Evidence for creationism, Part 2.

[kiwitt]

Protip 2: Cherry-picking some facts as "accurate" because they support your beliefs, and ignoring other facts that contradict your preconceived beliefs is not science.

Also called confirmation bias

"It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human understanding to be more moved and excited by affirmatives than by negatives." --Francis Bacon

 

[magicfan101]

This assumes no new Comets form, which is untrue.
Try again.

the big bang postulates that all comets are remnants of early solar sytem formations but they should all be gone by now.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/comet_worldbook.html
look how biased Nasa is with their information they dont tell the reader that an oort cloud has never been observed. Ive taken astronomy while in college and they never even mentioned that there was no observational evidence for an an oort cloud.

 

[sanabas]

You what? Citation please.

He gets all this supposed science from popular creationist sites, so easy to find links for this one, too.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/comets.asp
http://creation.com/halleys-cometbeacon-of-creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

 

[trader/warrior]

So you have evidence we do not know why we have so many comets (and ask any scientists and he will tell you the oort cloud is a hypothesis), but do you have evidence they were created by god? That is after all what this thread is about.

Thats what you don't seem to get about science; there are a lot of things we don't know yet. But we don't go saying 'god did it' untill we have evidence of that also.

Comets could be created by any number of scenarios, why is your 'created by magic' scenario the most likely?

 

[Evil_Abe]

Question: Why are all noncreationists so hostile towards YECers? Why can't your arguments be presented without all the hate?

Fact: The reason creationists spend most of their time attempting to disprove evolutions is 1: creationism can't be proved or disproved, it's simply a belief based off of observation or blind faith, take your pick and 2: If evolution is disproved then what else is left besides creation? Unless all life as we know it sprang out of nowhere. Disproving evolution is essentially proving some type of intelligent design.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

i am absolutely confident that the theory of evolution were taught "correctly" with all its warts most students reject it as a possible explanation for origin of life on the planet.

Why?

I know all about every single thing that you view as a problem with the ToE, nothing has bigger gaps in its thinking than the magical man sneezing theory.

No one I've met in any science class viewed the ToE with any real degree of skepticism. At best, they simply consider it nearly finished/not quite complete, so there's still work to be done to push it from 95% known to 100% known.

but i would also accept creationism being taught along with evolution in public schools.the students should decide for themselves with scientific model best fits the evidence.

Creationism has zero evidence. That's why this thread has failed to produce any.

Only religious wackadoos favor creationism. All across the world in the non-Biblically brainwashed nations, where they teach about science and aren't predisposed from birth due to their parents ingraining religion into their brains to believe in the Bible myth, people accept the scientific explanation.

It's a fantasy to think that anyone without bias would favor creationism. There's nothing there which supports it.

 

[Haseri]

Fact: The reason creationists spend most of their time attempting to disprove evolutions is 1: creationism can't be proved or disproved,

Meaning it's not science.

it's simply a belief based off of observation or blind faith, take your pick and

Belief is blind faith. Science is all about observation. If something is observed, it is no longe rneeded to be believed in.

2: If evolution is disproved then what else is left besides creation? Unless all life as we know it sprang out of nowhere. Disproving evolution is essentially proving some type of intelligent design.

No, disproving evolution won't mean creation suddenly becomes part of the scientific consensus. It merely means that a new theory will have to be devised, based on this startling new piece of evidence that contradicts beyond doubt 150 years of other evidence.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

Question: Why are all noncreationists so hostile towards YECers? Why can't your arguments be presented without all the hate?

Fact: The reason creationists spend most of their time attempting to disprove evolutions is 1: creationism can't be proved or disproved, it's simply a belief based off of observation or blind faith, take your pick and 2: If evolution is disproved then what else is left besides creation? Unless all life as we know it sprang out of nowhere. Disproving evolution is essentially proving some type of intelligent design.

Personally I find creationists far too biased to reason with.

Because they think they have to let go of God, something they will refuse to do, in order to accept a non-magic explanation of the universe, they will be inherently hostile to all data and all reasoning which contradicts their world view.

They're taking it personally, when science has nothing to do with their "beliefs".

Add a God before everything science says, and God becomes the greatest physicist ever. There's nothing in science that is hostile to God.

What science is hostile to is ignorance and lack of explanation. Since everything "God" supposedly did didn't require any magic whatsoever, we are finding out by examining the universe, it's time to stop pretending every explanation out there is "God did it".

"God did it" is a world of ignorance that kills people. By simply sitting on your butt and saying God did everything, case closed, there is no intellectual curiosity about the world and how it works. Even if you accept that God did it, why not ask how?

Science is about how, not who. I don't give a flying carp if God really did do it, I want to know how it works. A YEC'er believes in YEC while trying to get everyone else to stop practicing science, trying to force religion on everyone else, trying to teach magic as science when they don't have a flipping clue how the magic even works. How can you possibly teach magic as science?

They wouldn't like it if I tried to force Buddism down their throat. And they don't HAVE to believe in science, they can safely ignore it and wait for the Hale-Bopp comet to take them away if they want.

 

[magicfan101]

Why?

Only religious wackadoos favor creationism. All across the world in the non-Biblically brainwashed nations, where they teach about science and aren't predisposed from birth due to their parents ingraining religion into their brains to believe in the Bible myth, people accept the scientific explanation.

It's a fantasy to think that anyone without bias would favor creationism. There's nothing there which supports it.

which country are you referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christians_in_the_world.png

 

[trader/warrior]

Question: Why are all noncreationists so hostile towards YECers? Why can't your arguments be presented without all the hate?

Sorry.

Fact: The reason creationists spend most of their time attempting to disprove evolutions is 1: creationism can't be proved or disproved, it's simply a belief based off of observation or blind faith, take your pick and

If creationism is true it should be possible to build a coherent scientific theory taking all the evidence into account. At least for the young universe part, maybe not so much the designer part.

2: If evolution is disproved then what else is left besides creation? Unless all life as we know it sprang out of nowhere. Disproving evolution is essentially proving some type of intelligent design.

At the base of it is the fallacy that to create intelligence you need intelligence. Where did the intelligent designer come from and is there evidence for it's existence?

and what would be left if evolution was disproved would be simply the answer "We don't know" untill a new theory that takes all the evidence into account can be made.

 

[Evil_Abe]

Meaning it's not science.

Agreed.

Belief is blind faith. Science is all about observation. If something is observed, it is no longe rneeded to be believed in.

If you have partial evidence, or an educated guess about something, but you're still absolutely sure its the truth, then its a belief. Its not necessarily blind faith, but its not a proven fact either.

No, disproving evolution won't mean creation suddenly becomes part of the scientific consensus. It merely means that a new theory will have to be devised, based on this startling new piece of evidence that contradicts beyond doubt 150 years of other evidence.

Any ideas what this new theory might entail? How could life possibly have originated in its known form if evolution AND creationism aren't true?

 

[magicfan101]

Sorry.

At the base of it is the fallacy that to create intelligence you need intelligence. Where did the intelligent designer come from and is there evidence for it's existence?

and what would be left if evolution was disproved would be simply the answer "We don't know" untill a new theory that takes all the evidence into account can be made.

how about this. what evidence would you expect to see. if the bibcal god created the world and i will try to find research on that evidence for you to see. because everything i present is either not good enough,made by "fake" scientists, or Im twisting the facts.

 

[Haseri]

Any ideas what this new theory might entail? How could life possibly have originated in its known form if evolution AND creationism aren't true?

That would depend entirely on what this very unlikely piece of evidence is.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

which country are you referring to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Christians_in_the_world.png

Take your pick. Even in other Christian majority countries, acceptance of the theory of evolution is not even a controversial issue.

The United States is particularly vehemently opposed to real science because it is still debating magic as if it were real science.

Look at those countries, many of them are Christian. And yet, most accept the theory of evolution and they don't let it conflict with their faith.

In the United States however you have a bunch of people who think that the Noah's flood story was a real historical event, and that children used to ride around on dinosaurs.

We're a laughingstock, and the reason is because of YEC ignorance.

 

[El_Machinae]

how about this. what evidence would you expect to see. if the bibcal god created the world and i will try to find research on that evidence for you to see. because everything i present is either not good enough,made by "fake" scientists, or Im twisting the facts.

Are you including Noah's Flood?

Okay:
- converging genomes amongst human skeletons as we move back in time.
- a mechanism by which humans slowly aged, in the past, and genetic evidence thereof.

 

[SuperJay]

The Danes and the Swedes are looking better and better every day.

 

[magicfan101]

Look at those countries, many of them are Christian. And yet, most accept the theory of evolution and they don't let it conflict with their faith.

In the United States however you have a bunch of people who think that the Noah's flood story was a real historical event, and that children used to ride around on dinosaurs.

We're a laughingstock, and the reason is because of YEC ignorance.

why are you so against YEC. like i said the most that i want is evolution to be taught "correctly" warts and all.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

You want to know what I would consider evidence of creationism?

Walk me through the Noah's Ark story, and explain everything that happened without saying "I dunno" or invoking magic. I'll even spot you the constant rains.

Go for it, explain the logical process by which the most intelligent being in all the universe came up with this and executed it.

I am also waiting for someone to accept my challenge.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

why are you so against YEC. like i said the most that i want is evolution to be taught as "correctly" warts and and all.

There is literally nothing in existence which even remotely makes YEC plausible, and it requires MAGIC.

It has as much scientific evidence as the Earth being created last tuesday. I'm not even exaggerating.

 

[SuperJay]

why are you so against YEC.

For what it's worth, I am not "against" YEC myself, if you want to believe that and teach your own children that, go for it. A lot of people all around the world have various creation myths that explain the origins of life and the history of our planet and our species.

My problem is anyone wanting to introduce these creation myths - and the magic they employ - into an education program that is intended to teach science.

like i said the most that i want is evolution to be taught as "correctly" warts and and all.

It is taught correctly: as a settled scientific theory that was originally developed via observation of evidence, and that has been reinforced and strengthened through further experimentation and observation over 150 years.

You want it to be taught incorrectly: that it depends on "blind chance," that it is just some laymens' opinion about the history of life on Earth, and that it is as equally valid as Young Earth Creationism. None of these things are true, which is why schools don't and shouldn't teach any of them.