"The Top 10 Claims Made by Creationists to Counter Scientific Theories"

[Audie]

While that is true, it is certainly noteworthy that some people go to such extremes to try and keep grasping at straws for no good reason.

To you, to me, not a good reason. But to them, it is the central existential
matter of life on earth, dont you think?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

​

The Second Law of Thermodynamics prohibits evolution

​

That one always intrigues me. Creationists themselves started out as a single cell and developed over time into a fully complex human being. They seem ok with a single cell developing into a full human in just 9 months, but they think going from a single cell to a full human over billions of years somehow violates a natural law. The shear amount of cognitive dissonance this must create fascinates me. How do creationists hold on to such vapid and false claims in the face of basic facts that show how wrong they are? The psychology of creationism is perhaps one of the most intriguing parts of the debate.

 

[LuisDantas]

To you, to me, not a good reason. But to them, it is the central existential
matter of life on earth, dont you think?

Frankly, no, I don't think so.

It can't be central, or even healthy, to have such a strong obsession, so much fear of not having entirely academic answers with no practical value.

 

[Audie]

Frankly, no, I don't think so.

It can't be central, or even healthy, to have such a strong obsession, so much fear of not having entirely academic answers with no practical value.

It does not look healthy to me, but as for central?

Of course it is. IF one concedes the least thing re age of the earth,
then the Bible is a Lie-so some have it

And if your life is built around the "bible", then what?

 

[Audie]

That one always intrigues me. Creationists themselves started out as a single cell and developed over time into a fully complex human being. They seem ok with a single cell developing into a full human in just 9 months, but they think going from a single cell to a full human over billions of years somehow violates a natural law. The shear amount of cognitive dissonance this must create fascinates me. How do creationists hold on to such vapid and false claims in the face of basic facts that show how wrong they are? The psychology of creationism is perhaps one of the most intriguing parts of the debate.

I am particularly intrigued by the absolute incapacity to ever be mistaken
on even the most trivial, irrelevant thing.

This from people who very definitely have not studied the subject matter.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

To you, to me, not a good reason. But to them, it is the central existential
matter of life on earth, dont you think?

“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.” --Carl Sagan

 

[LuisDantas]

Surely even those people actually exist in the real world and have realistic everyday concerns about such things as shelter, food, and work?

 

[Jumi]

That is not an ice age thing, as such.
I forget the name of that formation, but they are pretty common.

In English they're glacial potholes, I believe. I'm not sure if the ones in Canada formed the same way, probably if they were also under a glacier in the ice age.

Tho the large and wonderfully round rock, not so much.

While the glacier was withdrawing and melting the stone was spinning and making the hole. Without the other, it wouldn't have formed this way.

 

[Jumi]

Is this what is sometimes called a "giant's kettle"? : Giant's kettle - Wikipedia

Formed by the action of flowing water causing stones inside to move round and erode a pit in the rock.

Is there a difference between glacial potholes and giant's kettles? We call them hiidenkirnu, hiisi is like a goblin from our mythology and kirnu is churn.

 

[Jumi]

Surely even those people actually exist in the real world and have realistic everyday concerns about such things as shelter, food, and work?

They make money from selling this of course... even at the bottom they were selling their books and videos for 59.99, 79.99...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Kurt Wise is a modern day geologist and agrees


Honestly...I admire people with such a great faith, they live in a status of ancestral purity (The innocence William Blake spoke of)

His surname sounds like a cruel game of destiny...though...

Kurt Wise has a degree in geology. He is not a geologist. Having a degree and doing work in the field are two different things. He has to lie to himself to keep his faith alive. That tells us that he has very weak faith. Anyone that has even a basic understanding of geology quickly realizes that the Flood story is a myth.

 

[Audie]

Is there a difference between glacial potholes and giant's kettles? We call them hiidenkirnu, hiisi is like a goblin from our mythology and kirnu is churn.

What I have seen has been in waterfalls.

 

[Audie]

“Every aspect of Nature reveals a deep mystery and touches our sense of wonder and awe. Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries.” --Carl Sagan

and somewhat weirdly perverse, the creos have it that they are the ones
seeing the true wonder and majesty of nature.

 

[Jumi]

What I have seen has been in waterfalls.

There's no waterfalls near these so I'd guess they are different types. Some of the ones here are on top of hills. There is of course a similarity in the process they are formed... you need movement of water over long periods of time.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah yes, Dr. K Wise.

The guy who says that even if all the evidence in the universe were to
turn against yec, he would still be a yec because that is what the bible seems to say.

Total intellectual dishonesty.

What a thing for you to admire.

Ironically, Dr. Wise is often cited as an "honest creationist" because he's up front about his bias. I see it more as he's up front about his dishonest approach to data.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no waterfalls near these so I'd guess they are different types. Some of the ones here are on top of hills. There is of course a similarity in the process they are formed... you need movement of water over long periods of time.

I was going to say earlier that most of those formations tend to be glacial, but there can be other causes. When it comes to giant kettles found on top of hills, or on areas such as Canada's shield granite, those are almost always from glacial origins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ironically, Dr. Wise is often cited as an "honest creationist" because he's up front about his bias. I see it more as he's up front about his dishonest approach to data.

I know, it is rather ironic that to even be an "honest creationist" one has to first admit what one will be dishonest about.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

and somewhat weirdly perverse, the creos have it that they are the ones
seeing the true wonder and majesty of nature.

Those who reject the science are usually the ones most ignorant of it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know, it is rather ironic that to even be an "honest creationist" one has to first admit what one will be dishonest about.

This is about the closest I've seen to an "honest creationist"....

The Truth About Evolution

"Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

"

 

[Audie]

There's no waterfalls near these so I'd guess they are different types. Some of the ones here are on top of hills. There is of course a similarity in the process they are formed... you need movement of water over long periods of time.

Too cool, I did not know of this kind. I will read more about it