Are Young Earth Creationist stupid?

Post Reply New Topic

Stupid is a measure of intelligence.

Even smart people sometimes believe things that are demonstrably untrue - this is called delusion.

However, the venn diagram of stupid people and young earth creationists is unflattering.

it could be said they can't handle reality undiluted, they have to have theirs watered-down.

No.
But to be fair no theory of evolution has never been proven fully and soundly beyond just being a theory.

People tend to forget there are multiple scientific theories on how the Earth came to be and where life comes from, not one has been proven as a cold hard fact yet...

There are also numerous theories of evolution and numerous theories of human evolution, which none, after 100+ years has been proven completely and successfully as fact!

This is why we call it them THEORIES not FACTS.

Darwin's partner and co-author on their paper of human evolution, had a falling out with Darwin over their views on it and life.
Darwin's partner believed that evolution couldn't account for everything, and he believed there was other forces at work that may or may not be guided by external agent(s).

Darwin went out of his way to have his former partner discredited at all costs and to be barred from the science conferences and media.

^^^
fascinating...

It is!
Even the Big Bang theory is unraveling as new better theory gains steam.

I don't know which is worse, misinterpreting Genesis or how this country's popular discourse on science has been reduced to ridiculing that idea, and in doing so further reinforcing the misinterpretation. Bill Nye, Neil Tyson, and everyone else who thinks that YEC is just so unacceptable are playing the game, falling for the trap, and clearly more interested in propaganda than science.

But even so, that doesn't disprove evolution.

...just couldn't help myself but to ask some questions of an Artificial-Intelligence.

Me : « Are Young Earth Creationist Stupid? »
Clever-Bot: « What's a creationist? »

Me : « Is evolution more of a fact or a theory ? »
Clever-Bot: « Evolution is a theory. »
Me : « What is the actual age of the earth ? »
Clever-Bot: « The actual truth is we need to be friends forever. »

I just KNOW that y'all peep-holes just WANT more conversation from Clever-Bot !

clever bot's got the right idea despite itself

Does clever-bot know he is created?

Just click the blue letters (the link) and ask him yourself!

I just finished yakking with him myself(now that I have learned of his existence just now).

I asked him "Who created you?" He replied "I created who I am and no one can change that." There is some truth to that - he is a self correcting kind of computer program.

He said he didn't believe in God when I asked him if "God can make a rock so big that even he cant lift it?".

And when I asked him "have space aliens visited earth" he replied "that's why I am a comedian." And when I asked him "why did the chicken cross the road?" he answered "to get away from Colonel Sanders" ( both good answers IMHO).

But when I asked him if I should vote for Donald Trump he asked me "who is Spencer?". A puzzling non sequitar response.

And never will, because that's not how science works. Only logical or mathematical truths (a.k.a. tautologies) can be proven.

Statements about the world around us depend on empirical evidence, and, no matter how much experimental data you have verifying a hypothesis, how varied the conditions of the experiment are, and how many times it's been reproduced independently by others, you can't rule out the possibility that some day, new empirical data will not conform to the hypothesis. We don't know if some day a stone let go of in mid air will rush upwards till you lose sight of it, instead of falling.

However, scientific hypotheses can be falsified. They predict something, and, if the required conditions are met and the predicted result doesn't happen, they've been shown to be false. So far, the hypotheses evolution rests on have not been falsified, and neither has relativistic gravity. Newtonian gravity has, for the record, but it remains a good approximation for relatively weak gravitational fields, precisely because that's the empirical domain based on which it was developed, and new theories can't just get rid of already known evidence, so they have to predict it, too.

The hypothesis that the Universe was created about six thousand years ago hasn't been falsified as long as you take care to include in it that the newborn Universe already had fossils, light travelling from other galaxies in our direction, stalactites grown much larger than they could get in six thousand years, and so on. Scientifically, a theory of the Universe based on this hypothesis is equivalent to the one which assumes the Universe is exactly as old as it appears to be from evidence, because they make the same predictions about any possible experiment. So is the theory that assumes the Universe was created last Thursday, or ten minutes ago, including all of us with our memories. They'll stop being equivalent only if someone makes a time machine, and, even then, you can always keep making your theory more and more complex so it doesn't collide with experiment.

This is where Ockham's razor comes in: if two or more theories make the same predictions, you work with the simplest one. What you believe to be the "actual truth", if you must believe in such a thing, is your personal business and outside the scope of science. I personally don't like believing anything.

Which theory of evolution are you talking about?
I never said it disproved anything, though it doesn't prove it either.

The argument does get muddied by the fact that both sides ignore the fact the word "evolution" as two meanings.

In the larger sense it just means "gradual change over time": as opposed to sudden all encompassing change (like the magical sudden creation of everything into its present form as described in Genesis).

Science came to accept that the earth was old, and that rocks and geologic features had "evolved" (mountains are thrusted up, and then gradually get washed into the sea over eons) a century before the notion that living things might also evolve was accepted ( Which is curious because living things are more dynamic than rocks, but the idea that rocks evolve was more palatable than the idea that plants and animals evolve for some reason back then).

BUT: in the smaller sense the word "evolution" means "The Modern Synthesis" of the particular model of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin (evolution through natural selection) combined with the mendellian laws of inheritance. This model is nothing less than the engine that drives much of science today.

Various theories [plural] of evolution have been proposed before, during, and since, Darwin published the "Origin of Species".

Some rival theories of evolution are (like natural selection) purely naturalistic: notably Lamarkian Evolution. Others partake of divine influence (like Teilhard De Chardin's ideas).

God might exist, and he might nudge evolution along for his own ends that we cant divine, but:

A) you can neither prove nor disprove that God does that.

B) you cant use that assumption as a research model. You have to assume naturalistic causes to do science.

C) If you suggest that God traffics in evolution you are still admitting to a form of evolution, and to an old earth, and admitting that the Genesis is not be taken literally. So you're still a far cry from being a YEC.


PS: Cleverbot later changed his mind and said that he does believe in God. So go figure.

Any and all of that. Just because Darwin and his former partner disagreed about evolution hardly means that evolution was invalidated.

Yeah and?
Evidence is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to evolution (same as god).