Ten reasons why creation scientists don't believe in evolution

[Ironside]

And don't be too sure about evolution, or any scientific branch for that matter, subjecting itself unflinchingly to the rigors of peer review, at least these days. Science has become pretty dogmatic itself of late. Stephen Hawking was branded a kook by said peers not because of flaws in his logic but because the big-bang theory smacked too much of creationsim.... ooooh, scary!

The scientiffic community has always been very conservative. The positive is that a new theory needs much ground to stand on. The downside is that most of the guys with good ideas will be celebrated post-mortum.

[Adrian II]

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt?

That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That's right: what it does is refute untenable claims and views. Such as the claim that the Earth was created 6651 years ago (or thereabouts) out of nowhere...

Are you sure?

[Byzantine Prince]

Hell even Sumerians lived before those 6651 years. Gawain if your last resonce isn't a joke, you are much smarter then I originally thought.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Didnt we just go through the fact that nothing in science is really provable beyond a doubt? Its only our educated guess and rationalization.

That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...

I'd not say it's a rationalization, but would agree that nothing in science is provable.

However, sciencitific theory can be proven wrong! Experiment proved that Newton was wrong, etc, etc... Most of the scientific experiment are designed to prove a theory wrong. The way it works is; you make guess from the theory, make an experiment, and see if it works. If it does not; the theory is wrong, if it does, that just means the theory is not proven wrong .... yet :p.

As some theories have been working throught a lot of experiment they are thought as reliable... But they still got the "proven until wrong" status.

The greatest diservice a creationist can handle to creationism is to claim it can't be proven wrong.
Although this creationist would be right; you can't prove anything wrong once an omnipotent being comes into play, he would also prove that creationism is not a scientific theory, for it can't be proven wrong!

Louis,

[mfberg]

But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).

mfberg

[Nelson]

Precisely, Louis.

I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.

Creationism is a dead end street. How can we hope to prove it? Wait around for the rapture?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That quote is a good starting point to explain why creationism is not a science...

I never claimed it was. In fact I would call a creationist scientist a sort of oximoron.

But the clever creationist would say that his God (omniscient like many of todays more acknowledged gods) created the basis for life knowing exactly how it would evolve into todays species. (I think this is the basis for the Intelligent design process, but don't ask me how it's supposed to work, or why it would end up with any different product than 4.5 billion years of random genetic sequencing with failure cut-offs).

Exactly.

I always thought that a scientific theory has the potential to be proved or disproved. Perhaps one day we can verify if evolution works the way evidence suggests.

Only to a certain extent.

[Skomatth]

Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.

So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.

Edit:

Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

[BDC]

There is a fascinating book called "The Feathered Onion" which is really interesting and edges into a lot of this, and some cell biology. And it's actually readable too (my textbook authors could take notes on this).

[Papewaio]

Gawain here is a quote from The Fabric of the Cosmos , a sort of cosmology for dummies book by Brian Greene a professor at Columbia I believe.



So you won't get any scientific answers about your matter question. The big bang assumes a huge density of matter and energy at the time when space began to expand. This is the big bang, not some miraculous flash of energy into existence, but rather the evolution of mass and energy once it was in existence.

Edit:

Link to the same at NASA: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb2.html

GAH! Please don't mix the word evolution in with the Big Bang. It might be a viable thing when comparing multiverses and ones that can bud off other universes to talk about evolution.

But in this discussion it will be confused with biological evolution.

[bmolsson]

The discussion starts to feel like the movie 13th floor.....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn't. The big bang is a theory...that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence but it says nothing at all about time zero itself.

As we used to say as kids no shite sherlock


In other words like I said thier cluless on the matter of where matter came from.

[Papewaio]

Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand. Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.

On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not clueless at all. The Big Bang is the best theory that models the evidence at hand.

Im not talking about the big bang theory

Also matter can be spontaneoulsy created in a vaccum or converted from energy.

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

On the other hand creationism does not fit the evidence at hand.

It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god. Again I think a combination of the two is the most likely scenario. Of course you are free to think what you like but you cannot prove anything. You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.

I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...

Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.

I am sure you and many creationist will be happy the day someone will come up with some evidence that evolution is flawed or Big Bang was the wrong idea about it all; oddly, it will be the vctory of science. That's how science works. Then the next theory will come up and will be tested and tried again. Until it fails too. And then we start again. It will never end.
That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.

Louis,

[bmolsson]

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

The energy comes from Bubba.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

There is no combination of the two possible; once you open the "God" can of worm, everything is possible.

Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?

I disagree with Pape when he said "creationism does not fit the evidence"; the problem is that creationism fit ANY EVIDENCE . That's God omnipotence for you...

Thas basicly what I said.

Gawain, some people may have faith in science, but that's as unscientific an opinion as having faith in religion is.
Scientific mind is not about having faith, it's about disproving theories with experiment and fact. What makes the Big Bang a good theory so far is that no experiment has proved it wrong yet. Same goes with evolution.
.

I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.

I am sure you and many creationist

Whoa whoa whoa . Im no creationist. I dont believe that god created the earth in 6 days . If anything Im a total skeptic. I dont believe anything you cant prove to me for the most part. This is why I stopped being a catholic. I question everything. Ive said this in the past but I really try to look at bothsides of an arguement to the point where I can usually argue either side pretty well. I guess its because Im a Gemini. Astrology now theres a science

That will never happen with any work that include the Hand of God in there. That's why it's not science.

I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.

[Papewaio]

Created in a vacum from what? If its created by energy where did the energy come from ?

Quantum Vacuum.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Is it me or did you just condratict yourself in one sentence?

LOL.

Thas basicly what I said.

Certainly not.

I think you missunderstand me. Again I have a very scientific mind and approach to almost everything. I majored in it in college. I always excelled at math , science and history. As you can see english has always been my weak point. Theres no need to explain any of this scientific stuff to me as I already know it very well.

And college degrees are absolute bullshit. I know trouble are coming when someone says "I know this, I studied it in college". College is the basic, like the alphabet, the very first step of education.
You learn to read in college, but you have not read anything yet. Real stuff starts later. Don't bring degrees to the discussion, as they are irrelevant anyway.

You sure don't know it very well, or we would not have this discussion.

...

I never claimed it was in fact ve said just the opposite in this thread. In other words Im backing both horses in this race until I can see a clear winner.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CLEAR WINNER IN SCIENCE.
It's only a question of not failing yet.

On the other hand, THERE IS NO WAY CREATIONISM CAN "LOSE", and that's the reason why it does lose as a science.

(go ahead pick again a contradiction... )

Can't you see that backing both horses is not a consistent position?

Louis,

[Quietus]

Problem is people see Humans as the "Center" of the universe. On the contrary, we're just the "Freaks" of the universe.

Just because we're here 'alive' doesn't mean there is an "intelligent design" of 'god' which we are the final product of.

[Paul Peru]

It certainly does if you believe all we see and know is the work of the hand of god.

There is, however, no evidence that fits better with the existence of any deity than with its non-existence.

You have faith in science. Its a religion as I said.

No it isn't, for reasons others have stated.
Scientific theories are based on empirical observations, and can be proved wrong.

Religion is based on hearsay, brain disorders etc., and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways. We can show how the systems of belief currently in fashion have evolved from earlier ones, though.

Minor concession: You may say that "Thunder and lightning is caused by the god Thor riding across the sky with his paraphernalia" was a scientific theory, because it was as good an shot at explaining it as the people who believed it had. It is now proven to be wrong, and noone believes in it anymore.
Most natural phenomena have reasonable scientific explanations by now. This is very useful. One problem remains: How come the universe exists? Of course we wouldn't be wondering if it didn't. "God created it" may be as good an answer as any, but given the track record of religious attemts at giving explanations for real stuff, I'd say probably not. Which deity the creator would be is also something for which no convincing argument has been heard, and how come that deity existed in the first place? Turtles all the way down?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

...and there's no way in lala-land we can disprove an omnipotent fairy-tale creature that moves in mysterical ways.

One got to love when typo meet poetry



Louis,