Maybe it's silly. But I've heard YE creationists make that argument many times.
ARCHIVE: Best evidence for young earth supernatural creation.
- Thread starter noguru
- Start date
Maybe it's silly. But I've heard YE creationists make that argument many times.
Perhaps bob doesn't understand what "information" is.
If we have on language (Latin) and it splits into a dozen or more languages (which is historically documented) then there is more information in the dozen languages than was in Latin.
Likewise, if two populations evolve from a single one (also documented) then the differences in these populations mean that there would be more information in the two than in the one.
If we have on language (Latin) and it splits into a dozen or more languages (which is historically documented) then there is more information in the dozen languages than was in Latin.
Likewise, if two populations evolve from a single one (also documented) then the differences in these populations mean that there would be more information in the two than in the one.
If one assumes that the information content of the genome of an individual can increase then it will follow that the same would be true of a population made up of individuals.
Thus, this underlying assumption makes it unneccessary to even worry about the "splitting" situation because of the subtle assumption of information increase in the first place.
But the key question remains regarding information: can the information content of the genome of any particular individual increase by the process of random mutations plus natural selection? If it can't then no appeal to populations can save the situation for the evolutionist.
Of course one can always use obtuse arguments like human language analogies to confuse the students.
:chuckle:
If a YEC creationist, or anyone for that matter, says that they don't use computers because they aren't mentioned in the bible is silly indeed.
How many times have you been told by a YE creationist that evolution isn't true because it's not in the Bible?
It happens a lot. Of course, they don't do it with computers, because computers don't threaten their belief system. Or rather, they don't see how computers threaten their belief system.
You're an idiot.
Hmmmm, if Nineveh is watching lets see if stipe gets an infraction for that.
Go read a book.
Evidence please.
Sounds like another evolutionary fairytale to me, although I suppose that anything is possible when it comes to what people believe. After all, some people actually believe that random mutations plus natural selection can turn bacteria level creatures into people just by waiting millions of years.
C'mon bob. A long time back, you tried it with me. Remember? I told you that there were many things that were true, that could not be found in scripture. I believe your reply was "And I've had just about enough of you."
The evidence indicates that all organisms have a common ancestor. But not bacteria. They are too evolved in their own way to be our ancestors.
Another bob strawman. Who is surprised?
Oh, and that rare phenomenon bob never sees? A quick googling...
There is no hint of evolution in the Bible.
http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net/ev_bible.html
There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c015.html
I see no reference of evolution in the bible.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070406054236AAgSebm
Evolution is not in the Bible.
http://catholic.cephasministry.com/p24.html
Many, many more like that bob. How many more do you need?
Your faulty memory. Must have been someone else.
So what do you think was?
Certainly right about that.
Certainly right about that.
I don't either.
Certainly true in my opinion.
Contex. The statements are certainly true, but that is not all there is to it, is it? If it were then one wouldn't really say that these people are the dreaded "creationists" that you hate.
Besides, you seem to think that the Bible teaches evolution, right?
Originally Posted by The Barbarian
C'mon bob. A long time back, you tried it with me. Remember? I told you that there were many things that were true, that could not be found in scripture. I believe your reply was "And I've had just about enough of you."
Nope. You.
Barbarian observes:
The evidence indicates that all organisms have a common ancestor. But not bacteria. They are too evolved in their own way to be our ancestors.
Probably the ancestor of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
(Bob denies that creationists try the "evolution isn't in the Bible" scam; Barbarian shows that it's a common thing)
Many, many more like that bob. How many more do you need?
Of course not. The argument goes, "it's not in the Bible, so it's not true." Of course, as I showed you a long time ago, there are many things that are true, that are not in the Bible.
No. It doesn't teach solid-state electronics, either. Not everything that is true, is in the Bible.
C'mon bob. A long time back, you tried it with me. Remember? I told you that there were many things that were true, that could not be found in scripture. I believe your reply was "And I've had just about enough of you."
Nope. You.
Barbarian observes:
The evidence indicates that all organisms have a common ancestor. But not bacteria. They are too evolved in their own way to be our ancestors.
Probably the ancestor of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
(Bob denies that creationists try the "evolution isn't in the Bible" scam; Barbarian shows that it's a common thing)
Many, many more like that bob. How many more do you need?
Of course not. The argument goes, "it's not in the Bible, so it's not true." Of course, as I showed you a long time ago, there are many things that are true, that are not in the Bible.
No. It doesn't teach solid-state electronics, either. Not everything that is true, is in the Bible.
That came later, actually almost 20 years later. Since so much of the Bible accounts, originally thought to have been incorrect, have now been seen as a result of new findings as being true, I decided to assume that Genesis was also true and see if there really was any significant evidence that would falsify them.
To date I haven't found any. If fact I have found good reasons to believe that they are correct as well. The breakthrough for me was to realize that the Big Bang enthusiasts may have been partially correct that the universe had undergone a rapid inflationary period in the past. But if their assumed rate of expansion had continued for one more picosecond (actually far less), the universe would have reached its present size - and then stopped. This solves the starlight travel time enigma and may also solve the radioactive decay problem as well, meaning that the dating of rocks which supposedly establishes long ages may be fatally flawed.
One problem that evolutionists have is that they refuse to consider any possibility than evolution and cannot see that much of the evidence they believe supports their theory also supports the creation theory as well. But in order to bolster their own theory they sometimes take the least credible creationist ideas (there is a wide spectrum of them of course) and use those as "straw men".
One example is the obviously incorrect idea of some past (and perhaps even some present) preachers that God created all lifeforms as perfect, and hence nothing has changed since creation week. Ernst Mayr uses this "straw man" in his otherwise excellent survey of What Evolution Is.
Others do this to lesser extent regarding other topics within evolution. But thetruth is now gradually emerging with experimental biological findings (the valid wing of the field).
One problem that geologists have is that they refuse to consider any possibility that the Earth is flat.
For the same reasons.
Wouldn't it be better to clean up your act, than to complain about people pointing out the flaws in it?
Um, if people really assert an idea, how is it a strawman to point out that they do it?
Spitty slurpy and the moon walk defy gravity!
:chuckle:
I know this is just more fuel to the fire that is the "kmoney, what gives" thread but I had to post it.
:chuckle:
I know this is just more fuel to the fire that is the "kmoney, what gives" thread but I had to post it.
Andre1983
New member
Creationism is no scientific theory...
It's not even scientific...
Your understanding of the expansion of the universe is faulty.
1) Creation...
He created earth before the sun, and plants before that, too.
The temperature of earth without a sun is sub-zero.
Creation is logically impossible, and thus we can't disprove it either since it doesn't follow science or logic.
2) Evolution and science...
You fail, again and again, to realize that most american scientists are christians who have turned away from their faith due to it contradicting with science -- religion contradicts the one element they know to be true.
3) You claim that there are creationist ideas that are valid...
What are they?
Evoken
New member
Andre1983
New member
Something based on evidence, where the evidence in fact is evidence and not some random line from some book perhaps supporting the hypothesis, and perhaps not...
Well...
I'll rephrase...
Scientific, in the context of evidence and theories, implies that we have set up a hypothesis which is falsifiable: Only through beeing falsifiable can something truly be found to be scientific; through comparison to evidence where evidence *can* ruin the hypothesis -- if the hypothesis is wrong.
If it's not falsifiable then it's not scientific.
If you are to disprove that I am a witch, someone had better tell you what beeing a witch implies and how to accurately falsify or confirm it.
Without any method of falsifying me beeing a witch, there is no way you can disprove it, and I can make the wildest claims -- and there is not a ******* thing anyone can do about it except to demand evidence, at which point I'd simply "take a Jesus" and say: The evidence is the stars and the complexity of the eye.
What the heck is that for evidence? It's nothing of the sort -- it's not evidence, but it's what the bible relies on, and the Young Earth Creationism is founded on this logical fallacy that nonesense can make sense and be used as scientific evidence wherever we like.
Young Earth Creationism is based on a hypothesis with invalid elements from the start: The world is 6000 years old because a book sais so.
A more correct hypothesis- on gravity -would be "things always fall so something is pushing them down". It is not correct, but it has a falsifiable element to it: Something we wish to test.
In the YEC hypothesis 6000 years was what we wanted to test, though the attempt at evidence was the bible -- which makes it unfalcifiable seeing they ultimately rely on goddidit -- which has to be the most unscientific evidence in existance. (Godsaisso -- so don't argue.)
In addition they search for supporting evidence all the while ignoring the evidence that does not support their idea.
Newsflash: Science does not throw away evidence -- contradicting evidence is used to form a new hypothesis which agrees with the contradicting evidence and all compiled evidence to date.
If it cannot be done, it is best to beging from scratch and perhaps rephrase the problem.
If it cannot be falsified it cannot be scientific.
Back to gravity again:
We know that we aren't pushed down, due to the moon having gravity.
The tides are also an indication of there beeing gravity at work from the sun and moon.
If it cannot be determined to be true or false, it is not scientific.
YEC assumes that a god created the earth: They start at the conclusion and try to compile a heap of evidence under it -- like building a tower from the top and down, with the top piece beeing held by a crane, with people glueing pieces of rock to it, claiming superiority over the scientists due to their tower beeing the tallest.
Science always start with a question and build a tower upwards from the ground and up.
Much more stable.
Had YEC been scientific, it would have started with the question:
Why is life as it is?
At the point of actually phrasing a problem in the correct way, any connection to god is hard to find.
The scientific answer to the question would be the theory known as "evolution", simply because there's no contradicting evidence, and because no scientific evidence leads elsewhere.
No matter how open-minded we start out we arrive at the exact same conclusion after reading through the compiled evidence.
Alas YEC does not start out with a problem -- It starts with the assumption "goddidit" and revolve around "how goddiddit".
Had it been a theory, there would be no conclusive evidence against it seeing that the original hypothesis and dozens after it would have to be changed due to conflicting evidence, before it could have reached the status of theory: at which point it wouldn't have had anything to do with the bible or young earth hypothesis anymore, seeing that none of them describe the world in an accurate way, and since there is counterevidence against any positive attempt at evidence one can make in favor of any YEC hypothesises.
Bah...
This post is a farce due to a severe lack of sleep the past week.
But I hope I made the point clear:
Scientific means that it can be proved if it is true and disproved if it is false.
It implies that all evidence will be taken into account and that all falsifiable and conclusive evidence is for it, or else it is not scientific due to the theory not beeing in line with the actual evidence.
If it cannot be disproved or proved it is not scientific, it is a unfounded assumption.
We get unfounded assumptions if we use unfounded assumptions for evidence.
Edit:
Really -- Science is all about asking why, why, why and only accepting falsifiable evidence -- untill you end up with the electrons swarming in an electron cloud around the core of the atoms, which again is built up by quarks -- at which point you know you're likely to be right.
Evolution has been documented down to molecular level, thus also down to the atom level...
That's a lot of whys that have been answered.
Edit 2:
Using wicked quasi-sensual modern art manga-girls for avatars should be illegal -- It's almost worse than pretty women using their own pictures as avatars.
(Which again almost is worse than ugly men using their own pictures as avatars).
It makes disagreeing with people an emotional affair :/
Evoken
New member
Thanks or your post, it was a bit overdone in my opinion, seems you got carried away. The quote below suffices...
On those grounds, creationism is scientific. It makes predictions, it sets up hypotheses which are falsifiable. If creationism is true, we expect to find:
- Evidence that the earth is young.
- Evidence that there was a global flood.
- Evidence that macroevolution did not occur and species appear fully formed in the fossil record.
- etc, etc.
So, creationism is as falsifiable as any scientific theory can be. Whether or not the evidence has already falsified it, is another thing. It also remains scientific even if the evidence has already falsified it.
Your characterization of creationism as unscientific is inaccurate.
Evo
On those grounds, creationism is scientific. It makes predictions, it sets up hypotheses which are falsifiable. If creationism is true, we expect to find:
- Evidence that the earth is young.
- Evidence that there was a global flood.
- Evidence that macroevolution did not occur and species appear fully formed in the fossil record.
- etc, etc.
So, creationism is as falsifiable as any scientific theory can be. Whether or not the evidence has already falsified it, is another thing. It also remains scientific even if the evidence has already falsified it.
Your characterization of creationism as unscientific is inaccurate.
Evo