Will creationist attack geology and astronomy next?

[Rebiu]

Will creationist attack geology and astronomy next?

 

What is next for the creationist after the discredit Evolution?

 

Geology severly contradicts the bible so will it have to go?

 

Astronomy shreds the bibles notions of time and space so is it history?

 

Physics replaced by metaphysics"

 

Biology with spiritology?

[ecoli]

Your understanding of the basic point of creationism is apparently limited. Not all creationists are trying to discredit science.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17254&highlight=creationists

 

please refer to post 2

[bascule]

With Adam and Eve being central to the creation story, I don't see how creationists can be anything but wrong... creationism must be looked upon as allegorical, or simply a myth passed down via oral tradition.

[swansont]

Geology and astronomy are already part of the creationist package.

[PhDP]

A true creation scientist is not happy if he hasn't created confusions in every single area of science, even in mathematics. Like swansont said, they have already worked their way into geology and astronomy. AFAIK, most of the attacks on geology and astronomy is from YEC (young earth creationists).

 

For exemple, did you know that those god hating liberals geologists are using radiometric dating without even knowing it's not working !

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/earth.asp

 

Or that those foolish astronomers claims that the speed of light is constant, even if it was proven by rigorous creation Scientist that the speed of light isn't constant. In fact, if you plot various bad estimations of the speed of light in the last centuries you'll find that the speed of light was infinite about 6 000 years ago, and his constant since 1960, just as the bible said !

 

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/speed_of_light.html#claim

[swansont]

Or that those foolish astronomers claims that the speed of light is constant' date=' even if it was proven by rigorous creation Scientist that the speed of light isn't constant. In fact, if you plot various bad estimations of the speed of light in the last centuries you'll find that the speed of light was infinite about 6 000 years ago, and his constant since 1960, just as the bible said !

[/quote']

 

 

Funny how these constants stopped changing just as we developed the ability to measure them precisely.

[Rebiu]

Your understanding of the basic point of creationism is apparently limited. Not all creationists are trying to discredit science.

Explain it to me then.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17254&highlight=creationistsI'm getting sick and tired of this bash the creationist bs...

You should live in a state where the board of education is putting it into the classrooms.

you know' date=' many of us are quite rational and civil people. I'll think you find that many creationist are as against ID in the science classroom as any evolutionist. I feel that creationism is one answer to how the world was created, albeit a non-scientific one, but an answer nevertheless. [/quote']Please tell me the difference between a Scientific answer, non-scientific answer, a false answer, and a non answer.

 

Granted' date=' I know that the ID proponents don't think like I do, but that doesn't mean that SFNers have to use terms like 'IDiots' or other such language. You think that you're making fun of creationists, but you're actually making yourselves look bad, at least from my prospective.[/quote']I agree the civility should be maintained.

 

[the tree]

Explain it to me then.

Creationism is the belief that the universe and life within it were created by an Abrahamic God, in a similar or identical way to the descriptions in the first few chapters of genisis.

Please tell me the difference between a Scientific answer, non-scientific answer, a false answer, and a non answer.

A Scientific awnser is one based upon the scientific method. A non-scientific awnser is one based on any other method. A false awnser one wich can be demonstrated to be, or is beyond all reasonable doubt, not true. A non awsner is.

[Rebiu]

Creationism is the belief that the universe and life within it were created by an Abrahamic God' date=' in a similar or identical way to the descriptions in the first few chapters of genisis.

A Scientific awnser is one based upon the scientific method. A non-scientific awnser is one based on any other method. A false awnser one wich can be demonstrated to be, or is beyond all reasonable doubt, not true. A non awsner is.

I was attempting to get clarity on his positions. When you answer them from you perspective you eleminate the context of the discussion and therefore its meaning.

 

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

[the tree]

I was attempting to get clarity on his positions.

meh, that's why I only awnsered questions regarding definitions.

When you answer them from you perspective

If ecoli has a different perspective then he will say so, somehow I doubt it.

you eleminate the context of the discussion and therefore its meaning.

Scroll up, see that? Yeh, that's the context and it's still there.

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

I'm sure ecoli has no problem with me assuming invitation into this conversation and I doubt any administrators will either.

[Phi for All]

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

This is NOT a dialogue, it is an open thread in a non-formal internet debate forum. You were perhaps thinking you had sent a Private Message to ecoli.

 

I appreciate your use of the quote function to help frame where your response comes from but unless you specifically request an answer from just one person, anyone else should feel free to respond. [/MOD]

 

My answer to the OP is that as long as you allow religion and science to explain or refute one another, you have fallen into a trap from which there is no escape. You simply can't allow one to use the other for any reason. Matters of faith rely on observational criteria that are completely anathema to science, and vice versa. Gods can't be observed and still maintain the faith of their followers. Science requires some form of observation to formulate a thesis. You discredit both science and religion when you try to mix them.

[Dak]

Along the lines of what swansont said, 'evolution' to a creationists means 'the process(s) which started with absolute nothingness and resulted in humans', (ie sciences 'alternative version' of the book of genesis) so it already includes things like abiogenesis, the big bang, geology, astronomy, etc.

[starbug1]

this might clear up exactly what creationists are all about

 

 

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9213_the_creationevolution_continu_12_7_2000.asp

[Rebiu]

This is NOT a dialogue, it is an open thread in a non-formal internet debate forum. You were perhaps thinking you had sent a Private Message to ecoli.

A dialogue is a converstion between two or more parties accoring to my Merriam-Webster. Therefore this is a dialogue. No I did not think I had sent a private message to anyone. If this is an admonishment I am not clear on what I have done

 

I appreciate your use of the quote function to help frame where your response comes from but unless you specifically request an answer from just one person' date=' anyone else should feel free to respond. [/MOD']

I was not suggesting the tree could not respond to my posts I want the public forum. My problem is failure to understand the context of the questions he was answering.

 

My answer to the OP is that as long as you allow religion and science to explain or refute one another' date=' you have fallen into a trap from which there is no escape.[/quote']Religion is the trap.

You simply can't allow one to use the other for any reason.

Religion has no reason or reasons.

Matters of faith rely on observational criteria that are completely anathema to science' date='[/quote']Because they are wrong.

and vice versa. Gods can't be observed and still maintain the faith of their followers. Science requires some form of observation to formulate a thesis. You discredit both science and religion when you try to mix them.

I am not. I want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views.

[Rebiu]

meh, that's why I only awnsered questions regarding definitions.

Pay attention. Ecoli said

Your understanding of the basic point of creationism is apparently limited. Not all creationists are trying to discredit science.

So I said Explain it to me then. Then you said

Creationism is the belief that the universe and life within it were created by an Abrahamic God' date=' in a similar or identical way to the descriptions in the first few chapters of genisis.[/quote']This does not tell me what ecoli thought I did not understand and you generic definition did not answer that actual question in context. Understand. You screwed up.

 

I'm sure ecoli has no problem with me assuming invitation

Neither do I just follow the discussion!!

into this conversation and I doubt any administrators will either.

Just try and pay attention from know on and you will avoid the embarrasing mistakes.

[Rebiu]

Along the lines of what swansont said, 'evolution' to a creationists means 'the process(s) which started with absolute nothingness and resulted in humans', (ie sciences 'alternative version' of the book of genesis) so it already includes things like abiogenesis, the big bang, geology, astronomy, etc.

I guess when things do not have to be explained anything is possible? More likely it is an attempt to revive a defeated paradigm.

[Phi for All]

A dialogue is a converstion between two or more parties accoring to my Merriam-Webster. Therefore this is a dialogue. No I did not think I had sent a private message to anyone. If this is an admonishment I am not clear on what I have done

You failed to include the tree in your definition of "dialogue", which you now clearly state is for two or more parties.

I was not suggesting the tree could not respond to my posts I want the public forum.

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

I was not suggesting the tree could not respond to my posts I want the public forum.

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

You weren't suggesting the tree should not respond to your post? Because it looks incredibly like that, especially when I post it twice.

My problem is failure to understand the context of the questions he was answering.

Do you often admonish others for your failures? I think the adult thing to do here is admit you made an error and move on instead of trying to justify it.

Religion is the trap.Religion has no reason or reasons.Because they are wrong.I am not. I want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views.

This is the best anyone can ever come up with when trying to use science to disprove anything that is not subject to the scientific method. It's always an "I'm right, your wrong" standstill. And it usually has the opposite effect from what you want. You claim to "want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views", but what ends up happening is that you pair up scientific reasoning with blind faith in literal biblical translations in those uncertain minds, lending religion a credibility it didn't have before.

 

Creationists love to argue with scientists because they can then claim there is a controversy, and schoolchildren should be taught both sides so they can choose. Then ideas like Intelligent Design worm their way into science classes.

[ecoli]

I was attempting to get clarity on his positions. When you answer them from you perspective you eleminate the context of the discussion and therefore its meaning.

 

doesn't matter. He put it perfectly... exactly what I was thinking.

 

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

 

This is a moot point, as this is an open forum

 

Kids sitting at adults table.

 

Why don't you get off your high horse and stop acting so damn condescending.

 

I guess when things do not have to be explained anything is possible? More likely it is an attempt to revive a defeated paradigm.

 

I should point out that just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it a "defeated paradigm." Yes, you may have rejected it, so in your mind it's defeated, but this is certainly not the case for everybody.

[Phi for All]

Religion is the trap.Religion has no reason or reasons.Because they are wrong.I am not. I want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views.

This is not a forum for preaching. I won't let believers tell us their way is right and all others wrong, and I won't let disbelievers do the same thing.

 

There are other forums for bashing the beliefs of others. This is a science forum, so please make sure you approach the subject of religion with that in mind.

[Rebiu]

You failed to include the tree in your definition of "dialogue", which you now clearly state is for two or more parties. You weren't suggesting the tree should not respond to your post? Because it looks incredibly like that, especially when I post it twice.

You claim my error was this

You failed to include the tree in your definition of "dialogue", which you now clearly state is for two or more parties.

I assume you mean not including tree in the dialogue. The key part of my statement

Try having you own dialogue instead of disrupting ours.

was the "instead of disrupting ours." Tree did this by giving a generic answer. It would not be appropriate to redress ecoli for tree's response. Therefore the dialogue between ecoli and I was disrupted. If tree had the courtesy to state his answer in terms of this is what he thought ecoli meant then I could smoothly engage tree in a dialogue on that meaning.

 

Tree has been hounding several of my threads in this manner.

[Sayonara]

Tree has been hounding several of my threads in this manner.

That's making controversial posts on a debate forum for you.

 

[Rebiu]

This is the best anyone can ever come up with when trying to use science to disprove anything that is not subject to the scientific method.

If you are saying that any application of reason is a use of science then there is nothing we do that does not use or abuse science. If this is not what you are saying then how am I trying to use science to disprove anything?

 

It's always an "I'm right, your wrong" standstill. And it usually has the opposite effect from what you want. You claim to "want to erode the influence of religion on uncertain minds by exposing them to alternative views", but what ends up happening is that you pair up scientific reasoning with blind faith in literal biblical translations in those uncertain minds, lending religion a credibility it didn't have before.

I understand that you may have failed in you attempts to stand up to religious illogic but I stand up to these people so that other nonbelievers know they are not alone. What happens when nobody discusses these matters?

Creationists love to argue with scientists because they can then claim there is a controversy' date=' and schoolchildren should be taught both sides so they can choose. Then ideas like Intelligent Design worm their way into science classes.[/quote']Is it you position that people should not use this forum titled Religion?

[Rebiu]

I should point out that just because you don't agree with something, doesn't make it a "defeated paradigm." Yes, you may have rejected it, so in your mind it's defeated, but this is certainly not the case for everybody.

If you are so certain why are you here. Do you have a position to espouse? Are you looking for answers? You statements seemed aimed at me personaly rather that the topic of the thread.

[Sayonara]

Is it you position that people should not use this forum titled Religion?

I strongly recommend that you actually read the religion forum before continuing with that approach towards Phi.

[the tree]

If tree had the courtesy to state his answer in terms of this is what he thought ecoli meant then I could smoothly engage tree in a dialogue on that meaning.

(Trying to ignore the broken nature of that sentance.) Why should I say what I think when I know perfectly well what ecoli meant?

If you are so certain why are you here. Do you have a position to espouse? Are you looking for answers?

Why question ecoli's being here? It's a public forum and he's an established member. By no means is it your position to ask people to consider wether they should be contributing.

You statements seemed aimed at me personaly rather that the topic of the thread.

The OP is essentially your views, so the two are not mutually exclusive.