Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

I'm a cult-devotee am I? Sadness. The ideas are dead? Do any ideas have life? Are the lives of ideas held in the validity of the idea or in the percentage of total people who profess them or in the percentage of an elite subset of total people who profess them? Wide consideration of an idea of outright nonsense means that it is nonsense? That in itself is nonsensical. I'm not saying you're unthinking, I'm saying that you have acknowledged your predisposition in this matter and this specific predisposition that the matter is "nonsense" will have you going as a constant function (e.g., x=1). You have set yourself up to dismiss anything and everything, and that is not thinking.

I don't care for your idiot rhetorical games.

I've posted this multiple times:
http://biologos.org/blog/would-you-like ... at-theory/

The fact that people who have years of experience and training with this tend to universally reject the idea tends to suggest that the validity of the idea is nil. If the validity of the idea is nil, then the idea is invalid.

Even further, I've pointed out a lot of sh***y issues with the idea of the "World Flood".

Now, is this that I have set myself as a constant function? Well, for one, the idea is crazy. I mean, you're saying that archaeology, cosmology, geology, biology, and probably a few more logies are ALL entirely wrong because some devoted cult of Christian conservatives have decided to worship their idiotic relic and make excuses for it. Yeah.... sure..... Now, do I seem rather vicious on this? Well, yes, I find as time goes on, I get less and less tolerant to the perversion that this mind-virus represents in the human population. It's a waste of resources, a waste of time, and everything else on idea that should have been thrown to the dust-bin years ago.

Do you really want me to go on at length with why I consider this all stupid? Heh, if I can get some caffeine, I might be very well tempted.

Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all.

As I'm certain you're composing something or another which may include as statement of "how dare you respond with a single ambiguous sentence while ignoring the rest of my polemic diatribe?!" I will specify.

Archaeology, that has actually been a great help for increasing one's trust in the general historicity of the Bible. Such as involving the Hittites, who at one time were a joke among ignorant historians and counted as ficticious, especially since they were said, in the Bible, to have things such as iron chariots.

Cosmology, it depends primarily upon whether the Copernican principle is ideologically attached to it or not. If not, then you have two main explanation for the increasing redshift pattern, namely that the pattern is the same everywhere (currently popular) or that the pattern can only be seen within a certain radius [namely our view of the redshifts would imply that our solar system is within 100,000 light-years of distance] of the center of expansion (which also implies a center of gravity and decreasing density with the forward passage of time).

Geology, Steno's right on, to say the least. However, I reject Lyell and substitute moneys using typewriters as toilets.

Biology, studying living creatures, how their bodies work, how they interact, estimating their populations and population growth or decline, and even "natural selection" itself are not issues that I have any qualms about. The evolutionary based historical fiction passed as if it were science, even central to science in the minds of those who are thoroughly indoctrinated, that is what I have a problem with. I don't have an issue with the actual science of biology, but just the pseudo-history which has been grafted upon it.

Archaeology has been mixed on many issues, and actually has significant skepticism towards major claims, such as the historicity of the Israeli enslavement in Israel. And the field does contain skepticism.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH120.html
http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/ ... cs.html#q4


I'd say that the Copernican principle is by far the most meaningful assumption.


Because you're indoctrinated into your backwards creationist beliefs?

I'm certain they would dispute that with or without evidence, as it is profitable to do so. However, the archaeological findings are fitting with cultural intermingling during the period between the conquest and the monarchies.



Not at all. In regard to redshifts it is counter-intuitive even. Assuming that the universe has a center of mass would seem more meaningful and greatly more intuitive to me, at the least.

Sure, if that's all you'll accept is what you presume ahead of time. Ignore everything else, do no searching on your own, but only mock those who disagree with you. If I'm backwards though, I'd hate to be walking forwards if you think an interpretation of data which predicts an unverifiable ubiquitous redshift pattern is a meaningful assumption.

Right....


Excuse me if I am wrong, but I thought that the Copernican principle is the principle against a priveleged Earthly frame of reference. Not anything to do with a technical existence of a center of mass.


Well, the problem is that your beliefs are ridiculous. Period. I mean, hell, you even reject mainstream Biblical studies. I wasn't joking or even being unusually harsh when I called you a cultist, because.... well.... let me put up a list of the groups less ridiculous than young earth creationists:
9/11 truthers
Extremist libertarians
Extremist Marxists
Hippies
Neo-Nazis/the KKK
Homeopathic medicine users and practitioners
Psychoanalysts
Anti-globalization protesters
People who believe in aliens visiting earth
The autism vaccination crowd
The illuminati/NWO believers
The people who believe we never landed on the moon.
The "taxes are illegal/unconstitutional" crowd
People who hold that Aspies are the "next step in evolution" whatever that means.
Actual social darwinists.
Twilight fans
People who believe that 2012 prophecy crap
People with expert knowledge of Klingon who believe that Gene Roddenberry was actually a prophet.
People who actually put Jedi as their religion.
The people who thought that putting Jar Jar Binks in a movie was a good idea.
Rastafarians
Scientologists
The Stalin apologists during the Cold War
Lysenkoists
People who take HP Lovecraft's work as Gospel.

Do I need to continue?

I mean, you can say that I am being closed-minded, but honestly, I see your belief as a dead option from the start. Even if the science weren't so disregarded, there would still be the problem of the theology behind it being bunk.

As long as we're making lists about how stupid we consider the beliefs of others to be, here are mine regarding the atheistic scenario:

It is in the same field as,

Lamarkianism,
Spontaneous Generation
Four Elements Theory
Caloric Theory
Ether
Abiogenesis
Ptolemaic cosmology
Epicurean evolutionism
Slippery slope reasoning applied to morpology
Cherry picking
and last but not least vitriolic ad hominem attacks.

Part of the problem is that what we perceive the edge of the universe isnt. Its simply the farthest that we can detect. So a center of gravity need not center on our observed universe, and indeed, it doesnt. There is something so super massive outside our detection that it is pulling the whole of the observable universe towards it. It might just be a denser area of the total universe, or it could be.. anything. The only way we know its there is by the pull.



Thats just a poor quote. I have an interesting book that deals with the phenomenon.

Yes, they are. Pi is an irrational number. If you think it's not, that is your bad luck.


Not one little bit. It's no more relevant than the smell of cheese. I don't even know how to start discussing this until you explain to me why you thought it would be relevant.


Perhaps you would find this thread interesting: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt121741.html Revive it, if you like. There I argue that you should adopt beliefs that are probably true independent of whether you want them to be true. If you can't agree with that principle, you don't even aspire to rationality. You are right that most opinions have adherents who hold that opinion for irrational reasons. You are wrong in claiming that this is all that ever happens. There is evidence to the contrary.


Partly. The more important point is whether evidence makes any difference to what you believe. This here is worrying:
Does that mean you will discard any evidence that contradicts your opinion because the Bible takes precedence, and anything that contradicts your interpretation of the Bible just has to be wrong?

I say "your interpretation" because if you mean special creation of every single species, then you can find lots of people who believe in the God of the Bible and not in special creation.


Meaningless to whom? You? If that is all, your position would be that if you can't understand something without assuming miracles, then that must be true and evidence be damned. I would be surprised if you wanted to defend that position.

Or can you show that some observations and reasoning are inherently meaningless without miraculous creation and design? You would also have to make clear what you mean by meaningless. Do you mean some observations and reasoning can't be explained except by invoking miraculous creation and design?

And can you show that creation and design are necessary after the origin of life? If not, you shouldn't have a problem with evolution.

I think you thought I was referring to the horizon problem? I'm uncertain. What I was referring to though was this,

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-c ... hifts-show

(BTW, I think it is irrelevant as to where the center of the universe is as to any amount of importance that may or may not be displayed. It would just be a geometric location with, probably, a singularity and not somewhere anyone would wish to be nor could they be for long before being shredded by gravity.)

More recently, and perhaps even more so related to your post would be this article,

http://creation.com/a-5d-spherically-sy ... e-is-young

There is no center of expansion or equivalently every point in the cosmos is the center of expansion. No matter where you are, the rest of the cosmos is running away from you.

ruveyn

Except that evolution really is essential to understanding biology, and it has far-reaching implications in diverse areas, such as psychology, zoology/comparative anatomy, sociology, etc. In your mad quest to reject evolution, you have also rejected solid conclusions from several other branches of knowledge. You've rejected geology. The Flood narrative taken literally must reject much of what we know from archeology. You have to reject what physics tells us about radioactive decay, and if you distrust nuclear physics (one of the most mature and robust areas of science) there is nothing you will stop at to preserve your delusion.

I mean, we've basically reached the point where the only way to hold onto YECism is to decide that facts do not matter, evidence does not matter, reality does not matter. I don't want to live in the kind of world promoted by such people. Truth exists. Reality is objective. Facts are facts, and it is a fact that creationism is BS.

"BS this, crap that," thank you for asserting your distance.

Rejecting conclusion, oh wow, what a crime. If their premises are false or the underlying ideology is rejected then of course the conclusions are to be rejected as they are unsound.

Evolution is unessential to biology, as least the part of which makes historical claim. Natural selection works fine, as in a culture creatures with a survival advantage over the others will reproduce more and all the rest of that which is actually observable. But understanding the physiology and biochemistry of living things does not require evolution, and to a degree evolution has been counter productive to understanding the functions of anatomical features in the past because scientists were all too willing to claim that any anatomical feature which they didn't understand was just a vestige of evolutionary history. In genetics it is still going on to an extent where claims of "junk-DNA" as vestiges of evolutionary history are being made, and later it will show that they are wrong yet again when the functions for the junk DNA are discovered by scientist who aren't just lazy bums seeking to make hyped up headlines in gatekeeper journals.

Yes, that is the first thing I referred to.

So are you positing that the premises of nuclear physics and mainstream geology are false?

And what ideology does physics have? Are you advancing some massive conspiracy whereby methods for calculating decay rates of various isotopes was deliberately cooked so as to promote old-Earth geology?


No. You really don't understand, do you? The interrelatedness of all life is extremely important and useful in trying to understand how and why various organisms are in their present state. It is necessary for a proper understanding and appreciation of the current diversity of life.