The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective Options
Dreamy
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 6:43:21 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,497
Neurons: 7,658
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective

You may already be aware of Creationism and the material presented by numerous scientists who refute the claims of Evolutionists, but if not this site is a good place for an interested person with a smattering of scientific knowledge to find out what it is all about.

There has already been much discussion and debate on our forums as those with opposing worldviews have made their points and clashed over their different interpretations, and while feelings can run high when research is rejected and evidence is questioned it should be possible to remain civil while disagreeing.

When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesise, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.

I have for a long time followed and associated with Creationists more able and qualified than I to speak on the science of Creationism, and this they do with lectures and presentations that are available on their websites, Youtube, DVD's, and various TV stations.

This is a quote from the Answers In Genesis website where I am mainly occupied with the "Answers" section:

Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Some of the material does get technical but the summaries are helpful if a general picture is all that is sought.

I particularly enjoy the explanations of distant starlight and how both evolutionists and creationists have problems that lead them to theorise about time and space inflation, and isotropic and anisotropic speeds of light with regard to speculations on the age of the universe.

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
whatson
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 7:50:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/19/2016
Posts: 127
Neurons: 1,517
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
You Butterfly People are pretty, but have small brains.
Ashwin Joshi
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:59:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/3/2016
Posts: 787
Neurons: 59,601
Location: Jandiāla Guru, Punjab, India
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.


Me Gathering Pebbles at the Beach..-Aj
Romany
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 8:34:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 11,595
Neurons: 34,947
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

The idea that the word "Theory" is analogous to some vague sort of idea, is a necessary one to support Creationism. If, however, one has even done High School science, one knows that the use of the word doesn't mean that at all in a Scientific context.

The Theory of Relativity
The Theory of Gravity
Music Theory
The Theory of Equations

these are not vague, unproved ideas. 'Theory' in Science and Mathematics, refers to "A collection of propositions to illustrate the principles of a subject." Thus a theory consists of a series of proven, repeatable, constants, which are then built upon by other proven, repeatable constants until a reason for a particular action or reaction is proved.

Evolution is not merely an idea, and most definitely not simply an "opinion". It is a provable fact, built up by layers of other proofs from disciplines as diverse as geology, biology, geography, technology, physics, chemistry, history,language and more.

In order to try to 'disprove' evolution, one needs to be able to argue technically, that each step from each discipline has been wrong - which, considering all the work done in each of those areas, would need years and years of research and repeating all the experiments which have led to the final proof of Evolution. Even more difficult than trying to disprove the theory of relativity!!

So as creationism depends upon all branches of Science being wrong, it would have to follow that one would then never trust a computer, or an aeroplane, or a doctor doing heart surgery, or every other area in life in which our dependence on science makes our lives possible!

will
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017 2:00:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 952
Neurons: 3,723
Dreamy. In another thread you cited the human eye as evidence of an intelligent designer, and summarised your position with this quote:

Dreamy initially wrote:
Until Dawkins or someone else can actually make something as good or better than the human eye, I would invite them to consider the silliness of their efforts in trying to make value judgments [sic] on such things such things [sic] that are obviously among most beautiful and beyond the most astounding works of human genius and art in existence.

I pointed out that humans have, in fact, designed and made countless things – many far more complex than the eye – to experience reality far beyond the limited ‘design’ deficiencies of the eye. Humans have designed tools that enable us to see in any level of light, at extreme magnification, right across the electromagnetic spectrum and far beyond the narrow band of visible light; humans have designed tools to correct many defects and degeneration that are common due to the poor ‘design’ of the eye; humans have designed tools that enable us to see in virtually any environment, including under water and even through solid objects. Many of these ‘tools’ occur naturally in other species, enabling them to survive in other ecological niches… exactly as predicted by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

I predicted in that other thread that you would abandon your intelligently designed eye argument and move the goalposts to claim that intelligence and ingenuity indicate design.

I honestly hadn’t expected you to do it so abruptly, so conspicuously and exactly as I said you would Applause

Moving the goalpost, Dreamy wrote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence. The problem (for the secular scientist) is that science itself is based on Christian presuppositions. Science is possible because God upholds the universe in a logical, orderly way and because God made our minds able to think and reason logically.

Romany has eloquently explained your very, very, basic misunderstanding of what a scientific theory means. You’ll need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to give a detailed explanation of why 99.9% of scientists accept evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, and why many international scientific societies have taken the unusual step of explicitly rejecting intelligent design as a valid alternative to evolutionary theory.

I can understand the appeal of wanting to attach the credibility of science to your religious beliefs, but science is a discipline that follows specific rules and procedures. If you want the credibility of the scientific method – you have posted in the science forum – you’ll be expected to follow those rules.

But, being the charitable chap that I am, even ignoring for now, once again, your fallacious conflation of objective and subjective claims and taking your erroneous definition of equally valid competing theories as a given, can you provide any scientific evidence that the biblical creation ‘theory’ carries more weight or is more valid than any of the other competing theistic creation ‘theories’?

You say that ‘science itself is based on Christian presuppositions’ because ‘God made our minds able to think and reason logically.’
We could equally presuppose that science is based on Mayan presuppositions and Quetzalcoatl made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on San presuppositions and Cagn made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on Mongolian religious presuppositions and Esege Malan made our minds able to think and reason logically; or that science is based on ancient Greek religious presuppositions and Chaos made our minds able to think and reason logically… you get my point.

In science we don’t include the conclusion to be proven within the premise of the argument or experiment – this is a form of circular reasoning known as ‘begging the question’.

I also predicted that you would, in line with standard Creationist modus operandi, ignore anything that challenges your religious beliefs, give it some time, maybe slightly adapt the wording, and return with exactly the same pseudo-science at some point in the future. Would you like to resurrect the 'variable speed of light' thread? Do you have some new supporting evidence... or are you just repeating the same pseudo-science, and remaining unmoved, as a way of reaffirming you Faith? Pray


.
Kunstniete
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 2:22:20 AM

Rank: Member

Joined: 1/25/2017
Posts: 295
Neurons: 34,899
Location: Berlin, Berlin, Germany
This topic is so hilarious that I wonder why it was not originally posted in the "Games" Forum.
It's way to easy to think that God is responsible for everything. That way you'll never do something wrong, because God wants you to do it exactly that way, e.g. to learn something. I'm not an atheist. If there would be any scientific proof for the existence of God or Gods, I might believe in Him / Her / Them. But, alas there it gets complicated with these higher deities. So to sum up, if we look at evidence, it counts 1:0 for evolution.
I also dislike the implied constraint: If you believe either in God or Creationism, you automatically believe in the other. It's a different story with evolution: The fact that I don't believe in God doesn't mean that I have to believe in evolution. But since it's a logical and well evidenced concept, I do.
That mean in ways of logic 1:0 for evolution.
Dreamy
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 3:50:10 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/11/2009
Posts: 1,497
Neurons: 7,658
Location: Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
Theistic evolution, or evolutionary creation, is a belief that "the personal God of the Bible created the universe and life through evolutionary processes." According to the American Scientific Affiliation:

A theory of theistic evolution (TE) – also called evolutionary creation – proposes that God's method of creation was to cleverly design a universe in which everything would naturally evolve. Usually the "evolution" in "theistic evolution" means Total Evolution – astronomical evolution (to form galaxies, solar systems,...) and geological evolution (to form the earth's geology) plus chemical evolution (to form the first life) and biological evolution (for the development of life) – but it can refer only to biological evolution.

Hi Ashwin & others,
Aside from the theological arguments against TE which mean its adherents cannot also claim to be Bible-believers,(see 1 Corinthians 15 & Romans 5), it is the scientific defence of Creationism with which I am here concerned.

There is no neutral ground for the Bible-believing Christian who cannot accept a chance event created the Universe and accidently began a chaotic, random, and meaningless circus of millions of years of mutations and death before the "man kind" was eventually acheived without this being purposed.

Information Science is the study of coded messages that contain expected actions and intended purposes. In this respect DNA qualifies under the definition of information whereby the base pair triplets represent amino acids in an encoded message, the formation of proteins is the expected action, and life is the intended purpose.

Currently there is no known law of nature or process or sequence of events by which information can cause itself to originate in matter.

The origin of information can be traced back along the lines of its transmission to a sender who is the mental source of it, or in other words the creative mind.

These two theorems of Information Science are evidenced in Observational Science and tell us firstly that matter does not spontaneously generate information, and secondly that only a mental source can generate new creative information and be responsible for copies of that information.

The words written here are not the result of typos that randomly accummulated over time.

Any theory is only a theory until it is proved in practice. We can have all there is of the theory of music, but until musical sounds are made there is no evidence that the theory is proven.

Without the eye would there be telescopes, microscopes, cameras, or any other inventions which enhance the capacity to see?

I must rest now...

Job 33:15 "In a dream, in a vision of the night, When deep sleep falls upon men, In slumberings upon the bed;" Theology 101 "If He doesn't know everything then He isn't God."
will
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 1:22:10 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 952
Neurons: 3,723
Dreamy. What is the purpose of this abstract nonsense about ‘Information Science’?

Evolutionary theory is a relatively simple concept, the basics are easily within the grasp of the average secondary school pupil (at least in the UK and most developed nations (I’m not so sure about the USA)), there is absolutely no reason to tie yourself in knots with tangential pseudo-science – although I suspect this is actually a cynical diversion to avoid addressing the challenges made against your misrepresentation of the basics.

You’ve simply ignored, again, Romany’s clear explanation of why your understanding how a scientific theory differs from ‘anyone’s best guess until proven as fact’. You’ve even repeated yourself, with an additional bullshit distinction of ‘Observational Science'... the fact that creationist have to redefine so many standard accepted definitions speaks volumes. Shame on you

You need to address this issue first, before anyone is obliged to take you seriously.


.
Epiphileon
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:14:55 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/22/2009
Posts: 3,873
Neurons: 50,192
Hi Dreamy, I was once a creationist as well, and I fully agree that people have a right to believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the adaptive functioning of the race in general. I have a good deal of respect for people who actually live a Biblical Christian lifestyle; however, I do object when people conflate belief with evidential knowledge.

I am well aware of creationists attempts at equating their explanation as science equivalent to the science of secular cosmology and evolution, but they do not hold up, but are rather a prime example of,
Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence.
the problem for supposed creation science is that it does proceed from a belief presupposition, while science proceeds from evidential suppositions. The fact that the universe is orderly and exhibits certain characteristics does not at all rely on it having been created by a supreme, interactive, entity. Further, that we are capable of logical thinking is clearly an adaptive evolutionary development, and the development of formal logic and the scientific method can both be seen as developmental processes most of which we have historical evidence for.

Creation "science" begins with the presupposition that God created the universe and therefore the evidence must support that belief. Cosmology began with observations of the sky, and attempted to provide explanations for what was observed, as our ability to observe became greater, our explanations became more accurate. If cosmology proceeded on the same basis as creationism, we would still be using astrology for astronomy.

Dreamy wrote:
When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesize, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.


It baffles me how this interpretation of the nature of scientific theories persists. There are many theories that consist of a great many proven facts; however, we understand that we may not have all the facts that account for the phenomenon being described and therefore the "theory" is open to modification. That is why they are called theories, not because they do not describe evidential knowledge.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 1:01:35 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 3,803
Neurons: 50,561
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
will wrote:
Dreamy.

You’ve simply ignored, again, Romany’s clear explanation of why your understanding how a scientific theory differs from ‘anyone’s best guess until proven as fact’.


Epiphileon wrote:
It baffles me how this interpretation of the nature of scientific theories persists. There are many theories that consist of a great many proven facts; however, we understand that we may not have all the facts that account for the phenomenon being described and therefore the "theory" is open to modification. That is why they are called theories, not because they do not describe evidential knowledge.


Quite.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times evolutionists explain what scientists mean by 'theory', creationists cling desperately to the idea that a scientific theory is 'only a theory' (best guess), and that any other guess deserves to be considered equally valid.


Far away is close at hand in images of elsewhere – The Master of Paddington.
will
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 8:45:56 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 952
Neurons: 3,723
tunaafi wrote:
Unfortunately, no matter how many times evolutionists...


Speak to the hand You gotta watch that term ‘evolutionists’ around creationist proselytising, it’s right up there with ‘secular scientists’.

Creationist love to try and paint the fact and theory of evolution as a narrow dogma adhered to by a particular sect, collectively know as evolutionist. As I know you know, the fact and theory of evolution crosses all scientific fields to some degree, from cosmology to physic... or geo-centrists and gravitionalists as I call them. Whistle


.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.