Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Baidarka · 06-05-2002, 03:49 AM

Randman

Secular Web Regular
Member # 6077
posted June 03, 2002 08:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm afraid I'm not the one who believes in people turning water into wine, or coming back from the dead."

Are you trying to claim this isn't intentionally denigrating Christianity?

Why do you think that you can try to engage in logical discourse while embracing obvious fairy tales and not be called on it? This seems to be some new type of political correctness. "Oh don't challenge my precious beliefs they are off limits."
If I told you that the world is the body of the great sea monster that God killed in the original great struggle, what kind of sensible discourse could we have after that? It's like trying to talk with to a guy with big pieces of sloppy stuff in his mustache.

randman · 06-05-2002, 04:30 AM

Scigiirl, most of us have honestly evaluated evolutionism. Many of us are former evolutionism beleivers, and have read the evolutionist literature, and all that. We honestly, with open minds, evaluated the evidence for and against your particular religion. And this is why we are not evolutionists, not because we were simply born into it, raised to accept evolution like so many evolutionists.

Oolon Colluphid · 06-05-2002, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>Scigiirl, most of us have honestly evaluated evolutionism. Many of us are former evolutionism beleivers, and have read the evolutionist literature, and all that. </strong>

Please cite some of this marvellous literature. Peer-reviewed, was it?

TTFN, Oolon

notto · 06-05-2002, 05:14 AM

Randman,

The only reason "creation science" exists is because of the bible. If the bible did not exist, those who spout creation science would not be led to their conclusions by the evidence alone.

This is why creation science is not science (and why no non-theist scientist has come to the conclusion that everyone else is wrong and that the earth was created a short time ago and then ravaged by a global flood). If it wasn't for Genesis, there would be no "debate".

Currently, there is no real debate amoung scientists related to the age of the earth and the global flood. There is no consistent line of evidence that would independantly lead one to the conclusion that the earth is young and that the flood happened. If such a line of evidence existed, "evolutionists" could not deny it (and would have no reason to do so). As it has been pointed out, if this line of evidence existed and could be backed up independently of the bible, a nobel prize would certainly await those that could support the young earth model. The creation science flaw is that this is not their approach. They simply try to fit evidence to the biblical stories.

The history of science shows that the biblical assumtions that were used as a starting point did not pan out. That is why scientific theories have changed over the past 400 years. They followed the evidence instead of assuming the biblical timeline and events. Scientists did this independently of social or theological ideas.

The motives of "creation science" are transparent. They are only trying to support what is found in the bible. They have not reached their conclusions independently of what they have assumed is true to begin with. They also spend little time supporting (or scrutinizing) their theory. They spend more time trying to prove the "other" theory wrong, which in no way makes their theory more right.

The creation science "theory" must stand on its own evidence, regardless of if evolution is right or wrong. If evolution is wrong, that does not make creation science the right theory. It would have to be scrutinized (both internally and externally) and tested just as much as evolution has been before it will be accepted. This scrutiny must take place with no reference to the bible or Genesis.

If you were not a christian, would you still believe in a young earth and a global flood? Why? If it wasn't for your vested interest in supporting the biblical account, would you still believe the biblical account?

The bible is always the starting point for the creationist line of evidence and biblical stories cannot be used as evidence if the discussion is to be truly scientific.

randman · 06-05-2002, 06:18 AM

1. The veracity of YEC has little to do with whether or not evolution is true.
2. If the Bible wasn't there, I still think Intelligent Design would have surfaced, though you are correcty about YEC since it depends upon the scriptures as a model. However, you are probably aware of t he story on how Troy was discovered. it was considered a legend until someone tried to dee if it wasn't, and thus discovered Troy. Even from a scientific perspective, there are aspects of the biblical account which are amazingly accurate, and to use science to see if the data can fit into the biblical narrative does not mean creationism is not science.
3.If I was not a Christian, I would still say evolutionists have overstated their case, used sophistry, derision, and propoganda methods which are wholly unsuited for science. In fact, this has always been my main beef with evolution, the way it is taught via indoctrination. At the time I quit beleiving in evolution, I used to take a personal interest in comparing Soviet and US propoganda techniques, and had been to Russia. I was not fluent in Russian, but I was mistaken as a Sov once when approaching some Russians In Leningrad. Well, to make a long story short, evolutionists utiliyze fairly obvious and crude propoganda technoques to convince the public of their case in order to squelch their critics. I see it as only half-science, and just as much "religion".
If there was a call and reform among evolutionists, at least one could say they are trying to become primarily science, but as is evidenced on this site, that isn't happening.

Mageth · 06-05-2002, 07:11 AM

However, you are probably aware of t he story on how Troy was discovered. it was considered a legend until someone tried to dee if it wasn't, and thus discovered Troy.

The discovery of Troy confirmed the existence of the city, but did not confirm the god-myths woven into Homer's tales about the city.

Even from a scientific perspective, there are aspects of the biblical account which are amazingly accurate, and to use science to see if the data can fit into the biblical narrative does not mean creationism is not science.

Science fits models to data, not data to models. When new data is gathered, if it contradicts a scientific model, the model is modified to incorporate the new data or abandoned in favor of another model that better explains the data. Creation science does not allow this key aspect of science; all data gathered must be shoehorned into the biblical "model."

Oolon Colluphid · 06-05-2002, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

1. The veracity of YEC has little to do with whether or not evolution is true.

Huh?

If evolution is true, then YEC is not, since YEC denies the possibility of evolution.

If YEC is true, then evolution is not, for there would not have been enough time, and created kinds would be immutable beyond a certain (unspecified) limit.

Please explain the logic underlying your point 1.

Quote:

2. If the Bible wasn't there, I still think Intelligent Design would have surfaced

Agreed, though banal.

Quote:

though you are correcty about YEC since it depends upon the scriptures as a model. However, you are probably aware of t he story on how Troy was discovered. it was considered a legend until someone tried to dee if it wasn't, and thus discovered Troy.

And the archaeological evidence for special creation is...?

Quote:

Even from a scientific perspective, there are aspects of the biblical account which are amazingly accurate

�Amazingly accurate�?

Such as? Name a few bits of modern scientific understanding presaged in the bible. Genes? Heliocentrism? An expanding universe? Out with it!

Quote:

and to use science to see if the data can fit into the biblical narrative does not mean creationism is not science.

You unsurprisingly have it arse-backwards. In science, the data aren�t twisted to fit the theory; theories change or are discarded according to the data. What are the chances of you changing or discarding the �theory� of biblical creation, huh? And... using science while denying scientific findings... how does that work again?

Quote:

3.If I was not a Christian, I would still say evolutionists have overstated their case

Quite possibly, in popular writings...

Quote:

used sophistry

Examples?

Quote:

derision

Which differs from the YEC treatment of evolution in that what is held up for derision is the actual version, not a string of straw men...

Quote:

and propoganda methods which are wholly unsuited for science.

You are talking about popularisations, not how science is actually conducted. Most scientists, you see, are simply too busy actually doing science to be bothered with outmoded horse-doodoo. YECism is simply not an issue; it�s dead, defunct, refuted a century ago, and so ignored.

The irony is too thick to believe. Even if I were not a scientific rationalist, I would still say YECs have overstated their case, used sophistry, derision and propaganda methods which are wholly unsuited for science. As a scientific rationalist, I note that that is precisely all they have.

Quote:

In fact, this has always been my main beef with evolution, the way it is taught via indoctrination.

Assuming, for a moment, that evolution is true, how is teaching the truth �indoctrination�?

Quote:

At the time I quit beleiving in evolution,

(and using a dictionary)

Quote:

I used to take a personal interest in comparing Soviet and US propoganda techniques [...] Well, to make a long story short, evolutionists utiliyze fairly obvious and crude propoganda technoques to convince the public of their case in order to squelch their critics.

Again, your perception -- through your biblical reality-filter -- of popularisations. Thing is, once you start in on the real science, the case grows rather than diminishes. Most people -- and ost popularisers -- don�t know the half of it.

Quote:

I see it as only half-science, and just as much "religion".

Which half is right then? Which bits are scientific, and which not?

Quote:

If there was a call and reform among evolutionists, at least one could say they are trying to become primarily science, but as is evidenced on this site, that isn't happening.

Here�s a little news for you: shhh, keep it under your hat, but science isn�t conducted on website discussion boards!

TTFN, Oolon

randman · 06-05-2002, 07:46 AM

"Science fits models to data, not data to models. When new data is gathered, if it contradicts a scientific model, the model is modified to incorporate the new data or abandoned in favor of another model that better explains the data. Creation science does not allow this key aspect of science; all data gathered must be shoehorned into the biblical "model."

Now, a couple of months ago, someone chided creationists claiming they ahd done just that in taking account for rapid evolution, but within a limited range, and thus the variety of species. So you are just flat out wrong to state creationism doesn't make adjustments. They have also dropped and adopted and debated various scenarios of specific ideas, but just like evolutionists, the underlying presuppositions have not been dropped.

There is no difference in creationists' approach than evolutionists, and this is wht motivates people like me to post, the utter hypocrisy and self-delusion of evolutionists.

In response to one poster, the Bible refers to 2 types of flying creatures, one made before man, thus prehistoric, and made "from water" and another made in the same era as man, "from the ground." How did the writer of Genesis know of dinosaur "birds"?

Job said the earth was a sphere hanging upon nothing. How did he know that?

How about the Big Bang? Sounds a lot like "let there be light."

There is more but it gets kind of complicated for a board like this.

MrDarwin · 06-05-2002, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
<strong>In response to one poster, the Bible refers to 2 types of flying creatures, one made before man, thus prehistoric, and made "from water" and another made in the same era as man, "from the ground." How did the writer of Genesis know of dinosaur "birds"?</strong>

Umm... excuse me? Care to back that up, maybe by telling us what the heck you're referring to?

hezekiah jones · 06-05-2002, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
We honestly, with open minds, evaluated the evidence for and against your particular religion.

Ha ha

evolution = religion
randman = honesty = open mind

Oh yes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2002, 03:49 AM	#41
Baidarka Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: NYC Posts: 590	Randman Secular Web Regular Member # 6077 posted June 03, 2002 08:44 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I'm afraid I'm not the one who believes in people turning water into wine, or coming back from the dead." Are you trying to claim this isn't intentionally denigrating Christianity? Why do you think that you can try to engage in logical discourse while embracing obvious fairy tales and not be called on it? This seems to be some new type of political correctness. "Oh don't challenge my precious beliefs they are off limits." If I told you that the world is the body of the great sea monster that God killed in the original great struggle, what kind of sensible discourse could we have after that? It's like trying to talk with to a guy with big pieces of sloppy stuff in his mustache.

06-05-2002, 04:30 AM	#42
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Scigiirl, most of us have honestly evaluated evolutionism. Many of us are former evolutionism beleivers, and have read the evolutionist literature, and all that. We honestly, with open minds, evaluated the evidence for and against your particular religion. And this is why we are not evolutionists, not because we were simply born into it, raised to accept evolution like so many evolutionists.

06-05-2002, 05:14 AM	#44
notto Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Minneapolis, MN US Posts: 133	Randman, The only reason "creation science" exists is because of the bible. If the bible did not exist, those who spout creation science would not be led to their conclusions by the evidence alone. This is why creation science is not science (and why no non-theist scientist has come to the conclusion that everyone else is wrong and that the earth was created a short time ago and then ravaged by a global flood). If it wasn't for Genesis, there would be no "debate". Currently, there is no real debate amoung scientists related to the age of the earth and the global flood. There is no consistent line of evidence that would independantly lead one to the conclusion that the earth is young and that the flood happened. If such a line of evidence existed, "evolutionists" could not deny it (and would have no reason to do so). As it has been pointed out, if this line of evidence existed and could be backed up independently of the bible, a nobel prize would certainly await those that could support the young earth model. The creation science flaw is that this is not their approach. They simply try to fit evidence to the biblical stories. The history of science shows that the biblical assumtions that were used as a starting point did not pan out. That is why scientific theories have changed over the past 400 years. They followed the evidence instead of assuming the biblical timeline and events. Scientists did this independently of social or theological ideas. The motives of "creation science" are transparent. They are only trying to support what is found in the bible. They have not reached their conclusions independently of what they have assumed is true to begin with. They also spend little time supporting (or scrutinizing) their theory. They spend more time trying to prove the "other" theory wrong, which in no way makes their theory more right. The creation science "theory" must stand on its own evidence, regardless of if evolution is right or wrong. If evolution is wrong, that does not make creation science the right theory. It would have to be scrutinized (both internally and externally) and tested just as much as evolution has been before it will be accepted. This scrutiny must take place with no reference to the bible or Genesis. If you were not a christian, would you still believe in a young earth and a global flood? Why? If it wasn't for your vested interest in supporting the biblical account, would you still believe the biblical account? The bible is always the starting point for the creationist line of evidence and biblical stories cannot be used as evidence if the discussion is to be truly scientific.

06-05-2002, 06:18 AM	#45
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	1. The veracity of YEC has little to do with whether or not evolution is true. 2. If the Bible wasn't there, I still think Intelligent Design would have surfaced, though you are correcty about YEC since it depends upon the scriptures as a model. However, you are probably aware of t he story on how Troy was discovered. it was considered a legend until someone tried to dee if it wasn't, and thus discovered Troy. Even from a scientific perspective, there are aspects of the biblical account which are amazingly accurate, and to use science to see if the data can fit into the biblical narrative does not mean creationism is not science. 3.If I was not a Christian, I would still say evolutionists have overstated their case, used sophistry, derision, and propoganda methods which are wholly unsuited for science. In fact, this has always been my main beef with evolution, the way it is taught via indoctrination. At the time I quit beleiving in evolution, I used to take a personal interest in comparing Soviet and US propoganda techniques, and had been to Russia. I was not fluent in Russian, but I was mistaken as a Sov once when approaching some Russians In Leningrad. Well, to make a long story short, evolutionists utiliyze fairly obvious and crude propoganda technoques to convince the public of their case in order to squelch their critics. I see it as only half-science, and just as much "religion". If there was a call and reform among evolutionists, at least one could say they are trying to become primarily science, but as is evidenced on this site, that isn't happening.

06-05-2002, 07:11 AM	#46
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	However, you are probably aware of t he story on how Troy was discovered. it was considered a legend until someone tried to dee if it wasn't, and thus discovered Troy. The discovery of Troy confirmed the existence of the city, but did not confirm the god-myths woven into Homer's tales about the city. Even from a scientific perspective, there are aspects of the biblical account which are amazingly accurate, and to use science to see if the data can fit into the biblical narrative does not mean creationism is not science. Science fits models to data, not data to models. When new data is gathered, if it contradicts a scientific model, the model is modified to incorporate the new data or abandoned in favor of another model that better explains the data. Creation science does not allow this key aspect of science; all data gathered must be shoehorned into the biblical "model."

06-05-2002, 07:46 AM	#48
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"Science fits models to data, not data to models. When new data is gathered, if it contradicts a scientific model, the model is modified to incorporate the new data or abandoned in favor of another model that better explains the data. Creation science does not allow this key aspect of science; all data gathered must be shoehorned into the biblical "model." Now, a couple of months ago, someone chided creationists claiming they ahd done just that in taking account for rapid evolution, but within a limited range, and thus the variety of species. So you are just flat out wrong to state creationism doesn't make adjustments. They have also dropped and adopted and debated various scenarios of specific ideas, but just like evolutionists, the underlying presuppositions have not been dropped. There is no difference in creationists' approach than evolutionists, and this is wht motivates people like me to post, the utter hypocrisy and self-delusion of evolutionists. In response to one poster, the Bible refers to 2 types of flying creatures, one made before man, thus prehistoric, and made "from water" and another made in the same era as man, "from the ground." How did the writer of Genesis know of dinosaur "birds"? Job said the earth was a sphere hanging upon nothing. How did he know that? How about the Big Bang? Sounds a lot like "let there be light." There is more but it gets kind of complicated for a board like this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.