-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
How old do people think the earth is.
- Thread starter Atheist_Dave
- Start date
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
If you're referring to a specific post of mine that can support your ad hominim attacks, that would be very useful. I would like to see if you can provide evidence to match your "conclusions."Steve said:
Answers in Genesis is widely known as "Christian" propaganda, and is as unreliable a source for Christian theology as it is science. I see later in the thread that you use it as your only source to provide scientists who supposedly use science to prove that the Bible is a science book. Fortunately, Answers in Genesis has as much credibility on RF as it should, which is next to none - only among the ignorant few who push its baseless propaganda.
Evolution, however, is not propaganda, because there is actually evidence for it. The so-called creation scientists are notorious for promoting outright lies and misinterpretation of science and have earned a place in academia that it justly deserves: exclusion.
EDIT:
From the article in wikipedia under the entry "Creation Science"
"The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such." [1] According to Skeptic Magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution". [2]."
"Creation science has therefore been considered by most who evaluate it [8] to be religious, rather than scientific, because it stems from faith in the Bible, a religious book rather than by the application of the scientific method. For example, according to the United States National Academy of Sciences (NAS), "Religious opposition to evolution propels antievolutionism. Although antievolutionists pay lip service to supposed scientific problems with evolution, what motivates them to battle its teaching is apprehension over the implications of evolution for religion." [9]. Creation science does not necessarily disagree that their oppositional stance is based on religion. Duane Gish, a prominent creation science proponent, has argued that "We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." [10]."
Scientific criticisms of creation science
NAS has stated that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such" [14] and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested." [15].
Creationists often claim that creationism (more specifically, creation science) is not only scientific, but that it is more scientific than evolution.
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
- consistent (internally and externally)
- parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
- useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
- empirically testable and falsifiable
- based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
- correctable and dynamic (changes are made as new data is discovered)
- progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
- tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms [16]. Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins [17].
(NAS)"
(NAS)"
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
From Wiki con't
"
A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists:
Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the year science historian John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as Andrew Dickson White in his essay A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Their conclusions, however, their conclusions have been disputed [18].
Some opponents consider creation science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool, with cult-like features, to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion."
"
A summary of the objections to creation science by mainstream scientists:
- Creationism is not falsifiable : Theism is not falsifiable, since the existence of God is typically asserted without sufficient conditions to allow a falsifying observation. God being a transcendental being, beyond the realm of the observable, claims about his existence can neither be supported nor undermined by observation, hence making creationism, the argument from design and other arguments for the existence of God a posteriori arguments. (See also the section on falsifiability below.)
- Creationism violates the principle of parsimony : Creationism fails to pass Occam's razor. Adding supernatural entities to the equation is not strictly necessary to explain events.
- Creationism is not empirically testable : Creationism violates a basic premise of science, naturalism, so is not empirically testable.
- Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments : That Creationism is not based upon controlled, repeatable experiments stems not from the theory itself, but from the phenomenon that it tries to explain.
- Creationism is not correctable, dynamic, tentative or progressive : Creationism professes to adhere to an "absolute Truth", "the word of God", not a provisional assessment of data which can change when new information is discovered. Once it is claimed that "the Truth" has been established, there is simply no possibility of future correction. The idea of the progressive growth of scientific ideas is required to explain previous data and any previously unexplainable data as well as any future data. It is often given as a justification for the naturalistic basis of science. In any practical sense of the concept, creationism is not progressive: it does not explain or expand upon what went before it and is not consistent with established ancillary theories.
Historically, the debate of whether creationism is compatible with science can be traced back to 1874, the year science historian John William Draper published his History of the Conflict between Religion and Science. In it Draper portrayed the entire history of scientific development as a war against religion. This presentation of history was propagated further by followers such as Andrew Dickson White in his essay A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Their conclusions, however, their conclusions have been disputed [18].
Some opponents consider creation science to be an ideologically and politically motivated propaganda tool, with cult-like features, to promote the creationist agenda in society. They allege that the term "creation science" was chosen to purposely blur the distinction between science and religion."
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Wiki "propaganda"
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.
Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests."
"Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than impartially providing information. In some cultures the term is neutral or even positive, while in others the term has acquired a strong negative connotation. Its connotations can also vary over time. For instance, in English, "propaganda" was originally a neutral term used to describe the dissemination of information in favor of a certain cause. Over time, however, the term acquired the negative connotation of disseminating false or misleading information in favor of a certain cause. Strictly speaking, a message does not have to be untrue to qualify as propaganda, but it may omit so many pertinent truths that it becomes highly misleading.
Historically, the most common use of the term propaganda is in political contexts; in particular to refer to certain efforts sponsored by governments, political groups, and other often covert interests."
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Wiki article "Answers in Genesis" demonstrates evidence that Answers in Genesis is widely known for deceit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis#Criticism):
Criticism
No Answers in Genesis is a site maintained by members of Australian Skeptics led by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting AiG.
In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff scientists debated a team from the Australian Skeptics online on Margo Kingston's web diary section of the Sydney Morning Herald website.[47]
AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism[48]. They use the criteria that each member of the list must have a doctorate in a scientific field.
In response to this, and similar lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education's Project Steve (after Stephen Jay Gould) is a tongue in cheek list of scientists who accept evolution, whose first name is Stephen (or some derivative, such as Steven, or Stephanie). The idea being that evolution is so well accepted by mainstream scientists that even a list of Steves will outnumber any creationist list.) AiG's list currently has 154 signatories as opposed to 637 "Steves" on the NCSE list.
AiG's apologetics have also been questioned. Critics charge that they argue against evolution rather than for creationism and are trying to lend credence to supernatural origins of life simply by discrediting natural origins. Many creationists would agree, and claim that they are merely using the disjunctive syllogism and Law of excluded middle,[49] and that many evolutionists have done the same, i.e. argue against creation (why would God have done it this way?") rather than for evolution.[50]
[edit]
Criticism of Salary
Lexington's Ace Weekly[51] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[52] quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in a dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG, saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."
According to Guidestar, the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million[53] in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials earned $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis).[54]
Kentucky Post journalist, Kevin Eigelbach, reported Ken Ham's defense of his salary, "People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices made to get the ministry started. had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay."[55]
[edit]
Controversy over Interview with Richard Dawkins
In 1998, AiG filmed an interview Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Extracts from the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by AiG. The interview, which can be viewed at an AiG web page [56] appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome.
In an article by the Australian Skeptics [57], the film was alleged to have been carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to answer the question, whereas in fact the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins related to the Australian Skeptics how the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.
AiG has responded in an article Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?. According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, was asked the same question and could not answer. The video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity."
Criticism
No Answers in Genesis is a site maintained by members of Australian Skeptics led by retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting AiG.
In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff scientists debated a team from the Australian Skeptics online on Margo Kingston's web diary section of the Sydney Morning Herald website.[47]
AiG has compiled a list of "scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation" to show that it is possible for a modern working scientist to accept creationism[48]. They use the criteria that each member of the list must have a doctorate in a scientific field.
In response to this, and similar lists, the (US) National Center for Science Education's Project Steve (after Stephen Jay Gould) is a tongue in cheek list of scientists who accept evolution, whose first name is Stephen (or some derivative, such as Steven, or Stephanie). The idea being that evolution is so well accepted by mainstream scientists that even a list of Steves will outnumber any creationist list.) AiG's list currently has 154 signatories as opposed to 637 "Steves" on the NCSE list.
AiG's apologetics have also been questioned. Critics charge that they argue against evolution rather than for creationism and are trying to lend credence to supernatural origins of life simply by discrediting natural origins. Many creationists would agree, and claim that they are merely using the disjunctive syllogism and Law of excluded middle,[49] and that many evolutionists have done the same, i.e. argue against creation (why would God have done it this way?") rather than for evolution.[50]
[edit]
Criticism of Salary
Lexington's Ace Weekly[51] and Cincinnati's CityBeat[52] quoted Jennifer Warner, a plaintiff in a dismissed lawsuit/countersuit with AiG, saying, "It's all about making money. They're masquerading behind this Creation museum because they can make more money when they claim religious discrimination."
According to Guidestar, the United States branch of AiG had revenue exceeding $10 million[53] in 2004. In that year, Ken Ham was compensated $185,572. Other high ranking officials earned $115,621 (Dale Mason), $92,352 (Carl Kerby), $91,316 (Mike Zovath), $89,133 (Mark Looy) and $86,068 (Kathy Ellis).[54]
Kentucky Post journalist, Kevin Eigelbach, reported Ken Ham's defense of his salary, "People who think that's a lot of money probably don't know the sacrifices made to get the ministry started. had no salary in the first years of the ministry and bought equipment for it with [my] teacher's retirement pay."[55]
[edit]
Controversy over Interview with Richard Dawkins
In 1998, AiG filmed an interview Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Extracts from the interview were included on a video From a Frog to a Prince, distributed by AiG. The interview, which can be viewed at an AiG web page [56] appears to show Dawkins nonplussed and pausing for 11 seconds when asked by the interviewer to name one example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome.
In an article by the Australian Skeptics [57], the film was alleged to have been carefully edited to give the false appearance that Dawkins was unable to answer the question, whereas in fact the segment that shows him pausing for 11 seconds was actually film of him considering whether to expel the interviewer from the room (for not revealing her creationist sympathies at the outset). Dawkins related to the Australian Skeptics how the interviewer shown in the finished film was not the same person as the person who had originally asked the questions. Furthermore, the question had been subsequently changed to make it look like Dawkins, who was answering the original question put to him, was unable to answer.
AiG has responded in an article Skeptics choke on Frog: Was Dawkins caught on the hop?. According to their account, the raw footage shows that Dawkins, who had previously been informed of the interviewer's creationist sympathies, was asked the same question and could not answer. The video merely has the exact question, faint on the raw footage, re-stated for clarity."
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
As per the ad hominim attack on my Christian faith, any "Christian" can feel free to start a one-on-one debate with me on any topic, including theology and faith. If you think that you can defend anything and actually stay on topic, BRING IT. If not, keep your ad hominims to yourself.
Being a Christian is no excuse to push harmful and baseless propaganda.
Being a Christian is no excuse to push harmful and baseless propaganda.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I believe I've expressed myself adequately, providing suitable evidences for my conclusions.wmam said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You didn't offend at all. What I meant to say that you read me correctly. I thought about adding this friendly guy :149: to my post #42-46 but figured that I had expressed myself adequately when you did thought of him.:162:wmam said:Oh I didn't mean to offend....... I was only sharing a thought with you as my proof.
I didn't even have to copy and paste.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
And God did whatever God did as of course God has the power to do all that God does.Bangbang said:
After all, because we are here is proof that God exists.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was sarcastically demonstrating the weakness of the "we are here, so there must be a god" logic. Creationism has nothing to do with scientific inquiry because the theory is not the result of science but biblical interpretation. So we're here, we must be created, and not only created, but created exactly like the Bible says according to a strictly literal reading of the Bible. By declaring that scientific inquiry is useless, they are hypocrites by attempting to twist scientific findings to match their presupposed conclusions.wmam said:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It's funny - my wife actually said that to me last night. :biglaugh:wmam said:Oh yeah........ your that warm and fuzzy person.
One of my points is simply this: beer and pizza make me feel warm and fuzzy. Is warm and fuzziness a good test for religion? That's all I hear most people say.
Let's take this thread for example - to stay with the OP.
The creationists say: we must believe in a literal seven-day creation because they don't feel warm and fuzzy about any other interpretation of Scripture (note, not interpretation of science, because creation "scientists" are not interpreting science but the Bible). The wonderful thing about this is they are a minority voice and the rest of us can merrily go on our way and let them continue to be warm and fuzzy by themselves.
The simple answer is that if we don't interpret science naturalistically, we cannot properly understand our world. Modern medical science presumes evolution in order to make more effective medicines. Trends in evolution help us to interact responsibly with ourselves and with nature.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'll keep that to myself.wmam said:
And just to demonstrate that I can relate anything to the OP, she just told me that the earth is definately older than 6000 years old. Human history is older than 6000 years. :biglaugh: