Sapiens
Polymathematician
CJ: Other Creationism
Asked and answered.
- CJ000: Vedic Creationism
- CJ200-CJ499: Native North American Creationism
- CJ300: Creationism from individual tribes
- CJ500-CJ699: Islamic Creationism
- CJ500: Qur'an Accuracy
He is a liar and a perjurer and should not be taken seriously by anyone.Earth to Man-of-Faith: there's no debate about it in scientific circles. More than 99.99% of relevant scientists accepted the theory. The few who don't, do it on religious grounds. And what's more, they refuse to publish in scientific journals, where their viewpoints can be discussed by their peers. Not science. The fewer than 0.01% of relevant scientists who call themselves "creation scientists" have never even produced one little piece of evidence for their beliefs. Just quotes from their favourite holy books. That's why it is rejected by the other more than 99.99% of biologists. Any evidence for this, or is it what you want to believe? Are you making it up?
In the end, it doesn't matter what lay people say about science. It's what the scientific method says about science that matters. Evolution happens. It's fact. Every single bit of empirical, verifiable evidence we have confirms the fact. You denying it won't change it. Wishful thinking won't change it. It just shows that you are deluded. The same Behe that testified in court that astrology is "science"? He's a liar. Why would anyone trust what he says?
That is true, but when they have been shown to be claptrap with multiple data sets from multiple fields ... then they can be discarded. At the point continued use of such arguments flies in the face of even the christian bible, as noted by Creation Ministries International: "Persisting in using discredited arguments simply rebounds—it’s the truth that sets us free (John 8:32), not error, and Christ is “the truth” (John 14:6)!"What you are doing is using the propaganda techniques of public ridicule and scorn to win an argument. Just because a scientist’s ideas and claims aren’t accepted by the mainstream scientific community doesn’t mean that they don’t have merit.
I can add plenty on the biological side.Actually, lying does not have any merit. Creationists always lie in every "article" they write. Even in courts, too. That's all they have, together with people not versed in science believing their untruths. If you want specific examples, I've got plenty of creationist lies I can specifically refer to.
I'll be glad to take the biological part of the debate.Why don't you want to debate a scientist? Come on, show us your stuff! If Krok is a secular geologist with weak arguments and you have better arguments, you should be able to embarrass him by making mince meat of his arguments.
I so dare you to debate him!
I thought that was what I was doing? I have no problem with the science, it's the conclusions based on the presuppositions of naturalism and uniformitarianism that I have a problem with.
Asked and answered.
Everything that is observed, duplicated and tested by scientists is allowed in the creation model. So I have no problem with what the scientists uncover, or the data they present.
Because the creation model does not fit the data ... it is proven to be incorrect by multiple fields of inquiry and is "proven" correct only by fundamentalist interpretations of the Christian Bible, a process that requires presupposition to the max.Here is what the debate is really about. If everything that is observed is allowed in both the evolution and creation models, why do mainstreams scientists say that the data fits only one of the models? It is because of the presuppositions that are in science that says evolution is a fact so let’s see how it was done. And nobody would dare challenge those presuppositions if they want to pay their bills.
That's a reasonable thing to do. They've had their days in court and they lost big time, every time. Let's move on (See Creation Ministry International statement above).That's not surprising giving your attitude that anybody that doesn't accept evolution and an old earth age is simply reduced to "religious" and should be discounted.
Honesty is not their policy when it contradicts their presuppositions.fantôme profane;2800363 said:If you choose to reject science because of the assumption of naturalism, fine. Just be honest about it.
One of many lies, that's why I pointed out (above) that they are not presuppositions but rather theories or laws.Is an intial assumption that turns out to work still an assumption? All our observations support naturalism and uniformitarianism and none refute them. I think it is dishonest to refer to them as assumptions. Just another lieing ploy by the religious.
Assumptions? No. There has more than enough work done for them to be theories or laws ... I'd frankly pull for the Law of Uniformitarianism and the Theory of Naturalism.fantôme profane;2801688 said:I take your point, but I still have to say that yes it is an assumption. It is an incredibly reasonable and practical assumption. It is an assumption that every sane individual makes in 90% of their day to day lives. We demand that people make this assumption, not only scientists, but also mechanics, plumbers, electricians, manufactures etc. If you take your car to a mechanic and he recommends a magical spell that will dispel the gremlins from your engine, you take your car to a different mechanic.
I don’t think it is dishonest to call them assumptions, but it is dishonest to imply that they are invalid assumptions, and it is incredibly dishonest to deny that everybody makes exactly these same assumptions.
... and an excellent two cents it is.I agree with the OP completely. One thing I find interesting is that one of the greatest Christian thinkers, St. Augustine of Hippo, said basically that when science reveals something to be true, and it is contrary to what Christians believe the Bible teaches, that it is the Christians who should change their interpretation of the Bible, so they don't come across as ignorant fools. And like it's stated in the OP, most Christians do not accept literal scientific understandings of the Bible, especially stories in the OT, like creationism, the global flood, etc. It's just that the small amount who do, are much more vocal about it. They don't even realize that most of their religious brothers and sisters reject such things. When one presupposes that their view is right, simply because they think it is, it shows them to be foolish, ignorant, and dishonest. Those unwilling to change their views even in clear light of truth are not really worthy of the time and energy to debate. Arguing for the sake of arguing is pointless. If you can't learn, then don't waste the time. It's said that the wise are open to chastisement, while the foolish are not. And, if I'm not mistaken, that is from the Bible. That's my two cents.
Last edited: