PDA

View Full Version : Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?



Greg Jennings
April 21st, 2016, 04:23 AM
Let me know with a link, please.

If you feel inclined to read about this, I have provided some links below


https://www.aclu.org/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design


http://ncse.com/media/voices/science


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Stripe
April 21st, 2016, 09:07 AM
Darwinists love arguments like this. The think that the number of people who believe something supports the truth of an idea.

Ben Masada
April 21st, 2016, 09:44 AM
Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?
I do and I don't care if the scientists do or not. No that every time one is created, was created by God; but because as a result of the beginning of creation. HaShem created the beginning and now all happens as a result of that creative act of His. Today we have the help of all parents with the creation process but the Lord created the beginning. For instance, let's take yourself as an evidence. If you did not create yourself which is logically impossible, it is only obvious that you must have been created by someone else that preceded you. Your parents, their parents and so back all the way into the past till the very beginning. That's how I know that Creationism is valid. Why don't you?

SonOfCaleb
April 21st, 2016, 01:33 PM
Let me know with a link, please.

If you feel inclined to read about this, I have provided some links below


https://www.aclu.org/what-scientific-community-says-about-evolution-and-intelligent-design


http://ncse.com/media/voices/science


http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

Even if one did what would it prove? Creationism and Science are essentially diametrically opposed no? Certainly from a secular point of view they are.

genuineoriginal
April 22nd, 2016, 02:25 PM
Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?
There is a reason scientific organizations think creationism is invalid.

_____
Confirmation bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias), also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.

Jose Fly
April 22nd, 2016, 04:04 PM
Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?

Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". The amusing part is in watching creationists trying to explain why that is so. :chuckle:

patrick jane
April 22nd, 2016, 04:08 PM
Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". The amusing part is in watching creationists trying to explain why that is so. :chuckle:
Kent Hovind's scientific organization supports creationsism

genuineoriginal
April 22nd, 2016, 04:27 PM
Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". The amusing part is in watching creationists trying to explain why that is so. :chuckle:
Many people know why it is so.

_____
Brainwashed (http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795) is the explosive exposť of the leftist agenda at work in today's colleges, revealed by firebrand Ben Shapiro, a recent UCLA gratudate, syndicated columnist, and one of today's most exciting new conservative voices, who's been on the front lines of the battle for America's young minds. This book proves once and for all that so-called higher education continues to sink lower and lower into the depths of liberal madness as close-minded professors turn their students into socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and sex-crazed narcissists

Jose Fly
April 22nd, 2016, 04:51 PM
Kent Hovind's scientific organization...

Oh my goodness.....are you serious? Kent Hovind? :rotfl:

Jose Fly
April 22nd, 2016, 04:52 PM
Many people know why it is so.

_____
Brainwashed (http://www.amazon.com/Brainwashed-Universities-Indoctrinate-Americas-Youth/dp/1595559795) is the explosive exposť of the leftist agenda at work in today's colleges, revealed by firebrand Ben Shapiro, a recent UCLA gratudate, syndicated columnist, and one of today's most exciting new conservative voices, who's been on the front lines of the battle for America's young minds. This book proves once and for all that so-called higher education continues to sink lower and lower into the depths of liberal madness as close-minded professors turn their students into socialists, atheists, race-baiters, and sex-crazed narcissists

Like I said....highly amusing. :chuckle:

Nick M
April 22nd, 2016, 05:51 PM
Does even one democrat oppose socialism? Therefore, socialism will bring prosperity.

6days
April 23rd, 2016, 10:39 PM
Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". {Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid}
Evolutionists know lots of facts.... which aren't true. The Korean Association of Creation Research has over 500 PhD scientists who are members. They think Biblical creation is the best explanation of the evidence.

Stripe
April 23rd, 2016, 11:38 PM
Can anyone name a scientific organization that endorses Darwinism?

Jose Fly
April 24th, 2016, 12:39 PM
The Korean Association of Creation Research has over 500 PhD scientists who are members. They think Biblical creation is the best explanation of the evidence.

Why is it when I point out the widespread and near universal support of evolutionary theory among the world's scientific organizations, you cry "appeal to popularity", but when you say the above it's just fine?

Stripe
April 24th, 2016, 01:00 PM
Why is it when I point out the widespread and near universal support of evolutionary theory among the world's scientific organizations, you cry "appeal to popularity", but when you say the above it's just fine?

Because you use popularity as if it is evidence, whereas 6 was asked to provide a creationist organization.

Simple, huh?

6days
April 24th, 2016, 07:42 PM
Because you use popularity as if it is evidence, whereas 6 was asked to provide a creationist organization.

Simple, huh?:)
Ha..... funny, isn't it?
They ask a question, but develop amnesia when the question is answered. They suddenly think the goalposts are somewhere different.

Stripe
April 25th, 2016, 04:28 AM
:)
Ha..... funny, isn't it?
They ask a question, but develop amnesia when the question is answered. They suddenly think the goalposts are somewhere different.

One of these days we'll get a rational discussion out of one of them.

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 11:27 AM
One of these days we'll get a rational discussion out of one of them.

That is doubtful.
Evolutionists believe being able to rationalize (of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers) is the same as being rational (having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense).

Believing in Evolution is only made possible by throwing away sound judgment and good sense.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 11:32 AM
As I previously described my conversation with other biologists...


See, we all know how things are in the world of science. Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. Every single biotech firm operates under the paradigm of evolutionary theory. Every single scientific organization that has voiced their opinion on the issue has unequivocally stated that evolution is reality. Every single biological journal publishes multiple papers per year expanding our understanding of how evolution works, how it proceeded in the past, and uses that information to add to our scientific knowledge. And when you get into "billions of years" it's just as clear. IOW, in the earth and life sciences, evolution and "billions of years" are an essential part of the entire framework and have been for a very long time.

At the same time, not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. Creationism hasn't accomplished or even contributed to anything science in well over a century. From a scientific standpoint, creationism is 100% irrelevant and has been for a very long time.

So the state of the issue from a scientific perspective couldn't be any more clear, right? There is no debate, there is no controversy, there really isn't even anything to discuss.

Yet if you come into forums like the one I showed you, you encounter all sorts of Christians who will tell you...apparently with a straight face and in all seriousness (if you could see them)...that the exact opposite is true. Evolution is failed and/or disproven, and has not only failed to contribute anything to science in any way at all, it has actually "hindered science". Creationism is the superior explanation, has produced all sorts of wonderful contributions to modern science, and is without any doubt perfectly in line with all the evidence.

Stripe
April 25th, 2016, 11:55 AM
That is doubtful.
Evolutionists believe being able to rationalize (of, relating to, or constituting reasoning powers) is the same as being rational (having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense).

Believing in Evolution is only made possible by throwing away sound judgment and good sense.
You might be right.

They are utterly enamored with how popular their religion is.

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 12:20 PM
As I previously described my conversation with other biologists...


. . . Every single accredited university that has a science program teaches evolution and that the universe is billions of years old. . . . not one accredited university, scientific organization, biotech firm, scientific journal, or other productive scientific endeavor incorporates or utilizes creationism or the idea that everything is less than 10,000 years old in any way, shape or form. . . .
You seem to be stating that a scientific organization is required to be based on metaphysical naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism) and not merely methodological naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) in order to be accredited.

Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the most influential scientist of all time, is quoted as saying, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 12:28 PM
You seem to be stating that a scientific organization is required to be based on metaphysical naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism) and not merely methodological naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) in order to be accredited.

Nope, never said anything like that at all.


Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the most influential scientist of all time, is quoted as saying, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

He was also quite convinced that alchemy was possible and was often referred to as an apostate (since he rejected the notion of the Trinity). What's your point?

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 12:54 PM
Nope, never said anything like that at all.
Well, you should have, then you would not look so much like a complete idiot.


He was also quite convinced that alchemy was possible and was often referred to as an apostate (since he rejected the notion of the Trinity). What's your point?
My point is that many Christians have no problem with methodological naturalism as a means to explore the laws that God established for the universe He created.
Your insinuation that only metaphysical naturalism can be acceptable in science shows that you are a merely a troll, and not very bright at that.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 01:15 PM
Your insinuation that only metaphysical naturalism can be acceptable in science...

Except for the fact that I never said, insinuated, or even hinted at that in any way, shape, or form. :rolleyes:

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 01:18 PM
Except for the fact that I never said, insinuated, or even hinted at that in any way, shape, or form. :rolleyes:
You may not have said, "insinuated," but you did insinuate it, nevertheless.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 01:31 PM
You may not have said, "insinuated," but you did insinuate it, nevertheless.

Can you pick the specific part of my post that insinuates that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 02:11 PM
Can you pick the specific part of my post that insinuates that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

It is implied in the very title of this thread.
"Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?"

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 02:21 PM
It is implied in the very title of this thread.
"Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?"

Pay better attention...I didn't write the OP. You said that I made the insinuation, so you need to show where I did that.

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 02:34 PM
Pay better attention...I didn't write the OP. You said that I made the insinuation, so you need to show where I did that.
That is weird, I thought you were merely a sock puppet for Greg Jennings when he wants to do heavy duty trolling.

Oh well.

You may not have written the OP, but you did write this:

Well, everyone here knows the answer is "no". The amusing part is in watching creationists trying to explain why that is so. :chuckle:

You obviously are in agreement with the insinuation from the OP.

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 02:48 PM
That is weird, I thought you were merely a sock puppet for Greg Jennings when he wants to do heavy duty trolling.

Oh well.

Your error is noted.


You obviously are in agreement with the insinuation from the OP.

I agreed with exactly what I discussed, i.e., that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid. How exactly does that insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

PureX
April 25th, 2016, 03:01 PM
Does even one scientific organization think creationism is valid?Scientific organizations don't generally think about creationism one way or another.

The few scientists and scientific institutions that have considered the question, seriously, have rejected it. The material evidence simply does not support the theory.

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 04:50 PM
Scientific organizations don't generally think about creationism one way or another.

The few scientists and scientific institutions that have considered the question, seriously, have rejected it. The material evidence simply does not support the theory.
The interpretation of the available evidence supports Creationism, the misinterpretation of the same evidence supports a general theory of evolution (but none of the specific ones).

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 04:52 PM
I agreed with exactly what I discussed, i.e., that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid. How exactly does that insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?
Are you claiming that you think Creationism is a valid belief, so long as scientists stick to methodological naturalism in their work?

Jose Fly
April 25th, 2016, 05:28 PM
Are you claiming that you think Creationism is a valid belief, so long as scientists stick to methodological naturalism in their work?
No. Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism.

Now again, how does me saying that there isn't a single scientific organization that views creationism as scientifically valid insinuate that I think only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science?

genuineoriginal
April 25th, 2016, 05:33 PM
No. Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism.
Very well.

We have now moved past any insinuation on your part that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science to an explicit statement by you.

:e4e:

PureX
April 26th, 2016, 07:41 AM
The interpretation of the available evidence supports Creationism, the misinterpretation of the same evidence supports a general theory of evolution (but none of the specific ones).No scientific organization interprets the data religiously. So no scientific organization has ever concluded that the data supports creationism. And the fact that you have to stoop to dishonest misrepresentations like this only serves as evidence of the moral bankruptcy that's fueling belief in literal creationism.

Jose Fly
April 26th, 2016, 09:39 AM
Very well.

We have now moved past any insinuation on your part that only metaphysical naturalism is acceptable in science to an explicit statement by you.

????????? So you don't even know that metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are different things?

I guess that explains a lot.

genuineoriginal
April 26th, 2016, 11:58 AM
????????? So you don't even know that metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism are different things?
I am the one that brought up the difference in this thread, so of course I know the difference.

I guess that explains a lot.
Your lack of ability to comprehend basic concepts does explain a lot.

Let me try to explain what you did.

You stated, "Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism."

This is a false statement on your part, since belief in the creation does not affect "the way they practice science".
Invoking the supernatural violates metaphysical naturalism, since metaphysical naturalism "is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."

Your statement says that without belief in metaphysical naturalism scientists are unable to practice methodological naturalism.

Jose Fly
April 26th, 2016, 12:34 PM
I am the one that brought up the difference in this thread, so of course I know the difference.

Then I have greatly overestimated you.


Let me try to explain what you did.

You stated, "Creationism, by invoking the supernatural, violates methodological naturalism."

This is a false statement on your part, since belief in the creation does not affect "the way they practice science".

Yes it does. Once you allow supernatural explanations in, science becomes an "anything goes" enterprise.


Invoking the supernatural violates metaphysical naturalism, since metaphysical naturalism "is a worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."

*sigh*

Here, educate yourself....

Methodological Naturalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Methodological_naturalism) : Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what nature is. It is the idea that all scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events.


Your statement says that without belief in metaphysical naturalism scientists are unable to practice methodological naturalism.

Nope. A person can believe whatever they want regarding God and still practice methodological naturalism (science). That's why people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller can be both top-notch scientists as well as practicing Christians. However, were they to try and assert "God did that" as an explanation for something in their scientific work, they would be violating methodological naturalism (see above), yet would remain metaphysical supernaturalists.

genuineoriginal
April 26th, 2016, 12:45 PM
A person can believe whatever they want regarding God and still practice methodological naturalism (science). That's why people like Francis Collins and Ken Miller can be both top-notch scientists as well as practicing Christians. However, were they to try and assert "God did that" as an explanation for something in their scientific work, they would be violating methodological naturalism (see above), yet would remain metaphysical supernaturalists.
Yes.

When did you change your mind and decide to accept this?

Jose Fly
April 26th, 2016, 12:58 PM
Oh brother.....:rolleyes:

Thanks for your time.

Arthur Brain
April 26th, 2016, 04:41 PM
Yes.

When did you change your mind and decide to accept this?

Dude, you really need to apply the first line of your sig to yourself.

:doh:

6days
April 26th, 2016, 09:28 PM
The interpretation of the available evidence supports Creationism, the misinterpretation of the same evidence supports a general theory of evolution (but none of the specific ones).
Best post on this thread.