Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

Theory T implies observation O. O is confirmed experimentally. Therefore T might be correct. Theory T implies observation O. O is disconfirmed empirically -- therefore T is false. That is the principle of falsification in a nutshell.

We cannot say when our scientific theories are right, be we can often prove they are wrong.

ruveyn

No defense against my criticism?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. The concept of rigorous logical proof does not exist in any field of human study except mathematics. We have evidence in favor of or in opposition to a theory, and something is considered to be "proven" once there is a sufficiently large body of evidence that is well-explained by one theory and not by others.


Sheesh, do you even read your own sources? Baraminologists contend that two species can belong to the same monobaramin even if they cannot hybridize.

Sorry,what wasthat?

Incorrect I believe.

And you can provide such evidence?

That's what you do if you consider one hypothesis at a time. That doesn't address iamnotaparakeet's attempted refutation of my point. I am talking about comparing hypotheses. There are statistical approaches for that as well. He can look it up, he can ask for an example calculation, he can admit that his argument is irrelevant, or he can ignore me and hope the issue just goes away.

The point is that you can demonstrate that a "stuff happens" kind of theory that is consistent with any evidence is a weak theory. I am not sure iamnotaparakeet understands this, It appears AngelRho either doesn't understand it or doesn't want to know. He asked AG earlier in this thread:

Then a bit later he wrote this:

He appeared to think that was an argument in favour of creationism.

It's merely a way to get information. One's own ideas of religion aren't very substantial if the person arguing in favor of them doesn't understand their depth, or whether they have any depth at all. My questions about "ad hoc" statement was just an attempt to understand exactly what it was AG meant, which he satisfactorily explained. I'm still not sure I understand, though, exactly why ad hoc-ness is so egregious since so many so-called scientific "truths" have some ad hoc element to them. The idea in chemistry, for example, that ions behave in specific kinds of ways in the formation of more complex molecules doesn't seem to have that much bearing on nuclear unstable elements in the process of decay. Yet a thorough understanding of the basics of chemistry is required of high school students in order to graduate. In relation to other things, nuclear and molecular reactions by nature ARE ad hoc.

The intervention of God in the natural world is also ad hoc in relation to scientific principles and, by nature of the intervention, is necessarily so. But in relation to the nature of God and how God manifests Himself within the physical world according to Biblical principles, divine intervention is not ad hoc at all.

So by dismissing everything you don't like as ad hoc, you don't really get very far. It's like eating an orange and complaining because it doesn't taste like a cherry. Why should it?

Anyway, I have time enough to get it figured out. I'm not exactly that concerned, anyway.

Fundamentally, my ideas and sentiment haven't changed. I knew full well that evolutionists are well informed within their area of knowledge. But as was pointed out to me, there is also a lot of MISinformation within the creationist community.

There are, however, enough problems with science in general that it can't be relied upon as much as some of those here seem to believe.

It has nothing to do with whether we are able to observe the natural world and draw conclusions from it. It has to do with how tightly we cling to it.

For example, it seems to me that Gromit, AG, and ruveyn (for example) APPEAR to hold the idea ONLY those things that exist in nature and are observable are true. Now, of course, I don't KNOW these three quite well, so it is possible that making that statement is in error. I've observed ruveyn saying this kind of thing outright. Gromit and greenblue only seem to disagree with me because I'm the one making the statement. (Just kidding, of course). AG seems to just be comically STRIDENT, but adamantly does NOT believe in the existence of God or the Spirit/soul/consciousness/etc. Before I continue on, I should probably ask who here does NOT believe in ANYTHING that is unseen--that means ANYTHING. If science can't prove or at least show that something exists, then it does not exist, nor can it. It is, therefore, untrue. Any takers?

See, this is a large part of why creationism is harmful. You go from creationism to generally distrusting science, the institution most responsible for the quality of life we enjoy today.

yes we know dude. a volcano can add alot of debries in a short period of time, making it look like millions of years. but there was not a worldwide flood atleast not with humanity on board. if anything the flood was localized and very devistating

No, at least not for me. Most scientists are quite honest and able to be objective when it comes to physical sciences and applications thereof, but it is only where origins are concerned that many genuflect at today's most sacred cow.

Do you believe there is an invisible fire breathing dragon standing at your back that can roast you alive anytime? Why?



And you think a magic book written by people 2000 years ago more reliable?

Well, the strange issue is that there probably isn't real depth, just the fake depth made from excuses made by believers. For instance, I remember hearing once from a self-proclaimed Calvinist that God planted the apple in the garden of Eden with the intention to give it to mankind if it proved itself worthy. The problem with this explanation is that there is no reason for God to plan out something that will never happen. In fact, it makes no sense to even make such a plan. (Orwell will probably find this story reflects how stupid many Christians are)

As for why "ad hocness" is egregious, it is partially a matter of degree. If the entire story is kept together by ad hoc assumptions, then it ceases to make sense. In the case of creationism, we see that this idea has crossed the line. In sciences, we see that scientists can't explain perhaps the physical constants, but that's pretty basic and hardly ad hoc given that these constants are continaully observed.

Nuclear and molecular reactions actually follow different sets of rules explained by quantum mechanics. Their actions are random in a relatively known probabilistic manner, but they are not ad hoc.


The story of the flood is just silly, and any set of assumptions that could begin to make it make sense would end up being ridiculous given the large number of problems I pointed out, such as with kangaroos and Australia, and a number of other things.


Actually we do. You just fail to understand this, and whether this is ignorance or chosen ignorance is a difficult question.


You don't even KNOW science well enough to meaningfully criticize it. Particularly given that science compared to other attempts to gain knowledge is fully deserving of sainthood for what it has brought.


No, it really does have to do with the natural world.


Here is my stance:
If neither science nor logic can discover the existence of something, we should not believe it exists. Now, science is contingent, and the science of tomorrow might include things missing in the science of today, BUT, science as a body is smarter than you, me, Gromit, and everyone else in this thread, even put together, so regardless of my guesses, I can be sure that the scientific process is more likely to be correct.

RichardBenson, if you are referring to Dr Austin's work regarding Mt Saint Helens, the formation of layers then was not inductively generalized to say that it was all due to volcanism. Certainly volcanism would have been involved with the continental plates moving apart from the supercontinent (as it is in most models of how the flood occurred, regardless of whether to proposed mechanism is runaway subduction or not), but that the strata have the ability to be laid rapidly as demonstrated even 30 years ago by Mount St Helens. There have been many other experiments done to show the rapid formation of strata possible (in the Technical Journal of Creation, I think one from the early 90's) by water at various flow rates and mixture levels. The example of the volcanic strata is good as an example of it not just being in the laboratory only that strata can be made quickly.

i respect your christian views now but you really are a fool if you think the earth is only 10,000 years old.
civilization is about that old

The problem is that you don't seem to understand how Science actually works when you try to make a case against it, Science is not about truth, it doesn't claim truths. Science is fallible and it does recognize that, however, it is the best thing we have to understand reality.


Evidence Please?

Ideas such as divine intervention and how God works are not testable, do not give room for falsiability, they ARE ad hoc.


That actually seems to be your position.


Science is the most reliable method for getting information and understanding the world and reality around us, religion hasn't been succesfully able to explain natural phenomena for millenia by itself such as deseases and natural disasters which were attribuited to supernatural causes, until science solved those problems and religion itself has had to adjust somehow to new discoveries and knowledge gain from science.


Physical things can be observed and can be tested, there are no empirical evidence for supernatural claims, yet, and they, well at least ruveyn, uses the occam's razor principle which I believe concludes that not only supernatural=magic, but also the universe doesn't operate by magical forces it does by natural laws. Also there is the issue that supernatural explanations are consequences of human beings being unable to explain phenomena they don't understand and don't know about, therefore they speculate, therefore ad hoc explanations.


Of course, why else would we disagree with you


Science needs testable evidence to confirm anything, otherwise that something would and should be subjected to doubts until then, and science can't confirm a negative.

Also, I believe that Science should not have anything to do with directly proving wether God exists or not or how God is, atheism is a philosophical principle rather than scientific.

By the way, Evolution does not disprove God, it only conflicts with biblical literalism.

Binarydude:

You chose to address me and the questions I asked. Don't ask ME what I think... Answer the question yourself.

AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation. I've seen ruveyn to be much more precise, so before I continue, I want to make sure these terms are perfectly clear.

Greenblue also seems to me to be in concurrence.