Use of 'nothing' in origin of the universe talk = absurdity

[swansont]

Perhaps Swansout will let us start a new thread going over the scientific data that falsifies creationism.

 

If you want to discuss that in a separate thread, that's fine. As long as it stays in the arena of science.

[mooeypoo]

If you want to discuss that in a separate thread, that's fine. As long as it stays in the arena of science.

 

That actually sounds very interesting. I started doing a "series" in YouTube called "GODMOS" -- I take creationist-astronomy books and explain what is the *true* science behind the phenomena they're ignoring.

 

It can stay under science as long as no creationist decides to spew nonsense at it.

 

Plus.. I'm going to continue with episodes 2 and 3 right after the final-exam week, so I could probably use some help from you guys, some of the text there is very confusing with all these logical fallacies and red herrings thrown inside.

 

Anyhoo, if you do open one, I'll be joining for sure.

 

~moo

[revprez]

If you want to discuss that in a separate thread, that's fine. As long as it stays in the arena of science.

 

It's pretty difficult not to have a discussion of creationism that doesn't touch on at least one of the two definitions you use.

[mooeypoo]

The discussion shouldn't be "about" creationism, it could be about what is the *true science* behind the bogus claims OF creationism.

 

My "GODMOS" project, for example, is taking an Astronomy "creation" book and analyzing the claims given - not out of "why" -- I *know* why -- out of "What is the *truth* behind it that they're hiding behind false arguments and incredulity, and lots (LOOOOOOTS) of logical fallacies.

 

So you can avoid falling into a trap of discussing strictly-religion, if your purpose is to examine true science, and how it is that we are absolutely 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% (only because science doesn't have a "full" 100% as a result of its definition) that the world is *not* 'just' 4000-6000 years old.

 

The fact creationists try to make us fall into this trap doesn't mean we can't avoid it

 

~moo

[revprez]

The discussion shouldn't be "about" creationism, it could be about what is the *true science* behind the bogus claims OF creationism.

 

Explain what you mean by "true science?" And why should we limit ourselves to the "bogus" claims of creationism? Creationism/ID are a family of ideas, many of which were discarded along the way. Should we declare evolutionary biology unworthy of discussion because modern synthesis supplanted what came before it?

 

My "GODMOS" project, for example, is taking an Astronomy "creation" book and analyzing the claims given - not out of "why" -- I *know* why -- out of "What is the *truth* behind it that they're hiding behind false arguments and incredulity, and lots (LOOOOOOTS) of logical fallacies.

 

I have a sneaking suspicion your GODMOS project will fall far short of its objectives.

 

So you can avoid falling into a trap of discussing strictly-religion, if your purpose is to examine true science, and how it is that we are absolutely 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% (only because science doesn't have a "full" 100% as a result of its definition) that the world is *not* 'just' 4000-6000 years old.

 

I'm pretty sure you pulled that measure of uncertainty out of your ass, but if you care to provide a basis for it--feel free.

 

The fact creationists try to make us fall into this trap doesn't mean we can't avoid it

 

Well, you just fell for a creationist trap. You issued impassioned, emotional and factually worthless rant making it difficult for even the most hard-pressed secularist to back you up. Making up statistics is not a good way to open up honest dialogue.

[mooeypoo]

Explain what you mean by "true science?" And why should we limit ourselves to the "bogus" claims of creationism? Creationism/ID are a family of ideas, many of which were discarded along the way. Should we declare evolutionary biology unworthy of discussion because modern synthesis supplanted what came before it?

Wow rev, that's not what I said.

 

Creationism is a group of ideaas just like astrology is a group of ideas. We can discuss it, but not in Science class, so what I said *true* science, that's what I meant.

 

Creationists usually choose to claim they are being "oppressed" by science because science is "afraid" of the conclusion - the actual fact,however, is that we know the world is not 4000 years old from multiple fronts: Evolution, Carbon dating, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, etc. Yah, I will find links for you, if you want, I just can't at the very moment because I'm at work.

 

A very short google search about what SCIENCE says about the age of the world will show you all the evidence, but I will do my best to gather up the links later.

 

 

 

I have a sneaking suspicion your GODMOS project will fall far short of its objectives.

Yah I was afraid of that too, and still am - it's not easy. But I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure you pulled that measure of uncertainty out of your ass, but if you care to provide a basis for it--feel free.

As I said, I'll give you links, and the measure was out of my ass only if you consider my careful digits, and my avoidance in saying 100%.

 

We are *certain* the world is older than 6000 years old, as certain as we can be about anything.

 

Did God create us yesterday morning with memories of a lifetime and nature that *appears* to be here for billlions of years? Yah, maybe, it's possible, but the odds are so slim - and the idea so insignificant to the quest of more knowledge - that it's practically a non option.

 

 

Well, you just fell for a creationist trap. You issued impassioned, emotional and factually worthless rant making it difficult for even the most hard-pressed secularist to back you up. Making up statistics is not a good way to open up honest dialogue.

 

K, uhm, I don't see where I was ranting. What, because I don't believe we should respect religion at all cost? Because I think creationism is dangerous for progress? I do think that, and I think it's important to fight it OUT of our science classrooms.

 

I didn't make any claim that I thought deserved backing up - this is a science forum, we had SO MANY discussions about the age of the earth (obviously being over 6000 years) that my "99999" percentage just seemed to me to be an obvious thing. You're right, though, I didn't think about the people who weren't there in all the other discussions.

 

So as I said - I'm at work, but I'll collect data for you. I nsuggest you read a bit about the Dover case and watch Richard Dawkins' lectures -- they're available free online -- they summarize the evidence very nicely in a REALLY interesting way.

 

 

Unless you're saying I fell for creationism trap by suggesting we talk about the true science (hence: the facts we know about today according to the scientific method, upon which the creationists brutally and blatantly *lie* about. Flat-out lie) is "falling" into their trap. In which case, I disagree.

 

~moo

[revprez]

Wow rev, that's not what I said.

 

Then perhaps you'd like to rephrase in a way that doesn't lend itself to that inference.

 

Creationism is a group of ideaas just like astrology is a group of ideas.

 

Just like biology, physics, chemistry, and atmospheric and planetary sciences.

 

We can discuss it, but not in Science class, so what I said *true* science, that's what I meant.

 

I beg to differ. We can certainly talk about biology, physics, chemistry and atmospheric and planetary sciences in "science classes." You could cover astrology in a Science, Technology and Society course--a "science class" by any reasonable definition of the term. I suspect you're trying to justify not covering creationism in canonical American secondary science education--that is a debate we can have another day.

 

Creationists usually choose to claim they are being "oppressed" by science because science is "afraid" of the conclusion...

 

I reckon there are far to few creationists who feel they are "oppressed" to support this claim.

 

... - the actual fact, however, is that we know the world is not 4000 years old from multiple fronts: Evolution, Carbon dating, Geology, Astronomy, Biology, etc.

 

Setting aside the deeper epistemological issues, we're still left with the question of whether or not we know from observation or inference. The scientific method offers only the ability to rank competing theories that acknowledge all available evidence, not to determine which are wrong. Creationists occupy an enviable if somewhat annoying high ground on this issue; so long as we're talking about events in the unobservable past, we're restricted to inferences extrapolated from phenomena in the observable present.

 

Yah, I will find links for you, if you want, I just can't at the very moment because I'm at work.

 

You'd be wasting your time unless you can address the objection above or if your aim is to convince me that the secular, scientific point of view is probably correct. On the latter point, I don't think you'll find much argument from me. I just admit my particular secular view of the past is based on faith. I don't make much hay about what other people think happened before recorded history.

 

A very short google search about what SCIENCE says about the age of the world will show you all the evidence, but I will do my best to gather up the links later.

 

You know, it's not becoming of secularists to personify science. Think about it.

 

Yah I was afraid of that too, and still am - it's not easy. But I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

 

I'll try and endure the suspense.

 

As I said, I'll give you links, and the measure was out of my ass only if you consider my careful digits, and my avoidance in saying 100%.

 

Like I said, you pulled it out of your ass.

 

We are *certain* the world is older than 6000 years old, as certain as we can be about anything.

 

Oh really? As certain as I can be about the last sentence I wrote, or the last breath I took? I can imagine it is as certain to you as a religious claim is to a believer.

 

Did God create us yesterday morning with memories of a lifetime and nature that *appears* to be here for billlions of years? Yah, maybe, it's possible, but the odds are so slim - and the idea so insignificant to the quest of more knowledge - that it's practically a non option.

 

How did you figure the odds?

 

K, uhm, I don't see where I was ranting.

 

That would be nearly the entirety of your last post and this one as well. And just so we're clear, when I say rant I mean a careless presentation of ideas with less than substantive support behind them. I measured it by counting the number of hyperboles, personifications, and appeals to unnamed authority. You're free to disagree with my metric.

 

What, because I don't believe we should respect religion at all cost?

 

I don't think you're obligated to respect religion at all. I'm just pointing that your zeal and lack of substance leaves you in as leaky a boat as the unnamed believers you criticize.

 

Because I think creationism is dangerous for progress?

 

I'm sure you believe that as strongly as evangelical Christians do in the immaculate conception, and probably with no more or less reason to do so.

 

I do think that, and I think it's important to fight it OUT of our science classrooms.

 

Whether or not it's actually important is an issue separate from your personal feelings.

 

I didn't make any claim that I thought deserved backing up - this is a science forum...

 

Yes, as opposed to a Sciencism forum. Nobody's going to challenge you if you present scientific fact as just that. Where you get into trouble is busting through the epistemological floodgates and opening yourself up to the same criticisms you lodge at creationists. Using science to circularly defend science is generally a bad tactic.

 

...we had SO MANY discussions about the age of the earth (obviously being over 6000 years) that my "99999" percentage just seemed to me to be an obvious thing.

 

As in "self-evident?" As in "taken on faith?"

 

You're right, though, I didn't think about the people who weren't there in all the other discussions.

 

Who said anything about folks not in previous discussions? I'm flat out telling you that you made a lot of crap up and attempted to pass it off as more substantive than fiction.

 

So as I said - I'm at work, but I'll collect data for you. I nsuggest you read a bit about the Dover case and watch Richard Dawkins' lectures -- they're available free online -- they summarize the evidence very nicely in a REALLY interesting way.

 

Appealing to law and Dawkins isn't going to save you here...

 

Unless you're saying I fell for creationism trap by suggesting we talk about the true science (hence: the facts we know about today according to the scientific method, upon which the creationists brutally and blatantly *lie* about. Flat-out lie) is "falling" into their trap. In which case, I disagree.

 

...nor is continuing to hurl vague accusations against an even vaguer opposition.

[swansont]

We got rid of the religion forum. Discussions of creationism are tied into religion, so discussions of that ilk are off-topic. As I said, if you want to restrict it to science (which means it would be mostly debunking claims, as lucaspa had stated) and you can keep it scientific, give it a go. But these threads always seem to degenerate, as this one has.