The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Perfection]

Well, I think it's time with the closing of the to stir the old pot again!
Let's first put down links to the first few:
Part one
Part two: The Empiricists Strike Back!
Part three: The Return of the KOing!

This thread will be started start the new thread for the following reasons:
1. So Evolutionists get the first word
2. To enlighten the masses to the evidence for evolution including: evolutionists unaware of some of the fascinating evidence, those in the middle who need to see the light, creationists to combat the notion that evolution has no evidence and that creationism is scientific.
3. So I can set up some fair ground rules to make the thread more fun.
4. Sadistic Pleasure
5, The old thread was (well, will be) closed

The Rules:
1. No swamping the thread with articles. If you feel an article would be appropriate you may post it, but please only one per response. Also do not just post some random article, please use it as a means to augment your arguement, not as your arguement.
2. No yelling at someone to read a book. You want to post an exerpt from a book as part of your arguement, be my guest. However, yelling at someone to read a book is not going help.
3. We are arguing scientific credibility, therefore religious texts are not by fiat correct. If you want to argue religious philosophy go to this thread. Please stay on topic
4. All standard forum rules apply, especially the no flaming, trolling and spamming rules. While one may consider their opposition to be incorrect let's not assert that they are not intelligent.

Here's my claims:
1. Evolution is a valid scientific claim
2. Creationism is not a valid scientific claim
Note: When I refer to creationism I'm refering to god creating life directly (not through evolution), this includes such permutations as intelligent design theory, gap creationism as well as literal 7-day creationism. I am not refering to evolutionary creationism.

As always I'll start wtih a little topic starter:
This thread I'll give an additional challange to the creationists. I would like to first hear thier accounting of living things came to be what they are now. I would then like them to present some of thier evidence indicating that. I'd like to see a more through investigation of creationism then general nitpick of evolution, abiogenesis, and various theories that call for an "Old Earth".

 

[El_Machinae]

I would like to know if discrediting the Flood is sufficient to discredit Creationism?

Or can the Flood be assumed to not have happened when a Creationist defends Creationism?

 

[Che Guava]

I wouldn't think that the floor would be an integral part of creationism, if we are talking about creationism/ID in the non-denominational sense of the word.

 

[Perfection]

I would like to know if discrediting the Flood is sufficient to discredit Creationism?

Or can the Flood be assumed to not have happened when a Creationist defends Creationism?

Well, Creationism is a suite of ideas. So showing that the flood couldn't happen may not discredit certain thoughts on it. It's generally difficult to debunk Creationism as a whole given the fact that it's not a coherant idea rather a bunch of interpretations of a vague storyline.

 

[Che Guava]

It's generally difficult to debunk Creationism as a whole given the fact that it's not a coherant idea rather a bunch of interpretations of a vague storyline.

That's my favourite part of creationism: instead of being a straighforward theory, it just seems to seep into whatever areas evolutionists can't cover yet. In spite of the fact many creationists seem to demand rigid proofs from evolutionists, any failure of evolutionists to demonstrate a point is seen as supporting creationism, as if biblical stories are some sort of a priori assumption we can make lacking any other evidence...

 

[El_Machinae]

How will this thread respond if a Creationist posits that the laws of physics have changed during human history, but that it's not apparent to our modern science?

 

[Perfection]

How will this thread respond if a Creationist posits that the laws of physics have changed during human history, but that it's not apparent to our modern science?

I'd then declare victory on claim #2

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought the laws of physics are sometimes theorised to have changed in the opening rounds of the Big Bang. Are these not valid scientific theories either?

 

[Che Guava]

How will this thread respond if a Creationist posits that the laws of physics have changed during human history, but that it's not apparent to our modern science?

Unless they can prove that the laws of physics have changed, then the only logical assumption we can make is that they have not changed.

I mean, I can tell you that I'm hitting your foreheard using the powers of my mind right now, but it's just so soft that you can't feel it. Does that prove that I have superhuman powers?

 

[Perfection]

I thought the laws of physics are sometimes theorised to have changed in the opening rounds of the Big Bang. Are these not valid scientific theories either?

No, for two reasons:
1. The laws of physics actually remain the same in these theories it's just that certain laws thought of now to be universal are actually special cases of a more general law.
2. These are posited to be apparent by modern science.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

So who won round 3?

Anyways, I have this thread for anyone who wants to talk about religious issues related to evolution and Creationism. Perf's thread is supposed to be about science.

 

[brennan]

what do you mean who won round 3? The evolutionists always win.

BTW, the nutters who relate the flood to creationism are the Young Earth Creationists (YECs) - they are the fundamentalists who believe that the Earth was made in 6 literal days about 6000 years ago, and that no-one died (and that no creatures were predators) until Adam and Eve got booted out of the garden of Eden.

edit: but even they are not as bad as the Geocentrists (yep, that's right - there are some people who still believe that everything revolves around the earth 'cos it says so in the bible)

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

what do you mean who won round 3? The evolutionists always win.

I woukd agree, except that they are still considering teaching ID in schools in some places . . .

 

[brennan]

Yeah, the same dreamlands where they say that evolution is 'on the run' and that soon the whole world will be learning ID. Yeah rrrright.

 

[The Last Conformist]

That's my favourite part of creationism: instead of being a straighforward theory, it just seems to seep into whatever areas evolutionists can't cover yet. In spite of the fact many creationists seem to demand rigid proofs from evolutionists, any failure of evolutionists to demonstrate a point is seen as supporting creationism, as if biblical stories are some sort of a priori assumption we can make lacking any other evidence...

As I was saying in the old thread, creationists like to pretend the biblical account (if we can call the disjointed stories and story-fragments of Genesis "an account") is the null hypothesis. This alone disqualifies creationism from being science, let alone valid science.

 

[emzie]

I would like to state that I agree with Perfection completely on this topic.

I would ask this: why does the scientific community insist on showing the world the truth? Is it no worse to try and disprove another's faith as they to try and prove theirs to you? Religious people are still people, not just sheep who need to learn the world correctly

In other words: What is the truth to you and I (evolution, physics, ect) is just as invalid to some as the Bible is to us. And in turn, the Bible is just as valid to some as science is to us. Our truth is what we choose to believe and can never be 'proven.' Forgetting this dehumanizes the other's beliefs, something many put a lot of stock into. I would not wish to rip away another's foundations as I would not wish this to occur to me.

It's this arrogance on both parties that polarizes us on the subject.

 

[Souron]

I would like to state that I agree with Perfection completely on this topic.

I would ask this: why does the scientific community insist on showing the world the truth? Is it no worse to try and disprove another's faith as they to try and prove theirs to you? Religious people are still people, not just sheep who need to learn the world correctly

In other words: What is the truth to you and I (evolution, physics, ect) is just as invalid to some as the Bible is to us. And in turn, the Bible is just as valid to some as science is to us. Our truth is what we choose to believe and can never be 'proven.' Forgetting this dehumanizes the other's beliefs, something many put a lot of stock into. I would not wish to rip away another's foundations as I would not wish this to occur to me.

It's this arrogance on both parties that polarizes us on the subject.

That's why this thread is about what is a valid scientific theory, not about what is actually true. Although it is often mentioned that the scientific meathod is the most logical aproach to determining the truth.

On an unrelated note:
Why leave out evolutionairy creationism. As far as I'm conserned that is also not a valid scientific theory. It's closer to a philisophy.

 

[emzie]

That's why this thread is about what is a valid scientific theory, not about what is actually true. Although it is often mentioned that the scientific meathod is the most logical aproach to determining the truth.

But the underlying text is (as stated by part 4 in Perfection's reasoning for a new thread) "lol stupid creationists. lol."

On an unrelated note:
Why leave out evolutionairy creationism. As far as I'm conserned that is also not a valid scientific theory. It's closer to a philisophy.

I would agree and disagree. The non existance of God is not a scientific fact (nor is the existance of God). With that prospective, it could easily be theory rather than philopshy.

The truth is what we make of facts, not the facts themselves.

 

[Babbler]

I would ask this: why does the scientific community insist on showing the world the truth? Is it no worse to try and disprove another's faith as they to try and prove theirs to you? Religious people are still people, not just sheep who need to learn the world correctly

The scientific community shows the world the truth because that it's job.

In other words: What is the truth to you and I (evolution, physics, ect) is just as invalid to some as the Bible is to us. And in turn, the Bible is just as valid to some as science is to us. Our truth is what we choose to believe and can never be 'proven.' Forgetting this dehumanizes the other's beliefs, something many put a lot of stock into. I would not wish to rip away another's foundations as I would not wish this to occur to me.

No, it's not. The evolution/creationism debate is about the origins of the universe, the Earth and humankind; it is a purely factual matter. Just because you believe one verson, doesn't make it so.

It's this arrogance on both parties that polarizes us on the subject.

The creationist are definitely the more arrogant party here. They determined the answer, fit the evidence to confirm it and force it on everybody else.

 

[nihilistic]

I would agree and disagree.

Because you don't quite know what you are talking about.

The non existance of God is not a scientific fact (nor is the existance of God).

Exactly. Which is why your next sentence is completely wrong:

With that prospective, it could easily be theory rather than philopshy.

Since the addition of 'god' to any scientific theory doesn't change the predictions of said theory (to date every theory which included a god with corporeal influence has since been disproved), god(s) are irrelevant in terms of science. Thus, it can at most be a philosophy.

The truth is what we make of facts, not the facts themselves.

Only up to a point. In science, what may be regarded as 'truth' is but an interpretation of facts, and additional facts do accumulate over time, sometimes neccesitating the interpretation to change. Additionally, even if you assume a period of time where the set of 'facts that we know of' remains constant, many interpretations can fit all the facts. In the end the 'facts' tend to outlive the 'truths'.