creationists analogy
33 Comments - 4675 Views
Submitted By Ellman on 09/12/30
FreeHovind, Ellman, Creation and Evolution
So I've been thinking about how to show creationists why we think they don't have any knowledge of what they're talking about.
So here goes:
If you think that this is how an atom looks like and try to argue how the atom works in binding to other atoms to form a molecule then you've just took a dump on nuclear/quantum physics and chemistry. You also have no idea of how it works and why it act it really does.
You can easily change some key words to for a good illustration of why creationists don't deserve to discuss if evolution is a viable theory to explain the diversity of life.
So here goes:
If you think that this is how an atom looks like and try to argue how the atom works in binding to other atoms to form a molecule then you've just took a dump on nuclear/quantum physics and chemistry. You also have no idea of how it works and why it act it really does.
You can easily change some key words to for a good illustration of why creationists don't deserve to discuss if evolution is a viable theory to explain the diversity of life.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Anthony
2 hours - 62v
Posted 2009/12/30 - 21:55 GMT
can't the same words be changed to say that evolutionists do not deserve to discuss if creation is a viable theory to explain the diversity of life?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
creationist do not understand basic science...thus they cannot carry on an intelligent conversation regarding their ill conceived "theory".
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
can't the same words be changed to say that evolutionists do not deserve
to discuss if creation is a viable theory to explain the diversity of
life?
Nope. Scientists studying evolution probably aren't qualified to address the theological/metaphysical implications of creationism - but they're more than qualified to address the scientific implications.
In a nutshell: there are well-established standards for determining whether or not a claim is a valid scientific theory - and creationism (as well as intelligent design) has consistently failed to meet those standards.
And just from general personsal observation, most "evolutionists" are fairly well-informed about creationism - but most creationists barely have a elementary gradeschool-level understanding of evolution.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Wihan, your phrase "if creationism is a viable theory to explain the diversity of life" is the entire problem here. It is a viable "theory" but not a viable scientific theory. It is not science. Science is the NATURAL explanation for natural phenomenon. It is not science to ask a question and just say..."God did it" Creationism is simply a science stopper. I am personally glad that someone asked..."is the earth the center of the universe like the bible tells us" and the person answering that question didn't just say "Yep..bible says so" That is not science.
Another problem with creationism is that you guys keep changing the rules. The creationists once claimed that every kind of species was on that damn ark. Every BREED of dog, every KIND of snake....etc. This was back in the day before they accepted micro-evolution. Well, after the mountain of evidence supporting evolution overwhelmed them, they said.....okay...we accept MICRO-evolution....but not macro-evolution. (also they got tired of getting laughed at for the idea that ALL those breeds of every animal fitting on the Ark)
Now creationists say.."no...there was just one bird on the ark, one dog, one snake and those animals have MICRO-evolved into the different breeds."
Theists resisted the idea that the earth revolved around the sun for years.... Finally, they were simply overwehelmed with the amount of evidence pointing away from a geocentic universe and had to accept that the earth was NOT the center of the earth." Creationism is a severe retardant to man's quest for knowledge.
If you believe in a god, why can you just not accept evolution and say "well.okay..but that was what god must have wanted" It is denying scientific theories that have stood the test of time and telling lies about the theory that stifles real progess.
Again, science is the NATURAL explanation for natural phenomenon. Creationism is a Supernatural explanation.
On a seperate note...how old are you? A few of your posts have given me the impression that you are still a teenager. No offense intended.
Another problem with creationism is that you guys keep changing the rules. The creationists once claimed that every kind of species was on that damn ark. Every BREED of dog, every KIND of snake....etc. This was back in the day before they accepted micro-evolution. Well, after the mountain of evidence supporting evolution overwhelmed them, they said.....okay...we accept MICRO-evolution....but not macro-evolution. (also they got tired of getting laughed at for the idea that ALL those breeds of every animal fitting on the Ark)
Now creationists say.."no...there was just one bird on the ark, one dog, one snake and those animals have MICRO-evolved into the different breeds."
Theists resisted the idea that the earth revolved around the sun for years.... Finally, they were simply overwehelmed with the amount of evidence pointing away from a geocentic universe and had to accept that the earth was NOT the center of the earth." Creationism is a severe retardant to man's quest for knowledge.
If you believe in a god, why can you just not accept evolution and say "well.okay..but that was what god must have wanted" It is denying scientific theories that have stood the test of time and telling lies about the theory that stifles real progess.
Again, science is the NATURAL explanation for natural phenomenon. Creationism is a Supernatural explanation.
On a seperate note...how old are you? A few of your posts have given me the impression that you are still a teenager. No offense intended.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
science is there to observe and explain all that is around us. Science is not just there to explain the naurual but also the super naurual, which at this point it either doesn't have the resources to do or unwilling to do so.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Oh you mean pseudo science since we cannot test nor show evidence for a super natural being. You can't have a science based on assumptions and speculations where u cannot test it at all. Science does NOT include super natural beings.
Oh and the analogy is for creationists who don't understand/see evolution for what it is and therefore cannot discuss it properly.
An atom does not look like the picture i gave. It's mere an illustration that is far to simple to accuretly show how an atom works.
Anyone getting it?
Oh and the analogy is for creationists who don't understand/see evolution for what it is and therefore cannot discuss it properly.
An atom does not look like the picture i gave. It's mere an illustration that is far to simple to accuretly show how an atom works.
Anyone getting it?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
"Anyone getting it?"
the SHELLS hit home.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
"Science is not just there to explain the naurual but also the super naurual,"
nope, only the natural is observable, and therefore only thing science can use to explain the natural world.
you have a gross misunderstanding of what science is.
and i actually study science, as many others here.
you're just trying to morph the definition of science into somehting it's not so you can use it's good reputation.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Science is not just there to explain the naurual but also the super
naurual, which at this point it either doesn't have the resources to do
or unwilling to do so.
And how, exactly, do you expect science to explain something (the supernatural) that - by it's very definition - cannot be explained by natural means?
This ought to be good.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Wihan,
No, Science is NOT about supernatural explanations. Apparently you do not even understand the basic concept of science. The supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon is not testable or observable.
Let me give you an example. You say that God created the universe. I say..no...it was created by a giant pixie who destroyed your god.
Someone else claims..."no, no, no...it was created when YOUR god was killed by a troll who caught your god molesting teenage trolls.
ALL are untestable, ALL are unable to be observed.
No, Science is NOT about supernatural explanations. Apparently you do not even understand the basic concept of science. The supernatural explanation for any natural phenomenon is not testable or observable.
Let me give you an example. You say that God created the universe. I say..no...it was created by a giant pixie who destroyed your god.
Someone else claims..."no, no, no...it was created when YOUR god was killed by a troll who caught your god molesting teenage trolls.
ALL are untestable, ALL are unable to be observed.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
As I looked through the responses, I haven't noticed anyone saying anything about the 'unable or unwilling' part. thats why you post the wrong replies....
Just because it is incapable or unwilling to prove anything other than the natural, doesn't mean it doesn't have to take responsibility for that which it hasn't proven yet.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
As I looked through the responses, I haven't noticed anyone saying
anything about the 'unable or unwilling' part.
The equivocation was unnecessary, the answer is "unable" - but it's a mistake to think that that reflects negatively on science. It has about as much relevance as pointing out that electricians are "unable or unwilling" to answer questions about plumbing.
The supernatural, by definition, cannot be investigated by natural means. Which, (again) by definition, puts it outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Science is not interchangeable with theology and metaphysics, they are separate fields for good reason.
Just because it is incapable or unwilling to prove anything other than
the natural, doesn't mean it doesn't have to take responsibility for
that which it hasn't proven yet.
What? That's absurd - how in the world did you come to that conclusion?
Here's a link you might benefit from: What is Science?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Secondly, I want to point out:
Julle evolusioniste is hans en hoopeloos, julle is kommin verby en het geen benul oor die waarheid nie. julle hou julle oe toe van die waarheid, maar dis tyd dat julle, julle oe oop maak en erken dat God die Aarde en Hemele geskep het. julle 'wetenskap' is niks maar 'n flou verskoning omdat julle nie die waarheid wil erken nie. Jou ma man!
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
english please?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Wihan,
I couldn't agree more. Well put and funny. Most sensible post you have ever made. Well done friend. When you said "julle hou julle oe toe van die waarheid, maar dis tyd dat julle, julle oe oop maak en erken dat God die Aarde en Hemele geskep het." that really got me. Point well taken my friend.
A suggestion if i may: You may want to post in english for the few people here who don't speak ........................ whatever language that is.
I couldn't agree more. Well put and funny. Most sensible post you have ever made. Well done friend. When you said "julle hou julle oe toe van die waarheid, maar dis tyd dat julle, julle oe oop maak en erken dat God die Aarde en Hemele geskep het." that really got me. Point well taken my friend.
A suggestion if i may: You may want to post in english for the few people here who don't speak ........................ whatever language that is.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
¨Julle evolusioniste is hans en hoopeloos, julle is kommin verby en het
geen benul oor die waarheid nie. julle hou julle oe toe van die
waarheid, maar dis tyd dat julle, julle oe oop maak en erken dat God
die Aarde en Hemele geskep het. julle 'wetenskap' is niks maar 'n flou
verskoning omdat julle nie die waarheid wil erken nie. Jou ma man!¨
riiight.
you understand im dutch and i can read 99% of this.
soo free translation;
¨you evolutionists are hopeles, you come nowhere near the grasping the truth. you stick to your truth, but it is time that you admit and ecknowledge that god created heaven and earth. your ¨science¨ is nothing but but delusions because you wont acknowledge THAT truth. (something im not familiar with .¨
to whichy i will say in my native tongue:
gozer. jou bent niet de eerste die het zo probeert. en dat maakt deze vorm van ¨overtuiging¨ nit minder belachelijk. kruip maar lekker terug in je gat terwijl ik nieuwe medicatie ontiwikkel en nieuwe metabolische routes ontdek en beschrijf door middel van voorspellingen die ik maak met evolutie.
IK studeer teminste omdat ik iets van deze wereld wil leren en wil bijdragen.
nu jij nog.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Wihan,
You don't get it do you? Science has indeed been unable to prove a supernatural cause. People have been trying to prove the existance of god for....ohhhhhhh, i am guessing 2500 years. Can't be done. Show us some proof and win yourself a Nobel Prize. Show us some proof and we will all convert to whatever religion you want.
Again, SCIENTIFIC proof.
You don't get it do you? Science has indeed been unable to prove a supernatural cause. People have been trying to prove the existance of god for....ohhhhhhh, i am guessing 2500 years. Can't be done. Show us some proof and win yourself a Nobel Prize. Show us some proof and we will all convert to whatever religion you want.
Again, SCIENTIFIC proof.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
I recon this is what he wrote:
"You evolutionists are merry and hopeless, you are coming past and had no idea about the truth. you keep your eyes from the truth, but it's time that you, your eyes open and recognize that God created Earth and Heaven have created. vi 'science' is nothing but a weak excuse because you do not want the truth recognized. Your mama!"
"You evolutionists are merry and hopeless, you are coming past and had no idea about the truth. you keep your eyes from the truth, but it's time that you, your eyes open and recognize that God created Earth and Heaven have created. vi 'science' is nothing but a weak excuse because you do not want the truth recognized. Your mama!"
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
So if it isn't unwilling, it is incapable of proving the Super-natural at this moment.
So, why is it that we dismiss the existence of God, but not the existence of extra terrestrial life?
We spend Millions of tax-payers money for trying to find life out there (which is near impossible.), instead of using the money to fight Global Warming/ Climate Change.
I watched the Copenhagen summit, and what I have noticed is that leaders are complaining about the lack of funds.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
It's impossible to show any evidence or even a foundation for the idea that is god existing. Unless you come up with a method to scientifically test or show gods existance you cannot regard creationism like nothing more thatn religion and pseudoscience.
We don't dismiss it completely cuz we don't know if he exists or not. Tho the lack of evidence to support the idea is so strong that we have nothing to motivate our belief in him with.
Our disbelief in god is a direct cause of lack of evidence and motivation. nothing more nothing less. The fact that so much things that have been contributed to god was proven to be nothing but a natural process that we can fully explain makes his credability sink even lower.
The fact that there is planets with similar conditions like ours and the age of the universe makes it not impossible to find life in the universe. It's very very unplausible, but that's another story. Also the fact that the money you could get out of space programs is definitly higher than from climate change programs. It's a factor to recon with.
We don't dismiss it completely cuz we don't know if he exists or not. Tho the lack of evidence to support the idea is so strong that we have nothing to motivate our belief in him with.
Our disbelief in god is a direct cause of lack of evidence and motivation. nothing more nothing less. The fact that so much things that have been contributed to god was proven to be nothing but a natural process that we can fully explain makes his credability sink even lower.
The fact that there is planets with similar conditions like ours and the age of the universe makes it not impossible to find life in the universe. It's very very unplausible, but that's another story. Also the fact that the money you could get out of space programs is definitly higher than from climate change programs. It's a factor to recon with.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Wihan,
Honestly..are you just joking? Extraterestials would be testable, observable. IF they exist....they exist within nature. IF god exists...he/she is NOT testable/observable. You really don't get it do you?
We spend nearly NO federal funds (percentage wise) to search for extra-terrestials. If you are that concerned about us "waisting" money on such searches...I suggest you research it. You will find that we spend a miniscule portion of our annual budget looking for E.T..
Honestly..are you just joking? Extraterestials would be testable, observable. IF they exist....they exist within nature. IF god exists...he/she is NOT testable/observable. You really don't get it do you?
We spend nearly NO federal funds (percentage wise) to search for extra-terrestials. If you are that concerned about us "waisting" money on such searches...I suggest you research it. You will find that we spend a miniscule portion of our annual budget looking for E.T..
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
¨We spend Millions of tax-payers money for trying to find life out there (which is near impossible.)¨
ya, but at least it IS possible.
and you forget.
the thechnioglogy we use for that search, we can also use for lots of other things, like screenign planets for colonization.
¨ instead of using the money to fight Global Warming/ Climate Change.¨
that has more to do with the massive restructuring of the economy required for that.
humans are creatures of habit...and habits die hard.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
So, why is it that we dismiss the existence of God, but not the
existence of extra terrestrial life?
Speak for yourself, mate - I dismiss both, due to the lack of any conclusive evidence. Although the probability that extra-terrestrial life exists is much higher than the probability that the Judeo-Christian God exists.
We know for a fact that life can exist on at least one planet in our universe. And if it can exist on Earth, there's the possibility that it can exist elsewhere. But there's no such precedent when it comes to supernatural deities.
We spend Millions of tax-payers money for trying to find life out there
(which is near impossible.),
We do? Can you substantiate that claim?
instead of using the money to fight Global
Warming/ Climate Change.
Uh oh, that's going to get ronnie going again.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Actually, I just looked this up. We actually don't spend ANY money on the SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) program. Federal funding stopped funding SETI in 1993. Paul Allen (microsoft co-founder) now pays for all such research with grants to fund SETI research.
Do these creationist guys get ANYTHING right?
Do these creationist guys get ANYTHING right?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Sorry, kind of overstepped my point there.
My point was not about the money and Global warming etc.
My point was, Why search for E.T life (which there is no evidence for) and pause searching for scientific evidence for God?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
"Why search for E.T life (which there is no evidence for) and pause searching for scientific evidence for God?
"
becauyse one is supernatural and the other is natural.
isn't it obvious?
one can be demonstrated by scientific evidence, the othe rhas been tried for decades and hasn't been achieved yet.
you you reallly thing pseudo science hasn't tried to prove god yet?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
besides...we'd stil need to pin down WHAT god actually is, before we can look for him/she/it.
somethign many theists or deist cannot agree on in the first place.
the most universal description i've heard forma christian inspired pantheist is "god is everything".
which is a totally irrelivant claim, as it simply renames the term "everything" with "god".
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
how do you know that they are natural?
Shouldn't we them also be searching for elves, unicorns, molemen? They're also natural
Shouldn't we them also be searching for elves, unicorns, molemen? They're also natural
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
¨Shouldn't we them also be searching for elves, unicorns, molemen? They're also natural¨
well, ya. if they existed they WOULD be natural.
if course. if they´d actually were discovered WITH their magical characteristics...that would pose a problem.
but to actually put your question into proper perspective.
WHAT would make us think these magical things existed?
the claims of their existance are very specific (their existance here that is).
other life in the universe could be....well, anything.
perhaps on some other planet, there indeed is a sentient species of subterranian dwellers, or a horselike creature with one horn.
and hell, the N´avi from avatar are just as wonderous as elves...
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
My point was, Why search for E.T life (which there is no evidence for)
and pause searching for scientific evidence for God?
Go right ahead - what's stopping you? Given that organized religions account for some of the wealthiest organizations on Earth, it can't be lack of funds.
Oh, and how exactly would you propose that we scientifically test the existence of God?
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
Anthony,
People are searching for scientific evidence of god CONSTANTLY. Discovery Institute is spending millions every year trying to do just that. People have been searching for the that damn ark for a thousand years.
Now, if you are talking about Scientists looking for god, I would say that scientists wasted a thousand years doing just that and finally just gave up. God, by definition is outside of nature, not observable, not testable...thus not science.
If we find E.T. he/she/it would be testable, observable and thus science.
People are searching for scientific evidence of god CONSTANTLY. Discovery Institute is spending millions every year trying to do just that. People have been searching for the that damn ark for a thousand years.
Now, if you are talking about Scientists looking for god, I would say that scientists wasted a thousand years doing just that and finally just gave up. God, by definition is outside of nature, not observable, not testable...thus not science.
If we find E.T. he/she/it would be testable, observable and thus science.
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
"how do you know that they are natural?
Shouldn't we them also be searching for elves, unicorns, molemen? They're also natural."
Anthony, we are constantly looking for lifeforms. We accidentally find them all the time. IF we found an elf, unicorn or whatever a moleman is....we would find it in nature. We could ovserve the unicorn, study it, test it. Now, we have all agreed that God, if one exists is not testable, observble and thus not scientific. We cannot test things that are outside the natural world.
By definition god is outside of nature.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS213US213&defl=en&q=define:god&ei=uEBFS_O4HI3cNvevpfMC&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
SUPERNATURAL....OUTSIDE OF NATURE
Shouldn't we them also be searching for elves, unicorns, molemen? They're also natural."
Anthony, we are constantly looking for lifeforms. We accidentally find them all the time. IF we found an elf, unicorn or whatever a moleman is....we would find it in nature. We could ovserve the unicorn, study it, test it. Now, we have all agreed that God, if one exists is not testable, observble and thus not scientific. We cannot test things that are outside the natural world.
By definition god is outside of nature.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS213US213&defl=en&q=define:god&ei=uEBFS_O4HI3cNvevpfMC&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE
SUPERNATURAL....OUTSIDE OF NATURE
» Reply to CommentRe: creationists analogy
maybe that's why its called fable animals or belief instead of knowingith-something...
None of this site's content is copyrighted, unless it specifically says otherwise.
