Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Creationists

Creationists
September 10, 2008, 05:23:08 AM
After reading through several creationism sites I have noted some of the main problems pervading them. First is they are almost always Christian, and they treat this as an absolute. So while science changes and renews itself becoming closer to truth they are always restrained by their belief on God, if anything rejects that belief they have no choice but to oppose it regardless of its validity. They often believe that because their is an inconsistency within a scientific theory that promotes atheism it somehow enforces their argument for God. An example in a very simplistic form would be "there is no empirical evidence for evolution, thus God exists."

This one they are especially guilty of, the sharpshooters fallacy. This involves making up your mind, then finding the evidence that supports it, while ignoring the evidence that contradicts it. This is done often because they make up their minds about God, then try to find evidence for his existence rather fairly interpreting the facts. This is often done with statics, which by themselves prove little. For (a fictional) example "Of the 100 highest IQ holders in the world 83 said they enjoyed alcohol, Thus alcohol improves cognitive power." The problem with this being is it is not made clear how much they drink, how often and if it was only for a certain period of their life if they have stopped. Add to this the empirical evidence of alcohol being harmful to the brain. They are also usually amateur scientists (if even scientists) which means the topics on which they criticize they do not understand very well or at all. This is mostly because they is so little credible evidence for science that supports a literal reading of the bible. The only people who belive this scientists are those who read the bible as a literal text of the universe. A prime example of their lack of knowledge on a subject being they belief that the Big Bang theory is the universe coming from nothing, when in fact it is believed today that the Big Bang theory originated from a small amount of super heated matter that has always been there.

They often intentionally of unintentional confuse terms to make accepted scientific theories seem weak. The word theory in common use means an unproven idea or a conjecture where in the scientific community it means an idea that is consistent with existing scientific knowledge that explains an event/phenomenon. In science nothing is certain nor will it ever be, with the only two things it can happen in being maths and logic. However because it cannot be proven for sure the creationists attack by saying that since it is not proven it should be taught alongside their theory. Strangely enough (especially in the U.S.A.) they try to call theories like evolution a religion to denounce it and to put it on the same plain as their beliefs. They claim it is dogmatic, requires faith and venerates people (like Darwin) as saints. The problem with this is that it is not dogmatic, as it has been revised many times leaving many of Darwin's theories obsolete (which also removes the idea of him as a patron saint). Couple this with the fact a religion is not so because it is dogmatic and requires faith.

Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 06:17:56 AM
I agree, however, keep in mind that the idiocy of creationists is irrelevant to whether or not creationism itself is of any merit. Not that I don't dislike the idea, mind you.

Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 06:51:54 AM
When one looks at the evidence the creationists brings forth is it no wonder why they are mocked among the scientific community, and outside of the U.S.A. by almost everyone else. I have no problem with the idea of intelligent design but I do not see as substantial evidence for a universe of natural occurrence.


Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 03:19:16 PM
Science has no clue about so much that arguing about this is premature.

Religion is metaphor, science is method.

Almost all humans are fountains of stupidity and it's the sharpshooter fallacy to pick one group. What about the left's denial of the biological basis of race and caste?

Before you join the stupidity yourselves, do some research. It's not "crack a book." It's read quite a few, and analyze, and measure for stability of argument.
ASBO

“Kurt Cobain was, ladies and gentlemen, a worthless shred of human debris.” - Rush Limbaugh

Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 04:23:44 PM
Science is metaphor as well, wouldn't you say? Both science and religion are abstractions used to describe the way the world functions. Science is more rigorous and self-critical than religion, I'd say, but it lacks teleology unless you count Darwinism as such.

This is where the Dawkin school of atheism fails.

Hurrr, science = God, but we're all equal.

lol wut?

Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 07:51:49 PM
Science has no clue about so much that arguing about this is premature.

That seems like a fair point but it's not like we can't say that, with respect to what our best scientific theories purport to explain, they offer better explanations than what intelligent design/creationist theories offer. As soon as the latter start producing some actual results I'll start taking them seriously.

Quote
Religion is metaphor, science is method.

Positing the existence of a god to account for natural phenomena is hardly metaphorical.


Re: Creationists
September 10, 2008, 09:37:07 PM
Science has no clue about so much that arguing about this is premature.

Religion is metaphor, science is method.

Almost all humans are fountains of stupidity and it's the sharpshooter fallacy to pick one group. What about the left's denial of the biological basis of race and caste?

Before you join the stupidity yourselves, do some research. It's not "crack a book." It's read quite a few, and analyze, and measure for stability of argument.

This thread is a criticism of creationists, not one for loving adoration for mainstream science.

But I do think science is well past the stage where it can debunk young-earth creationists.

Re: Creationists
September 12, 2008, 01:32:57 PM
I really do think that all the Christians who claim to believe that the world was created in - literally - 7 days, are just trying to wind people up.

Religious texts are still useful as historical records - we can look back and see how past civilisations understood things. And you can see that - through the days of that awesome, productive week - even back then they had got the order right, and the basic structure of evolutionary progress was recorded in the order of the seven days.

Science and religion are not trying to say the same things, they are not comparable, like comic books and cooking recipes. So when divs like Dawkins try to argue with the zealots, he is really just lowering the objectives of his supposedly-scientific brain. (In reality, he is getting on a bit, and he has only really started thumping this "no-God" tub vigorously in the last 10 years. I suspect that he now fears death and is desperately trying to argue with someone who will actually convince him that God does exist and that he will die in peace. The coward.)

Re: Creationists
September 12, 2008, 01:54:15 PM
Science is metaphor as well, wouldn't you say? Both science and religion are abstractions used to describe the way the world functions. Science is more rigorous and self-critical than religion, I'd say, but it lacks teleology unless you count Darwinism as such.

This is where the Dawkin school of atheism fails.

Hurrr, science = God, but we're all equal.

lol wut?

That's another major problem with Science today. It has been taken over by politics. The truth isn't important unless it leans to the left.....:o I   

Re: Creationists
September 12, 2008, 02:51:22 PM
That's another major problem with Science today. It has been taken over by politics. The truth isn't important unless it leans to the left.....:o I   
More accurately: The truth isn't important unless it earns us some money.

No-one with brains/life experience believes in left/right politics.

Cigno

Re: Creationists
September 13, 2008, 12:21:00 AM
Life gets fucking ugly with intelligent design. There's no strugle! Only a tamed version of reality where transformation is impossible.

And good oportunity to look like scientific without knowing nothing about science.

http://exchristian.net/art/thumbnails.php?album=17

Re: Creationists
September 14, 2008, 07:28:29 AM
I have been thinking and I now believe that the biggest problem with creationists is that intelligent design cannot be proven unless the metaphysical directly intervenes. Even if it is proven that the earth is only 10,000 years old and is consistent with the biblical account it does not promote Christianity at all, it only supports an alternative scientific view point.


Re: Creationists
September 15, 2008, 05:34:14 PM
the biggest problem with creationists is that intelligent design cannot be proven unless the metaphysical directly intervenes.

That's the reason why it is not a recognized scientific theory.
"Love thy neighbour" is a fucking joke, for few are worthy of my love.

Re: Creationists
October 01, 2008, 01:54:59 PM
Interestingly, when one reads Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics or Analytica Posteriora, althout the latter one is kind of a beast), it becomes clear that he defines science (episteme) as demonstration derived from principle (arche), and that the principle is itself not demonstrable, but can be known only through the nous; the latter being an ability that "modern science" denies!
Whatever you honor above all things, that which you so honor will have dominion over you.

Re: Creationists
October 01, 2008, 04:22:29 PM
Science doesn't deny that principles aren't demonstrable. By definition, it is impossible to demonstrate an abstraction. What is demonstrated is the actual from which we make abstractions and form principles using faculties of reason (i.e., the intellect -- Aristotle's nous). In science, this is the formation and testing of hypotheses.

How is this not scientific?