Total Posts:128|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Creationism Needs to be Treated Fairly

Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?
Gold
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 12:27:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.
You do realize science is about our actual, materialistic reality. Not that which we make up in our heads.
The only extent to which creationism can be respected is that we have freedom of thought, that we can make up fantasy, and that's all.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning.
Haven't read the debate(s) myself but considering you are religious, well, I highly doubt they were actual ad hominem attacks but rather descriptions of the actual state you are in. Those specific characteristics of yours are obstructing your perception of true reality. It's really hard to miss with religious people... every single encounter I've had has been in essence the same.

I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts.
Facts such as?

We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were.
How were things?

Religion and politics play a lot into this issue.
More like incomplete, immature, flawed, delusional, etc. perceptions of reality play a lot into it, and from your side. And politics side as well, as that's total BS as well.

People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior.
An example to the above.

You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.
Why not if that's exactly how it is? You think it would be better if someone lied and said "evolution has no evidence to support it"? Why should anyone lie like that?

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest.
The evidence already is deciding it, has decided it. It's your pathetic side that ignores and denies all evidence. Evidence that in turn proves you and your beliefs wrong. You are simply so stuck in your ways that you are afraid to break free, this would be one of the least worrysome reason to still be stuck with your views...

After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture.
Not all people. But definitely all religious people.

Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.
What past events? What other things?
Dwelling on the past produces nothing good. You know, like being obsessed with a two thousand years old fiction as if it's real, and as a result your personal development basically stops, not to mention all other problems it causes. How about instead moving onward by first leaving that pointless crap behind, by just forgetting it all? By forgetting the book, and religion. Honestly, what good does it do, has it ever done? Absolutely nothing - people have killed because of it, because of just a simple work of fiction. And you are following the same book, the same thing. Don't you get tired of it? It's pointless!

Just imagine. You follow nothing, no one. Your mind is empty. You just are, you just live. You look at the world, at others, who they are, what they are doing, what they like, how they live. You look at yourself - free of everything. No worries on your mind, no obligations, no nothing, just freedom, nothing weighing you down. And then comes the damn book. With all its texts, its rules, then the people who follow it, the traditions, what it "requires" of you, then the people who oppose it, then the arguing, the fights, the suffering, the misery, the agony, the anger, the hatred - all for what, why?? Because of just one damned book!!!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 1:18:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
00r3d
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 2:13:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:18:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?

Lets work backwards from the evolutionary 'facts.'
In any form of research, it is impossible to separate the ideas that you held before conducting the experiment and those you use to interpret the data. That is why you typically require peers to review scientific evidence before it is published. In psychology, there are a variety of opinions on how the brain works. Going back a few years (probably quite a few), these views appeared opposite, and studies were done by all sides supporting their view. The experiments could have been conducted well, but since the author wanted to prove the existence of the 'id,' he looked at the data looking for the id, and ignoring most other views.
For those who dont know, the id is a theoretical part of the mind constructed by Sigmund Freud, to explain early developmental actions. Just a side note.
As for the Creationist evidence, most of it lies on the assumption that are made by evolutionary scientists are looking to support a big bang, where they are looking to show an young earth, that has a Creator.
A few examples of the evidence is Carbon dating, Star light and Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR).
Carbon dating shows a world that is upwards of 50,000 years old if you look at it from an evolutionary POV. 50,000 years ago, the C14 level was equal or similar to the level today. For creationist, 10,000 years ago, C14 levels were 0. So the oldest fossils would have a very low level as the levels slowly build up. Dont bother quote me or believe me on this, but the level of C14 being formed is larger than its level decaying. Cant back this up right now, forget who said it, but look into it.
Some say that star light is problematic for creationists, as it indicates a universe that is billions of years old, but there are indications that energy moves faster than what we think the sped of light is (299792458 m/s). The problem is that when we point some instruments into the sky, we get an equal reading in any directions. Cosmic background radiation is said to be a signature of the big bang (Wikipedia it). With only a very small difference accounted for by red shift, the temperature of CBR is nearly constant in every direction. This implies that this energy traveled faster than the speed of light to come into equilibrium on both of our horizons. This leads to difficult theories about energy traveling outside of gravity and other aspects.
I know I will get 20+ people saying there are many highly respected scientists who support the big bang and evolution, but think about the idea that that is the idea they are starting with, not so much arriving at.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:07:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 2:13:19 AM, 00r3d wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:18:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?

Lets work backwards from the evolutionary 'facts.'
In any form of research, it is impossible to separate the ideas that you held before conducting the experiment and those you use to interpret the data. That is why you typically require peers to review scientific evidence before it is published. In psychology, there are a variety of opinions on how the brain works. Going back a few years (probably quite a few), these views appeared opposite, and studies were done by all sides supporting their view. The experiments could have been conducted well, but since the author wanted to prove the existence of the 'id,' he looked at the data looking for the id, and ignoring most other views.
For those who dont know, the id is a theoretical part of the mind constructed by Sigmund Freud, to explain early developmental actions. Just a side note.
As for the Creationist evidence, most of it lies on the assumption that are made by evolutionary scientists are looking to support a big bang, where they are looking to show an young earth, that has a Creator.
A few examples of the evidence is Carbon dating, Star light and Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR).
Carbon dating shows a world that is upwards of 50,000 years old if you look at it from an evolutionary POV. 50,000 years ago, the C14 level was equal or similar to the level today. For creationist, 10,000 years ago, C14 levels were 0. So the oldest fossils would have a very low level as the levels slowly build up. Dont bother quote me or believe me on this, but the level of C14 being formed is larger than its level decaying. Cant back this up right now, forget who said it, but look into it.
Some say that star light is problematic for creationists, as it indicates a universe that is billions of years old, but there are indications that energy moves faster than what we think the sped of light is (299792458 m/s). The problem is that when we point some instruments into the sky, we get an equal reading in any directions. Cosmic background radiation is said to be a signature of the big bang (Wikipedia it). With only a very small difference accounted for by red shift, the temperature of CBR is nearly constant in every direction. This implies that this energy traveled faster than the speed of light to come into equilibrium on both of our horizons. This leads to difficult theories about energy traveling outside of gravity and other aspects.
I know I will get 20+ people saying there are many highly respected scientists who support the big bang and evolution, but think about the idea that that is the idea they are starting with, not so much arriving at.

The C14 is formed in the atmosphere by solar radiation. There is no reason to believe that solar radiation did not create C14 way back when, nor any reason to believe that it was created at a different rate. It theoretically could, if there was a different radiation output by the sun. That would effect the C14 formation rate, but we see no evidence to suggest that. We also see from studying sun spots that solar radiation output varies very little (like +/- 1%, at least for the few hundred years we've been watching), because otherwise, we would see other extreme effects that we don't.

Also, nothing implies that energy travels faster than light. Even with a fairly uniform background radiation, the energy does not need to be faster than light for this to occur. Of course, we also know that light slows down outside of a vacuum. We've already made materials that can slow light down to a walking pace.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 3:11:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.


Oh please, that philosophy is about forty years out of date.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 5:49:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.
I think there's a price to pay just to accept the mere possibility of any type of Intelligent Design, even when leaving open the possibility of an impersonal deistic type creator (except panspermia which is actually a type of intelligent design). If an anti-theist, or someone at odds with the Gospel message leaves open the possibility of any type of creator/creation/ID, then it makes it more difficult to refute the Gospel message. If the Gospel message becomes a possibility, the implications are huge. We're no longer merely contemplating trivial facts, but personal life changing considerations now come into play. And of course in the school system, if people are turning to Christianity (or any religion) due to the addition of Intelligent Design courses, then there's a problem. Which is why the argument remains circular because it all goes back to the golden rule placed by our secular system which mandates that religion has to be kept out of the secular classroom.

It would be interesting however to see how Creationism/ID would be accepted as a legitimate teaching/contemplation if the Bible did not exist, or did not include a message of judgment, accountability, sin, etc.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:56:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 5:49:51 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
, even when leaving open the possibility of an impersonal deistic type creator (except panspermia which is actually a type of intelligent design). If an anti-theist, or someone at odds with the Gospel message leaves open the possibility of any type of creator/creation/ID, then it makes it more difficult to refute the Gospel message. If the Gospel message becomes a possibility, the implications are huge.

The problem is (as Christopher Hitchens used to say) if Deism is true a Christian still has all their work ahead of them to prove their case. I think most Christians opperate under the assumption that once you get to deism you get to just pick a religion because then one of them must be true. It doesn't work that way. The jump from atheism to deism is not nearly as large as the jump from deism to Christianity.

It would be interesting however to see how Creationism/ID would be accepted as a legitimate teaching/contemplation if the Bible did not exist, or did not include a message of judgment, accountability, sin, etc.

Pretty much the same, without material evidence creationism is not a scientific theory so there is nothing to teach about it in a science class.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:10:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Except when it comes to evolution.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Evolution is riddled with parsimonious explanations.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:30:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 12:27:08 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.
You do realize science is about our actual, materialistic reality.

Science is suppose to mean knowledge. If the truth lies in the immaterial, then materialistic science is impotent. Simply having a materialistic explanation does not mean that the materialistic explanation is truth.

Not that which we make up in our heads.

You mean like universes creating themselves, life creating itself from rock drippings in a mud puddle, and organisms having morphing abilities??

The only extent to which creationism can be respected is that we have freedom of thought, that we can make up fantasy, and that's all.

Confucius say, "Man who starts rock fight while standing in glass house must be stoned".
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,386
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 7:37:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 6:56:35 AM, Floid wrote:
At 12/27/2013 5:49:51 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
, even when leaving open the possibility of an impersonal deistic type creator (except panspermia which is actually a type of intelligent design). If an anti-theist, or someone at odds with the Gospel message leaves open the possibility of any type of creator/creation/ID, then it makes it more difficult to refute the Gospel message. If the Gospel message becomes a possibility, the implications are huge.

The problem is (as Christopher Hitchens used to say) if Deism is true a Christian still has all their work ahead of them to prove their case. I think most Christians opperate under the assumption that once you get to deism you get to just pick a religion because then one of them must be true. It doesn't work that way. The jump from atheism to deism is not nearly as large as the jump from deism to Christianity.

What exactly do you mean by once you get to deism you get to just pick a religion? From a Christian point of view, that doesn't make any sense. But I do agree that the jump from atheism to deism is not nearly as large as the jump from deism to Christianity. I would love to stress that point even further as soon as I get a better understanding of what you're implying.

It would be interesting however to see how Creationism/ID would be accepted as a legitimate teaching/contemplation if the Bible did not exist, or did not include a message of judgment, accountability, sin, etc.

Pretty much the same, without material evidence creationism is not a scientific theory so there is nothing to teach about it in a science class.
What do you mean by material evidence? The traditional deist (an unofficial disciple of Thomas Paine) would view nature and the cosmos as material evidence.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Maryland_Kid
Posts: 32
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 10:40:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?

http://creation.com...
The defender of Christianity, Calvinism, Creationism, and Conservative politics.
Gold
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 11:23:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.

The ability to be repeated in a lab is not a prerequisite for being a scientific theory. I specifically stated that it must hold the characteristic of being falsifiable (be able to be proven wrong).
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 11:35:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Creationism is not taken seriously because any 'evidence' supporting it is not submitted to a peer review process. In Fact, Creationist refute evidence and measuring techniques which contradict their beliefs with this same unsupported evidence. For Instance, radiometric dating can be calibrated with dendrochronology (tree rings), lake varves (sediments), Ice cores, deep ocean sediment cores, paleomagnetism, and coral samples and others. All methods verify the stated accuracy of radiometric dating, yet creationist reject it as false pointing to known specific flaws in particular methods. If Creationist want to be treated fairly I would suggest submitting your hypotheses to peer review and stop using the "nu huh" defense.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
00r3d
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 12:19:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 3:07:44 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/27/2013 2:13:19 AM, 00r3d wrote:
At 12/27/2013 1:18:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:59:47 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

What facts are you referring to?

Lets work backwards from the evolutionary 'facts.'
In any form of research, it is impossible to separate the ideas that you held before conducting the experiment and those you use to interpret the data. That is why you typically require peers to review scientific evidence before it is published. In psychology, there are a variety of opinions on how the brain works. Going back a few years (probably quite a few), these views appeared opposite, and studies were done by all sides supporting their view. The experiments could have been conducted well, but since the author wanted to prove the existence of the 'id,' he looked at the data looking for the id, and ignoring most other views.
For those who dont know, the id is a theoretical part of the mind constructed by Sigmund Freud, to explain early developmental actions. Just a side note.
As for the Creationist evidence, most of it lies on the assumption that are made by evolutionary scientists are looking to support a big bang, where they are looking to show an young earth, that has a Creator.
A few examples of the evidence is Carbon dating, Star light and Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR).
Carbon dating shows a world that is upwards of 50,000 years old if you look at it from an evolutionary POV. 50,000 years ago, the C14 level was equal or similar to the level today. For creationist, 10,000 years ago, C14 levels were 0. So the oldest fossils would have a very low level as the levels slowly build up. Dont bother quote me or believe me on this, but the level of C14 being formed is larger than its level decaying. Cant back this up right now, forget who said it, but look into it.
Some say that star light is problematic for creationists, as it indicates a universe that is billions of years old, but there are indications that energy moves faster than what we think the sped of light is (299792458 m/s). The problem is that when we point some instruments into the sky, we get an equal reading in any directions. Cosmic background radiation is said to be a signature of the big bang (Wikipedia it). With only a very small difference accounted for by red shift, the temperature of CBR is nearly constant in every direction. This implies that this energy traveled faster than the speed of light to come into equilibrium on both of our horizons. This leads to difficult theories about energy traveling outside of gravity and other aspects.
I know I will get 20+ people saying there are many highly respected scientists who support the big bang and evolution, but think about the idea that that is the idea they are starting with, not so much arriving at.

The C14 is formed in the atmosphere by solar radiation. There is no reason to believe that solar radiation did not create C14 way back when, nor any reason to believe that it was created at a different rate. It theoretically could, if there was a different radiation output by the sun. That would effect the C14 formation rate, but we see no evidence to suggest that. We also see from studying sun spots that solar radiation output varies very little (like +/- 1%, at least for the few hundred years we've been watching), because otherwise, we would see other extreme effects that we don't.

Also, nothing implies that energy travels faster than light. Even with a fairly uniform background radiation, the energy does not need to be faster than light for this to occur. Of course, we also know that light slows down outside of a vacuum. We've already made materials that can slow light down to a walking pace.

You missed the point. At time 0 (t=0) the level of C14 in the atmosphere is 0. A creationist view of the universe would say that at some point, the atmosphere was created near instantly 10,000 years ago. Its debatable whether the world was created with or without C14, I will say without. So as time passes, t=x {x>0}, the level of C14 will increase. The rate to formation is fairly constant, concentration of N14 and the quantity of incoming solar radiation combined in some equation. The rate of decay is related to the half life and the amount of C14 present to decay. The quantity of C14 present at that time reflects the amount formed between t=0 and t=x, minus the quantity that decayed. Until the rate of formation is equal to the rate of decay, the level will be increasing. This is what a dynamic equilibrium is.

As for CBR, I dont understand it as well, but lets try. If we have one source of energy, all the energy in the system (for this example the system will be the universe) will have come from this source. As the system is 'heated' (receives energy form the source) this energy will slowly spread away from the source, and work toward the edge of the system. Now, this system is unending, and the energy will never reach a boundary. Energy will constantly spread from the source, and into infinity. If we were to be in this system, we could look toward the source, and measure the heat, and look away from the source, and measure this heat. If the energy spread to infinity, an equilibrium between the two horizons wont be reached in a 'short' time period. Again, if i had an amazing memory, and every paper and book ive ever looked at, i could cite them saying that not sufficient time has passed for an equilibrium to have been reached. But again, you will have to think about it yourself, and a few billion years probably isnt enough to equilibrium energy over a the distances we can 'see.'
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 1:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.

Speciation has been observed in labs over decades (brand new bug and plant species evolving, and this has been observed over long studies[de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation][Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292]. Also, they recreated The Big Bang using the large Hadron Collider (on a much smaller scale of course)[http://www.telegraph.co.uk...].

So, yes, Evolution and The Big Bang are sufficiently repeatable.
Subutai
Posts: 3,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 1:24:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In science, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. There is no need for the recreation of an event for a theory to be considered valid. A scientific hypothesis, and therefore a theory, must be testable, falsifiable, and naturalistic. Evolution, for example, is a scientific theory because it has repeatedly made correct predictions and has been confirmed through testable hypothesis, and some predictions of it have been falsified (i.e. some predictions made by Darwin).

Creationism is not a scientific theory because it does not have any of these features. Creationism's hypotheses are not able to be testable because of the very nature of the idea, and is also not falsifiable because of its lack of its lack of positive claims (and no, claiming an intelligent designer is not a positive scientific idea). Also, because of creationism's very necessity for an intelligent designer, it calls for supernatural elements, and is therefore not naturalistic.

In general, because of creationism's lack of testable positive claims and its call to an intelligent designer, it is not a scientific theory, and is therefore not a valid theory on the universe.
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 2:17:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:04:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.

Speciation has been observed in labs over decades (brand new bug and plant species evolving, and this has been observed over long studies[de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation][Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292]. Also, they recreated The Big Bang using the large Hadron Collider (on a much smaller scale of course)[http://www.telegraph.co.uk...].

So, yes, Evolution and The Big Bang are sufficiently repeatable.

That depends on how you define specialization/species, if you define species as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing offspring, and specialization as the development of two separate distinct species, then as far as I know, the closest they've come to that is an isolation where the 2 groups prefer to mate among each other, rather than interbreed. but as far as I know, full speciation, to the extent that they cannot interbreed, has never been observed.
I don't know much about the LHC, but why is the big bang incompatible with creationism?
(Disclaimer - I'm not a creationist)
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/27/2013 6:25:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

Creationism is treated fairly. As a result, it is not respected.

Creationism doesn't match the evidence. That is a blanket statement, but you can look at any google search of common descent and see the detailed, blanket swaythe of evidence, combined with citations and peer reviewed articles (which is what is there to try and stop people simply making logical conclusions that do not make sense, or do not match reality).

The reason it is not accepted, is that physical evidence takes a back-seat to peoples ultra fundamentalist literalist views on the Bible. A view point for which there is no objective evidence.

Their religious faith means that even though they are wrong; they will stay wrong.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 5:58:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you believe that the bible is scientific? If so, then why?

Are the historical claims in the bible related to science? Does Creationism provide the physical mechanism of unrepeatable events we may never understand?
boss1592
Posts: 80
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 7:40:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

Science is a meritocracy, respect isn't given freely, it has to be earned. Ideas like evolution have earned their place, creationism has failed every challenge it's been given and if we're talking about a literal interpretation of genesis, things like a 6-day creation and noah's flood have been utterly debunked. I can just as easily say that you don't want to accept evolution because it tells you that you and humanity as a whole aren't anything special, we are completely irrelevant in the face of the universe as a whole, and because you don't like that fact, you reject it. At least, that's what I could say if I was willing to employ the same reasoning that footballers use when they blame the ref after losing 5-0.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 10:51:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. "

If you want to have "creationism" as a scientific theory, tell me a few things......

1) What is the theory of "creationism"

2) What testable predictions do you make according to this theory ?

3) What possible observations would falsify this theory ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 11:55:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Creationism needs to be treated fairly amongst those who do not have a relatively adequate degree of understanding regarding the relevant debate. Those more apt in the field do not need to take it very seriously.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:25:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 7:30:29 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 12:27:08 AM, nummi wrote:
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.
You do realize science is about our actual, materialistic reality.

Science is suppose to mean knowledge. If the truth lies in the immaterial, then materialistic science is impotent. Simply having a materialistic explanation does not mean that the materialistic explanation is truth.
Our science is knowledge about our world. That knowledge does not have everything about our world, as there are things that cannot be just looked at with simple eyes and thus have even more knowledge. More sophisticated methods of perception are needed, since we cannot give ourselves more senses then we have to do it through the existing ones and the mind.
There is no immaterial, there is no supernatural. If something exists then it is natural, it is "materialistic", might just be it's made of different "matter" and so not readily perceivable even when using already known science. Just because you don't and can't know or have no way to perceive does make something real and at that "immaterialistic". If you don't and can't perceive something it is delusional to claim as if it exists 'cause you don't and cannot know whether it does or not. You need proof, as you say "materialistic" proof, that it exists.

If something is explained through science, and confirmed through observation, experiments, logic, then that is the "truth", until someone improves it or introduces something more comprehensive or accurate.

Materialistic science is impotent? You can never have anything immaterialistic, it is impossible. How are you supposed to sense and understand something you cannot sense, ever, and understand something that defies explanation and always will? You can't.

Not that which we make up in our heads.

You mean like universes creating themselves, life creating itself from rock drippings in a mud puddle, and organisms having morphing abilities??
No, I mean fantasy being made up in our heads. You know, like writing a fantasy novel and all the mental processes behind it. Fantasizing, making up stories - about people, lives, worlds that are not real, do not actually exist, events that never took place, or with a twist on the real world like adding some magic, etc. You know, like the "bible".

Or with this you referred to your perception of fantasy?
Universes don't create themselves, they come to be via the processes between whatever energies and matter there is.
Life does not, did not, create itself from rock drippings in a mud puddle, it came to be via the processes between atoms and molecules, and perhaps other particles.
And some organisms do have morphing abilities, but I have no idea to what extent. If you referred with this to evolution then you are truly a moron, evolution is not morphing. If you want to know what evolution is, as you obviously do not know what it is, google it.

The only extent to which creationism can be respected is that we have freedom of thought, that we can make up fantasy, and that's all.

Confucius say, "Man who starts rock fight while standing in glass house must be stoned".
I read only "Confucius say", and nothing more. This here is between you and me, not you and me and another guy. You have something to say, say your own mind, say it in your own words, and do not give someone else's opinion.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:37:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.

Evolution is repeatable, it just takes a much greater length of time to achieve.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 2:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/27/2013 1:04:25 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 12/27/2013 10:39:11 AM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
At 12/26/2013 11:44:04 PM, Gold wrote:
Creationism makes the assertion that there exists an unfalsifiable agent (and some other claims). The scientific community abhors hypotheses that do not hold the characteristic of being falsifiable.

Also it should be noted that Creationism is in clear violation of the principle of parsimony (Occam's Razor).

Actually, the Big Bang Theory and Evolution are not repeatable in an experiment. I've never created a universe in a lab. All of these including Creationism are hypothesizes.

Speciation has been observed in labs over decades (brand new bug and plant species evolving, and this has been observed over long studies[de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation][Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila",Nature 23:289-292]. Also, they recreated The Big Bang using the large Hadron Collider (on a much smaller scale of course)[http://www.telegraph.co.uk...].

So, yes, Evolution and The Big Bang are sufficiently repeatable.

Please note that the "mini big bangs" was just a buzz phrase. What they created were collisions that generated temperatures that have not been seen since the big bang.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Quatermass
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 6:57:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/26/2013 8:44:31 PM, Maryland_Kid wrote:
In the mainstream scientific community, Creationism needs to be respected among the elites.

When I was debated, most of what I got was a lot of Ad Hominem reasoning. I really hate being trolled for my position when people won't look at the facts. We are not holocaust deniers, just believers in the way things were. Religion and politics play a lot into this issue. People don't want to accept it, because if they did, they were realize that they need Jesus as their savior. You shouldn't just make a blanket statement that the evidence supports the Theory of Evolution.

Let's have an even playing field with the evidence deciding it rather than peer review or a popularity contest. After all, we're just a reflection of the circumstances and biases we have in our culture. Things like events in the past need to be interpreted through the worldview of because of those factors I mentioned.

It's treated as fairly as any other pseudoscience by science. In that there is no evidence to substantiate its claims, so therefore we must reject it.