Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

That was very disturbing to read.

I learned a new word on this site the other day.

Maybe it is not a real word yet, I had to go to Urban Dictionary to find a definition.

That is what this argument is shaping up to be, those who rely on physical evidence and reasoned logic and those who do not. I think the point that AngelRho is trying to make is that it is every bit as foolish to rely on these things as it is to dismiss them. Logical flaws can sometimes be very subtle and difficult to spot even if we are looking for them and sometimes we are not. There may also be phenomena in our multidimensional universe that are unobservable to three dimensional beings. Just because something is unfalsifiable does not prove it is false.

Basically, aside from the fact that creationism is made up out of whole cloth and evolution even into the point where descendants from a common ancestor eventually cannot breed together and thereby make new species has physical confirmation in observed phenomena, evolutionary principles are useful tools and creationism is useless speculation and basically intellectual garbage.

Agreed.

A few weeks ago I went round after round in other threads based on that principle. Someone reminded me recently of the the irony that Logic itself cannot be proven scientifically, yet much of our scientific thinking relies on logic.

What somewhat amuses (and disturbs me) is that the tendency of some here to overemphasize the role of physical evidence. In the pearlist arguments, we have too much reliance on PE and not enough RL. Where does logic come from? If we're just going by PE, it can't exist because there isn't PE for it.

This is MY conclusion on where logic comes from: Common Sense. I only say that because I don't have a better answer! Common sense, like logic, of course, has its origins elsewhere. Just as science doesn't seem to question logic or common sense (well, maybe more the latter than the former), I think its a pointless exercise to debate it (feel free, I don't feel like getting involved in that one).

The one thing I can't stress enough, however, is how important science really is. If, for the sake of argument, evolution was conclusively proven, without even the possibility for doubt, to be wrong, the whole of science would not fall apart. We would still have animals swimming around the ocean with appendages that seem to serve no purpose. We would still post to internet forums and talk on our cell phones. Other creatures would continue to show variations in biodiversity and their ability to adapt. People will still contract bacterial diseases and doctors will still prescribe antibiotics. We might even get lucky one day and land a woman on Mars! Who knows?

Somehow that reminds of something I read not long ago. I became curious about exactly what beef the Roman Catholic church had with Galileo. What I found out was really interesting. First, the only tool Galileo (or anyone else, for that matter) could use to test his hypothesis was the telescope. Many scientists today would agree that primitive observations with only one available resource is NOT sufficient evidence for a definitive proof of any theory. Galileo did his best with the resources he had available, but it simply wasn't enough.

Another problem with Galileo was using the tides as evidence that the earth moved around the sun. We KNOW that the earth's movement has nothing to do with the tides. Even Galileo's contemporaries reasoned that one out.

The biggest mistake, though, was that Galileo basically reinterpreted scripture. Certain passages do tend to indicate an earth-centered universe, but most religious people will tell you that the Bible isn't a scientific treatise. The language of the Bible only appeals to a superficial understanding of one's surroundings and doesn't concern itself with how all those things works. Did St. Augustine say something to the effect of they seek to make good Christians, not good mathematicians? It's interesting to me that the Copernican hypothesis (or theory, depending on which side you're one!) was largely ignored by the Church until Galileo made it a spiritual or scriptural matter, something Galileo was neither qualified nor in a position to do.

Also interesting is the Church never attacked the theory itself. Copernican theory was never formally declared heresy. The Church probably did judge and treat Galileo unfairly and without compassion. But their conclusions were correct based on what was known at the time.

Compared with the question of evolution, what I find interesting is that "hard" evolutionists REALLY don't want creationism to be true. Creationism is not without evidence either, but it's detractors seem very eager and quick to dismiss it. I wonder why. Revenge for the "monkey trials," perhaps?

Getting back to basics again we must pay close attention to the Bible. What was one of the first things God said? He said "Let there be light!" (Not in Shakespearean English, of course, since magic has its own arcane tongue) It was only afterward He created the Sun and the Moon so the concept that the light comes from the Sun is a mere scientific theory. Has anyone gone there to look? Of course, there are mere scientific theories that some sort of atomic nonsense goes on in the Sun and that produces light, but there is no mention of fusion in the Bible so we can chuckle at the silly concept that the light comes from the Sun. Mere theory. Obviously God arranged that somewhere along the fifteenth dimension (which no mere scientists has even attempted to disprove) which is full of light God put in a spigot which he turns on every morning when the Sun comes up and behold, there is light. All the answers are in the Bible if you look carefully.So lets be done with theory and logical thinking. It just gets in the way of people who can really perceive the truth through their gut or their elbow or some place.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69EHLSnWKNQ[/youtube]

Ah, yes, but the existence of the sun, as you well know, IS established fact. Perhaps we can't necessarily set up residence upon the surface of the sun and directly determine whether fusion happens, but it is WAY too difficult to dispute that. We can even demonstrate fission/fusion in man-made devices such as weapons and power plants, though we're still working out the details of controlled fusion.

In dealing with evolution versus creation, you can't overwhelmingly prove either. Ruveyn mentioned that creationism is speculation. By the same standard, however, so is evolution. Pointing to adaptive variations and biodiversity within species is simply not enough to prove long-range circumstances of change.

Getting back to the point of light before the creation of the sun:

I'll have to look at this issue more closely. I'm at my teaching studio at the moment and only have a KJV Bible with me. It appears that in this particular case, the creation of light is indistinguishable between the physical realm and the spiritual realm--that is, there was not yet any separation between the two. I believe Revelation informs us that in heaven there is no sun or moon because God Himself is the light. It COULD be that the creation of the earth in particular happened entirely within the spiritual plane and the separation of the waters of the heaven from the waters of the earth represent Earth's placement within the physical plane of existence. It only makes sense working this way, carefully crafting a single planet to support life, having all flora in place to support animal life. THEN on the fourth day God creates the physical universe in which hang the earthly creation. Amazingly, the remainder of creation appears to be little more than a vast expanse of nuclear furnaces surrounded by floating rocks (sorry for the oversimplification, and yes, I'm AWARE of black holes, dark matter, etc.). It seems God had in mind a physical universe that didn't HAVE to be dependent upon Him for its operation. We humans do the same thing with machines. How many people do YOU know still boil their laundry, use lye soap, a washboard, AND hang their clothes on an outdoor line to dry? Don't say your grandparents, keep it within the 25-50 year old range. Maybe some do, but what about 18-23 year old college kids? Nope. We have machines that do that work for us. God wants to be wanted, not needed, and a physical creation that forces dependence on the Creator is just cruel.

A fact? All we see is the light and perhaps a bit of gravity to keep the Earth in orbit about something.It's all a theory about what that something might be.

Aw, Sand, what silliness are you up to now? OK, true, there are some theoretical problems with how it is said the sun works and not EVERYTHING is established fact regarding the sun. However, factual data has been collected by orbital solar observatories that have given us more insight into solar behavior than what we might have known 100 years ago.

My statement that you are calling into question is not regarding the inner workings of our native star. It is that the existence of the sun is established fact. If the sun doesn't exist, what is it exactly we are observing? Assuming I know nothing else about it but what you so simply stated--light and a bit of gravity, and the Earth is in orbit about something--your words, right? Let's say we have absolutely no idea what that "something" really is. It remains that "something" is SOMETHING. It might have different names across different languages. It might even be worshiped by various religions. But the fact remains that it IS, regardless of the details or what it is called. What we call the "sun" does indeed exist.

Since when is the Bible basics to you?

Let us get back to the basics of science; scientists tell us that there are anywhere between 10 and 26 dimensions yet you refuse to acknowledge anything beyond the three of four we can persevere.

As I see it, the logic of your argument is as follows:
1)Light comes from the sun and the stars.
2)The sun and the stars were not created until the forth day.
3)Light could not have existed on the first day.

The logical flaw here is assuming that the word “all” precedes the first premise. You cannot preserve light coming from anywhere but the sun and the stars so light can not come from anywhere but the sun and the stars. A blind pearlist might deny that light exists at all because he can not preserve it.

You are welcome. Do you like the term(even if you dont agree with the premise)? I love words, especially obscure ones. Pearlist a lot more concise than atheist, which connotes a concern with religion.

And I in turn learned a new one from your link, but I dont much like the word flawsist. Its ugly in appearance, awkward on the tongue and is little more than an insult.

And keet, you can say "pearlism".

Umm.... how is this ironic? Science has to have non-scientific principles to avoid circularity, but in this avoidance of circularity, we can't avoid the need for an infinite regress.


Well, there are a number of theories of "logic", including one theory that logic is just the application of definitions. Meaning that talking about "where does logic come from", is silly, as the organization of facts by language requires logic, and all logic is is the organization of facts.


Ok, that's a fine answer. I'd accept this, but "common sense" must be self-critical as well. Now, does common sense have origins? Well, yes, human genetics and social influence.

Does science question logic or common sense? Well... at one point some philosophers were considering a "quantum logic" given that they believed that quantum physics was a challenge to regular logic. As for common sense... umm... psychology challenges common sense a *lot*, as do a number of other fields. In fact, some science is so offensive to common sense that it is hard to accept.


Umm.... that's kind of stupid. For one, it could be argued that the pinky toes on human feet serve little to no purpose, as mine just grows hangnails and gets stubbed. But getting past that issue, a lot of animals have vestigial parts, including humans, and these are basically what you are asking for. I don't think that the "whole of science" would fall apart if evolution were proven true though.


Creationism stands against every cosmological, geological, and biological theory we have today. It is something that really is quite offensive to most scientifically oriented people. As it stands, most people are considered to accept creationism due to faith claims, not scientific claims, and it is considered to be to the point of "history denialism" by many given how much of our evidence is perceived to disagree with many creationist claims.

As for "eager and quick" to dismiss it? Well... we also dismiss ESP very quickly and eagerly. We dismiss holocaust denial very eagerly and quickly.. If something is considered BS, then people are going to be very quick to be very negative to it, particularly if the proponents are considered to be engaged in intellectual dishonesty.

That makes no sense at all. Stating we have physical evidence for Y does not require that non-physical things not exist. It simply requires that Y have the characteristic of being evidenced physically.

I think you are suffering a misconception. The theory of evolution does not state that there is no God or that only physical things exist or that only things that can be physically proven exist. The theory of evolution makes no claims about whether or not all things are physical or only physicial things exist or that physical evidence exists for all things that exist. The theory of evolution is entirely silent about and unconcerned with such matters.

I know people who believe in neither evolution nor God and I know people who believe in evolution and God. You are mistaken if you believe that evolution makes any claims about the existence of God or about the existence of non-physical things, or the provability of non-physical things.

You believe wrongly.


What conditions do you think Darwin placed for his theory to be falsified and why do you think that if Darwin is proven wrong about something, that this constitutes the weight of scientific evidence supporting something that lacks any apparent means of falsifiability?


Evolution most simply is the changes in the frequency at which genetically heritable material occurs within a population, from one (parental) generation to the next (offspring) generation. A species is an arbitrary, conceptual categorization that is not universally agreed on because it is in fact a cognitive convenience that maps onto reality with insufficient fidelity for everyone to agree on a universally useful definition. Why you think the processes of evolution are insufficient to cross imaginary boundaries that humans invented for their own cognitive convenience is a bit of mystery to me.

Last edited by pandd on 11 May 2010, 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't understand why you think there should be physical evidence for logic. It's just a form of reasoning, not something tangible. When talking about something in the natural or physical world, then that does need to have evidence. Logic is just a way to deduce facts from those observations. Why is it that you think it's not valid to apply logic in order to deduce facts from the evidence and observations we have?

We have physical evidence of light from a spot that seems to be in our sky. It is not at all silly to indicate that the existence of the Sun can be questioned. It's existence is deduced.

I realised evolution is pretty much like this: You compare 2 organisms and if something looks similar you say "oh look, this seems to have evolved into that." Can't you do the same thing with cars? You say "oh this car part looks like that car part." However, everyone agrees that cars don't evolve in nature from one brand to another.