Ask Questions - Get Answers [ Public Answers' Archive - Questions ]

Wednesday 8th May 2024 11:37:24 PM

Home/Society & Culture/Religion/Christianity

Question Board

Return to Question Board

Question Details	Asked By	Asked On
Creationism is Non-Scientific	Pericles	03/21/07
"Scientific" Creationism Examined ! An uninformed person might think that the recent surge in creationism is based on some new findings that support the theory or that point out some basic flaw in the theory of evolution. That, however, is not the case, as the renowned palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould said: "According to idealized principles of scientific discourse. the arousal of dormant issues should reflect fresh data that give renewed life to abandoned notions. Those outside the current debate may therefore be excused for suspecting that the creationists have generated some serious internal trouble. But nothing has changed; the creationists have presented not a single new fact or argument ... The rise of creationism is politics, pure and simple; it represents one issue (and by no means the major concern) of the resurgent evangelical right". We will be looking here at the standard creationist arguments: Creationism is not science for it base its fundamental beliefs not on empirical research but on a belief in biblical inerrancy. The creationist arguments for a young earth, one that is only a few thousand years old, fail upon closer examination. The creationist argument for that the rock strata were all laid at the same time, during the Noahchian flood, fails. The creationist have two pseudo-methods of trying to impress their readers: o They use credential mongering, trying to impress their readers with PhD's that have no relevance. o They often quote opponents out of context creating an opposite impression of what was intended. Obviously, these pious fundamentalists have no qualms against dishonest methods like these to prove the truth of their Bible. In summary, "Scientific Creationism" is not science, but a modern manifestation of Christian fundamentalist irrationalism. Recently a new species of creationism has evolved. This new creature, called old earth creationism, believes, unlike the young earth creationism we looked at above, that the world is as old as scientists say it is but that it still carries within it signs of being intelligently designed. Creationism in any format is Non-Scientific !!! Link to very extended supporting article Any comments ?
Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 12:49 pm: As Peddler couldn't even understand the basics of what I was saying I figured why complicate things even further. Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 1:13 pm: TS Never give up pointing out inconsistencies in peddlers non-arguments !!! Over time you will learn to do that in a few lines. Put the need for proof of statements into peddlers hands. She won't do that, but than at least she is silenced ! Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 1:16 pm: Peddler -silenced --on evolution? I see he hasn't replied back on a couple other things BUT when it comes to rocks....... Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 1:19 pm: TS That's true. But than she neither accepted your invitation to visit the all-glass "Skywalk" over the edge of the Grand Canyon. If it ain't at "AnswersinG" peddler is not interested !!! :) Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 1:24 pm: exactly what I meant by my VISUALIZATION OF BOX 1 everything Peddler believes BOX 2 evolution THAT OFFENDED PEDDLER I THOUGHT HE WOULD LIKE IT BUT HE THREW THEM BOXES IN BOX 2 along with the grand canyon skywalk Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 1:31 pm: TS What "boxes" are you talking about? I have no idea! :) Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 1:34 pm: Perc to refresh your memory THESE BOXES ) :) Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 1:36 pm: Note the bottom of THAT page! Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 2:03 pm: TS OK, OK !!! Yes I recalled that : I thought you had moved forwards in the meantime ... :) Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 2:34 pm: LOL Peddler keeps bringing it up Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 03/21/07 2:53 pm: TS I knew about the sky walk plans years ago. Unlike you I actually know a thing or two about the canyon. Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 3:06 pm: peddler Nowbody claimed that you did not know about that. The point is that you dump data on reality in favour of your beliefs in your unsupported religious preferences. Clarification/Follow-up by peddler7118 on 03/21/07 3:29 pm: Perk Dump data? Data does not prove anything it must be interpreted. Everybody has the same data. There is no box for evidence for evolution and another for creation. The evidence is the same for everyone. There is only one earth and there was only one past. Historical events are outside of science, science only works in the here and now. The best anyone can do is building a model and see how the evidence fits. It fits creation. What we observe is animals reproducing after their own kind not reptiles growing feathers. It is you who refuse to look at the data. The conflicts between the different methods of "dating" of a billion years or more you simply ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. The scientific data from helium diffusion you ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. The scientific data from c-14 in diamonds you ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. The smell of death and soft tissue in T-rex bones you ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. The dates of rocks of known age that are in 100% of cases off by 100's of thousands to billions of years you ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. The existence of comets, short and long period, that could not have possibly lasted millions of years you ignore because it conflicts your pet theory. In this case you just make up a story about a source of comets somewhere over the rainbow. It is you who refuses to look at evidence that does not fit your theory, not me. I look at it all and think for myself. Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 3:45 pm: peddler Incorrect : There are mountains of supporting proof for Evolution. There is no supporting evidence for Creation and/or Intelligent Design !!! Why don't you address THAT ? Nothing at "AnswersinG" ??? :) Clarification/Follow-up by tropicalstorm on 03/21/07 5:11 pm: Peddler I didn't say y0u didn't know I said it would be a whole new VIEW. Clarification/Follow-up by Pericles on 03/21/07 5:42 pm: TS Don't let peddler "get" to you !!! Show her with every reaction that it is SHE who should prove HER point! :)

Summary of Answers Received	Answered On	Answered By	Average Rating
1. I have explained til virtually blue in the face how the eart...	03/21/07	tropicalstorm
2. Excellent, thanks for the link. "Ribby"...	03/21/07	MarySusan
3. I BELIEVE that the world is as old as scientists say it is b...	03/21/07	arcura

Your Options
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !

viewq © Copyright 2002-2008 Answerway.org. All rights reserved. User Guidelines. Expert Guidelines.
Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Make Us Your Homepage. Bookmark Answerway.