Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

[CFLarsen]

I was specifically talking about the "theory of Creationism" like one espoused by William Whiston rather than the varieties that have popped up over the years trying to adapt to the new evidence.

Fair enough.

It's ironic that "scientific Creationism" existed and was falsified long before Morris and Whitcomb plagerized Price to concoct "Scientific Creationism".

They merely saw an opportunity to promote religion as science.

I love reading the transcripts of debates between Old Earthers like Hugh Ross and YECs like Morris and Hovind.

You can't pay writers to write better comedy!

 

[Upchurch]

Um, my original point was that creationism has more evidence than abiogenesis based on observable evidence we can all see today. You guys are all over the place.

What observable, repeatable evidence is there that the original genesis of life on Earth was created by supernatural forces, a la creationism?

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

Not true, but I'll bite: What living thing do you posit creating living things on Earth and what observable, repeatable evidence is there for this living thing?

 

[Kotatsu]

So I guess teaching evolution and teaching history have similar potential problems since none of us were around to witness it or write about it

Nonsense. Just as you and me and everyone else who is at all conscious are witnessing history all the time --- though it may not always be called history, but "current events" or something --- people are witnessing evolution all the time. Neither of them just magically stopped at some past date and has been kept constant ever since, you know.

and the evidence we have in both situations doesn't paint the whole story.

But while the evidence for evolution paints the roof of the Treppenhaus in the Würzburg Residenz, the evidence in favour of creation is at best a grey-scale depiction of a matchbox. There are degrees of incompleteness.

 

[Tailgater]

Could someone explain to me why on God's green earth some Nutjobs are trying to get "intelligent" design into the school system in the first place?

By that I mean that those people might think that this will improve their religion and spread "teh wandaful work of Jebus Senior", but as far I see it, it's rather damaging the church's reputation.

So what's the purpose anyway? Are these people downright stupid?

Well, I don't recall having to study any religion in school (unlike some places).

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_8562321

 

[Eos of the Eons]

there is no creationism "theory". There is only the bible, with no theories. You are to believe the earth was created by god, and all living things were created by god. No theory, just belief.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

there is no creationism "theory". There is only the bible, with no theories. You are to believe the earth was created by god, and all living things were created by god. No theory, just belief.

Check my link to William Whiston above. Historical Creationism theory stated that, when nature was observed, it would line up with a literal reading of Genesis. It was falsified shortly after the first geologists (many of whom were ministers) discovered the Earth was much older than 6,000 years.

Modern Creationism is a theology rooted in fundamentalism and Seventh Day Adventism via George McCready Price that has tried to wrap itself in a scientific mantle, and failed miserably.

 

[Mashuna]

We have only witnessed living things coming from other living things. That supports creationism. We have not seen living things come from non-living things. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen, it just means the evidence we see of living things only coming from other living things supports creationism instead of abiogenesis. That's what I'm saying. Maybe I missed something, but has anyone seen non-living matter turn into a living thing? If so, please post it.

So the creationist theory is because we haven't actually seen simple chemicals, through chance and millions of years, arrange themselves into a simple replicator, then the likely solution is that a massively complex being that exists outside of time created life.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Check my link to William Whiston above. Historical Creationism theory stated that, when nature was observed, it would line up with a literal reading of Genesis. It was falsified shortly after the first geologists (many of whom were ministers) discovered the Earth was much older than 6,000 years.

Modern Creationism is a theology rooted in fundamentalism and Seventh Day Adventism via George McCready Price that has tried to wrap itself in a scientific mantle, and failed miserably.

That is because their beliefs aren't theories, and can't be called theories because they are not theories, and are not scientific in any way. Argh. So there

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

That is because their beliefs aren't theories, and can't be called theories because they are not theories, and are not scientific in any way. Argh. So there

Are you joking here?

Some Bible based ideas of creation, flood geology being one of them, can and have been formulated in a scientfic, evidence based, falsifiable manner.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Bible stories are based on floods that can happen in real life. So what? Doesn't make the stories scientifictheories. The fact that floods happened can be based on fact. Still doesn't make the bible stories into theories.

Entertaining the belief system this way is not helping. It will just end up with ID being taught as science instead of philosophy.

 

[pgwenthold]

Are you joking here?

Some Bible based ideas of creation, flood geology being one of them, can and have been formulated in a scientfic, evidence based, falsifiable manner.

Of course, all those that have been formulated in a "scientific, evidence based, falsifiable manner" were falsified more than 100 years ago.

It is always worth remembering that in fact, creationism was once the scientific paradigm. The reason it lost favor is because it failed to account for pretty much anything that was observed.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Bible stories are based on floods that can happen in real life. So what? Doesn't make the stories scientifictheories. The fact that floods happened can be based on fact. Still doesn't make the bible stories into theories.

The fact that a global flood would leave evidence and therefore have testable consequences is what makes it possible to formulate a scientific theory based on "bible stories".

Entertaining the belief system this way is not helping. It will just end up with ID being taught as science instead of philosophy.

No, repeating what I'm saying will lead to the bible stories being taught in science classes in the same places we mention phlogiston.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

We don't need the bible to know there was floods. We already know how big a flood may look to one small person's limited viewpoint back when the bible was made up. It only shows how unscientific the bible is. One puny human back then may have figured the whole world was covered up, but we know scientifically why that was not possible when the bible was made up. That proves how unscientific the bible stories are. It also proves that creationists cannot use the bible to come up with any real theory.

It's like trying to use the Hansel and Gretal story to prove some witch lived in a candy house in a forest somewhere at some time.

The noah story was made up to make a religous point, not a science one. We also know that not every species in existence at the time could not have been floated around on one boat. It's blatant fiction, and that can be proved with science. It's hilarious to try to prove any of that could have happened, since it can be proven to be impossible. Why try to mix the mix the fantasy with reality anyways?

It's like trying to prove a way that Santa can deliver toys to every child in the world in one night. There's no point to proving that any more than there is a point in trying to prove water covered every inch of earth when the bible was written by humans who had no idea the Americas even existed.

It's not science in any way, shape or form. It's laughable that anyone is trying to put science into the religious picture.

What the frac is phlogiston?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It also proves that creationists cannot use the bible to come up with any real theory.

It's blatant fiction, and that can be proved with science.

You've contradicted yourself here. If it can be proved (or disproved) with science then it must have been a real theory. If it wasn't a testable explanation of the facts then you couldn't objectively disprove it.

Despite the conclusions you've reached it sounds like you have the very same misunderstanding about what a theory is that creationists have.

 

[jj]

You've contradicted yourself here. If it can be proved (or disproved) with science then it must have been a real theory. If it wasn't a testable explanation of the facts then you couldn't objectively disprove it.

Despite the conclusions you've reached it sounds like you have the very same misunderstanding about what a theory is that creationists have.

Actually, what that shows is that you do not understand the difference between an accepted theory and a hypothesis. What the creationists you just supported provide are mostly untestable hypotheses.

 

[elbe]

You've contradicted yourself here. If it can be proved (or disproved) with science then it must have been a real theory. If it wasn't a testable explanation of the facts then you couldn't objectively disprove it.

Despite the conclusions you've reached it sounds like you have the very same misunderstanding about what a theory is that creationists have.

It can be falsified with science without actually being a theory. It's possible, instead, that the bible made a hypothesis and science has falsified it. There is a vast difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Actually, what that shows is that you do not understand the difference between an accepted theory and a hypothesis.

There is some overlap between the definition of a "hypothesis" and "theory". If you want to use one versus the other I would have no problem with that. But the issue is whether the hypothesis or theory is scientific. And flood geology, for example, is (or can be) scientific.

What the creationists you just supported provide are mostly untestable hypotheses.

I didn't support any creationists. And the creationist theory I've been referring to most is "flood geology" which most certainly is testable. It couldn't have been tested if it wasn't testable, right?

It can be falsified with science without actually being a theory. It's possible, instead, that the bible made a hypothesis and science has falsified it. There is a vast difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

Consult a dictionary on this "vast difference". I don't see it. Some usages of the two words have vast differences. Some of the definitions of theory even have vast differences. But there's overlap also. And the issue isn't whether "hypothesis" or "theory" is the right word. The issue is over whether "scientific" is the right word.

If you care to use "scientific hypothesis" instead of "scientific theory" to describe flood geology I wouldn't argue with that.

 

[Ixion]

I consider myself so lucky to have been taught freshman biology by Dr. Michael Dini at Texas Tech University. He is a former catholic monk that has seen the error of his ways and now teaches evolutionary concepts in his freshman biology class. Not only does he teach it, he openly has a 2 week segment on the principles of evolution (of which the information is on the exam), and shows how the beliefs of the church and creationist beliefs do not support biology. Any student that wants a letter of recommendation for him must first write an essay for him showing a scientific reason for the origin of the human species. He even had an inquest filed against him in 2003 by a group of creationist lawyers on behalf of a student, which ended up being an inquest by the federal government.

Christian Lawyers file suit against Michael Dini

 

[jj]

Consult a dictionary on this "vast difference". I don't see it.

If you want to argue semantics based on your use of words that is in the popular, rather than scientific, usage, there's no reason to discuss anything, it's just an argument about who defines the words, the people who know what they need to mean, or the people who don't.

Don't need that.

 

[Madalch]

Don't need that.

Define "need".