Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is creationism even a science?

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 2:08:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't think that it can even be classed as one. I don't understand how it even comes close to fitting in with the scientific method.

Point of note: I don't see how it could be classed as science, like geocentrism is classed as science, or lamarckism. It's wrong, but is it even a science? Did it even have the potential to begin with?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 2:15:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:08:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I don't think that it can even be classed as one. I don't understand how it even comes close to fitting in with the scientific method.

Point of note: I don't see how it could be classed as science, like geocentrism is classed as science, or lamarckism. It's wrong, but is it even a science? Did it even have the potential to begin with?

Nope. :)

http://richarddawkins.net...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 2:31:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:08:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I don't think that it can even be classed as one. I don't understand how it even comes close to fitting in with the scientific method.

Point of note: I don't see how it could be classed as science, like geocentrism is classed as science, or lamarckism. It's wrong, but is it even a science? Did it even have the potential to begin with?

No potential. You can't say you are investigating something scientifically when you have a definitive answer already that you want the data to fit. Creationism as a project is devoted to saying "evolution is wrong, so we must be right."
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 5:38:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well there is actually some decent science to back creation. It is growing in popularity as well. I'm not saying I advocate young earth creation but there is some very interesting science coming foward showing how the Earth is very possibly extremely young...literal bible young in fact.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 8:30:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 5:38:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Well there is actually some decent science to back creation. It is growing in popularity as well. I'm not saying I advocate young earth creation but there is some very interesting science coming foward showing how the Earth is very possibly extremely young...literal bible young in fact.

PLEASE do tell us exactly what this science is, and I'll try and hold off laughing, hopefully, long enough for you to get it out.
Rob
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:06:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 8:30:52 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/9/2011 5:38:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Well there is actually some decent science to back creation. It is growing in popularity as well. I'm not saying I advocate young earth creation but there is some very interesting science coming foward showing how the Earth is very possibly extremely young...literal bible young in fact.

PLEASE do tell us exactly what this science is, and I'll try and hold off laughing, hopefully, long enough for you to get it out.

Well this attitude is one of the hardest things creationists face. That attitude is the same sarcastic arrogance that they gave to the first scientists to claim that the Earth was round. Anyways...if your done prancing around your computer with your fancy pants on and want to hear what is really out there I'd be happy to show you the things I've found so far.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Creationism never was and never will be a science. Anyone who thinks it is should educate themselves or kill themselves for their persistance ignorance.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:11:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:06:52 PM, Crede wrote:
At 11/9/2011 8:30:52 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 11/9/2011 5:38:24 PM, Crede wrote:
Well there is actually some decent science to back creation. It is growing in popularity as well. I'm not saying I advocate young earth creation but there is some very interesting science coming foward showing how the Earth is very possibly extremely young...literal bible young in fact.

PLEASE do tell us exactly what this science is, and I'll try and hold off laughing, hopefully, long enough for you to get it out.

Well this attitude is one of the hardest things creationists face. That attitude is the same sarcastic arrogance that they gave to the first scientists to claim that the Earth was round. Anyways...if your done prancing around your computer with your fancy pants on and want to hear what is really out there I'd be happy to show you the things I've found so far.

Please share.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:31:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:10:42 PM, rogue wrote:
Creationism never was and never will be a science. Anyone who thinks it is should educate themselves or kill themselves for their persistance ignorance.

People don't have the right to believe in strange ideas to suit their own happiness?

Not everyone has a strong foundation in biology.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:36:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well if you look at it it is. It is the science of faith, and creationism could coincide with many other scientific theories, if they let them self do so. We christians have sadly made a deep whole that ruins that opportunity.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 10:42:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Crede, you've got to be joking.

This sort of thing falls way outside the realm of science. The people who look at creationists like they are idiots has nothing to do with arrogance on their part.. It has to do with the fact that advocates of intelligent design attempt to pass their views as being scientific, when it very clearly isn't.

It's all pseudo-science. It was bad enough when the New Agers attempted to push pseudo-science... Now we have major world religions attempting to do the same. It's all terribly dishonest, and fundamentally ignorant. Epistemology man, epistemology.

Anyone who tries to pass off Intelligent Design as being scientific is the one being arrogant. It isn't, and it isn't even worth arguing about at all. It's simply a matter of whether or not you understand what science is. If you understand what it is, you are flat out lying if you say that creationism falls within the realms of science.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 11:02:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There are varying levels to it, from people with no understanding of biology or the scientific method to serious scholars who carry out their work in exactly the same manner as their secular counterparts - with one important difference, namely that the creationists start with the assumption that God exists.

That starting premise does not necessarily discount their findings, does not imply anything about the standards of their work; but it does call into question the objectivity of their conclusions. A scientist with a bone to grind has the very human temptation to discard results that do not match his hypothesis.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 12:27:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
God should not be assumed to exist when dealing with things in a scientific matter. God in the context of scientific theory is usually used in an ad hoc fashion, and is not useful.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:06:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like I said before...I'm not personally a creationist. However I have looked at some of the new arguments for it and how they have demonstrated scientifically a justification for their beliefs. If you are unaware of the current young earth creation arguments I'll tell you that most of them boil down to dinosaurs and carbon dating. Having said that I have seen some very interesting videos based on the subject. Here is one...

There are other topics such as Carbon 14, carbon dating in general, tearing down evolution (macro evolution), complexity of different species (whole argument and is hard to summarize here), and others. Anyways the science behind it is growing in popularity and thus growing all together. If you have any other questions feel free to ask.

And for Cosmo, the funny thing about scientists talking about young earth creation is that it is usuallycompletely science based in that it uses actual empirical evidence. Tangible palpable things and showing how they, through science, could actually be much much younger than previously thought to be. In fact it is the only religious view so far that uses tangible science in their theories. Enjoy!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:08:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just like the pseudo-historians that claim the resurrection of Jesus meets the criteria of historicity, the people who make these arguments completely ignore other areas of science that happen to fit in nicely with discoveries that have been made.

The Earth has been around longer than 6,000 years. Much longer, and so many observations about the world testify to this that likening scientists rejecting it to those in the past who held onto the believe that the world was flat is asinine. It's really quite the opposite.

If you are claiming that the Earth is 6,000.. or even 10,000 years old, you might as well be saying that the Earth is flat, and that the sun is pulled across the sky by some dude in a chariot with a deep tan and some really gnarly burns.

Their position isn't supported by science any more than the New Ager who claims that quantum physics proves that you can walk through walls if you unlock the flow of your Muladhara chakra.

These are evaluations made by people who have no idea what they are talking about. They are clowns that feed off of other people's ignorance. It is like a Kindergartner trying to teach a high school student how to do geometry when the child hasn't even learned multiplication.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:30:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 10:31:01 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/9/2011 10:10:42 PM, rogue wrote:
Creationism never was and never will be a science. Anyone who thinks it is should educate themselves or kill themselves for their persistance ignorance.

People don't have the right to believe in strange ideas to suit their own happiness?

Not everyone has a strong foundation in biology.

Stating that someone should do X does not contradict that they have the right to do Y even if X and Y themselves contradict.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 10:33:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
On some conceptions of science, yes. On some others, no. Looks like some people here need to study up on the demarcation problem in philosophy of science.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:04:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I understand there are conflicting findings in science against creation. HOWEVER there is some science out there in support of it. I personally am NOT a young Earth creation believer but I do appreciate hearing other points of view and the science they back it with. There is a reason why creation scientists are gaining popularity and that is because some of their findings as of now have been uncontested. Recently I was hearing about how carbon decay (carbon dating) is spead up exponentially when under water for extended amount of times. This would fit into the Noah and the flood story. The video I posted prior talks about how they "date" things that are past complete carbon decay and how it is bogus.

Young Earth creation may be totally false, but to deny that they are using actual accepted science through empirical evidence is false....hence the rapid growth in the subject.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:26:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Recently I was hearing about how carbon decay (carbon dating) is spead up exponentially when under water for extended amount of times.:

I for one would love to know how being underwater effect radioactivec decay, escpecially since radioactive decay is defined as "the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom."

What scientific literature were you reading when you heard this? What hypothesis was offered on why this happens since it flies in the face of the whole idea of radioactive decay?

The video I posted prior talks about how they "date" things that are past complete carbon decay and how it is bogus.:

You know, that very thought occured to a few scientist, and I think that is why for dating things older than about 50,000 years they use other isoptopes with longer half lives (such as uranium and potassium-argon). Of course these dating techniques have their drawbacks, such as not being very precise, which is why we can only date many fossils to within tens of millions of years.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:35:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 1:26:48 PM, Floid wrote:
Recently I was hearing about how carbon decay (carbon dating) is spead up exponentially when under water for extended amount of times.:

I for one would love to know how being underwater effect radioactivec decay, escpecially since radioactive decay is defined as "the atom decays without any physical interaction with another particle from outside the atom."

What scientific literature were you reading when you heard this? What hypothesis was offered on why this happens since it flies in the face of the whole idea of radioactive decay?

Yeah. You think we would have noticed this effect, given the fact that water is used in Nuclear Power plants.



The video I posted prior talks about how they "date" things that are past complete carbon decay and how it is bogus.:

You know, that very thought occured to a few scientist, and I think that is why for dating things older than about 50,000 years they use other isoptopes with longer half lives (such as uranium and potassium-argon). Of course these dating techniques have their drawbacks, such as not being very precise, which is why we can only date many fossils to within tens of millions of years.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:46:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll try and find where I was reading that carbon decay in water thing and post it for you. Anyways I was just showing how current "dating" methods are not as accurate as the history channel might make us believe.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:50:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 1:46:53 PM, Crede wrote:
I'll try and find where I was reading that carbon decay in water thing and post it for you. Anyways I was just showing how current "dating" methods are not as accurate as the history channel might make us believe.

And yet disparate dating methods, based upon diferring principles and assumptions, will nevertheless agree on the age of things where their respective scopes overlap.
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 1:53:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not sure if this is exactly what I was reading before but does talk about decay under water. I commend the entire article to you as it is not too long but here is just a part:

"Uranium also dissolves in water, uranium salts. For instance, a major flood would cause the calculated age to be far to high. Less then 200 years ago a volcanic eruption happen on Hawaii. The lava ended up being under water. Dating was done by the kalium argon method and they expected the age to be 200 years. The test result showed it to be 22 million years. The kalium salts leaked away into the water and made it looked to be much older then it really was."

Here is the whole article..

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:06:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 1:53:04 PM, Crede wrote:
Not sure if this is exactly what I was reading before but does talk about decay under water. I commend the entire article to you as it is not too long but here is just a part:

"Uranium also dissolves in water, uranium salts. For instance, a major flood would cause the calculated age to be far to high. Less then 200 years ago a volcanic eruption happen on Hawaii. The lava ended up being under water. Dating was done by the kalium argon method and they expected the age to be 200 years. The test result showed it to be 22 million years. The kalium salts leaked away into the water and made it looked to be much older then it really was."

Here is the whole article..

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com...

It says no such thing. What it is asserting is that, when immersed, the radioactive elements used to date the rock are dissolved into the water. It then implies that, because there was less of that radiocative material in the rock (having been dissolved in the water) the method dated it as being older than it actually was.

So, it has nothing to do with actual rates of radiocative decay, or even Carbon Dating methods (your passage cites Uranium and Argon dating methods). And, even if we accept this passage as true, it simply shows that, under certain conditions, the methods produce inaccurate results.

Should we be surprised at this? I'm not. I don't imagine that the developers and users of these methods expect them to produce accurate results under any and all circumstances. This is not an inherent flaw with the tool, but rather merely a confirmation that, like all tools, it has a scope outside of which it shouldn't be used.

Another way to put it is Garbage In, Garbage Out. The effectiveness of the method depends on the quality of the material put into it. I mean, we can selectively choose input that would produce inaccurate results in even indisputable dating methods (such as dendochronology). So what?
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:35:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It says no such thing. What it is asserting is that, when immersed, the radioactive elements used to date the rock are dissolved into the water. It then implies that, because there was less of that radiocative material in the rock (having been dissolved in the water) the method dated it as being older than it actually was.

So, it has nothing to do with actual rates of radiocative decay, or even Carbon Dating methods (your passage cites Uranium and Argon dating methods). And, even if we accept this passage as true, it simply shows that, under certain conditions, the methods produce inaccurate results.

Should we be surprised at this? I'm not. I don't imagine that the developers and users of these methods expect them to produce accurate results under any and all circumstances. This is not an inherent flaw with the tool, but rather merely a confirmation that, like all tools, it has a scope outside of which it shouldn't be used.

Another way to put it is Garbage In, Garbage Out. The effectiveness of the method depends on the quality of the material put into it. I mean, we can selectively choose input that would produce inaccurate results in even indisputable dating methods (such as dendochronology). So what?

Exactly! I misspoke apparently when I stated that it was a sped up process of decay, but rather it does give inaccurate results. If you take creation literally then the flood would have put everything under water yielding inaccurate results with an incredible amount of time being attributed to things only a couple hundred / thousand years old.

As for carbon...here is a decent overview...I can't completely check it out due to the crappiness of my computer and how slow it is but I think this site is one that I had read earlier and has some good science in it.
http://noapologies.info...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 2:40:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 2:35:28 PM, Crede wrote:
It says no such thing. What it is asserting is that, when immersed, the radioactive elements used to date the rock are dissolved into the water. It then implies that, because there was less of that radiocative material in the rock (having been dissolved in the water) the method dated it as being older than it actually was.

So, it has nothing to do with actual rates of radiocative decay, or even Carbon Dating methods (your passage cites Uranium and Argon dating methods). And, even if we accept this passage as true, it simply shows that, under certain conditions, the methods produce inaccurate results.

Should we be surprised at this? I'm not. I don't imagine that the developers and users of these methods expect them to produce accurate results under any and all circumstances. This is not an inherent flaw with the tool, but rather merely a confirmation that, like all tools, it has a scope outside of which it shouldn't be used.

Another way to put it is Garbage In, Garbage Out. The effectiveness of the method depends on the quality of the material put into it. I mean, we can selectively choose input that would produce inaccurate results in even indisputable dating methods (such as dendochronology). So what?

Exactly! I misspoke apparently when I stated that it was a sped up process of decay, but rather it does give inaccurate results. If you take creation literally then the flood would have put everything under water yielding inaccurate results with an incredible amount of time being attributed to things only a couple hundred / thousand years old.

Only for things that were in contact with the water. Rocks sufficiently deep would not have been affected by such a process. Geologists understand the limitations of their methods, including the unreliability of weathered samples.

Then again, no such flood happened, so I don't see why this would be an issue.


As for carbon...here is a decent overview...I can't completely check it out due to the crappiness of my computer and how slow it is but I think this site is one that I had read earlier and has some good science in it.
http://noapologies.info...

Regarding the link:

No. It is not a critical assumption that the amount or ratio of radiocarbon has been the same. In fact, we know that it has changed over time and this is factored into dating methods via independent calibration. I find it odd that this would simultaneously claim that this is an assumption, then state that it is known to be wrong. If it is known to be wrong, then who is assuming it? No one, that's who.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2011 3:25:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Whether or not the dating process is completely accurate or not, we can be pretty certain that it isn't off by hundreds of millions of years.

The Earth is NOT less than a million years old.

Show me the geologist or astronomer who claims this. If there are such creatures, I am more than certain that they are regarded as cranks by the majority of the scientific community.

Creationism can not be proven or disproven.. However, there is very little doubt as to whether the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. This can be proven by multiple methods. Carbon dating is not the only method that is used to determine the age of things.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Crede
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2011 3:13:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/10/2011 3:25:34 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Whether or not the dating process is completely accurate or not, we can be pretty certain that it isn't off by hundreds of millions of years.

The Earth is NOT less than a million years old.

Show me the geologist or astronomer who claims this. If there are such creatures, I am more than certain that they are regarded as cranks by the majority of the scientific community.

Creationism can not be proven or disproven.. However, there is very little doubt as to whether the Earth is older than 6,000 years old. This can be proven by multiple methods. Carbon dating is not the only method that is used to determine the age of things.

Agreed. I was just showing the OP that yes...there is science used in defense of creationism.
ApostateAbe
Posts: 225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 12:56:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 2:08:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I don't think that it can even be classed as one. I don't understand how it even comes close to fitting in with the scientific method.

Point of note: I don't see how it could be classed as science, like geocentrism is classed as science, or lamarckism. It's wrong, but is it even a science? Did it even have the potential to begin with?

Before Darwin, almost all of the best minds in the science of biology accepted the explanation of creationism. They took it to be better than no explanation at all, because it had a compelling argument: the watchmaker argument, or the analogy to complex and orderly man-made systems. Since living organisms fit the analogy, creationism served as a compelling explanation for life, not just as a religious tradition. It was just as wrapped up in religion as it is today, but it was science. I don't think it needs to stop becoming "science" just because a better explanation is put on the table. I prefer to be generous with the word, not exclusivist. There can be bad science the same as good science, we can call creationism "bad science," and I think creationism should be rejected because it is bad science, not because of its association with religion. If creationism were probable, then it should be accepted regardless of its association with religion. I don't like the us-vs-religion mentality that exists in the scientific community. Science should be merely about finding truth.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:02:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
When a child is given two books, but taught the same approach toward them - that will make him far more open-minded and he will pick the best of books for himself.