we, creationists
-
charliechan007 — 18 years ago(October 01, 2007 02:00 PM)
The formula is the scientific method, which is "not" in operation in "creationism."
and why do you assume people who beleive the science of evolution are "not" Christians? Most Christians understand the science behind it to be true. You're creating a false dichotomy. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(October 01, 2007 07:18 PM)
there is science in creation
No. Creation is totally based on the speculation that a creator exists. But a scientific theory cannot be based on beliefs and speculation. You first need to prove that a creator definitely does exist, then you can call creation/creationism
perhaps
a scientific theory which can be considered
nearly
equally to evolution. (Perhaps and nearly, because it probably still wouldn't go along with some other scientific aspects, and further, evolution is more than a theory only)
and there is science in evolution
Well, evolution IS science. It was originally a scientific theory developed by observation of the nature and it's based on other scientific findings, and it does respect ALL scientific facts and natural laws. In the meantime it advanced to a scientific model after most aspects of the evolution theory could be proven as facts.
if you are a evolutionist you believe []
Serious scientists do not just believe in things. This is what you do.
a big bang would make a big mess not a complete universe
Well, a big bang which respects the natural laws exactly would make a complete universe. However, the universe consists out of ~100 billions of galaxies, each with suns, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, pulsars, a lot of dust, energy, etc. etc., so it's also a big mess indeed, isn't it?
now I read that people say that creationist's have no proof this is a very false statement and very misleading, we ALL have the same evidence no matter what you think or believe[]
Then show us evidence that a creator
definitely exists
. Then (and only then) you maybe have a scientific
theory
, but which doesn't automatically mean that the creator actually has created this world according to you. Even in this case evolution still would be a considerable (and actually an even more probable) alternative, since a creator could have initiated evolution for the development of lifeforms instead of creating them all personally (what only a stupid creator would do, I guess)
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution? -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 15, 2007 12:50 AM)
One reason scientifically minded people don't take creationism seriously is because it has not a leg to stand on. Creationists like you have no evidence for your beliefsit's all someone's opinion based on wishful thinking. When pushed to the limitwhen all of your arguments have failedyou creationists retreat into "I believe because I believe." Small wonder you are not taken seriously by modern and sophisticated minds. And yesthis attitude does smack of ignorance and narrow mindedness.
I believe in evolution not because it's intellectually fashionable, or because I love to poke fun at delusional creationism. I believe in evolution because that's where the facts and evidence have led me. It makes total sense to me and there is overwhelming evidence to support it. All you need do is provide evidence for creationism and godand this whole argument will go away. But since you cannot provide evidence for your beliefs, because there is none.this arguing will persist. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 23, 2007 06:51 AM)
"It makes total sense to me and there is overwhelming evidence to support it."
Well, it makes a good deal of sense to me, too. But, let's not forget that not too many years ago it made "total sense" (using overwhelming but carefully selected "evidence") to put black people in chains, institutionalize people who doubted the Marxist agenda, and scoff at E=Mc2 and the quantum theory. -
-
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 01:52 AM)
cnalbrecht,
You miss my point entirely. My fault, perhaps. Read my post again. I was referring to your certitudes about "evidence" and your use of the word "overwhelming". I'm merely saying that what passes as "evidence" one day can be shown to be flawed another. Or, the "interpretation" of evidence which one day seems "overwhelmingly" persuasive can become not so persuasive another. A fundamentally "scientific" caution.
Looking at my reference to Einstein: The imperatives of Euclid and Newton were gospel for centuries, until the little man with the frazzled hair wrote three articles in "The Annals of Physics" in 1905. In short, you're TOO SURE of things as they appear to you now just like those you consider religious zealots. In your own way, you're a "flat-Earther". . . It would suit you better to open your mind, and show some respect for those who don't see the orthodoxy as clearly as you do.
You'll excuse me, but I don't care to re-hash what passed as "scientific evidence", or the self-serving interpretations of same, in western Europe and elsewhere in the days and years preceeding their natural outcomes slavery & its cousins. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 03:34 PM)
You miss my point entirely. My fault, perhaps. Read my post again. I was referring to your certitudes about "evidence" and your use of the word "overwhelming". I'm merely saying that what passes as "evidence" one day can be shown to be flawed another. Or, the "interpretation" of evidence which one day seems "overwhelmingly" persuasive can become not so persuasive another. A fundamentally "scientific" caution.
Nonsense. There is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence, and even more for mathematical evidence. A scientific evidence doesn't allow any interpretations, otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific evidence.
Looking at my reference to Einstein: The imperatives of Euclid and Newton were gospel for centuries, until the little man with the frazzled hair wrote three articles in "The Annals of Physics" in 1905. In short, you're TOO SURE of things as they appear to you now just like those you consider religious zealots. In your own way, you're a "flat-Earther". . . It would suit you better to open your mind, and show some respect for those who don't see the orthodoxy as clearly as you do.
You try to imply a conflict between Einstein and Newton / classical physics which actually doesn't exist:- Newton's and Euclid's findings aren't wrong and still are valid and important for physics/mathematics. Einstein merely went further, beyond Newton's understanding of the nature, but his findings don't replace classical physics in any way.
- Einstein based his theories on existing knowledge and mathematical logic. It's not like he invented something completely out of his fantasy. It was a result of research and mathematical calculations. Without the existing knowledge of Newton and Euclid, Einstein wouldn't have been able to make his findings.
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution?
-
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 25, 2007 05:51 PM)
"Nonsense. There is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence, and even more for mathematical evidence."
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"? It might help me if you would provide THE definition of which you speak.
"A scientific evidence doesn't allow for any interpretations, otherwise it wouldn't be a scientific evidence."
My goodness! So, when Dr. A looks at a tumor (evidence of a problem) and pronounces it malignant . . . I should just go home and weep? Or, when Egyptologist "B", having read a row of hieroglyphics, tells me that the Pharoah Hatshepsut was a benevolent monarch, I should go home and burn Egyptologist C's books suggesting the reverse? I find a cache of stone arrowheads beside an old stream bed. "Evidence" of a war-like people, or just avid hunters? Or, should we just . . . stop talking? If you're right, we may just as well fire half the professors in our universities world-wide. If they aren't fighting over interpretation of fact, then what are they fighting over? (See commentaries on the dead sea scrolls)
"You try to imply a conflict between Einstein and Newton/classical physics which actually doesn't exist."
I didn't intend to "imply" any kind of conflict. Your last two paragraphs are correct (or nearly so). My intent was simply to show the poster that a) ALL the "evidence" isn't in (and probably never will be); b) SOME propositions CAN'T be proved, "a)" notwithstanding, (Eg., relativity and evolution); and c) though they didn't confute Newton, Einstein's theories certainly shed a new light on time-honored suppositions about the world they both lived in, and the universe. Or, are you telling me that "interpretations" of the "evidence" Newton saw weren't at all effected when Einstein's new light (his "stream of particles") was shown upon it? . . . That Newton's gravity and its importance to our world and its origins wasn't seen as different than Einstein's? Or, that Galileo didn't "interpret" differently from the Pope the heavenly "evidence" they both saw on some dark 17th century night?
"But his findings don't replace classical physics in any way."
Yeah . . . maybe. They don't help us build a rocket any better, but they sure as hell help us to know just how fast and how far it can go . . . if it's built perfectly. And, causing us to think a little differently about why we're building it in the first place.
You guys are beginning to sound more like Brady than like Drummond. Rigid dogma visits everybody's camp, at one time or another. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 05:42 AM)
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"? It might help me if you would provide THE definition of which you speak.
Sorry, I didn't describe it correctly what I actually wanted to say.
Both are defined clearly, but scientific evidence necessarily includes a mathematical evidence of the equation(s) which describe(s) my theory (or my interpretation of the observation I've made) which I want to prove. As long as the equation doesn't fit the mathematical rules, I cannot present it as a (part of the) scientific evidence.
Now, if you don't know the definition for mathematical evidence, throw your bible away, at least for a moment, and pick up a maths book for the junior grade and learn about mathematical evidence. Otherwise, this hairsplitting discussion will be endless since you will never understand what a scientific evindence is and why it is defined that clearly.
Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that. But I promise that I will not discuss the bible with you before I've read it, or otherwise you can tell me the same about it like what I'm telling you about maths.
My goodness! So, when Dr. A looks at a tumor (evidence of a problem) and pronounces it malignant . . . I should just go home and weep? Or, when Egyptologist "B", having read a row of hieroglyphics, tells me that the Pharoah Hatshepsut was a benevolent monarch, I should go home and burn Egyptologist C's books suggesting the reverse? I find a cache of stone arrowheads beside an old stream bed. "Evidence" of a war-like people, or just avid hunters? Or, should we just . . . stop talking? If you're right, we may just as well fire half the professors in our universities world-wide. If they aren't fighting over interpretation of fact, then what are they fighting over? (See commentaries on the dead sea scrolls)
Well, if I understand you correctly, you want to tell that two doctors may interpret an illness in a different way, one says it is a tumor, the other one says no it's not. Or two Egyptologists have different interpretations of what they have found at a historical site in Egypt.
Yes I agree, what they have discovered allows an interpretation. But do the doctors have mathematical or scientific evidence for their conclusion? No, it's only based on observation. Newton also first did only observe the phenomenon of gravity, and his observation allowed various interpretations. But then he found the correct one, the only one which explained all what he saw in a logic way and for which he could finally find scientific evidence which didn't allow any further interpretation.
Regarding the Egyptologists: They also interpret an observation in a different way. To find out the correct interpretation is much more difficult in this case, because they don't observe a natural phenomenon. History and social sciences have do deal with human-caused things and humans aren't necessarily logic. They don't act according clear defined rules, that's the reason why such sciences are usually reduced to observation and interpretation, and you cannot compare it to natural sciences
I didn't intend to "imply" any kind of conflict. Your last two paragraphs are correct (or nearly so). My intent was simply to show the poster that a) ALL the "evidence" isn't in (and probably never will be); b) SOME propositions CAN'T be proved, "a)" notwithstanding, (Eg., relativity and evolution); and c) though they didn't confute Newton, Einstein's theories certainly shed a new light on time-honored suppositions about the world they both lived in, and the universe. Or, are you telling me that "interpretations" of the "evidence" Newton saw weren't at all effected when Einstein's new light (his "stream of particles") was shown upon it? . . . That Newton's gravity and its importance to our world and its origins wasn't seen as different than Einstein's? Or, that Galileo didn't "interpret" differently from the Pope the heavenly "evidence" they both saw on some dark 17th century night?
But there isn't any "Newton gravity" or "Einstein gravity" - there is just gravity. Newton has found the equation(s) which describe(s) gravity. He learned THAT it works like that and how it can be calculated. The natural laws he has discovered haven't changed since Einstein, and Newton's findings still describe gravity correctly. Why? Because he had mathematical and scientific evidence for it. As I said, this allows no interpretation. Newton's equations about gravity haven't changed and I promise they will not change; you can find them in every book about physics and they are correct. But Newton merely knew THAT there is gravity and he could describe the main effects, but he couldn't explain WHY there is gravity, and how it effects other phenomenons like light, time, etc., and that was the point where Einstein stepped in.
Whatever you wanted to show to the other poster, -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 09:25 AM)
Well, you've certainly said a mouthfull! And, I've got to admit it's going to take me a while to sort through it all. So, for now, I'll just respond to one paragraph, which, I think, I can interpret correctly:
"Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that."
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
"But I promise you that I will not discuss the bible with you before I've read it, or otherwise you can tell me the same about it like what I'm telling you about maths."
Huh? Who asked you to "discuss the Bible"? I don't believe I even mentioned the Bible in any of my posts. . . I would, however, recommend it to you. There's a lot more in it, not related to intelligent design, which you might find useful on other occasions (at the end of your life, perhaps). And, ahhh . . . taking you at your word and given the eventuality, I hope I could tell you MORE about IT, though I admit I am no expert, than you have, so far, told me about "maths".
Maybe I'll get back to you re the balance of your post.
BTW, you seem to spend a lot of time talking about various "interpretations" in your post, given you reject the idea of scientific interpretation entirely. Excuse me, but, there, you sound a little schizophrenic to me. "Perhaps you will call me arrogant for telling you that." . . .
And all this time, I thought that's what science IS the illumination of fact and the interpretation of same. -
Rangely8723 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 12:18 PM)
You're right I do, though I don't think you've really told me anything I didn't already know. I am, nevertheless, still waiting for YOUR definition.
My definition is not different from what you can find in scientific literature and it's not my job to teach you maths and physics. Your previous messages haven't convinced me that you are able to discuss this seriously, so it wouldn't make any sense to make further explanations, because whatever I would say, you would try to make a travesty out of it.
Regarding the original message - You guys wonder why scientists don't take creation-cretins serious? You don't have a single evidence for all the nonsense you call "creationism", the only thing you can present as "evidence" are the tales from the fat ol' volume. But then you dare to say that there is no evidence for all scientific findings which doesn't fit your views of this universe which only allows things you
believe
in. And when the tons of evidence from which you say that they don't exist are slapped around your ears, you say that they are not valid, and your only explanation therefor is that you don't
believe
that something like a clear scientific evidence does exist (well, this is the point in the discussion where we are now). As if you - people who
believe
in unproven and unprovable myths and fantasies from ancient storytellers, and who always only
believe
in things instead of proving them - are in the position to comment on scientific evidences. Or look at the silly creationism - "scientists" who walk around at prehistoric sites to search fossils of dinosaurs and homo sapiens together in the same layer - they never have found anything and they never will - but the same idiots dare to say that the thousands of fossils which prove evolution are no valid evidence. Now, who do you guys think who you are, that you dare to expect that serious scientists EVER will accept your "theory" as worth to be discussed equal to evolution?
I don't want comment the rest of your message because it's the same nonsense as usual. Don't worry about responding to my previous message, I'm not any longer interested in what you have to say and I will not reply to your further comments. We will never agree on this topic and we would both waste our time if we continue this discussion.
Citoyens! Vouliez-vous une rvolution sans rvolution? -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 03:37 PM)
You're very young, aren't you Rangely? . . . (At least, you seem intellectually to be so.) Let us all just hope that as you mature, your mind opens and your certitudes, as well as your ego, find a calmer framework in which to cook. Remember, as Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "It is the province of knowledge to speak and it is the priveledge of wisdom to listen." To do so will benefit you much more than, I think, you can now envisage. I offer two more quotes, from which we may BOTH benefit:
For you
"A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring;
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again."
Alexander Pope
And for me
"A wise man will not communicate his differing thoughts to unprepared minds "
Benjamin Whichcote -
charliechan007 — 18 years ago(October 02, 2007 05:21 PM)
Oh? How can there be "more" for mathematical evidence, if, as you say, "there is an absolutely clear definition for scientific evidence"? How can there be "more" than "absolutely clear"?
I suppose it could be absolutely clear AND cogent. That would be more than absolutely clear. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 01:32 AM)
cwente2if you're looking for absolutes in science, there are none. However that does not mean that there are not certain natural laws that don't come close to a certainty. Very few learned people dispute the fact that the earth is round..or that gravity works. I am saying the evidence for evolution is in accord and in leaque with these kinds of "theories." Evolution in the minds of an overwhelming number of scientists has attained a level of certainty akin to the solar system and gravity. And I do think the "scientiic method" works very well indeed to keep intelligent minds open.
Creationists love to point to what they think is a raging controversy in evolution. There are questions indeed about some of the formerly accepted processes of evolution. (Was it slow or punctuated or some combination of the two?) There are a number of questions there. But there is little question that evolution happened and is happening now. But the creationists love to distort this to suit their own wild agenda. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 26, 2007 08:28 AM)
cnalbrecht,
" if you're looking for absolutes in science, there are none."
First of all, I'm not looking for "absolutes in science". As a matter of fact, it seems to me I'm the only one joined in this discussion who is not.
However, and since you've opened the door, I'll ask you how you can make that statement without first ascertaining the perspectives of the claimants ("intellectual" relativity)?
"Very few learned people dispute the fact that the earth is round.. or that gravity works."
Of course. But, a few years ago (historically speaking), "very few learned people" disputed the fact that the earth was flat and had no clue that "gravity worked" or, even, what the hell it is which is my point.
""Creationists " (I am not one)" love to point to what they think is a raging controversy in evolution."
Again, of course for two reasons: 1) They don't believe the theory, and, 2) there ARE raging controversies in evolution, always have been, and probably always will be since the theory is unprovable. -
LionHearted99 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 12:38 AM)
cwente2I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings. But the scientific "community" for some time now has thought of evolution as factnot theory. I'm assuming you meant theory as in a projected hypothesis rather than an outline of tenets. Creationists love to point out that evolution is "just a theory." Apparently they have no problem revealing their ignorance as to the dual nature of "theory." Probably many know this important distinctionbut use it anyway to try to foster what they must know is a hollow if not a pathetic claim.
The vast majority of scientists all agree that evolution has happened and is happening as we speak. The only controversy Revolves around some of it's procedures. It's not necessary to reinvent the wheel every day upon arisinglol. -
cwente2 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 08:15 AM)
Don't be concerned. You're not a bearer of "bad news". In this case, you're the bearer of inaccurate news.
First of all, a theory is not "a projected hypothesis". It is an hypothesis (speculation, or guess; contemplation; analysis of facts in their ideal relations to one another). Secondly, your reference to "an outline of tenets" is, simply not germain to a discussion of evolution. I don't know anyone who has supposed that. That definition applies to the general or abstract principles of ANY body of facts as distinguished from applied science or art. Eg., the THEORY of music. It's a different concept all together except the spelling of the word is the same. So . . . we're back to hypothesis. And, I'm not so sure "the scientific 'community' for some time now has thought of evolution as fact" because it, simply, isn't. Though some scientists may do so, we can take from that that there are a few scientists around who are unwilling to make some important distinctions. Maybe we should take a survey and find out who in that illustrious community, for whatever reason, is inclined to play fast & loose with "the process"?
No doubt, there are more scientists (I wouldn't necessarily include geneticists in this, as many of them have serious problems with the whole concept) who believe evolution represents the correct analysis of an amalgamation of facts. I'm inclined to agree with them. But, a majority vote will not make an hypothesis a fact under any circumstances nor, will your seemingly desperate desire that it should be thought of as such. The over-arching fact IS: The truth of evolution CANNOT be proved any more than can the truth of general relativity (Einstein, himself, said so). -
per_stefansson — 18 years ago(January 16, 2008 11:34 AM)
Oh c'mon..
http://www.interacademies.net/Object.File/Master/6/244/Evolution_press release June06.pdf