NationStates Jolt Archive

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724

No thanks, I'll continue to dismiss it out of hand.

Actually, yes, I have. It didn't take long.

And just a suggestion: you might want to post points IN YOUR OWN WORDS if you want people to believe you yourself have studied it.

Actually, yes, I have. It didn't take long.

And just a suggestion: you might want to post points IN YOUR OWN WORDS if you want people to believe you yourself have studied it.

I havent studied it in serious detail yet. Its an aside thing for me

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.[/url]
Perhaps you could explain exactly what there is we have to understand. As far as I know, it summarises both concisely and inclusively to "God or some other supernatural being did it". If I'm missing something, do feel free to fill me in.

Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.
You'll understand that my university sticks to normal books, not bible-rewrites, so they're probably not at my library.

And I really don't have that much money hanging around.

So could you just quickly summarise them for me?

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724

I don't dismiss it out of hand when I say "It isn't scientific", or "Science has no place to comment on it", or "Lacking both empirical evidence or predictive power it is totally, utterly and completely irrelevant to science (and for that matter everyday usage), but may or may not be a valid philosophical opinion depending on how well it stands up to philosophical scrutiny". When I say those things I dismiss it from the realm of science, for it makes claims which are not within the jurisdiction of science.

Any attempts to prove Creationism in the Young-Earth sense have been thoroughly disproven, in the scientific sense of the word. In the Cartesian, hyperbolic-sceptic sense, Young-Earth Creationists might be right, but unless scientific empiricism is to be abandonded totally in favour of a return to Aristotlean ways of thinking about the world their views can be neither validated nor used.

Perhaps you could explain exactly what there is we have to understand. As far as I know, it summarises both concisely and inclusively to "God or some other supernatural being did it". If I'm missing something, do feel free to fill me in.

Thats basicly like saying that all evolution is is "the idea that life happened by accident". Creationism has a lot to say for itself in questioning the scientific model and presenting the model of God's creation.

I've done more research into the matter than I care to remember. My conclusion?

I am not egotistical enough to think for one second that if something sentient was powerful enough to create existence, that I would ever be able to understand it.

I don't think there's some "being" sitting somewhere, who's gonna send my wife and I to Hell because we had pre-marital sex. And if there is, he's an asshole, and I'd reallly rather not spend infinite with his dumb ass.

You wanna know where creationalists go wrong? They mess with my science. The most important learning tool man has ever used should not be hijacked by a bunch of religious zealots who think they are better than everyone else because they believe in a "spirit" who is SO demanding of humans that he tells us we will burn in hell if we don't call him our overlord. Sounds more like Hitler to me.

So to sum it up, if God doesn't exist, then I say "Told ya so" If he does exist, he's a dick, and I don't want to be his friend anyway.

Thats basicly like saying that all evolution is is "the idea that life happened by accident". Creationism has a lot to say for itself in questioning the scientific model and presenting the model of God's creation.
Well then, Say it. Don't leave me hanging, here.

I don't dismiss it out of hand when I say "It isn't scientific", or "Science has no place to comment on it", or "Lacking both empirical evidence or predictive power it is totally, utterly and completely irrelevant to science, but may or may not be a valid philosophical opinion depending on how well it stands up to philosophical scrutiny". When I say those things I dismiss it from the realm of science, for it makes claims which are not within the jurisdiction of science.
Bingo. It's not "out of hand" to state the plain, obvious truth. Creationism is not science.

Creation myths can be beautiful stories, can contain cultural and/or moral wisdom, and can be interesting philosophical or theological debate topics. I do not dismiss any of these roles that creation myths can hold in our lives. However, Creationism as a "scientific" theory is an utter joke, and I don't hesitate to laugh at it.

I don't dismiss it out of hand when I say "It isn't scientific", or "Science has no place to comment on it", or "Lacking both empirical evidence or predictive power it is totally, utterly and completely irrelevant to science (and for that matter everyday usage), but may or may not be a valid philosophical opinion depending on how well it stands up to philosophical scrutiny". When I say those things I dismiss it from the realm of science, for it makes claims which are not within the jurisdiction of science.

Any attempts to prove Creationism in the Young-Earth sense have been thoroughly disproven, in the scientific sense of the word. In the Cartesian, hyperbolic-sceptic sense, Young-Earth Creationists might be right, but unless scientific empiricism is to be abandonded totally in favour of a return to Aristotlean ways of thinking about the world their views can be neither validated nor used.

Thinking that its been throughly disproven is what dismissing it is. If I were to think that evolution has been thorughly disproven I would dismiss it also. It does have emperical evidence (as is outlined in some of these books), which is itself emperically testable and thus it is scientific. I think what people should do is before either side attacks the other as being throughly disproven, they should do it themselves, seing as how believeing it to be so is just dismissing it out of hand.

Thats basicly like saying that all evolution is is "the idea that life happened by accident". Creationism has a lot to say for itself in questioning the scientific model and presenting the model of God's creation.

No, he's right. There are many different kinds of Creationism, and if they like its supporters can debate with scientists on points of real things, but the important thing about Creationism, the thing which distinguishes it from science, is that it makes a logically invalid leap from naturalistic phenomena to non-naturalistic causes. Creationism is like looking at a videogame and trying to infer things about the real world from it: fine, it might work if the videogame simulates the real world, but there is no way of relying on the information in the videogame itself. You might be playing The Sims, where men can get pregnant. You might be playing Half-Life 2, and infer the existence of tiny, usable black holes and alien conspiracies. Or you might be playing something completely different and not even be able to infer the existence of gravity.

Science only infers things about the way the game runs from the behaviour of the game, not who wrote it.

Summary

blah blah blah ,God, blah blah blah ,science is wrong, blah blah blah fossils lie, the earth is only 10k years old, blah blah blah, "you're all sinners" blah blah blah, "send money to my church" blah blah blah

Thinking that its been throughly disproven is what dismissing it is.

You misunderstand. Creationism cannot be "disproven" because it is not scientifically testable. Supernatural phenomena cannot be examined by science. Creationism states that the universe/life/reality has supernatural origins. Creationism is not science.


If I were to think that evolution has been thorughly disproven I would dismiss it also.

Me too. Good thing it hasn't been disproven, or we'd be shit out of luck in trying to develop a flu vaccine! :)


It does have emperical evidence (as is outlined in some of these books), which is itself emperically testable and thus it is scientific. I think what people should do is before either side attacks the other as being throughly disproven, they should do it themselves, seing as how believeing it to be so is just dismissing it out of hand.If you believe there is concrete evidence for Creationism, present it. If you want open discussion you will have to do more than tell us to go spend our money making Creationist authors rich.

So to sum it up, if God doesn't exist, then I say "Told ya so" If he does exist, he's a dick, and I don't want to be his friend anyway.

You know, I've been looking for a way to sum up what I feel about theism. Thats exactly how I feel!

Thank you! :D
*hands Sick Nightmares one big ass cookie*

Bingo. It's not "out of hand" to state the plain, obvious truth. Creationism is not science.

Creation myths can be beautiful stories, can contain cultural and/or moral wisdom, and can be interesting philosophical or theological debate topics. I do not dismiss any of these roles that creation myths can hold in our lives. However, Creationism as a "scientific" theory is an utter joke, and I don't hesitate to laugh at it.

Creationism does have a level of scientific backing for both looking into the errors of the current model of the creation of the universe and for applying its own model. It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is". There are other areas of science which use intellegent design as part of their work

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

Summary

No, thats not insulting and dismmisning out of hand.

You know, I've been looking for a way to sum up what I feel about theism. Thats exactly how I feel!

Thank you! :D
*hands Sick Nightmares one big ass cookie*
I can tell you, if you want to make a religious relative look at you like your already dead and in hell, tell them that!

I actually made someone cry, because they thought my soul was doomed. I told them "Don't feel bad, your the one going to live with a violent prude."
That just made them cry more. Apparently, I'm not allowed in Heaven now. *shrugs and eats his big ass sin cookie*

Creationism does have a level of scientific backing for both looking into the errors of the current model of the creation of the universe and for applying its own model. It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is". There are other areas of science which use intellegent design as part of their work

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Ahh, so we're playing the semantic game, then? Sorry, but that's just bunk. "Intelligent Design" is Creationism, which is the theory that the universe/life was created by a divine being. Questions of whether or not HUMAN BEINGS designed particular artifacts or circumstances are not a part of "Intelligent Design" theory.

Furthermore, questioning evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory, or any other scientific theories does not in any way constitute support for Creationism. Science questions these theories constantly, and they receive their most critical tests from scientists and the scientific method. Scientific theories are not in any way tested by some yahoo saying, "Hey, maybe you're wrong, maybe God did it!"


Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
Are you going to start presenting anything in your own words? Or do you not even bother to read and understand your own sources? Present it YOURSELF. You can add links at the end of your own text if you like, but if you want people to discuss this topic with you then you need to be willing to rise to the occasion and write your own material.

You know, I've been looking for a way to sum up what I feel about theism. Thats exactly how I feel!

Thank you! :D
*hands Sick Nightmares one big ass cookie*
I can tell you one thing. When people say you need faith, just tell them that standing up to an unjust God takes WAY more faith than being his bitch.

Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.
See, that's the sort of thing I was after. If you'd posted that at first, you'd have got considerably more credibility.

Anyway, I'm working through it now, though it does seem like he's far too quick to dismiss Kauffman's self-governing idea. I'll let you know what I think when I'm done.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
That's rich.
The author is not a scientist - he's a "scientific philosopher" and theologian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer
Peer review controversy
On 4 August 2004, an article by Meyer, appeared in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[2] On 7 September, the publisher of the journal, the Council of the Biological Society of Washington, released a statement repudiating the article as not meeting its scientific standards and not peer reviewed. [3] The same statement vowed that proper review procedures would be followed in the future and endorsed a resolution published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID. [4] The journal's reasons for disavowing the article were denied by Richard Sternberg, the managing editor at the time the article was submitted and who subsequently left after its publication. [5] Critics of Meyer's paper believe that Sternberg himself was biased in the matter, since he is a member of the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, an organization with a creationist agenda. The Baraminology Study Group's official position is that Sternberg is not a creationist and acts primarily as a skeptical reviewer. [6] A critical review of the article is available on the Panda's Thumb website. [7]

Furthermore, questioning evolutionary theory, Big Bang theory, or any other scientific theories does not in any way constitute support for Creationism. Science questions these theories constantly, and they receive their most critical tests from scientists and the scientific method. Scientific theories are not in any way tested by some yahoo saying, "Hey, maybe you're wrong, maybe God did it!"

I agree. Creationism doesnt just show the scientific weaknesses of the current models of the origins of the universe/life. It makes its own assertions as well


Are you going to start presenting anything in your own words? Or do you not even bother to read and understand your own sources? Present it YOURSELF. You can add links at the end of your own text if you like, but if you want people to discuss this topic with you then you need to be willing to rise to the occasion and write your own material.

Fine. The article is about the Cambrian strata and how it doesnt make sense in so far as the evolutionalry model is concerned. It makes a massive jump forward in complexity of the life forms and there is no good reason as to why. There are many possible reasons, and some of these are examined in this article, and shown to be false. Given the rediculous increase in CSI of the life in this example, the author argues that creationism argues this better. Now read the link. And dont give any more excuses as to why you dont want to.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?


All inferences to human-like intelligence based on knowledge of human behaviour, aside from the SETI attempts, looking for regularity on the assumption that if an alien life form is transmitting into space then its transmission will share some regular features, which is a very anthropocentric thing to assume.

Can't infer anything about the real world from the game, though. Just you try. And, if you have the time between answering everyone else's criticisms, try to answer that one without making the utterly baseless assumption that God would create the Universe in any way resembling Him or His existence.

Edit: The Cambrian Explosion is a developing theory, but one of the major causes of the sudden massive increase in diversity is thought, I believe, to have been the evolution of the eye. I may be totally wrong, however, but I know that's one of the evolutionary-explosion theories. Feel free to correct me if eyes already existed at the time of the Cambrian period, and I'll accept wrongness :)

That's rich.
The author is not a scientist - he's a "scientific philosopher" and theologian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_C._Meyer

Ad Hommein. Insulting the debater, not the arguement proposed. The article is peer reviewed for accuracy. And Wikipedia is not.

Ad Hommein. Insulting the debater, not the arguement proposed. The article is peer reviewed for accuracy. And Wikipedia is not.
It would be "Ad Hominem", and my argument doesn't so much target the author as the fact that the peer reviewing process in this case is questionable at best. (linky (http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html))
I'm not insulting the guy by the way, I'm merely stating the fact that he is a proponent of creationism, not a biological scientist who came to this conclusion through research.

Ad Hommein. Insulting the debater, not the arguement proposed. The article is peer reviewed for accuracy. And Wikipedia is not.

Actually he's not insulting you. He's going at the credibility of evidence you've presented. Thats not an Ad Hominem.

I havent studied it in serious detail yet.
so, let me get this you start a thred whining about how people haven't put any serious study into creationism, and yet, you yourself admit that you haven't either. nice. so in effect you are whining about people like yourself?:rolleyes:


Okay, here is the deal, nobody really cares how the world started because you never are going to be able to prove it, all you can really do is get pretty close to deciding what you think about "evidence" you have found.

Is evolution plausible? yes.

Is creationism possible? yes.

I don't see why I have to choose anyway, it makes no difference to me at all.

The only reason I would care is if they were trying to teach non-science in a science class and call it science, because that would be lying.

God isn't science, He doesn't need to be, I don't know why people need Him to be, or why everyone feels the need to push thier veiws on someone else.

[/rant over]

I havent studied it in serious detail yet. Its an aside thing for me

I'll hope that at a bare minimum you yourself have read the books you just recommended?

Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vie...d=view&id=2177

The article in question is an opinion peice devoid of any new research or data but simply expounding upon the work of others. A review article.

What exactly do you think it accomplishes to show that such an article was printed?

Actually he's not insulting you. He's going at the credibility of evidence you've presented. Thats not an Ad Hominem.

He's insulting the guy who presented the evidence that I am presenting. Indirect Ad Homeinem.

The article in question is an opinion peice devoid of any new research or data but simply expounding upon the work of others. A review article.

What exactly do you think it accomplishes to show that such an article was printed?

If it takes the reasech of others but brings it to new conclusions, it has acomplished something. Read it. You can see how it proves the neo-darwinist explination for the Cambrian strata isnt compleltly consistant with what is found and what is expected.

de ja vu anyone? I think we spent most of the day trying to argue science.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453157

and
so, let me get this you start a thred whining about how people haven't put any serious study into creationism, and yet, you yourself admit that you haven't either. nice. so in effect you are whining about people like yourself?
<snip>


thank you thank you thank you.........

He's insulting the guy who presented the evidence that I am presenting. Indirect Ad Homeinem.
No it would be direct, just not at you.

Nonetheless, I wasn't insulting anyone - to present this article as peer-reviewed and scientific, while at the same time failing to mention who the author is or the controversy about this article, is either an accident or manipulative.
Merely clearing that up.

He's insulting the guy who presented the evidence that I am presenting. Indirect Ad Homeinem.

You are debating with others here. You presented an article as evidence for your side. The other debater is allowed to challenge the credibility of the article. Its just like in law if you have an expert witness the other side is allowed to challenge their credentials like how many times they've testified, who they testify for the majority of the time, etc. You were never attack at all so no Ad Homeinem.

Also I vaguely remeber something from my bioclass that a peer review of an article is written in a way that would let you be able to replicate the experiment exactly as it was done in the article. I really don't see anything about an experiment unless the article itself was reviewed in which case we'd need to see the actual peer reviews to verify it.

really really dumb question-- i know, i can just look it up, but what the hell is "Ad Homeinem"??????

really really dumb question-- i know, i can just look it up, but what the hell is "Ad Homeinem"??????

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.-wiki

Nonetheless, I wasn't insulting anyone - to present this article as peer-reviewed and scientific, while at the same time failing to mention who the author is or the controversy about this article, is either an accident or manipulative.
Merely clearing that up.

How exactly does every other article in this journel get peer reviewed then one that supports creationism conviently isnt? Forgive me but that seems unlikely to the extreme. Has the same kind of investigation of the peer review gone into non-creationist articles. I doubt it.

If it takes the reasech of others but brings it to new conclusions, it has acomplished something. Read it.

I read a great deal of it, which led to me posting my first response. It accomplishes much expressing of opinion.

You can see how it proves the neo-darwinist explination for the Cambrian strata isnt compleltly consistant with what is found and what is expected.

It does no such thing. Statements of personal incredulity from a single author, no matter how verbose, do not in any way whatsoever constitute such proof.

Also I vaguely remeber something from my bioclass that a peer review of an article is written in a way that would let you be able to replicate the experiment exactly as it was done in the article. I really don't see anything about an experiment unless the article itself was reviewed in which case we'd need to see the actual peer reviews to verify it.

I can help with this one, since I am trying to have a paper published in a peer reviewed journal. you are correct that the experiments need to be reproducible as well as credible. Generally, the paper is sent to 3-5 people who are top names in the field you are working in. They basically tear apart your paper, bit by bit- questioning methods, assumptions, the plausibility of what you are proposing and the validity of your conclusions-- if done correctly, it is brutal. which is the way it should be.

review articles (ones that go through and sum up all the other research out there) are peer reviewed for accuracy, etc.

How exactly does every other article in this journel get peer reviewed then one that supports creationism conviently isnt? Forgive me but that seems unlikely to the extreme. Has the same kind of investigation of the peer review gone into non-creationist articles. I doubt it.
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
This is the statement issued by the Journal. It seems like a person who himself is in a Creationist-type lobby group got the article, and did not tell the other editor about it but conducted the review process himself.
The proper procedure was therefore not followed - as the Journal has a policy of not considering ID arguments to have a place in scientific academic literature.

...The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings...

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.-wiki

thank you...don't kill the messenger sorta thing

thank you...don't kill the messenger sorta thing

Yea if Neu had said that arguement is wrong and you have to be dumb to believe it that would be an ad hominem. But to challenge the credibility of an author of an article presented as evidence is not one.

Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science.
I heartily endorse the above statement and feel strongly that this is indeed the entirety of this problem.

Well, I've flicked through it, and assumptions that the man is a philosopher do seem to be fulfilled later on in the argument. I'll briefly tackle a couple of things I spotted.

Too many of his refutations seem to be "But they don't explain where it came from" after having dubiously set aside the notion that proteins can arise through stability in the original system. Furthermore, he seems to automatically assume that information cannot arise from an initial lack of it; that it is a conserved, universal quantity. He is disregarding the effect of emergence in this case. Finally, he assumes that proteins will not form by themselves if there is no purpose in doing so. However, he ignores the obvious physical and chemical factors in his dismissal of that case. There is more to purpose than conscious decision.

All of this asks the question "What's wrong with short evolutionary bursts?". When conditions change, animals change over the course of a few hundred generations in order to deal with it. This counts for Proteins and cells, too; the physical and chemical conditions that cause a stability of some kind of protein mix may vary, and if it does, new forms may evolve to fill an evolutionary gap and reach a Stable Strategy.

If there was some sort of chemical or physical change on the earth, the Cambrian explosion is entirely understandable. And in that respect, we need to look into further details surrounding not just the fossil records but also readings for conditions at the appropriate point in history. Any change perceivable this far on in history would be enough to accelerate microscopic evolution; any state of consistent variation would send it skyrocketing.

So, yeah. He needs to look at the environmental impact on both micro and macroscopic evolution, and he needs to consider his sources as complementary rather than implicitly separate.

How exactly does every other article in this journel get peer reviewed then one that supports creationism conviently isnt?

because creationists are liars and cheats and frauds. so when they have the opportunity to lie, cheat, or commit fraud to advance the cause they go for it.

been shown that some quote you've been using is out of context and completely misrepresents the author? no problemo, god encourages lying. make so many batshit insane statements that even other creationists have to call bullshit? it's ok, keep right on truckin'. find some fossil dinosaur footprints? why don't you just go ahead and chisel a couple out to look vaguely like what you imagine human prints look like?

because creationists are liars and cheats and frauds. so when they have the opportunity to lie, cheat, or commit fraud to advance the cause they go for it.
Now this would be an ad hominem attack

ok, so i skimmed the review article, and while many things mentioned by other posts bothered me, it was this line of reasoning that completely blew me out of the water-- it was downhill for me after this....

In the first place, intelligent human agents--in virtue of their rationality and consciousness--have demonstrated the power to produce information in the form of linear sequence-specific arrangements of characters. Indeed, experience affirms that information of this type routinely arises from the activity of intelligent agents. A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind--that of a software engineer or programmer. The information in a book or inscriptions ultimately derives from a writer or scribe--from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent. As Quastler (1964) put it, the “creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity” (p. 16). Experience teaches this obvious truth

so, because there is someone out there that is a computer genius and made NationStates and I didn't because I am not that intelligent, there must be an Intelligent Designer? or am i just not getting this obvious connection???

Now this would be an ad hominem attack

:eek: ohhh, i see said the blind man

Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science.
I heartily endorse the above statement and feel strongly that this is indeed the entirety of this problem.
Zigzackly trou! :D

Now this would be an ad hominem attack

only if it was meant to be a response to an argument, rather than a statement of fact about the leaders of creationism and an answer to the question of how the ID paper avoided peer-review.

it's not "they are wrong because they are liars, cheats, and frauds," but rather "they are wrong and also happen to be liars, cheats, and frauds."

I heartily endorse the above statement and feel strongly that this is indeed the entirety of this problem.

Name one repeatable experiment that added credence to the idea that ID is a valid hypothesis?

only if it was meant to be a response to an argument, rather than a statement of fact about the leaders of creationism and an answer to the question of how the ID paper avoided peer-review.

it's not "they are wrong because they are liars, cheats, and frauds," but rather "they are wrong and also happen to be liars, cheats, and frauds."
So, basically, it's not a refutation; it's just name-calling?

Thinking that its been throughly disproven is what dismissing it is. If I were to think that evolution has been thorughly disproven I would dismiss it also. It does have emperical evidence (as is outlined in some of these books), which is itself emperically testable and thus it is scientific. I think what people should do is before either side attacks the other as being throughly disproven, they should do it themselves, seing as how believeing it to be so is just dismissing it out of hand.

How should I put this...

Fundamentalist creationism technically has not been disproven, but that is only because it cannot be proven or disproven. However, this comes down to a similar argument to "Jesus did not believe in God, because he knew that God existed." Once something has been proven or disproven, it can no longer be believed.

The reason that creationism cannot actually be disproven is the strange idea that "Maybe God just put the dinosaur bones and evidence for the Big Bang there to trick people into not taking Genesis literally and thus damning themselves to Hell for eternity." The Roman Catholic Church has said in the past and likely will say again that Genesis is not meant to be taken literally. It is simply an idea to help humanity understand its place in the universe.

More "liberal" creationism, on the other hand, does not claim that evolution or the scientific process are lies, but that God created the universe through a method similar to the way we would create a weather-simulation: He essentially defined the laws of physics, etc. and put in the starting values and let it take off on its own (admittedly interfering when absolutely necessary, to perform miracles and whatnot). However, since you (that means you, Avalon II) have also started a thread in which you vigorously try and argue against the usefulness/validity of science (I believe it was related to "the origins of life"), I will assume you subscribe to the former school and will direct my arguments to it from now on.

For the exact same reason that fundamentalist creationism cannot be disproven, Avalon, it cannot be proven or empirically tested either. And as such, the evidence you cite (but, I note, fail to actually show) it either absurd, made up, or otherwise untrue or unprovable.

Thank you.

Number III

So, basically, it's not a refutation; it's just name-calling?

no. it's an answer to the question posed by avalon II:

"How exactly does every other article in this journel get peer reviewed then one that supports creationism conviently isnt?"

the answer is that the creationists cheated to get it in a journal, and then lied when called on it, and continue to lie by trying to use it as if it was meaningful without mentioning the cheating and lying.

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724


I agree. Both sides are ignorant of one another. Evolutionists are quick to dismiss creationism without doing any research. Creationists are quick to defy anything evolution, even micro-evolution. Both groups need to do some research for the OTHER side. Is that not the scientific method?

Name one repeatable experiment that added credence to the idea that ID is a valid hypothesis?

:rolleyes: Macro-evolution has never been observed . . . . there have been eyewitnesses to Jesus, Virgin Mary, and God . . . . eyewitness testimony in court can alone send a man to prison . . . . . it is reliable . . . .

Name one repeatable experiment that added credence to the idea that ID is a valid hypothesis?
No, no silly. Read exactly what Avalon II wrote - the bit I extracted, anyway.

Sheesh.

:D

If the evolution cause the universe to start, how come it's not happening anymore?

If the evolution cause the universe to start, how come it's not happening anymore?

...

If the evolution cause the universe to start, how come it's not happening anymore?
Who says it isn't?

:eek:

I agree. Both sides are ignorant of one another. Evolutionists are quick to dismiss creationism without doing any research. Creationists are quick to defy anything evolution, even micro-evolution. Both groups need to do some research for the OTHER side. Is that not the scientific method?

Unfortunately, its not. The scientific process is, in essence, a method for finding empirical evidence that can be found again using the same process. This empirical evidence is then used to support/contradict a hyptothosis, and when enough evidence is found, the hypothosis is considered to be proven/disproven.

Equally unfortunately, Creationism cannot be applied to the scientific method because it is, by its very nature, both unprovable and un-disprovable (please forgive the double negative, but it is needed to make my meaning clear).

Therein lies the problem when the Creationists try to argue against science.

Sincerely,

Number III

:rolleyes: Macro-evolution has never been observed . . . . there have been eyewitnesses to Jesus, Virgin Mary, and God . . . . eyewitness testimony in court can alone send a man to prison . . . . . it is reliable . . . .
There are two cases of macro evolution I know of that I can't quite remember from a recent bio lecture I had but it was some sort of plant that was in california that got to hawaii somehow and became a different species and a fly that changes. Also those aren't eyewitnesses they are more hersay which isn't admissible in court except under certain cericumstances.

Evolutionists are quick to dismiss creationism without doing any research.

actually, most people who get involved in the creation debate wind up knowing more about creationism than your average creationist off the street.

we dismiss it because it is stupid and trivially wrong in obvious ways.

...
I wish I'd have a witty answer...but I'm speechless.

So another "..." from me.

No, no silly. Read exactly what Avalon II wrote - the bit I extracted, anyway.

Sheesh.

:D

My statement was in support of your endorsement, not a plea for you personally to produce evidence. I really the person you quoted revealed more truth than they realized, lol.

:rolleyes: Macro-evolution has never been observed . . . . there have been eyewitnesses to Jesus, Virgin Mary, and God . . . . eyewitness testimony in court can alone send a man to prison . . . . . it is reliable . . . .

Ah, so those eyewitness accounts are repeatable then?

If the evolution cause the universe to start, how come it's not happening anymore?

Erm...Now I'm confused...

If evolution caused the universe to start (as you claim), then there was life before the universe existed...Which means that things living in the universe existed before the universe which they require to exist so that they may exist existed...Sorry 'bout the syntax there...

Hate to break it to you, but evolution started a long time after the universe did.

Number III

Creationism does have a level of scientific backing for both looking into the errors of the current model of the creation of the universe and for applying its own model.
The mistake being made here is to interpret the fact that a particular methodology/approach/what-have-you that seeks to find an alternative to a flawed scientific model, must therefore be scientific itself.

That is not the case, otherwise I could say picking my nose was a scientific method if I were doing so for the purpose of trying to discover how life came to be as it is, so long as I also were doing so on the understanding that there were flaws/short-comings/what-have-you in the current model used to explain such things.

It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is". There are other areas of science which use intellegent design as part of their work
Finding fault/flaws/what-have-you with evolutionary theory is not necessarily creationism, in fact more than anything it would be 'evolutionary science'.

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?
None of these are akin to creationism because all of them are based on observation of beings capable of producing the occurences you refer to. None of them are based on the notion that something we have no reason to believe any being is capable of doing, actually was done by some being.

Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
Aha, I'll have a look.

If it takes the reasech of others but brings it to new conclusions, it has acomplished something. Read it. You can see how it proves the neo-darwinist explination for the Cambrian strata isnt compleltly consistant with what is found and what is expected.
And.... the problem is the inferences being drawn are not necessary inferences, or even (so far as I can tell) likely inferences.
Let's assume for a moment current models are wrong, that some other model is in fact correct. Why would that model be creationism? There is no reason to believe that if current models are wrong, creationism is correct.
However the fact is current models could be partially wrong only. For instance the evidence from the Cambrian might have been misinterpreted due to some systematic flaw that requires some adjustment to current models. rather an entirely novel alternative.

"What's wrong with short evolutionary bursts?".
So far as I can tell, (and as you are suggesting), nothing at all. There's no reason to assume that evolution sticks to any particular schedule. Punctuated equilibrium seems both rational and consistent with what we believe we understand of evolution at this time.

I agree. Both sides are ignorant of one another. Evolutionists are quick to dismiss creationism without doing any research. Creationists are quick to defy anything evolution, even micro-evolution. Both groups need to do some research for the OTHER side. Is that not the scientific method?
No, it is not the scientific method to explore everything someone suggests could be true. It isnt a very good use of one's resources either.

In the case of creationism if it's true, then someone ought to be able to establish a compelling argument about it at such a time as enough is known about it that the information could be of use to me in trying to figure out if it is true, given the limitations of my knowledge in the field of science. Until then, there's no point my looking into it because either it is not true, or I wouldnt be able to use the information currently available to conclude that it is true anyway.

My statement was in support of your endorsement, not a plea for you personally to produce evidence. I really the person you quoted revealed more truth than they realized, lol.
Oops. My bad. My Subtle-t-ometer must've been jammed.

Don't you just love it when people shoot themselves in the foot without realizing it, though?

-DW.

And.... the problem is the inferences being drawn are not necessary inferences, or even (so far as I can tell) likely inferences.

I fully agree with you on all of your points except this...

They so-called "inferences" drawn aren't inferences.

An inference is a logically provable statement. This means that there is no such thing as a "likely" inference, as all inferences are true.

For example:

Given that trees always die when they are struck by lightning,
And given that Tree A has been struck by lightning,
Tree A is dead.

This article shows no reasoning of this sort.

I fully agree with you on all of your points except this...

They so-called "inferences" drawn aren't inferences.

An inference is a logically provable statement. This means that there is no such thing as a "likely" inference, as all inferences are true.

For example:

Given that trees always die when they are struck by lightning,
And given that Tree A has been struck by lightning,
Tree A is dead.

This article shows no reasoning of this sort.
Well 2 problems with your evaluation. Firstly inductive conclusions are referred to as inferences and they are not 'logically provable' in every case.

So far as I know there is not contrary or contradictory to state "I did not imply what you have infered". I know the word to be often used to refer to cases where a person's conclusions are known (by the referer) to not be a necessary implication of the facts. I have no reason to believe this is an erroneous use, and the usage is sufficiently common and wide-spread enough (in my experiance) to constitute a shared linguistic convention.

Well 2 problems with your evaluation. Firstly inductive conclusions are referred to as inferences and they are not 'logically provable' in every case.

So far as I know there is not contrary or contradictory to state "I did not imply what you have infered". I know the word to be often used to refer to cases where a person's conclusions are known (by the referer) to not be a necessary implication of the facts. I have no reason to believe this is an erroneous use, and the usage is sufficiently common and wide-spread enough (in my experiance) to constitute a shared linguistic convention.

Ah, but their is one difficulty with your statement: that kind of thinking leads to the inevitable degredation of our precious language, with horrendous, monstrous constructs like "ain't", and "buses", whereas the proper constructions would be "I am't", "You aren't", "He/she/it isn't" for the first case, and for the second, "I see three bi." Oh, how I love my view of the English language...

Ah, but their is one difficulty with your statement: that kind of thinking leads to the inevitable degredation of our precious language, with horrendous, monstrous constructs like "ain't", and "buses", whereas the proper constructions would be "I am't", "You aren't", "He/she/it isn't" for the first case, and for the second, "I see three bi." Oh, how I love my view of the English language...
No that kind of thinking doesnt lead to the transitory nature of language. That kind of thinking simply acknowledges the known facts about language. Is there any evidence (much less conclusive proof) that Modern English is necessarily 'degraded' when compared to 'Old English' or 'Middle English', rather than merely different?

[EDIT]
Besides which, this doesnt address the fact that an inductive conclusion is an inferrence.

Yes, im very familiar with its premises. They are false.
And its methods. They are spurious.
It is bunk.

Thats basicly like saying that all evolution is is "the idea that life happened by accident". Creationism has a lot to say for itself in questioning the scientific model and presenting the model of God's creation.
Like what?

All I've ever read is debunkings of 20 year old theories that have already been dismantled being held up as proof that evolution didn't happen, pseudoscience or outright lies from the creationist camp.

How exactly does every other article in this journel get peer reviewed then one that supports creationism conviently isnt? Forgive me but that seems unlikely to the extreme. Has the same kind of investigation of the peer review gone into non-creationist articles. I doubt it.
I really don't think creation "scientists" could stand the sort of scrutiny your usual scientist undergoes during the peer review process. Their heads might explode.

I agree. Both sides are ignorant of one another. Evolutionists are quick to dismiss creationism without doing any research. Creationists are quick to defy anything evolution, even micro-evolution. Both groups need to do some research for the OTHER side. Is that not the scientific method?
The scientific method does not mean researching pseudoscience as science.

There isn't any research into creationism, creationism doesn't make any predictions, so you can't research it. The closest thing you can do to research when it comes to creationism is research opinions on the subject of people who are scientifically ignorant.

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724

Yes, you see me criticize creationism a lot, though I don't think I'm overly aggressive about it like some others. And yes, I'm very well informed in the creationists arguments. For one, I have read genesis multiple times. I have listend to talks by prominant creationists. I've read parts of books, but frankly the science often gets bad right at the start and I always get too bothered to get through the entire book. But I agree, most of those who believe in evolution haven't studied the creation argument.

I think the problem is much worse then you think. How many people hold to the literal view of Genesis, but have never read Genesis? How many people believe in evolution but are unaware of any of the scientific evidence supporting it or the details of the theory itself?

I'm a lazy evolutionist believer. I just don't like Christianity and whenever I see Intelligent Design I think of inquisitions and stretching machines.

It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is".
Ok read your linkie article as promised.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
If it said current theory isnt perfect or is flawed only, it would be evolutionary science; it's called creationism rather than evolution theory because it posits a theory. Unless there is something out there better than the article linked to, then I dont see the point.

I'd say at best it is fanciful and not in the least bit useful when feeling my most generous, in all honesty I find that the writer is either blinded by bias, an erudite idiot, or simply dishonest.

I fail to see why anyone with good sense would actually publish such an article unless they percieved likely readers would all be 'none too quick on the up-take' or they in fact wanted to discredit 'creationism' rather than promote it.:confused:

The scientific method does not mean researching pseudoscience as science.

There isn't any research into creationism, creationism doesn't make any predictions, so you can't research it. The closest thing you can do to research when it comes to creationism is research opinions on the subject of people who are scientifically ignorant.

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model? Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe? Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry? These are just three examples of points that creationists raise to show what they are saying. It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory. When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue. Simmilarly, when creationists realise that just a few flaws do not make the entire evolutionary model completely and utterly wrong then we will have a valid dialogue. Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all. There are valid points to be made. Listen and you will see them. Ignore and keep claiming that there arent and you wont.

<snip>So to sum it up, if God doesn't exist, then I say "Told ya so" If he does exist, he's a dick, and I don't want to be his friend anyway.
:D roflmao :D

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model? Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe? Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry? These are just three examples of points that creationists raise to show what they are saying. It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory. When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue. Simmilarly, when creationists realise that just a few flaws do not make the entire evolutionary model completely and utterly wrong then we will have a valid dialogue. Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all. There are valid points to be made. Listen and you will see them. Ignore and keep claiming that there arent and you wont.

I'm sure you;ve heard this argument before but it certainly does apply here. Those are points of contest you have with evolution. But even if you somehow managed to prove evolution wrong that does nothing to advance the cause of creationism. If you really want to help creationism. Get them to concentrate on finding proper scientific evidence that supports their cause. This is probably impossible since creationism is so at odds with the evidence but at least it will help them understand things better.

I'm sure you;ve heard this argument before but it certainly does apply here. Those are points of contest you have with evolution. But even if you somehow managed to prove evolution wrong that does nothing to advance the cause of creationism. If you really want to help creationism. Get them to concentrate on finding proper scientific evidence that supports their cause. This is probably impossible since creationism is so at odds with the evidence but at least it will help them understand things better.

Creationism I agree does not, by proving evolution wrong, prove itself right. But it does offer its own ideas about some notions as well. Creationism does have proper scientific evidence. Here is just some websites explaining some of the problems.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star5.htm#Star%20Formation

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star6.htm

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

You can call them biased, but that does not change the evidence they put forward

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model? Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe? Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry? These are just three examples of points that creationists raise to show what they are saying. It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory. When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue. Simmilarly, when creationists realise that just a few flaws do not make the entire evolutionary model completely and utterly wrong then we will have a valid dialogue. Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all. There are valid points to be made. Listen and you will see them. Ignore and keep claiming that there arent and you wont.
Perhaps you too need to visit the local library..
Whatever, the points you raise in no way supports an argument from faith. It's completely unreasonable (and wholly irrelevant) to start listening to your imaginary friends, just because we don't know everything there is to know about the universe.
A little example of what you're doing, because I suspect you're somehow blinded to the obvious:
TSw can't explain why the universe exists. So instead of trying to reverse engineer what happened, and accepting such reverse engineering will be a slow process, he just assumes it exists because the spirit of a pre-universe homo had a run in with God, killed God for beung the ultimate arse, and fashioned a nice-looking universe with shiney palliet-like stars from the mangled, arse-raped remains of God.

That creation theory is just as good as yours. Actually, it's a lot better, because it doesn't involve infallible scripture contradicting the observable universe. Maybe there's a future for a Cult running around saying Gaydidit?

It's probably been explained to you before, but just in case: That you can point out holes in one theory doesn't mean you suddenly have support for another idea. I don't believe it's plausible that Thor (the Nordic God of Thunder) actually exists, and I know he can't be proven. But do you honestly feel that lack of knowledge about Thor lends support to my claim that Gaydidit?
This is what you're doing.

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model?
Yes, and if it didn't, sitting in an armchair with no connection to the scientific community and doing absolutely no research while poking holes in evolution doesn't make creationism a theory.

Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe?
Yes. Not that this is in anyway shape or form related to evolution.

Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry?
I'm not studying evolutionary biology, but from what I've heard, there is a fair amount of evidence supporting this hypothesis.

These are just three examples of points that creationists raise to show what they are saying. It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory.
If you knew what a scientific theory is you wouldn't be arguing it. What predictions does creationism make, exactly? What testable hypotheses does it propose? Please explain this.
Creationism is not science, it is at best theology and at worst quackery.

When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue.
"Evolutionists" do know there are flaws in the model, but that doesn't mean chalking it up to "god did it" is a calid point. Creationists don't make valid points in saying that evolution is wrong, they just point out gaps in the theory and fill them with god. These "evolutionists" do not accept this as an answer (indeed it isn't one) and instead continue to look for a proper scientific explanation rather than resort to the supernatural.

Simmilarly, when creationists realise that just a few flaws do not make the entire evolutionary model completely and utterly wrong then we will have a valid dialogue.
:rolleyes: Creationists need to stop bringing in god where s/he doesn't belong, i.e. in scientific theory.

Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all.
Because creationism isn't legitimate science. Look up the definition of a scientific theory and you'll see why. I would waste more time here, but I'm running late to class. What do you know, it's a real science class too.

<snip>

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star5.htm#Star%20Formation

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star6.htm

And what exactly does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?


http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html

And again has nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution


http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

Doesn't say anything about the Theory of Evolution, it is simply a discussion of a T. Rex femur that supposedly was found with preserved soft tissue, although it gives no details about where or when it was supposed to have been discovered.

You can call them biased, but that does not change the evidence they put forward
They are biased and they put forward absolutely no evidence against the Theory of Evolution

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star5.htm#Star%20Formation
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star6.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html
You can call them biased, but that does not change the evidence they put forward
Well, they are baised. They are also nothig to do with evolution. Also most of the content of the first two seems to be made of very short quotes taken from scientists, with [...] notation showing parts have been removed 'for clarity'. Given the shortness of quotes, lack of context and editing of the quotes I think there is a high chance they are taken far from their original meaning. They also seem to take quotes saying "we're not sure yet" to mean "we think god did it".

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724Did you come up with that list yourself or did you copy that from somewhere?

Creationism does have a level of scientific backing for both looking into the errors of the current model of the creation of the universe and for applying its own model. It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is". There are other areas of science which use intellegent design as part of their work

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings? Yes, they check whether it happened. They also check for intelligent design by HUMAN BEINGS. And they conclude, on occasion, that there was no intelligent design involved. And they compare cases to natural versions to find differences and prove that it was or wasn't natural. Now what exactly are you comparing with intelligent design?

"Evolutionists" do know there are flaws in the model, but that doesn't mean chalking it up to "god did it" is a calid point. Creationists don't make valid points in saying that evolution is wrong, they just point out gaps in the theory and fill them with god. These "evolutionists" do not accept this as an answer (indeed it isn't one) and instead continue to look for a proper scientific explanation rather than resort to the supernatural.

:rolleyes: Creationists need to stop bringing in god where s/he doesn't belong, i.e. in scientific theory.

Because creationism isn't legitimate science. Look up the definition of a scientific theory and you'll see why. I would waste more time here, but I'm running late to class. What do you know, it's a real science class too.

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science. Granted proving flaws in the evolutionary model does not prove that God created the universe, but pointing out flaws in the evolutionary model isnt just what creationists do. They also point out their own ideas and intepretations of the evidence also. Of course, creationism isnt a complete theory, but neither is the current model about the creaition of the universe. People make mistakes when they say "Creationism doesnt make any predictions and therefore isnt a science" because creationism isnt a branch of science like physics or chemistry. What it is is a model of the creation of the universe and life, in the same way that Abiogenesis and the big bang are models.

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science.
ROFLMFAO

They also seem to take quotes saying "we're not sure yet" to mean "we think god did it".

I agree that that leap is wrong to make, but its not just "we think its wrong therefore God did it" it is "We think its wrong and that X, Y and Z are more accurare, and support the idea that God did it"

ROFLMFAO

This is what I mean. People just laugh at the idea and then dismiss it out of hand before actually looking at it seriously.

This is what I mean. People just laugh at the idea and then dismiss it out of hand before actually looking at it seriously.

I'm sorry - I've visited the websites, read their books in the bookstore (wouldn't pay money for them).

It's not real science. It's not real science. It's not real science. You, and the people who push the idea, have no idea what real science is - in fact, in order to get it the label "science", idiots in Kansas had to redefine the definition of "science" to something else.

Hey, if we're going to redefine what science means, why don't we just say that the world was created in exactly the manner described by Tolkein in his book The Silmarillion?

There's just as much "scientific evidence" for his creationism as there is for yours.

I'm sorry - I've visited the websites, read their books in the bookstore (wouldn't pay money for them).

It's not real science. It's not real science. It's not real science. You, and the people who push the idea, have no idea what real science is - in fact, in order to get it the label "science", idiots in Kansas had to redefine the definition of "science" to something else.

Hey, if we're going to redefine what science means, why don't we just say that the world was created in exactly the manner described by Tolkein in his book The Silmarillion?

There's just as much "scientific evidence" for his creationism as there is for yours.

It is not a branch of science, in the way that physics or biology is. It is a scientific examination of an event, in the same way that the big bang is a scientific examination of an event. And believe what you want but there is evidence to support it.

@Avalon II.
So far your hypothesis seems to be the following:

Evolution theory is wrong since the bible says that God created man/life.
Or life is to complex to have arisen through evolution some godlike entity must have created it

Ok now give me some tests to verify this.
Those tests should involve things that evolution theory says cannot occur or should occur in a different form/sequence.
Any test that gives the same outcome as evolution theory predicts go to evolution theory due to it being the simpler explanation.

I won't hold my breath on you achieving this. People, with much better arguments then the ones you are using now, tried to do this after darwins original manuscript came out and every single argument against evolution theory got shot down. One of the reasons that the ID/creationists are now using politics to get their views into schooling.

altered sentence build up to make this more readable

I agree that that leap is wrong to make, but its not just "we think its wrong therefore God did it" it is "We think its wrong and that X, Y and Z are more accurare, and support the idea that God did it"
That is not what some of your sourced did, they took a comment from a scientist saying "we're not sure why this happens" and then the site implies this to mean the scientist is saying "god did it".

Secondly I have not seen any example of the "X, Y and Z" that you talk about, only cases of people attributing things we do not yet know about to god.

It is not a branch of science, in the way that physics or biology is. It is a scientific examination of an event, in the same way that the big bang is a scientific examination of an event. And believe what you want but there is evidence to support it.

It still isn't science.

There is plenty of math and physics to back up everything that occurred with the big bang.

Show me the evidence for God - I'm a Christian and I believe in God, but I don't believe for a second that there's any scientific evidence. That's why they call it "faith".

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science.No, that's not science. Science is making your point, testing it, and then making your new point either "my old point was correct" or "my old point was wrong".

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science.
Alright. Show us some.
Granted proving flaws in the evolutionary model does not prove that God created the universe, but pointing out flaws in the evolutionary model isnt just what creationists do.
Firstly, the insistance on pointing out gaps (not flaws) in the theories about evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis and so on, isn'tadding to the IDists credibility at all.
Secondly, unless the 'other things they do' are secret, why don't you explain what those things are? They don't appear to be doing anything other than molesting other theories in an attempt to disprove them.
They also point out their own ideas and intepretations of the evidence also.
Where? I've yet to see anything remotely like that.
Of course, creationism isnt a complete theory, but neither is the current model about the creaition of the universe.
IDism isn't a theory, at least not in the scientific sense. The theories about the Big Bang are. As are the theories about evolution.
It's hard to be sure what you're trying to say when you oversimplify & use confusing terminology. You'd better elaborate on this is you want anyone to understand what you're trying to say.
People make mistakes when they say "Creationism doesnt make any predictions and therefore isnt a science" because creationism isnt a branch of science like physics or chemistry.
In fact, IDism isn't even related to science, as it doesn't abide by the scientific method. Your wording leave the impression you want to present IDism as science. You shouldn't. Occam's razor would destroy all shades of IDism instantly, and science would cease to be, if you combined the two. So it's not in your best interest - unless you hate science & religion/philosophy.
What it is is a model of the creation of the universe and life, in the same way that Abiogenesis and the big bang are models.
No. A model is used to make predictions. A model isn't the same thing as a heirachy. IDism might be proposing the latter (though I've yet to hear any propositions at all), but it definitly does not propose a model. Any sort of model seems to be anathema to IDism.

Chuck Norris was the fourth Wise Man. He brought baby Jesus the gift of "beard". Jesus wore it proudly to his dying day. The other Wise Men, jealous of Jesus' obvious gift favoritism, used their combined influence to have Chuck omitted from the Bible. Shortly after all three died of roundhouse kick related deaths.

Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science.
Far too few people think that, you're right: if more people were to dismiss it as simplistic nonsense bearing no resemblance to reality, the world would be a far better place,

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model?

for evolution - yes.

for creationism - not at fucking all.

what exactly do you think you know about the cambrian and the fossils we find from it?

(i bet a dollar that you think the cambrian shows fossils from all of the phyla, and therefore all types of life where around at the beginning. am i right?)

Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe?

i've always loved the way creationists say 'evolution' when clearly they mean 'the entirety of science including rather distantly related fields like physics'

here a hint - the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the size, shape, or age of the universe. astrophysics does.

Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry?

no, birds are clearly the descendents of a branch of the dinosaurs, which in turn share a common anscestor with all the other dinosaurs. in fact, this transition has become rather well documented - to the point where there is now evidence which shows that an ancestor of the t rex had feathers, and that t rex himself probably had them as a juvenile.

It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory. When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue.

one problem. creationists have yet to find a single flaw in the evolutionary model. this is mostly because they have no understanding of the scientific method or of the body of scientific knowledge. so all of their 'critiques' wind up being strawmen and lies.

Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all. There are valid points to be made. Listen and you will see them. Ignore and keep claiming that there arent and you wont.

atheism's got nothing to do with it. this is about science versus ignorance.

we know all of the claims creationists make. seriously, nearly everything creationists say has been grabbed from just a few people who have written a few books and none of them are any good. when i said that people who get involved in the creation 'debate' wind up knowing more about creationism than your average creationist off the street, i wasn't kidding. in fact, some people involved in arguing with creationists decided to compile a list of creationist claims and what's wrong with them (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html) just to save time. it is rare indeed to come across a claim that hasn't been made before, except when it is a badly bungled variation on one of the standard ones.

we know your claims. we knows what's wrong with them. we know your leaders' problems with tax fraud and fake diplomas. we know the intellectual development of creationism as a modern heresy that grew up around a fundamentalist protestant rejection of modernism in the late 1800s and early 1900s. we even know your leaders' startegies for infiltrating their nonsense into the public discourse while avoiding making any actual attempts at doing research.

there is one thing i don't know that i've always wondered though:

i wonder what must be going through the head of creationists while skimming through the work of a scientist or philosopher looking for a quote that can be cut out of context and mangled so that in a new context it will appear to say the exact opposite of what it was saying before?

I think Avalon II's got a 'Daniel in the Lion's Den' fetish.

I've done more research into the matter than I care to remember. My conclusion?

I am not egotistical enough to think for one second that if something sentient was powerful enough to create existence, that I would ever be able to understand it.

I don't think there's some "being" sitting somewhere, who's gonna send my wife and I to Hell because we had pre-marital sex. And if there is, he's an asshole, and I'd reallly rather not spend infinite with his dumb ass.

You wanna know where creationalists go wrong? They mess with my science. The most important learning tool man has ever used should not be hijacked by a bunch of religious zealots who think they are better than everyone else because they believe in a "spirit" who is SO demanding of humans that he tells us we will burn in hell if we don't call him our overlord. Sounds more like Hitler to me.

So to sum it up, if God doesn't exist, then I say "Told ya so" If he does exist, he's a dick, and I don't want to be his friend anyway.

ROFLMFAO! :D

Ok, I probably woun't have been so blunt, but this is basically how I feel about it as well. I mean, read the bible (I decided I should do some real reserch into certain parts of it and went to a bible study for like a year). Sorry, but the "God " in the bible comes off as being Human. He's jelious, petty, egomanical, vengeful and demands to be worshiped, under penalty of infinite tourture. No offence, but I can see why you are "god fearing" people. But I thought he was about love. Anyone see the irony? I treat people with a certain amount of uncommon courtesy (because common courtesy is, well, not...) just because that is the way I am. I treat peple with respect and have been called "too nice" on more than one occation. But I'm going to burn in hell for all time just because I dont worship some very human manifestation? And some muderer/rapist can go to heaven if he takes the Lord as his saviour? Sorry, I dont see alot worth worshipping there. Then all I have to do is turn on a t.v. and see people killing other people because they don't believe in the same one, or the same version. Then (for all you Christians) remember the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, it's not just a Muslim thing.

George Carlin said it best. Religion is like a lift in your shoes. Just dont make me wear your shoes. And lets not nail them on the the natives feet.

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science.
Let's go over the rest of your points then return to this one.

Granted proving flaws in the evolutionary model does not prove that God created the universe, but pointing out flaws in the evolutionary model isnt just what creationists do. They also point out their own ideas and intepretations of the evidence also.
You see, all the Creationist literature I've ever read takes it for granted that finding flaws in the fossil record (and the ones I've seen cited aren't actually real flaws, btw: there are plenty of fossils of transitional species that have been found but Creationists tend to ignore inconvenient facts rather than addressing them) automatically disproves every bit of research that has ever been made in the area, and by extension proves that Genesis is the literal truth. This sort of reasoning (an egg isn't a bean so it must be an aardvark) is the main reason I find it incredibly offensive when people like you describe this anti-rational bullshit as a science.

Of course, creationism isnt a complete theory, but neither is the current model about the creaition of the universe. People make mistakes when they say "Creationism doesnt make any predictions and therefore isnt a science" because creationism isnt a branch of science like physics or chemistry. What it is is a model of the creation of the universe and life, in the same way that Abiogenesis and the big bang are models.
Except that it isn't. Abiogenesis is based on lab experimentation and historical research. The big bang theory emerged from research and replaced the earlier (and now discredited) Solid State theory. Creationism has been deliberately constructed to avoid any examination of how it relates to other theories of the nature of the universe, so it should not be dignified by calling it a science. You may feel that claiming it isn't a branch of the physical sciences exonerates it from having to compete with them, but if it's being used as an excuse to feed children fairytales instead of facts as part of their biology lessons, then it damned well is in competition with the physical sciences and it thus has to compete with them. If it can't, it has no fucking business being taught in schools.

I'm curious, but how exactly do you study creationsim?

"God made it!"

That's it in a nutshell.

There are no theories presented on how he did it. No grand theological arguments on whether he conjured it up out of nothing, repackaged it from a chunk of Insto-Universe that his (or her) parents gave him, and no delving into the possibility that we were in fact squeezed out of an almighty shincter.

There is NOTHING TO STUDY!!!!!

"GOD DID IT"

That's it. That's all. End of story!

Now whether that is true or not is besides the point. In relation to this thread, all that remains of creationism to "study" is to dissect whether or not its proponents have adequately picked enough holes in prevailing scientific thought to disprove it.

This doesn't prove that God did it. It just proves that scientists aren't God.

Well, I already know that!



So please. If someone wants me to STUDY CREATIONISM, can you please point me to the appropriate textbook which details the various theories of HOW God did it so that I can make a rational, reasoned comparison against other competing positions in order that I can come to a conclusion as to which is more plausible.

the problem is, of course, that there IS no such text. All there are is the multitude of texts of varying quality (much of it incredibly poor) that do nothing constructive beyond giving scientists pointers on where else they need to focus their research.


Study creationism?

Puhlease!


That took three seconds.

So, what else have you got? Besides remorse that the church can't just kill off scientists who make unpopular declarations like the good ole' days?

I'm curious, but how exactly do you study creationsim?
That's basically what I asked. The response I got was that I was asking the wrong question. Go figure, I guess.

Why are you so bent on pushing creationism? What's in it for you? Is science such a threat to your faith? Oh sure these people enjoy debating this crap but you can't change their minds. Science disagrees with the principles of creationism. Why would they lie to us?

That's basically what I asked. The response I got was that I was asking the wrong question. Go figure, I guess.
What did you expect? For more than 100 years straight IDists have hidden behind claims that there's more to it than GOD DID IT! And for more than 100 years, they have ignored all questions as to what this 'more' might be.

If IDist past history is anything to go by, you'll at most be told that you're mistaken about some minor detail, when you ask what their 'more to it' thing is. Even that is rare though.

That's basically what I asked. The response I got was that I was asking the wrong question. Go figure, I guess.
Quite a bit has been published on the subject. Of course, it seems that nobody involved has actually studied paleantology or any related discipline, but that doesn't bar them from churning out witless half arsed attempts at picking flaws with evolutionary theory, or indeed from expecting to have this crap taken as seriously as research by people who've done the whole peer review thing up to and including having it used for teaching science classes.
I wouldn't for a second suggest anybody condones this crap by buying books from Creationist imprints who siphon their profits back to fundamentalists who make Pat Robertson look like Barney the Dinosaur, but I suppose it's preferable to people looking for the name of an author on a P2P network: I would certainly never suggest that...

Henry Morris (Head of the Institute for Creation Research)
Kelly Segrave (author of The Creation Explanation)
DT Gish (author of Evolution! The Fossils Say No)
HM Morris (author of Scientific Creationism)
JC Whitcomb (author of The Early Earth)

Yes, I have studied it. I've even heard one of the "experts" lecture about it when he was invited to my church when I was younger. Most of his conjectures were based in completely insupportable assumptions, but it was interesting.

In the end, what it comes down to is the following:

Creationism is a belief. There are various types of it, from "God did it in whatever way we can tell from studying," to "God did it exactly as it says in (one of) the Creation accounts in Genesis." In the end, Creationism always comes down to faith. It is not empirical, and cannot be, by definition, as it involves the supernatural - God. Since it cannot be empirical, it is not science.

Now, Creationists can certainly find evidence they can use to back up their claims. However, if you start with the conclusion already in hand, you can find evidence for anything.

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

Does not being science make it automagically incorrect? No, there is a chance that the scientific method may lead us to incorrect conclusions. This especially true when the interference of the supernatural - something which science cannot study - is posited. However, when discussing science, we will only discuss that - science.

Why are you so bent on pushing creationism? What's in it for you? Is science such a threat to your faith? Oh sure these people enjoy debating this crap but you can't change their minds. Science disagrees with the principles of creationism. Why would they lie to us?
Science is definitely a threat to their faith, and their picture of themselves as the image of God. They find it offensive that anybody would base any picture of the world on empirical evidence, rather than the Bible that has been handed down from God (or possibly from a number of schizophrenics).
That's all this is about, and this is why Avalon has made a point of ignoring every single criticism of the crap he's spent two threads spouting.

... fundamentalists who make Pat Robertson look like Barney the Dinosaur...
Oh, didn't you know? Barney is one of Creationisms biggest proponents. In fact, he claims to be an intelligent designer himself. Apparently, he has successfully developed a subrealm into which he has allowed children to venture and influence the spirits that dwelled within it. Freaky stuff.

I'm curious, but how exactly do you study creationsim?

well, you could study the intellectual evolution of creationism. even silly ideas can have interesting histories. you might even discover transitional forms that lie between creationism and ID (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=453036), like the 'cdesign proponentsists'.

So have we had a single Creationist specifically state (in their own words) the scientific outline of Creationism? Has a single Creationist been able to state the scientifically testable aspects of Creationism? Has a single Creationist been able to give a single scientific advancement or invention produced using Creationism?

Or are we just supposed to continue this pathetic "debate"? Can't we move on to a "debate" between modern chemistry and alchemy?

This Thread is odd in that, there are many people insulting religious fanatics yet they are fanatic athiests themselfs. I am an atheist and i believe somone who dismisses things without knowing anything else about is no better then a Zealot. We atheists claim to be open minded and unhindered by religion but in reality many of us are more fanatical and closed minded then the religious are.:(

This Thread is odd in that, there are many people insulting religious fanatics yet they are fanatic athiests themselfs. I am an atheist and i believe somone who dismisses things without knowing anything else about is no better then a Zealot. We atheists claim to be open minded and unhindered by religion but in reality many of us are more fanatical and closed minded then the religious are.:(
You are making the common mistake of associating good science with atheism. While that is a flattering comparison on your part, it is still incorrect...I myself am one of the most vocal opponents of Creationist malarky, but I am not an atheist.

Look at their hypothesis. Does the Cambrian strata make any sense according to the evolutionary model?

Yes, it does. Try taking a look at the Precambrian strata. The Cambrian "explosion" just keeps getting to be less and less of an explosion and more and more of a relatively quick expansion the more the fossil record gets filled in.

Should the galaxy be a flat disc given the rate of its rotation and the supposed age of the universe?

Does cosmology have anything to do with the biological sciences?

Do dinosaurs and birds fail to have a common ancestry?

Extremely doubtful.

These are just three examples of points that creationists raise to show what they are saying.

And they're pathetic.

It is not a complete scienficic theory, but it does expose many of the weaknesses of evolution as a theory.

No, they don't. The second one doesn't even have anything to do with evolution.

When evolutionists get of their high horse and realise that creationists do have some valid points to say about the flaw in the model, then we will get a valid dialogue. Simmilarly, when creationists realise that just a few flaws do not make the entire evolutionary model completely and utterly wrong then we will have a valid dialogue. Both sides have things to give to the other. Its just the Athiests refuse to accept the creationists legitmacy at all.

Ahem.

A great, great, GREAT many evolutionary scientists are not atheists. They don't give creationism legitimacy either, because it doesn't have any.

Or are we just supposed to continue this pathetic "debate"? Can't we move on to a "debate" between modern chemistry and alchemy?

my friend and i used to have arguments about whether the ideal gas law was the true culprit for all the evil in the modern world.

This Thread is odd in that, there are many people insulting religious fanatics yet they are fanatic athiests themselfs. I am an atheist and i believe somone who dismisses things without knowing anything else about is no better then a Zealot. We atheists claim to be open minded and unhindered by religion but in reality many of us are more fanatical and closed minded then the religious are.:(
Oddly enough, most people (if not actually everyone; there's bound to be a couple) here aren't fanatic atheists. They're just atheists with a strong attachment to scientific process.

The thing is, can you consider an unwillingness to accept closed-mindedness to be closed-mindedness? Because ultimately, that is not only how the theory is perceived by us but also how its proponents make themselves appear to us. While that paper was at least a decent first attempt at trying to move into the realm of common argument, it still seems to boil down to the ideas that Purpose is proof of design and that there is no purpose in mutation by evolutionary stability, so since evolution acts as a contradiction, it is a false assumption. Which, if you know your logic, doesn't quite work.

Incidentally, I'm no atheist. My idea of God is just a different one.

-- Snipped off the Edit. I meant to leave it the way it was to start with. --

Yes, it does. Try taking a look at the Precambrian strata. The Cambrian "explosion" just keeps getting to be less and less of an explosion and more and more of a relatively quick expansion the more the fossil record gets filled in.

Kindly explain why some of the animals in the cambrian explosion have no pre-cambrian form in the fossil record from which they could have evolved from?


Does cosmology have anything to do with the biological sciences?


Are the biological sciences the only science to deal with the origins of life and the universe? No. Stop playing with cemantics.


Extremely doubtful.

Not so, have you examined some of the evidence


And they're pathetic..

Your not stating any reason as to why. This is exactly the problem. Many people here are just saying "creationism is stupid" and leaving it at that without going into detail as to why.


No, they don't. The second one doesn't even have anything to do with evolution.

Its not just evolution. Its all the theorys about the models of the creation of the universe


A great, great, GREAT many evolutionary scientists are not atheists. They don't give creationism legitimacy either, because it doesn't have any.

It does, you are just being dismissive and not accepting it.

my friend and i used to have arguments about whether the ideal gas law was the true culprit for all the evil in the modern world.

Of course not. The ideal gas law itself is not evil, it is the ideal gas constant that we have to worry about....

I havent studied it in serious detail yet. Its an aside thing for me

That seems slightly hypocritical.

anyway...

When at college I worked on a study of the various ideas of creationism. Not one of them brings up a valid scientific point, and none present any truth other than some religious text.

So it is fairly easy to dismiss as non-science. Creationism, in any form, is not a valid hypothesis.

That seems slightly hypocritical.

anyway...

When at college I worked on a study of the various ideas of creationism. Not one of them brings up a valid scientific point, and none present any truth other than some religious text.

So it is fairly easy to dismiss as non-science. Creationism, in any form, is not a valid hypothesis.

Can you actually explain that. I could equally say that while I was at college I looked into evolutionary ideas and not one of them brought up anything that I couldnt show to be inaccurate in correct. Thus it is easy for me to dismmiss evolution.

Can you actually explain that. I could equally say that while I was at college I looked into evolutionary ideas and not one of them brought up anything that I couldnt show to be inaccurate in correct. Thus it is easy for me to dismmiss evolution.
If it's so easy, why do you continually refuse to produce a single scrap of this evidence, then?
I notice you're ignoring my earlier post explaining why Creationism bears no resemblance to science.

This is exactly the problem. Many people here are just saying "creationism is stupid" and leaving it at that without going into detail as to why.
Probably because you're ignoring anybody who does, I'd imagine.

You see, all the Creationist literature I've ever read takes it for granted that finding flaws in the fossil record (and the ones I've seen cited aren't actually real flaws, btw: there are plenty of fossils of transitional species that have been found but Creationists tend to ignore inconvenient facts rather than addressing them) automatically disproves every bit of research that has ever been made in the area, and by extension proves that Genesis is the literal truth. This sort of reasoning (an egg isn't a bean so it must be an aardvark) is the main reason I find it incredibly offensive when people like you describe this anti-rational bullshit as a science.

Granted some creationist papers have problems, but thats perfectly true with the rest of the scientific community


Except that it isn't. Abiogenesis is based on lab experimentation and historical research.

No lab experiment has produced an example of abiogeneis. We have seen aminio acids form, but only for a second or two.


The big bang theory emerged from research and replaced the earlier (and now discredited) Solid State theory. Creationism has been deliberately constructed to avoid any examination of how it relates to other theories of the nature of the universe, so it should not be dignified by calling it a science. You may feel that claiming it isn't a branch of the physical sciences exonerates it from having to compete with them, but if it's being used as an excuse to feed children fairytales instead of facts as part of their biology lessons, then it damned well is in competition with the physical sciences and it thus has to compete with them. If it can't, it has no fucking business being taught in schools.

It is not a branch of the physical sciences, in much the same way the big bang isnt a branch of the physical sciences. It is an interperation of scientifc evidence which comes to a concluison. If you believe its wrong, then fine. Debate the evidence. But simply disimmising it as stupid is not fair. If I were to simply dismiss evolution as stupid, imagine what kind of an uproar I would create.

That seems slightly hypocritical.


I'm not criticisng it and saying its completley stupid. I am not saying evolution is completley stupid either, or that it is scientifcly provable that God made the universe. Just that there are some large flaws in the current scientifc models of the creation of the universe and life which could lead to other conclusions

Granted some creationist papers have problems, but thats perfectly true with the rest of the scientific community

All Creationist "papers" have problems as far as science goes. They begin with a foregone conclusion, that they will not change, no matter what, and then try to back it up.

That isn't how science works, my dear. The conclusion comes from the evidence, not the other way around.

And once again:

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp


No lab experiment has produced an example of abiogeneis. We have seen aminio acids form, but only for a second or two.

And because we know that amino acids are a part of life, and that forming them is a necessary part of the process posited in abiogenesis, those experiments provide supporting evidence that the process could be correct.....

It is not a branch of the physical sciences, in much the same way the big bang isnt a branch of the physical sciences.

The Big Bang is not a branch of the physical sciences. It is a theory derived from evidence gathered in physics (specifically, cosmology), which is a branch of the physical sciences.

It is an interperation of scientifc evidence which comes to a concluison.

Exactly! However, this is not what Creationism is. Creationism is a conclusion looking for evidence.

Just that there are some large flaws in the current scientifc models of the creation of the universe and life which could lead to other conclusions

i have an idea. name one. and then let's discuss it in detail. no subject changes, no irrelevancies. let's just focus on whatever it is that you think is the single biggest flaw. hell, it doesn't even have to be about evolution - it can be about geology or even physics. i'm game, and i'm sure a number of others would be too.

I'm not criticisng it and saying its completley stupid. I am not saying evolution is completley stupid either, or that it is scientifcly provable that God made the universe. Just that there are some large flaws in the current scientifc models of the creation of the universe and life which could lead to other conclusions

If it cannot be proven then it cannot be "known". Please note the difference between "knowing" and "believing". or "thinking it is so", or "opinion". Since it cannot be known, the most resonable thing we can do is go with the best model open to us. Evolution/astronomy/other sciences related to beginnings all are superior to creationism in this respect, because creationism fails to have even a negligible amount of predicting power and cannot be used in any way in the real world (other than, perhaps, bashing all of the "athiest scientists" you seem so fond of bringing up).

In this debate so far, every point that you have brought up, Avalon, has been soundly thrashed. Perhaps, if you want to retain your dignity, you might want to actually show some of this much-vaunted empirical evidence in favor of creationism.

Just a hint.

Sincerely,

Number III

PS: Most people agree there are large flaws in what science has to say on the beginning of the universe/of life/etc., however this still fails to show that God therefore made the universe. If you're going to try and support creationism, at least find some actual support for it.

Can you actually explain that. I could equally say that while I was at college I looked into evolutionary ideas and not one of them brought up anything that I couldnt show to be inaccurate in correct. Thus it is easy for me to dismmiss evolution.

Sure...

Part of the research examined the most commonly known idea of creationism. The Young Earth Theory. The Young Earth Theory states that the Earth is a mere 6000 yrs old. What is the supporting evidence? The bible. Anything else? No.

Now, the bible in no way, shape, or form, implicitly states, "THIS IS HOW OLD THE EARTH IS" on any particular page. The number is derived via generations begat in the book of Genesis. There is not other evidence.

Now, geologists figure the earth is much older than that, about 4.5 billion years. How do they figure? Where's the supporting evidence? From carbon dating rocks that generates a margin of error of plus/minus 2%. Since they are dealing in billions, that is highly acceptable.

Is that enough, or shall I go on?

I also challenge you to present me with any non-theological supporting data on creation and I will consider it.

I'm not criticisng it and saying its completley stupid. I am not saying evolution is completley stupid either, or that it is scientifcly provable that God made the universe. Just that there are some large flaws in the current scientifc models of the creation of the universe and life which could lead to other conclusions

I think you missed my point. I was more referring to the fact that you started this post saying "those who follow evolution should take time to study the aspects of creationism before criticising".

Yet you have not really looked into either it seems. That's what I meant.

A (somewhat facetious, but logically true) example of the differences between the Creationist approach and the scientific one:

Suppose there was a religion which stated that dogs give birth to chickens. This religion fully believes that chickens come from dogs and that is all there is to it. Obviously, they will look to find scientific evidence of this. They can actually do so. All they have to do is find a dog being followed around by a baby chicken. Animals usually follow their mothers, so obviously, the dog must have given birth to the chicken.

The scientific approach, however, would be to test the description. They would find that chickens usually lay eggs, and that other chickens hatch out of them. Thus, chickens seem to come from chickens. They would find that hatchlings imprint on the first thing they see move (often, but not always, their mother) and begin to follow it around. Thus, the scientists would conclude that evidence suggests that dogs do not give birth to chickens. That chickens hatch from chicken eggs, and that the reason they have seen chickens following dogs is that the chickens follow the first things they see move.

The Creationist retort: "No, we saw a chicken following a dog. Therefore, the dog gave birth to the chicken. In your experiments, you had eggs that didn't hatch, so obviously all chicken eggs don't become eggs. And that one chicken didn't follow the first thing it saw move, it followed the second. Your model is wrong! Mine is right! Dogs give birth to chickens!"

Okay, before I start, Please, please run a spell check and proof-read your posts in the future, Avalon. Some of those little niggly grammar errors are simple elementary-level English issues, and many forum posters react negatively to an individual claiming to be trying to educate while seemingly suffering from an inability to use basic language. Right.

Kindly explain why some of the animals in the cambrian explosion have no pre-cambrian form in the fossil record from which they could have evolved from?
There is fossil evidence of systemic life precambrian. Specifically, the Cnidaria group, that developed, in their own right, hard skeletons, aquatic mobility and, it would seem, Sexual Reproduction. That's a pretty major step right there.

In fact, if you look at the various types that arose during the Cambrian era, you'll notice just how subtle the variations between them and the Cnidaria are. It really doesn't take a lot to assume that polyps could evolve into worms, Anthozoa into other skeletal organisms and arthropods and Hydrozoa into other multi-cellular organisms. Actually, that sort of thing would be typical Hydrozoa behaviour, as has been shown on many occasions.

The thing is, generally, there is a greater range of semantical classification of those organisms at the cambrian explosion than is really fair, given the vast extent of flexibility of those in the Cnidaria group and how similar those "new" species are to what we already accept as part of its class.

So where are the transitionary stages? Check the Precambrian era; you'll see the transition in action. Unless, of course, you're scared off by the semantics.

Granted some creationist papers have problems, but thats perfectly true with the rest of the scientific community
The difference is that Creationists arenb't subject to peer review or any attempt to prove their theories by finding evidence. This is why Creationism isn't a science and why I find offensive when people like yourself claim that creationists are part of the scientific community. No they are not. If they were, they'd stop claiming that there are no fossils of animals in transition between states, which has been very thoroughly disproven by now.
I suppose the onus of proof is in people who actual;ly use the scientific principles, rather than those who claim to, then ignore them, but it's still offensive.


No lab experiment has produced an example of abiogeneis. We have seen aminio acids form, but only for a second or two.
Short of a lab the size of a planet, we probably won't either. The testing has demonstrated that it'\s conceivable such a situation might take place, though. When a creationist can devise an experiment to prove the existence of God (I'm willing to allow that creationism and/or ID might follow on from that) you'll have some license to belittle this.

It is not a branch of the physical sciences, in much the same way the big bang isnt a branch of the physical sciences. It is an interperation of scientific evidence which comes to a conclusion. If you believe its wrong, then fine. Debate the evidence. But simply disimmising it as stupid is not fair. If I were to simply dismiss evolution as stupid, imagine what kind of an uproar I would create.
You don't have even the ghost of a sense of irony, do you?

If an animal were intelligently designed, why do some animals go extinct? Did God lose the molds? Can't he even whip up a couple of Dodo's from time to time?

If an animal were intelligently designed, why do some animals go extinct? Did God lose the molds? Can't he even whip up a couple of Dodo's from time to time?

He did.

See Dr. Michael Behe.

He did.

See Dr. Michael Behe.
He did what?

Thats basicly like saying that all evolution is is "the idea that life happened by accident". Creationism has a lot to say for itself in questioning the scientific model and presenting the model of God's creation.
And you show your ignorance again by confusing abiogenisis with evolution

He did what?
Whipped up a Michael Behe, aka a Dodo ;)

He did what?

Whipped up another dodo

Whipped up a Michael Behe, aka a Dodo ;)
Ahhh...
I wonder if he'll just stand there if I run up to him with a spear.

Whipped up another dodo
Now I get it...

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point. It is real science.
'is real science' is not a necessary implication of 'uses scientific evidence to make it's point'.

Of course, creationism isnt a complete theory, but neither is the current model about the creaition of the universe.
The problem with this of course is that 'creationism, (or any other theory) is not a complete theory' is not a premise on which evolution is argued, yet 'evolution is not a complete theory' is the primary (if not in essence the only) premise on which creationism is argued.

have you examined some of the evidence
I posted earlier in this thread that I would check out the link (the 1st one) you posted, and I did. I read the entire article. Based on the 'value' of that work, and the fact that other poster's comments seem to indicate that reading the subsequent links you posted would simply waste some more of my time, I'm not inclined to trawl through them.

If the link you first posted was not at a good example of the kind of arguments that you expect others would find compelling, and which you yourself view as presenting some reason to view creationism with creduality, then why did you post it in the first place?

Granted some creationist papers have problems, but thats perfectly true with the rest of the scientific community
Sure, but that doesnt explain why in an effort to convince others that they ought to consider creationism a serious scientific theory, you would pick as your first choice one that was flawed to such a degree that it is more likely to convince people that creationists really dont have a sound or even strong argument that supports their 'theory'.

The most likely explanation for you having posted such a link (as your first choice) is that you are not aware of anything that would serve better. If that is so, then I can only wonder why you believe it (creationism) is a serious scientific theory yourself...:confused:

It is not a branch of the physical sciences, in much the same way the big bang isnt a branch of the physical sciences. It is an interperation of scientifc evidence which comes to a concluison.
'Interpreting scientific evidence to come to a conclusion, are not sufficient conditions with regards to being 'science'. An important necessary condition for instance is that evidence/s and conclusion/s be confined to the 'natural-world' must be met.

Now either the argument in the link you posted as your first choice fails to meet this necessary condition (for being 'scientific) or the conclusion is contrary the premises on which it is argued. If the earlier, then it is not science, if the later, it is fatally flawed.

No thanks, I'll continue to dismiss it out of hand.

***harrumpff***

Hear, Hear!!

Kindly explain why some of the animals in the cambrian explosion have no pre-cambrian form in the fossil record from which they could have evolved from?

Like I just said, the more the preccambrian fossil record gets filled in the less and less true that statement becomes. The reason it is taking quite a while is because it is in the Cambrian when we start seeing the emergence of hard shells and skeletons which are fossilized far easier than the soft bodied forms that preceeded them. So we have lots and lots of Cambrian fossils because they're of animals that fossilized more easily, but it's bloody hard to find fossils of their predecessors because they didn't fossilize easily and they're in damn old rock formations that had to survive this long even when they did fossilize.

But we're still finding them. We have a lot more of them now than we did 10 years ago, and 10 years from now we'll have even more.

I would recommend against continuing to pursue this God of the gaps strategy of yours. Gaps in the fossil record have a tendency to get filled in, leaving no place for you to squeeze god into anymore. It's been done for the reptile->mammal transition. It's been done for the fish-> amphibian transition. It's been done for the amphibian to reptile transition. And it's being done for the precambrian -> cambrian transition even as we speak as the precambrian fossil record continues to get filled in.

Are the biological sciences the only science to deal with the origins of life and the universe? No. Stop playing with cemantics.

No, because the biological sciences don't deal with the origin of the universe at all. It isn't semantics to point out that talking about the Big Bang when discussing evolutionary theory has every bit as much relevence as bringing up the atomic weight of boron during a discussion on art history.

Not so, have you examined some of the evidence

I've examined lots of the evidence.

Your not stating any reason as to why. This is exactly the problem. Many people here are just saying "creationism is stupid" and leaving it at that without going into detail as to why.

I actually did. For the first and second I elaborated in this post. For the third, I maintain the "extremely doubtful" position.

If you want more detail on why I don't give creationisms so called criticisms of evolutionary theory any credence, I've had a previous relatively detailed discussion on the subject of the supporting evidence for evolution in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418178

Feel free to read through it.

Its not just evolution. Its all the theorys about the models of the creation of the universe

Evolution isn't a theory or model that has anything whatsoever to do with the creation of the unvierse.

It does, you are just being dismissive and not accepting it.

Because I've been studyiing the issue in discussions like these for a decade, I know the creationist "arguments" practically from memory, and I've seen every one of them thoroughly dismantled. But if you really want to get into details then go to that thread I linked you to and if you have anything you want to cover with me when you're done reading let me know.

Creationism I agree does not, by proving evolution wrong, prove itself right. But it does offer its own ideas about some notions as well. Creationism does have proper scientific evidence. Here is just some websites explaining some of the problems.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star5.htm#Star%20Formation

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star6.htm

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

You can call them biased, but that does not change the evidence they put forward
I only went to the first one, but assuming that's representative of all four...

You haven't provided any evidence that creationism is science in any of these pages. Hell, the first three aren't even about discrediting evolution and are by the way, full of bunk most likely (if the first page is any indication again) furthermore, you seem to fail to grasp what everyone is asking for. We are not asking you for some sort ot refutation of evolution, we are asking you for some issues creationism seeks to explain and the mechanisms by which creationism explains these things. This sort of crap is exactly why creationism isn't science, its adherents refuse to conform to the scientific method and spout off crap about evolution and other scientific theories as though that means by default that they're right.

Creationism uses scientific evidence to make its point.
No, it really doesn't.

It is real science.
No, it isn't. What testable hypotheses does intelligent design/creationism propose exactly?

Granted proving flaws in the evolutionary model does not prove that God created the universe, but pointing out flaws in the evolutionary model isnt just what creationists do. They also point out their own ideas and intepretations of the evidence also.
Like what, exactly?

Of course, creationism isnt a complete theory, but neither is the current model about the creaition of the universe. People make mistakes when they say "Creationism doesnt make any predictions and therefore isnt a science" because creationism isnt a branch of science like physics or chemistry. What it is is a model of the creation of the universe and life, in the same way that Abiogenesis and the big bang are models.
Funny, as abiogenesis and the big bang both make testable hypotheses. Funny, because both of those theories, which are theories, not models, by the way, have succeeded in many tests. What empirical testing has creationism undergone, exactly?

Have those who criticise creationism most actually studied it in detail?
Let's turn this question on its head for a moment. After all, we need some sort of break in the swarms of people adding streams of refutation here.

Have those who profess creationism considered what a hypothetical world without a creator would be like?

Have those who profess creationism considered what a hypothetical world without a creator would be like?
Much and all as it might be fun to watch 'em squirm, I don't honestly expect you'll get too much of a response out of this one, Kam. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong.

*waits expectantly*

Granted some creationist papers have problems, but thats perfectly true with the rest of the scientific community
Creationists aren't in the scientific community. As a student of science, I resent that implication.

No lab experiment has produced an example of abiogeneis. We have seen aminio acids form, but only for a second or two.
The latter bit of this quote is incorrect. The amino acids stuck around.

It is not a branch of the physical sciences, in much the same way the big bang isnt a branch of the physical sciences. It is an interperation of scientifc evidence which comes to a concluison. If you believe its wrong, then fine. Debate the evidence. But simply disimmising it as stupid is not fair. If I were to simply dismiss evolution as stupid, imagine what kind of an uproar I would create.
The big bang isn't a branch of the physical sciences because it is a theory of the physical sciences. Intelligent design isn't even a theory.

No thanks, I'll continue to dismiss it out of hand.

I agree. There's not much to understand; a bunch of crackpot evangelists (evangelist = anagram of "evil's agent") are trying to get pure conjecture with no real foundation in fact taught in science class. It's not even ABOUT creationism; they just want Christianity to gain a foothold where it doesn't belong and force their beliefs upon others.

Secondly, the Big Bang Theory isn't just a wild guess; evidence of universal expansion has been found, as has residual heat. No where in space, even the coldest, blackest, most remote depths that the human race has ever managed to plumb does it reach absolute zero, where in theory it should. The explanation is residual heat from the big bang.

Secondly, the Big Bang Theory isn't just a wild guess; evidence of universal expansion has been found, as has residual heat. No where in space, even the coldest, blackest, most remote depths that the human race has ever managed to plumb does it reach absolute zero, where in theory it should. The explanation is residual heat from the big bang.
That's why the Solid State theory got slung out. If you need a better precis of why children should be taught science in science classes rather than fundamentalist horseshit masquerading as something else, that's it right there.

Okay, before I start, Please, please run a spell check and proof-read your posts in the future, Avalon. Some of those little niggly grammar errors are simple elementary-level English issues, and many forum posters react negatively to an individual claiming to be trying to educate while seemingly suffering from an inability to use basic language. Right.



Not been around too many professors have you? Some of the worst spellers I have ever known.......

Not been around too many professors have you? Some of the worst spellers I have ever known.......
Case in point; it's really distracting. ><;

The latter bit of this quote is incorrect. The amino acids stuck around.


Yes, after being extracted from the experiment and isolated from the conditions it created and shown to people. If they had remained in the experiment they would have reverted back to something else.

I spent 3 years in a conservative, christian school where they force-fed me creation and pretty much taught me evolution was from the devil. They tried, although it was pitiful, to scientifically prove it, but in the end, it leaves so many questions and has too many flaws to be taken seriously. The world did not start with two people (and thats not even the biggest one).

Yes, after being extracted from the experiment and isolated from the conditions it created and shown to people. If they had remained in the experiment they would have reverted back to something else.
Try this: when you start an argument answer all of the points that are layed against you, or apologise and explain that you've bitten off more than you can chew.
Because this bullshit you're pulling with ignoring anybody who blows a hole in your arguments is starting to become irksome.
This isn't an abstract discussion about politics: this is a debate about theories that can be proven. Whenever anybody cites evidence to suggest that a theory you've ridiculed has the facts on its side, you ignore them.
Put up or shut up.

Try this: when you start an argument answer all of the points that are layed against you, or apologise and explain that you've bitten off more than you can chew.
Because this bullshit you're pulling with ignoring anybody who blows a hole in your arguments is starting to become irksome.
This isn't an abstract discussion about politics: this is a debate about theories that can be proven. Whenever anybody cites evidence to suggest that a theory you've ridiculed has the facts on its side, you ignore them.
Put up or shut up.
But this is how Creationists and people who follow ID argue. I'd advise you to get used to it.
On the plus side by arguing with people who disagree with evolution, I'm learning more about it. I've actually grown stronger in my appreciation for Evolution by arguing with those who try to sway me away from it.

But this is how Creationists and people who follow ID argue. I'd advise you to get used to it.
On the plus side by arguing with people who disagree with evolution, I'm learning more about it. I've actually grown stronger in my appreciation for Evolution by arguing with those who try to sway me away from it.
It just pisses me off to see the wanker claiming that he has evidence every other post, then refusing to post any of it. Maybe he's too stupid to cut and paste, but it's still pissing me off.
I feel that if he's going to start a row then he's obliged to substantiate his position, rather than expecting his opponents to substantiate theirs, so that he can ignore them. I'm beginning to wonder why anybody is humouring him. This is completely fucking pointless. It's like throwing pebbles down a black hole: you can't even hear them hit bottom.

Creationists and people who follow ID...

but you repeat yourself

Yes, after being extracted from the experiment and isolated from the conditions it created and shown to people. If they had remained in the experiment they would have reverted back to something else.
So you aomnipotent also? You are able to state with 100% certainty that that is indeed what would have happened?

Avalon II, could you please explain to me why Creationism is any more based in science than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. Here's a link if you want to 'study it in detail before you reply.

FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)

Until you do so I don't see why I should treat you any more seriously than I treat them.

The scientific method does not mean researching pseudoscience as science.

There isn't any research into creationism, creationism doesn't make any predictions, so you can't research it. The closest thing you can do to research when it comes to creationism is research opinions on the subject of people who are scientifically ignorant.


You can research it's fundamentals, arguements, etc. Take the lochness monster. It is considered as pseudoscience, only because people cared to research it at all. Part of the scientific method is trying to disprove your own hypotheses to avoid being biased.

but you repeat yourself
It's better not to get them up in arms over synonyms.

Yes, after being extracted from the experiment and isolated from the conditions it created and shown to people. If they had remained in the experiment they would have reverted back to something else.

Which proves that if we, having been designed by some "intelligence", should have reverted back to simple molecules too if we had been left in the universe (which we were).[/sarcasm]

Please, please note that we haven't yet.

Number III

It's better not to get them up in arms over synonyms.

true. which is why i'm taking up calling them all 'cdesign proponentsists'

Which proves that if we, having been designed by some "intelligence", should have reverted back to simple molecules too if we had been left in the universe (which we were).[/sarcasm]

Please, please note that we haven't yet.

Number III
If people were designed by some "intelligence", one would think that the current state of the world would indicate a lack of intelligence in the design of people.

If people were designed by some "intelligence", one would think that the current state of the world would indicate a lack of intelligence in the design of people.
I think this is an interesting line of thought: How intelligent is the intelligent designer?
It could be an even more interesting tongue twister:
How intelligent is an intelligent designer if an intelligent designer designed designs?

I think this is an interesting line of thought: How intelligent is the intelligent designer?
It could be an even more interesting tongue twister:
How intelligent is an intelligent designer if an intelligent designer designed designs?
How's this for another interesting train of thought;
How close to the design is the finished product?

Avalon II, could you please explain to me why Creationism is any more based in science than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. Here's a link if you want to 'study it in detail before you reply.

FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)

Until you do so I don't see why I should treat you any more seriously than I treat them.

Cmon Avalon, it's nearly 24 hours since I posted that. I've seen you in two abortion threads today so I know you're around.

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724

Depends, which creation story are you refering to? The Christian creation story isn't the only one out there.

Creationism does have a level of scientific backing for both looking into the errors of the current model of the creation of the universe and for applying its own model. It doesnt say "we know that current theory for the creation of life/the universe is totally wrong", what it does say is "the current theory isnt as perfect as some think it is". There are other areas of science which use intellegent design as part of their work

Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?

Now since you would proberbly demand an example, here it is. A peer reviewed article in a scientific journel arguing for creationism.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177

How is the Discovery Institute a scientific journal?

In what way is the article peer-reviewed?

Depends, which creation story are you refering to? The Christian creation story isn't the only one out there.

But everyone knows the christian one is real! All those others are myths because the other religions worship devils, but the christian one is true because this book here says so. :rolleyes:

Depends, which creation story are you refering to? The Christian creation story isn't the only one out there.
It's a pretty good one though, as long as you understand the metaphorical nature of it and don't take it as literal history.

Creationism I agree does not, by proving evolution wrong, prove itself right. But it does offer its own ideas about some notions as well. Creationism does have proper scientific evidence. Here is just some websites explaining some of the problems.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star5.htm#Star%20Formation

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/02-star6.htm

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/28/28_3/starevol.html

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/dinoblood.html

You can call them biased, but that does not change the evidence they put forward

1) Creationism does NOT have scientific evidence... I challenge you to show a SINGLE source that actually provides SCIENTIFIC evidence of a literal Creation.

2) Picking holes in evolution is NOT scientific evidence of Creationism... just of flaws in evolutionism (as commonly understood - since 'holes' might ONLY be 'holes' to the lay-person).

3) The first source you linked to, is talking about star formation. THAT is not 'evolution'.

It's a pretty good one though, as long as you understand the metaphorical nature of it and don't take it as literal history.

Actually, I prefer the old Egyptian one, where the world is created as the result of the big goddess figure giving the big god figure a hand-job...

Or the Southeast Asian one, where a trickster god defecates the world into existence...

Or the Southeast Asian one, where a trickster god defecates the world into existence...
"Once upon a time there was a god with a real curry dependency. One day he ate too much. A few hours later, the world was born."

Lovin' it. xD

"Once upon a time there was a god with a real curry dependency. One day he ate too much. A few hours later, the world was born."

Lovin' it. xD

Okay... that was just cruel... it's like... 5 years since my last Chicken Pepsila. :(

Okay... that was just cruel... it's like... 5 years since my last Chicken Pepsila. :(
Sorry. You've got to admit, that stuff is powerful. I just have an irrational desire for Indian food right now; as soon I get home in a few weeks time, I'm getting a Jelfresi from my local takeaway.

Though I'm genuinely curious about that little tale. Are there any interesting messages to be picked up from it?

Sorry. You've got to admit, that stuff is powerful. I just have an irrational desire for Indian food right now; as soon I get home in a few weeks time, I'm getting a Jelfresi from my local takeaway.

Though I'm genuinely curious about that little tale. Are there any interesting messages to be picked up from it?

Unfortunately, my 'local' is about 2+ hours away, in the (horrendous) city of Atlanta... which is why it has been so long between Indian food. Long gone are my Leicester (UK) days, when I could get a curry in about 5 minutes from any of a dozen places.

As for significance to the tale? I don't know? Maybe the significance is that they took the 'creation' process a lot less rigidly seriously than literal Genesis Creationists? Perhaps they had a more pragmatic approach to everything... since they might attach less 'sacred' rigmarole to the whole situation?

Avalon II, could you please explain to me why Creationism is any more based in science than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. Here's a link if you want to 'study it in detail before you reply.

FSM (http://www.venganza.org/)

Until you do so I don't see why I should treat you any more seriously than I treat them.

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.
These ideas are a mockery of science.
Mock science and science is allowed to mock back.
A midjet told me.

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.

No - it really doesn't.

Anyone can point to a tree, and say "Trees are green, the Hulk is green... therefore the Hulk is a tree..."

That is 'using scientific evidence' in the same way that Creation does.

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.
Normally this is an immense no-go in internet circles, but I'm going to do the unthinkable and completely copy and paste an earlier post of mine.

There is fossil evidence of systemic life precambrian. Specifically, the Cnidaria group, that developed, in their own right, hard skeletons, aquatic mobility and, it would seem, Sexual Reproduction. That's a pretty major step right there.

In fact, if you look at the various types that arose during the Cambrian era, you'll notice just how subtle the variations between them and the Cnidaria are. It really doesn't take a lot to assume that polyps could evolve into worms, Anthozoa into other skeletal organisms and arthropods and Hydrozoa into other multi-cellular organisms. Actually, that sort of thing would be typical Hydrozoa behaviour, as has been shown on many occasions.

The thing is, generally, there is a greater range of semantical classification of those organisms at the cambrian explosion than is really fair, given the vast extent of flexibility of those in the Cnidaria group and how similar those "new" species are to what we already accept as part of its class.

So where are the transitionary stages? Check the Precambrian era; you'll see the transition in action. Unless, of course, you're scared off by the semantics.

No - it really doesn't.

Anyone can point to a tree, and say "Trees are green, the Hulk is green... therefore the Hulk is a tree..."

That is 'using scientific evidence' in the same way that Creation does.
It's The Incredible Hulk, you git!

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.

and again, i think what we are looking for from you is "hard facts" not just a different interpretation of data that is already out there. Has there been any actual experiments ran, no wait, lets make this easier, designed to prove that everything came from an intelligent designer? at least those from the abiogenesis camp can propose scientific experiments to prove or disprove their ideas. what about ID?

there hasn't been anything like this for ID. why? because you cannot design an experiment that is going to prove ID. that is why it is called faith, which i think is something that has been previously mentioned. why do you insist on confusing the two?

doesn't this remind you of that Simpson's episode? the one where Lisa created the people in the little dish who shrunk her down and all the statues were of her?

"Once upon a time there was a god with a real curry dependency. One day he ate too much. A few hours later, the world was born."

Lovin' it. xD

ROFL!

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point. The Cambrian strata for example. It doesnt nessecarly point to which God created the universe but it does support facts which can be seen as in line with the Bible.

And those coincidences make the bible myth be the literal truth because...?

Normally this is an immense no-go in internet circles, but I'm going to do the unthinkable and completely copy and paste an earlier post of mine.

There is fossil evidence of systemic life precambrian. Specifically, the Cnidaria group, that developed, in their own right, hard skeletons, aquatic mobility and, it would seem, Sexual Reproduction. That's a pretty major step right there.

In fact, if you look at the various types that arose during the Cambrian era, you'll notice just how subtle the variations between them and the Cnidaria are. It really doesn't take a lot to assume that polyps could evolve into worms, Anthozoa into other skeletal organisms and arthropods and Hydrozoa into other multi-cellular organisms. Actually, that sort of thing would be typical Hydrozoa behaviour, as has been shown on many occasions.

The thing is, generally, there is a greater range of semantical classification of those organisms at the cambrian explosion than is really fair, given the vast extent of flexibility of those in the Cnidaria group and how similar those "new" species are to what we already accept as part of its class.

So where are the transitionary stages? Check the Precambrian era; you'll see the transition in action. Unless, of course, you're scared off by the semantics.

Considering how vastly complex the life forms in the Cambrian strata get so quickly, one would logcially assume something happened then which is not of the standard evolutionary events.

Considering how vastly complex the life forms in the Cambrian strata get so quickly, one would logcially assume something happened then which is not of the standard evolutionary events.
"Very quickly" occurred over hundreds of thousands of years. What happened was the movement of creatures to fit into the literally thousands of unoccupied niches, creating a massive differentiation. Please.

Considering how vastly complex the life forms in the Cambrian strata get so quickly, one would logcially assume something happened then which is not of the standard evolutionary events.
It is more complex than the precambrian and less complex than the devonian, or thereafter. Precisely how does the fossil record being more complex than that from the prior period, but rather less so than those that followed offer an argument against the theory of evolution? Bear in mind that if you're trying to argue that fossils of complex invertebrates prove that every lifeform on earth was invented "as is" all at once, you need to account for the fact that studies of that period suggest that vertebrates didn't evolve until later, and that there's a prior period with far less complex fossils. Saying that the contents of the Burgess Shale are too freaky to have evolved up from algae in a few thousand centuries isn't good enough, I'm afraid.

Cmon Avalon, it's nearly 24 hours since I posted that. I've seen you in two abortion threads today so I know you're around.
I think Avalon deserted the thread pages ago after it became obvious that claims about the scientific basis of creationism, either could not be supported, or if they could, not by Avalon because Avalon apparently doesnt actually know all that much about it,
and
when it became apparent that many of those Avalon was accusing of rejecting creationism due to lack of knowledge about it rather than due to lack of any robustness in the theory/notion itself, actually knew quite a bit more about it than Avalon.

You can probably understand why; if you dont want to give up a belief that is based on lack of knowledge both of something you dont want to believe in, and the thing you do believe in, then it would be uncomfortable being informed about both those things.....not to mention how embarrassing it must be to accuse others of refusing to believe something due to lack of knowledge about it, only to then prove that actually it's your own belief in that thing that can best be explained by a lack of knowledge about it...

So, I doubt very much that Avalon is prepared to engage in the thread other than to tell other people not to post as they have done, and am surprised that even that much of a reappearance occured.

In essence I dont think you'll get any genuine participation from Avalon because I dont think Avalon actually want to exchange ideas and information, but rather wants to justify to themselves that belief in evolution is based on bias and lack of information, while belief in creationism is based on informed people's non-bias. Given that the facts appear to contradict what Avalon wants to believe, and that ample posters in this thread are capable of demonstrating as much, it's perfectly understandable that Avalon would rather than engage in general participation that would if Avalon approached the discussion objectively, seriously risk, if not destroy Avalon's ability to continue to believe their own opinion on the biases that promote belief in evolution and scientific objectivity that only creationists have managed to obtain.

Considering how vastly complex the life forms in the Cambrian strata get so quickly, one would logcially assume something happened then which is not of the standard evolutionary events.
Au Contraire, the precambrian life forms are pretty complex in themselves. Nematocysts (stingy things; the first venom producers), exterior hard coatings (as in corals) and acquatic mobility (early worms and even jellyfish seem to have arisen pre-cambrian) are hard to come by. The University of California are doing a little exhibit on Vendian-era life forms (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/critters.html) as part of a joint venture with the Paleontology Museum of Oslo at the minute. It's worth having a look at.

If you're looking for a standard evolutionary event, I reckon the discovery of offense in the evolutionary competition might be a pretty good one. Nematocysts make for enhanced survival in an attacking creature, and so are favoured as an evolutionary strategy, while defensive behaviour will be favoured in successive generations of other creatures as a result.

-snip-
You can probably understand why; if you dont want to give up a belief that is based on lack of knowledge both of something you dont want to believe in, and the thing you do believe in, then it would be uncomfortable being informed about both those things.....not to mention how embarrassing it must be to accuse others of refusing to believe something due to lack of knowledge about it, only to then prove that actually it's your own belief in that thing that can best be explained by a lack of knowledge about it...
-snip-

Yuh-huh. When's the party?

Considering how vastly complex the life forms in the Cambrian strata get so quickly, one would logcially assume something happened then which is not of the standard evolutionary events.

"Avalon II has lost his mind! How embarrasing, how embarrasing!" (paraphrasal of Yoda, Star Wars Episode II)

Common sense is a lie. Remember this, it is very important. Common sense does not lead to classical physics, common sense does not lead to works of art (because common sense dictates that they are not useful, and as such the person should go forage or something), common sense did not discover mathematics. This is because common sense is exactly that: common. The average person will not wander around and suddenly discover, in a poof of logic, that the force that makes an apple fall to the ground and that makes a planet orbit its sun are the same.

Your "logic" falls into the realm of common sense.

If there is evidence to the contrary of your common sense, then you change your beliefs to fit the evidence.

If you are going to say that this assumption (that this is not one of the standard evolutionary events) is, in fact, logical, would you please show your reasoning behind it and give a link to a source for each individual "given".

Here's an example:
Given that the Earth is round, (www.imadethisup.com)
And given that all round things are alive, (www.imadethisuptoo.com)
Then it follows logically that the Earth is alive.

Just follow that format. Its not that complicated.

Number III

apparently imadethisup.com is a real site.

apparently imadethisup.com is a real site.
Amazing, Still, what compelled you to click?

apparently imadethisup.com is a real site.

Oops...

Oh well, surely no-one will actually try it right?

Um...right?

Oh, okay. Well, you get my point anyway.

Amazing, Still, what compelled you to click?

Curiosity mostly. And the fact that in the past I used a faux website as an example and it turned out to be real (ihatetimmccarver.com)

Dont mock. Creationism uses actual scienific eveidence to make its point.

If you start with a conclusion already in hand, you can find "evidence" for anything.

http://www.kommy.net/~downtym/images/danielle/flatearthism.bmp

The girl in this comic is exactly as scientific as Creationists. She starts with a conclusion, finds evidence that seems to her to be in line with it, and then keeps the conclusion, even if there may be other evidence out there which contradicts it.

This is almost the opposite of the scientific method, which one must follow if anything one does is to be considered scientific. In this method, one has a hypothesis which one tests by examining the evidence and running planned experiments. If anything is found that contradicts the hypothesis, the conclusion is that the hypothesis was wrong. If all evidence supports the hypothesis, the hypothesis is said to be supported, and you continue to compare evidence to the hypothesis. If it goes through a great deal of testing without being disproven, it becomes theory, and remains so until disproven.

apparently imadethisup.com is a real site.

Thus proving that the earth is alive.

And those coincidences make the bible myth be the literal truth because...?
Wishfull thinking?

I think Avalon deserted the thread pages ago after it became obvious that claims about the scientific basis of creationism, either could not be supported, or if they could, not by Avalon because Avalon apparently doesnt actually know all that much about it,
and
when it became apparent that many of those Avalon was accusing of rejecting creationism due to lack of knowledge about it rather than due to lack of any robustness in the theory/notion itself, actually knew quite a bit more about it than Avalon.

You can probably understand why; if you dont want to give up a belief that is based on lack of knowledge both of something you dont want to believe in, and the thing you do believe in, then it would be uncomfortable being informed about both those things.....not to mention how embarrassing it must be to accuse others of refusing to believe something due to lack of knowledge about it, only to then prove that actually it's your own belief in that thing that can best be explained by a lack of knowledge about it...

So, I doubt very much that Avalon is prepared to engage in the thread other than to tell other people not to post as they have done, and am surprised that even that much of a reappearance occured.

In essence I dont think you'll get any genuine participation from Avalon because I dont think Avalon actually want to exchange ideas and information, but rather wants to justify to themselves that belief in evolution is based on bias and lack of information, while belief in creationism is based on informed people's non-bias. Given that the facts appear to contradict what Avalon wants to believe, and that ample posters in this thread are capable of demonstrating as much, it's perfectly understandable that Avalon would rather than engage in general participation that would if Avalon approached the discussion objectively, seriously risk, if not destroy Avalon's ability to continue to believe their own opinion on the biases that promote belief in evolution and scientific objectivity that only creationists have managed to obtain.

exactly

People say that many creationists who criticise evolution havent looked at evolution properly to understand why it works in the way it does. However I believe the same is true of creationism. Too few people assume creationism to be a simplistic system of ideas not at all grounded in science. But the truth is that it is far more than the simple "life is too complex" arguement. Here is a list of books that I recomend some people read if they actually want to understand creationism, rather than just dismiss it out of hand.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/listmania/list-browse/-/1QSADIJNZVNIT/ref=cm_lm_detail_ctr_full_2/102-8338128-2129724

Personally, I think both sides are as stupid as each other.

But then again, I'm an existentialist :p We've always exist and that the universe is on a constant cycle of birth, life and death; there was never a beginning and there will be no end.