro-evolutionary theories, such as species selection, thereby claiming evolution to be “wrong”?
**
You are correct that you could parrot your pastor’s arguments. The point might be that you might actually learn how evolution works from the people who’ve studied it. If you want to become a better bowler, would you ask a professional basketball player or a professional bowler?
That wouldn’t make a respectable creation science now would it?
Awesome. S/he is my hero/ine. 
[Dang what a mouthful]
And this is the basic problem with creationism:
Essentially all scientists in relevant fields believe that evolution is as well established as the atomic theory.
But some people can’t deal with that. So what do they do? They just suggest that somehow there’s something unfair in actually knowing what you’re talking about. If I’ve spent my life studying evolution, it’s not that I’m the “better bowler.” It’s that I have more cunning with which to deceive people. :rolleyes:
And then, of course, they go on about relative truth.
Lorenzo, if you actually cared about learning about God’s Glorious Creation (and my experience is that creationists generally don’t,) you’d see this as an educational opportunity, rather than retreating into a comfy relativism that lets you believe whatever you please.
BTW, ask your pastor how he explains retrogenes. It’s a funny thing. I don’t ask my doctor to fix my plumbing. Why do you let your pastor teach you about science?
She.