Creationism is not scientific
November 11, 2012 at 7:10 pm #17021
This forum has been invaded with creationists, so instead of spamming tonnes of threads claiming evolution is a hoax etc. Please explain these questions/points creationists:
1. Please explain how creationism is scientific. You claim evolution is not scientific becuase it has not been observed but you are happy to accept that microevolution HAS been observed, so wether you like it or not, you DO actually accept evolution. Are you happy to admit this?
A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic – i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles – cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate.
Science only deals with the natural but creationism is supernatural so how can creationism be scientific?
2. Creationism itself is supernatural and not scientific, hence it can not be observed. If a creator has created all species on earth supernaturally why is he/she/it/them not creating more species now?
A hypothesis about the supernatural creationism cannot be tested, and so is not scientific. So the concept of God, or supernatural creator(s), capable of designing the whole universe, can neither be proved nor disproved.
3. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. How can supernatural creationism be testable or falsifiable?
4. Creationism makes no testable predictions at all it makes no checkable or testable claims about how to identify creation, who the creator is, what the creator’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of creator is, or when and where the creation takes place. This is why creationism is outside of empirical science.
5. A scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Creationism fails here becuase it attempts to explain everything, is not testable and has never been tested.
6. Creationists start with their assumptions with the Bible. This is not how science works. Religious creationists are dishonest becuase their personal religious beliefs have a bias on science, creationists claiming the Bible must be true will tend to override and color everything they observe. Creationists have no objective outlook on science. Real scientists, by contrast, must always follow where the evidence leads, regardless of whether that evidence overturns a generally accepted theory or even a cherished personal belief.
A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
In conclusion creationism is not scientific becuase it has never been observed, it is not testable or falsifiable, it has never been tested, it does not make predictions and it remains outside of the scope of empirical science. Creationism is metaphysics not science.
Now before anyone decides to personally attack me and call me an atheist I am not. I have been a pantheist/theist for many years and I also have an interest in the supernatural. I am just honest enough to admit these things are beyond science. Anyone claiming creationism is scientific is clearly being dishonest. Evolution is a fact which is supported by loads of evidence. The only people who deny evolution are people who have a strong religious bias, they are not objective when it comes to science. Considering creationists still claim creationism is scientific then perhaps you can explain why you believe this on this thread.
November 21, 2012 at 3:07 pm #113024Biologist123Participant
I agree creationism has never made sense to me, I’m glad to hear you think it’s anti- scientific too.
November 23, 2012 at 8:14 am #113039quote Biologist123:
A young earth creationist user on this forum called jinx25 has been spamming threads with the same comments that evolution has not been observed and that evolution is not scientific, he has not explained why he thinks this. His comments are contradiction considering creationism has not been observed and does not qualify as science. There is tonnes of evidence for evolution which he ignores. This is the problem when you have a religious bias. His assumptions start with the bible, this is not how science operates. He has clearly read this thread but chooses not to comment. He would need to explain why he believes creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.
November 24, 2012 at 7:18 pm #113052
Spamming lol. Yes of course anything contradictory to Darwins myths is ‘spamming’.
‘There is tonnes of evidence for evolution which he ignores.’
Which definition of ‘evolution’? Change in gene frequency? Speciation? Descent with modification? Genetic drift? Any change in any living thing ever? The myth that the most complex thing man has ever obtained knowledge of (DNA) came about by mistakes and accidents in an undirected process?
‘He would need to explain why he believes creationism is scientific when it clearly is not.’
‘Evolution’ (when i say ‘evolution’ i mean neodarwinian theory-all life on earth shares a common ancestor with a primordial prokartyote 3.5 bya through random mutation+natural selection) is (conveniently) a process that is alleged to have both started an stopped happening in the unobserved and unobservable (not empirical science) past. Empirical investigation into both ‘evolution’ and Genesis 1:1-31 is unobtainable. Creation has written history (Genesis) where as ‘evolution’ has none.
‘His assumptions start with the bible, this is not how science operates.’
Given that abiogenesis has some SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems (lolz?) and the complete absence of a mechanism for adding NEW nucleotides coding for NEW proteins (aka new genetic information) to me, that leaves ‘evolution’ as something that never happened. So yes my ‘assumptions’ now start with Genesis 1:1-31 as the origins of the universe. Evolutionists assumptions starts (usually by the height of blind faith) with ‘EVOLUTIONVIANATURALSELECTION’ did it despite usually having not even read the cornerstone book of the evolutionism doctrine (Charles Darwins ‘On the origin of myths i mean species’) or understanding how the process is (alleged) to work.
Creation antiscientific? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Newton? Keppler? Faraday? Pasteur? Galileo? Neodarwinian ‘theory’ is the most dogmatic inhibitory paradigm to science in the history of mankind. Despite atheists cult leaders claims (Dawkins ‘DNA is the knockdown evidence for evolution’) molecular biology killed ‘evolution’. DNAs existence proves it never happened. Again we are dealing with a process that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.
November 24, 2012 at 8:34 pm #113055quote jinx25:
No, but bringing this subject everytime you post something is spamming. And you know you have been warned about that already. With such frequency it will not take much time until you will be banned.quote jinx25:
Why do you write about evolution if you answer question about creation? Again? (and this is the spamming)
Evolution has as much good history as creation, if man-written book is enough for you.
(peer-nonreviewed book is sufficient proof for you? LOL)quote jinx25:
And again the spamming…
In what specifically is the Genesis better than evolution-books except it was written by complete amateurs who knew nothing about science and were high?quote jinx25:
So? What do their names prove? If they claimed there is no God, they would be burned by Inquisition. They couldn’t afford something like that. Think about Giordano Bruno
November 24, 2012 at 9:05 pm #113060quote :
I was asked a question and i answered it. NDT is the most dogmatic inhibitory force EVER as witnessed by your comment. I expect to get banned soon. Goodbye everyone.
Written history goes back 6,000 years.
In all 6,000 years of eye witness testimony/written history has anyone ever observed a fish bring forth something other than a fish. If someone wants to believe it can happen, contrary to every observed law of nature in written history (6,000 years) that is their religious belief. Another name for 6,000 years worth of mans investigations/eye witness testimony of earth would be ‘science’ though i will not use that word as it is used dogmatically by atheists without understanding of its meaning.
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT:
Written history (6,000 years worth AKA SCIENCE) confirms Genesis, that animals bring forth ‘after their kind’ and shows NDT to be without foundation. Goodbye everyone.
November 24, 2012 at 9:33 pm #113061
It’s nice to provide link if it doesn’t exist, isn’t it?
So there was an eye witness of creation?
November 24, 2012 at 10:58 pm #113062
Type in ‘recorded history’ on google, the wiki page. If someone believes Genesis it is inherent they believe there was an eye witness (God). I added up the genealogies in Genesis 5 and got 1656 years from creation week to Noahs flood.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=KJV
I have not added up the other genealogies but apparently they yield ~4,300 years from Noahs flood to today (obv only have to get to Jesus then +2k). Oldest tree
BTW Newton and those other names mentioned above were CREATIONISTS and science is based on what those giants found out. At its foundation science is based on an orderly, logical and uniform universe ie. CREATION!
November 25, 2012 at 9:37 pm #113069
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
Johannes Kepler (German: [ˈkʰɛplɐ]; December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Kepler
Michael Faraday, FRS (22 September 1791 – 25 August 1867) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Faraday
Louis Pasteur (play /ˈluːi pæˈstɜr/, French: [lwi pastœʁ]; December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)
Galileo Galilei (Italian pronunciation: [ɡaliˈlɛːo ɡaliˈlɛi]; 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo
Charles Robert Darwin, FRS (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
Can you be so kind and tell me, how can they be for something that was written at least 100 years after their death?
So you rely on testimony of your imaginary friend instead of real people. Yeah, no further discussion really needed.
November 25, 2012 at 10:04 pm #113070
I do not know what you mean.
November 25, 2012 at 11:18 pm #113072
How could be Kepler, Galileo or Newton for evolution?
November 26, 2012 at 12:35 am #113073
They were not for ‘evolution’. Newton put creation at 4000bc.
November 26, 2012 at 9:08 am #113078
Oh mein Gott. Of course they were not for evolution, since the theory of evolution was published 100 and more years after their death!!!
November 26, 2012 at 10:23 pm #113086
Ok. NDT is a universal acid on all science.
The goal is to indoctrinate
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something "in order to" achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid. Usually, it is possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically.
"In our dreams, we have limitless resources and the people yield themselves with perfect docility to our molding hands. The present education conventions fade from their minds, and unhampered by tradition, we work our own good will upon a grateful and responsive rural folk. We shall not try to make these people or any of their children into philosophers or men of learning, or men of science. We have not to raise up from among them authors, editors, poets or men of letters. We shall not search for embryo great artists, painters, musicians nor lawyers, doctors, preachers, politicians, statesmen, of whom we have an ample supply…The task we set before ourselves is very simple as well as a very beautiful one, to train these people as we find them to a perfectly ideal life just where they are. So we will organize our children and teach them to do in a perfect way the things their fathers and mothers are doing in an imperfect way, in the homes, in the shops and on the farm." – General Education Board, Occasional Papers, No. 1 (General Education Board, New York, 1913) p. 6.
‘Evolution’ is the tool.
November 27, 2012 at 9:59 am #113093
So? How is that related to scientists being pro-creation at times when evolution was not known?
November 27, 2012 at 1:38 pm #113096
Jinx your replies were filled with utter nonsence. You were asked to provide scientific evidence to why you believe creationism is scientific but you did not give any, this thread is not to discuss the evidence for evolution, it is to discuss creationism, indeed this thread was set up for you to give your evidence, but you have no scientific evidence for creationism. Read over the OP again. Creationism does not qualify for the scientific method, it is metaphysics outside of the realm of empirical science. Creationism makes no predictions, can not be observed or tested at all and cannot be falsified. You are entitled to your religious/metaphysical beliefs but it is dishonest to claim they are scientific.
You were given the chance to provide evidence for your "scientific" creationism, but you choose not to becuase like every other creationist you cannot do it. If the bible had not been written you would have no problem with accepting the evidence for evolution. nuff said.
November 28, 2012 at 7:25 pm #113108thoffnagleParticipant
OK Jinx, please provide us with a better explanation for the fact that the evidence from fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, geology, genetics and biogeography (and others that I have missed) all point toward evolution. You wrote a lot of bogus stuff here. Here are my responses to some of them:
“’Evolution’ … is (conveniently) a process that is alleged to have both started an stopped happening in the unobserved and unobservable (not empirical science) past.”
No one has claimed the evolution has stopped – quite the contrary!
“Empirical investigation into both ‘evolution’ and Genesis 1:1-31 is unobtainable.”
You are correct that empirical investigation into creationism is unobtainable but that is not true for anything scientific. Empirical knowledge is that which is “acquired by means of observation or experimentation.” Observation does not only mean being there to witness something. We observe many things, such as:
rocks are laid down in layers
fossils in those layers differ
there is a pattern in the way that those fossils differ in relation to time
there is a pattern in the geographic location of the fossils
anatomy, physiology, morphology and genetics are more similar among some species than others
And we can conduct experiments with organisms that have short life spans to test hypotheses. These are all empirical investigations.
“Creation has written history (Genesis) where as ‘evolution’ has none.”
So what? You are selecting only one of the thousands of written and/or oral creation myths. Why is yours the right one? And anyone can write anything. I am the second coming of Jesus. Do you believe that, just because it is written? I’ve written that sentence many times. Does that make it more believable? If so, please send me all of your money and I will guarantee that you will be the first person taken to heaven.
“Given that abiogenesis has some SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems”
There are many hypotheses about abiogenesis, some of which are more likely than others. What “SERIOUS SERIOUS scientific problems” do you mean?
“the complete absence of a mechanism for adding NEW nucleotides”
Not even close to being true. Additions of nucleotides, individually or in chunks of DNA, is a well-known and observed (even witnessed) mutation.
“despite usually having not even read the cornerstone book of the evolutionism doctrine”
Have you read it? I have – it’s a hard read! But it’s also 150 years old and it’s not necessary to read it to understand evolution.
“DNAs existence proves it never happened.”
“Again we are dealing with a process that has NEVER BEEN OBSERVED.”
Not true. See “Observed Instances of Speciation” at talkorigins.org. I’ll point out that speciation by polyploidy is a common observation, mostly in plants but also in lizards (and others?), which, by the way, is a mechanism for adding new nucleotides.
December 9, 2012 at 5:54 pm #113210
thoffnagle the user jinx25 was a troll. He was stumped on my first post on how creationism is not scientific and like all creationists chooses to ignore this evidence. After he had finished his spam he decided to leave the forum. He has no real interest in science and provided no scientific evidence for his version of religious creationism.
If the bible had not been written he would have no problem in accepting the fact of evolution. Creationists rarely spend any time in nature, they choose to ignore the evidence for evolution based on their religious assumptions. They misunderstand, misrepresent and twist science and ignore any data which contradicts their religious beliefs hence why most creationists are banned or ignored on internet forums becuase all they end up doing is spamming the same things over and over.
As I have already stated, creationists actually accept microevolution, and in the last 20 years they now accept that speciation occurs, of course before this they denied these things exists. Creationists are known for moving goal posts.
December 10, 2012 at 11:37 am #113212
No, jinx has been banned for one week. However, it seems he doesn’t bother to come back.
December 10, 2012 at 11:13 pm #113221thoffnagleParticipant
Yes, I know the type. They are offended by theories of evolution and the Big Bang because it contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible. They say (forgetting their ninth commandment) that it is because neither has even been observed but ignore instances of observed evolution and have no problem with other scientific theories, such at Gravity and Atomic Theory – we don’t know why gravity occurs and no one has seen an atom. But it’s their efforts to push their religion into schools that bother me – they encourage ignorance, which, to me, is the ultimate sin.
January 4, 2013 at 12:19 am #113326BillAngelParticipant
Here is a paper from a Creation Ministries website that is of interest because it appears to be a scientific critique of research in evolutionary biology.:
Human chimp DNA similarity re-evaluated
The authors’ conclusion is that "The human chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact."
January 8, 2013 at 12:33 pm #113348
January 8, 2013 at 6:01 pm #113349BillAngelParticipantquote JackBean:
The thrust of the author’s argument seems to be that is very difficult for all of the differences in the DNA between the two species (man and chimp) to have developed by spontanious mutation in the time evolutionists give as having elapsed since man and chimp had a common ancestor, which is estimated as approximately 6 million years ago.
January 9, 2013 at 9:46 am #113354
I doubt that the authors actually did some real work. IMHO they just took amount of filtered data and substracted it from the proposed homology. But there is reason to omit the data.
February 1, 2013 at 8:22 am #113465biohazardParticipant
I want a ‘like’ button on this forum so that I can like thoffnagle’s posts!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.