Is Creationism Dead?

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Howdy,

Please do forgive me for intruding, but I am... unclear on some things.

First, your source on evolutionnews about this Behe fellow. I'm confused as to what the author is writing about. The author seems to be writing about a paper published with another article refuting aspects of intelligent design. I get that, but why does he later argue that the authors of the paper of refutation misinterpreted Behe's book? How is the author even sure that they read Behe's work, let alone misinterpreted it. This seems like shoddy reporting to me. That said, I fail to see how indirect pathways are not slight, gradual modifications over time... Really, I don't see the argument being made. It's... more rambling than one of my own posts. Also, the use of "Darwinism" really flashes red lights in my mind. So, I ask you, is this a reliable, unbiased source that you have cited?

Second, abiogenesis is not evolution, please do not conflate the chemical origins of life with speciation. That said, I agree, higher power guided evolution is a possibility, but an unscientific one by nature.

As for probability, do remember that the Earth is quite old, having a long period of time and drastically different conditions (atmosphere, heat...) that might allow for all of this to occur.

Pascal's wager? I don't know if you should believe in whatever deity you believe in. What if you believe in the wrong deity and the real deity is an angry and jealous deity and sends all those who believe in the wrong deity to eternal pain land? There is no guarantee of eternal life from all religions, and if you don't honestly consider that other religions might be the right religion, then you are being intellectually dishonest.

Evolution does matter, actually. It matters a lot in medicine. It might prevent one from ending up 6 feet under.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

Is creationism dead, What a joke.

What about all the abominations spawning from synthetic biology, Genetic Engineering/Bio-Engineering spawning new species.

And when these creations outcompete similar species or even alter the gene pool is everyone going to run to Darwin and say.

"What they are doing is IMPOSSIBLE and should be stopped!"

In the face of reality.
Evolution obviously occures. Maybe not the way you all would like to assume it does. Because you all would be pretty much 100% wrong if you said natural selection.

Symbiotic relationships govern everything, That means one form of life relies on another. Not simply to fit the bill of an imaginary *Food Chain*

I mean, I could give you more than a couple examples of plants that can devour meat. Darwin was actually quite interested in carnivorius plants. He grew many and his favorite was drosara. So here plants are skipping the whole food chain altogether.

Hell i could think of more examples. How about poisonious animals? Okay. Pretty obvious the food chain falls apart when a brightly colored poisonious frog is hopping around.
Birds won't bother such a thing, Darwin was a brilliant man. But he could of never forseen that cells carry program sequences of Letters and subcodes brought on by RNA secquences from viruses and bacteria that infultrate the genome.

If he could of predicted that viruses would be the most likely candidate for evolution.
He would of changed many many of this theories and abanndoned natural selection altogether.

Because now he would have to admit that mere contact with one species over another can alter nabouring species permentantly. No selection is taking place, As many species will rapidly mutate on the spot.

It's literally having thousands of coins and every corn that lands on heads beyond a slight variation of the species based on plague.

We know these things happen because we can undo the effects that these pathogens have within the genome by turning genes off or on that were already there. We can also add or subtract genes.

So you see. Harboring to just some atoms to chemical reaction ideals of life and the universe is pointless.
Because its completely false to view existance in such a way.

So what is the real argument here.

That humans are going to be its own Aliens as we venture to other planets taking and seeding life/colonizing so we can say * Well at least these are made 100% by intelligent design* As some sort of Ego trip or something?

We've already been to the moon.
Is everyone going to pull the * Aliens might exist but they arn't here" card?
I'v personally seen and experienced Aliens 100%. But im not here to talk about that.

I'm here to say that from the smallest fragment of your being, it was prefabricated by something else.
All those gene sequences, Not from generations of breeding. You can't just randomly add information that isn't there.
That is not possible.
All upgrades come externally. So next time you step on a slug remeber that slug is probably carrying some pathogens that can alter your whole genetic genepool. Given the right host. That slug is not higher than you are as any species of life can take you down.
The food chain is a mere illusion. But as the product of creators, We gained the master ability to manipulate objects around us to the extent of where science is right now. To the point where we can confirm that life can indeed be Engineered.

Be it by the parasitic organisms that co-exist with advancing life or advanced life creating life from a giant recipe book.

Likewise no one can claim that an alien species spawned all life.

All mass contains the energy to create life. It just requires the proper enviroment.
There is bacteria that will grow on plastic, And so on. Nothing is immune given time.
nylon eating bacteria
Macrophages
en.wikipedia.org...
Everything inactive is very much alive. It is just waiting to recieve the codes to unlock the potencial energy.
Indeed. The universe is eternal and so everything has lived and will live and has not but will be.

a reply to: Astyanax

Creationism is not dead. There are lots of people who still claim to believe that fairy tale - people who don't understand evoloution, so they mock it. I say who cares? Let think what they want to think. It's kind of funny, listening to adults talk so earnestly about Adam and Eve, (THAT'S the story that makes sense to them !?! Geez....).

a reply to: charles1952

Thank you, Charles, that was much easier to understand.

You don't explain what creationism means. Calling Creationism a socio-political movement, is silly without a definition of it.

But I did define it, and quite precisely too.

Astyanax
I define creationism as 'a sociopolitical movement to deny the veracity of scientific theories of biogenesis and evolution and to promote in their place a spurious narrative in which the origins and variety of life on Earth are attributed to a supernatural creator, usually the Judaeo/Christian/Islamic God.'

Further, it has too few adherents to be a movement.

That's why I think it's dead.

*

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Seems like the debate about irreducibly complex is alive and well, maybe just not here...
www.evolutionnews.org...

Already posted, already dealt with. See my earlier reply to vasaga.

*

a reply to: hydeman11

I particularly liked this:

What if you believe in the wrong deity and the real deity is an angry and jealous deity and sends all those who believe in the wrong deity to eternal pain land?

A chilling thought indeed. I think the only jealous deity is the Judaic/Christian/Muslim one, though; the likes of Shiva and Zeus don't seem to care one way or another.

Some people in my country people tend to take out insurance by paying their respects to all current faiths. They chant Buddhist verses, light candles to St. Anthony, offer fruit and flowers before the altar of Ganesh and Murugan and sacrifice chickens to demons. Maybe they spend their afterlives rotating among different heavens — or hells.

Besides, Pascal didn't know about Buddhist belief, did he? Believing in a God and worshipping it probably earns you enough karma to keep you going round a couple more lifetimes.

Dangerous wager.

*

a reply to: TownCryer

Oh, there's always be creationists. There are still people who insist that Earth is at the centre of the universe. But geocentricism is dead for all that.

There will always be Luddites and anti-intellectuals... those who, because of their own fear, prejudice, ignorance and adherence to dogma, hold humanity back and would rather see us living in the dark ages, running around burning witches and sacrificing goats...

a reply to: Astyanax

Dear Astyanax,

I'm going to abandon the snarky response I had written and try again.

If one believes that the material Universe was created by "God" (used as an umbrella term), is one a Creationist?

If the belief is that the first change from inanimate to animate was a result of "God," is that a Creationist belief?

Does Creationism require a belief in a young earth?

There are more questions, but that is what I meant when I said that:

You don't explain what creationism means. Calling Creationism a socio-political movement, is silly without a definition of it.

What is the belief that you think Creationists hold? In clear language could you explain what you think Creationists believe?

With respect,
Charles1952

"First, your source on evolutionnews about this Behe fellow. I'm confused as to what the author is writing about. The author seems to be writing about a paper published with another article refuting aspects of intelligent design. I get that, but why does he later argue that the authors of the paper of refutation misinterpreted Behe's book? How is the author even sure that they read Behe's work, let alone misinterpreted it. This seems like shoddy reporting to me. That said, I fail to see how indirect pathways are not slight, gradual modifications over time... Really, I don't see the argument being made. It's... more rambling than one of my own posts.

His main point is the argument against Behe by the gentlemen in question sets evolution up to be irrefutable. Indirect pathways, whether true or not, must have several working together before you get any kind of advantage. What will cause the organism to retain these changes in the meantime? Your point really gets to the heart of evolution, most changes will be neutral or bad. How will the good changes ever overcome the bad changes, especially since you need a succession of small good changes to get to something that is advantageous and thus retained(evolution)?

"Also, the use of "Darwinism" really flashes red lights in my mind. So, I ask you, is this a reliable, unbiased source that you have cited?"

I think the unbiased source is mythical = ) However be could be the most biased person in the history of mankind, we can still examine his arguments.

"As for probability, do remember that the Earth is quite old, having a long period of time and drastically different conditions (atmosphere, heat...) that might allow for all of this to occur. "

Sure, but really isnt is just more time for the soup to get more muddy? More time for bad and neutral changes to destroy the few good changes that occasionally happen...


"Pascal's wager? I don't know if you should believe in whatever deity you believe in. What if you believe in the wrong deity and the real deity is an angry and jealous deity and sends all those who believe in the wrong deity to eternal pain land? There is no guarantee of eternal life from all religions, and if you don't honestly consider that other religions might be the right religion, then you are being intellectually dishonest."

Very true, I would certainly shave my head and sing cum ba ya with the shaolin monks if I thought they had things figured out. They are all worth checking out, and imo anyone who doesnt is extremely foolish ! If Eternal life is out there, I want to be on board.


"Evolution does matter, actually. It matters a lot in medicine. It might prevent one from ending up 6 feet under. "

One of the knocks against evolution is how little it does help us in predicting things and can just as easily lead someone down the wrong path as the right.

But no matter how little or much it helps medicine, father time remains "almost" undefeated (well you know who I think beat death). Religion is the only game in town.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Sure, but really isnt is just more time for the soup to get more muddy? More time for bad and neutral changes to destroy the few good changes that occasionally happen...

Nope, because the organisms with detrimental changes die or don't pass down genes and the neutral ones have no effect at the time so they go unnoticed. Sometimes good mutations arise from a few different neutral ones coming together.

Creationism was never alive because those who endorse creationism are dead from the neck up. But ignorance surely isn't dead. The lame, lazy and the crazy, zombies and cults keep ignorance alive and well.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Howdy,

Ah, I see. Thank you for the explanation of your source. If that is the case, no. It is not irrefutable. Computational models that can create those indirect pathways that make uniquely useful features in organisms can test whether or not the the hypothesis of an indirect pathway works for any one structure. If you don't think that computational models are scientific, well, that's fine. (We can discount most theoretical physics and the math behind these things. )

Indirect pathways may also be noticeable in the fossil record, although I have no sources for you, and this is merely something to look into. I'm not an evolutionary biologist, and I'm certainly not a paleontologist, so I apologize in advance for having no solid evidence here.

Natural selection is (often) the process by which organisms ill-suited to their environment die while organisms suited to their environment live and reproduce. This is not "survival of the fittest." This is survival of "the things that are not negatively impacted by their genes in their environments." So, only neutral and beneficial "mutations" will be passed down in a population of organisms.

Certainly, there are mutations that are seemingly only harmful, such as sickle cell disease in humans, until one looks a bit closer... Sickle cell trait actually increases resistance to malaria. It's a sideways movement in genetic benefits. Sickle cell trait trades perhaps life expectancy for resistance to malaria, which in a world without modern science-based medicines might better ensure your reproduction.

See, these traits' benefits are not determined by the genetic information itself, not always. They are determined mainly by the environment in which they find themselves. Sickle cell trait in a pre-industrialized nation is good, but will perhaps negatively impact your genes' survival (offspring) in an industrialized nation with modern medicine that can treat malaria. The environmental change is the factor that determines how good of bad some "mutation" will be, and with further environmental changes, perhaps a beneficial mutation will become harmful while a harmful mutation will become beneficial. (I hope this better answers your muddy soup issue.)

Fair enough on the biased source issue.

I'd certainly love for eternal life to be a thing, but I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest with myself in order to believe in it. Now, I think you'll find that modern medicines have extended life better than the power of prayer, so if living a longer, better life (not eternal) is your game, science and specifically medicine is the only game in town.

That said, are you familiar with the law of faunal succession? While not directly supporting evolution, paleontologists used the theory of evolution to predict organisms, such as feathered dinosaurs, as precursors and ancestors of modern winged birds. The law of faunal succession and the theory of evolution fit beautifully well together. Sure, the winged dinosaurs thing is academic, not very practical. That said, the law of faunal succession is quite useful if one wants something like fossil fuels.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: Astyanax

If you think creationism is dead, then why do you still keep poking at the carcass? What are you worried about? That it might turn into a zombie?

There seems to be different brands or flavors of creationism, and I think Charles1952 posed some fair questions to you about what you think a creationist belief is specifically. You would do this thread a service by addressing those questions more directly.

The group that seems to be easy target here are the literal biblical creationists, as I like to call them. These are the people who take every word of the Bible to be the universal truth. Would this be the so called movement you are targeting? Is this the one that is dead in your view?

If one chooses to believe the universe was created in 7 days some 5000 yrs ago by a man with powder white hair and a robe, then I guess that's their prerogative. They'd be wrong I'm afraid... but who am I to judge...

Yet I find it amusing to watch some of you know it alls take aim at this group as if they're a threat to everything that science has given us. What are you people so worried about if you think the movement is dead?

The thing about evolution and creationism is that they are only interpretations of how life operates ( some of which are shrouded in ignorance and driven by agendas). Even within evolutionary biology there are many different interpretations of the evidence. There have been and continue to be debates about how evolution works. The interesting thing is, the more our technology advances the more questions keep arising.

I just don't understand the purpose of a thread like this other than to take aim at creationists when it wasn't provoked, only to spurn the age old tit for tat debates that would be a natural bi product of a thread like this. Maybe that was your underlying intention?

If it's dead, then let it RIP.

a reply to: hydeman11

Thanks for getting into the details a little, as the devil is always in the details. Im not really against evolution per se, if it is true, imo it just makes God that much greater that He can construe the physical laws in such a way to allow evolution to happen naturally. However if I am intellectually honest with myself, I know that isnt how things work.

Im sure one could construct models to simulate indirect pathways and possible results, but how accurate is it really going to be? With the horde of bad mutations constantly working against the few neutral or good mutations, is it really going to be able to predict that a huge series of small changes are going to align themselves in such a way to produce a truly advantageous change that could be retained? Remember these mutations arent really trying to work together either, and if they dont occur in the right order or the right time, nada. Evolution is often related in terms of theistic evolution without the person explaining it even realizing it. We are lead to believe these chemicals are trying to evolve, that they want work together. and its only natural that they evolve. Like it is destiny or something...

If you are interested in hearing from other evolutionist discuss this point an others in a concise way, Alan Hayward has done just that in this online version of his book
books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

Admittedly it doesnt get into the details as much as one would like, still he gives several examples and arguments that are compelling, at least to me.

While the author does bring up the issue of abiogenesis, one thing he doesnt discuss is why we cant duplicate the simplest cell? I mean we have several examples to follow, we see how they work, the blueprint is there for us to duplicate this sucker. We know how to build computers with thousands of transistors, planes with thousands of parts... why cant we do it? Surely if blind chance, a little heat/lighning, and random chemicals can conspire to make a self replicating cell, we should be able to take those same chemicals and guide the process intelligently(much like a creator) to a simple cell no problem, right?

The harsh reality is the simplest cell is extremely complicated, a large city of moving parts. When we actually go to tackle a problem like this, all the models and hand waving usually done ad nauseam in explaining evolution go out the door. One finds that not only are these chemicals not working towards a destiny of self replication, they are working against it.

"I'd certainly love for eternal life to be a thing, but I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest with myself in order to believe in it. Now, I think you'll find that modern medicines have extended life better than the power of prayer, so if living a longer, better life (not eternal) is your game, science and specifically medicine is the only game in town."

I take my vitamins and Resveratrol like a good boy, and it is amazing to me that there isnt more being done along the lines of life extension like the LEF.org, but adding 10 or 12 years to ones life is just denying the inevitable. Death is coming for us and Religion is laughing at even being mentioned in the same breath as medicine, along with billions who have already passed away.

Even if I couldnt find a faith with a good testimony, I would still hold out hope for a creator, my self preservation gene is mighty ! In one the greatest chapters of the Bible, Acts 10, we learn of a centurion whom God already considered "Just" before accepting the gospel. And even though Peter was a little bigoted towards non-jews, we see in the chapter that God has a way of making sure things go His way. Without this pivotal moment, its hard to imagine the apostles ever preaching to the non-jew given their prejudice. Its easy to say, well what if you choose the wrong God?! Personally, I think God is bigger than that as He demonstrated in Acts 10.

Im not sure why you would claim intellectual dishonesty here, I dont think there is any other compelling or widely accepted explanation for this massive universe with billions of particles all just conveniently working together in such a way that we can exist to think about such things. It really wouldnt take much for this existence to be radically different, like no me, eek !
www.godandscience.org...

a reply to: 111DPKING111

Howdy,

Thank you for reading and responding.

Theistic evolution is indeed a possibility, and one that likely cannot be disproved or proven. That said, it is philosophically outside the realm of science, even if it is the truth, which I would say the evidence is not so great for, but others can argue that.

Models can be incredibly accurate in science, but I have no experience in biology, so I can only really speculate on something like this. I would imagine that any (indirect) pathway that physically could work would be a viable model. It would then need to be tested against genetic and fossil (morphological) data to see which model most closely resembles the actual observable data in nature. So no, we may never know the actual model, but the evidence that any model would work should be sufficient to say that natural processes could have produced the given results. Scientists understand how organisms change over generations, what some might call microevolution, so it isn't too far to extrapolate given genetic and fossil data.

Bad mutations die before they can reproduce or cause limited reproduction, and the limited offspring then have less likelihood to reproduce, while better suited organisms in that population have higher (comparatively) likelihoods of reproducing at each level. It is a game of probability and time, but the end result is always that fewer bad mutations will be passed down in a population unless something unique (like a very small genetically isolated population) occurs. This isn't a matter of conjecture, this is observable nature. Nothing is predicted ahead of time, everything happens in "real time," and certainly no higher force is giving chemicals destiny. These chemicals react to the laws of physics and thermodynamic principles.

You seem to be misconstruing how natural selection works. There is no ultimate purpose, no goal. There is only response to stimuli. For example consider the following, the weather gets colder, mammoths with more fat reserves (based on genetics...) survive the cold weather while mammoths which were more suited to warmer temperatures die. It might have been the case that the temperature had been very warm before this cold weather, and the vast majority of the mammoth population might have been thinner in fat and with less warm fur, as those would be the genetics favorable to a hotter climate. Environment has no purpose, no goal, it simply is and does. Organisms, at the individual level either live or die, and the population of said organisms will thus end up being comprised of individuals which are suited for their environment, as all of the ill-suited ones died.

As for the book on Darwinism, I agree. No one should worship Darwin. I assume that's what Darwinism is, the worship of Darwin. I fail to see how it relates to modern evolutionary theory, but good to be on the same page. That said, I'm interested that the author cited sources from over 50 years ago, back in a time when modern plate tectonics was finally being established as geological science, and of course the book of a man written in 1929, before DNA had even been modeled... Man, those must have been the times, when anyone with a modern natural science textbook would be hailed as a genius for having so much knowledge. I envy that.

As for cells, yes. They are quite complicated. And we humans have not yet accomplished in the 500 or so years of our "sciencing" what Earth apparently took a few hundred million years to do. That said, I think you'd be shocked at how close we've come. In fact, you might say researchers are so close that synthetic cells have already been created. (Although certainly not as complex as our own, but it boggles the mind what some scientist in a hundred years might be able to do.)
en.wikipedia.org...

In this sense, though, your argument is remarkably similar to the concept of "the god of the gaps" argument thrown about. If we cannot do it yet, then it must have taken god to do it. Until we can do it, of course. Then the work of what must have been god must surely dwindle, recessing further and deeper into the gaps of the unknown. I wouldn't use such arguments, as they stand rather poorly against the test of time, and they do not add to your point. God is a possibility, but I would not assign him to gaps in knowledge.

As for the philosophy bits, I've said my piece on philosophy, so I do hope you don't mind me not repeating them. Suffice to say, you can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean it's true, no matter how hard you believe. I'm not saying your wrong, either, but I think it truly is intellectually dishonest to never question one's faith in anything.

As for the universe, the best model for the universe (the one with the most predictive capabilities) is the Big Bang model. All other science is observation of the natural laws and phenomena that have resulted. Certainly, the universe seems well tailored to us (except for all the dangerous parts outside of the Earth's atmosphere... and all the dangerous parts here on Earth...), and you could attribute this to precise design. Or, you could say, all right, the results where such that these parameters existed that life formed in its current places of origin(s) and thus it seems designed because it is a product of the environmental parameters it has been subjected to. Option two does not discount a higher power, but it does not require one, by the way.

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
a reply to: Astyanax
If you think creationism is dead, then why do you still keep poking at the carcass? What are you worried about? That it might turn into a zombie?

Unless you're completely ignorant on the issue, creationist proponents have been attempting to change the education curriculum to include 'creation science' in the classroom in place of actual science. They have creation museums taking in thousands of people every year teaching children that people lived alongside and rode dinosaurs.....this kind of deliberate deception of the minds of young people should be addressed don't you think?

There seems to be different brands or flavors of creationism, and I think Charles1952 posed some fair questions to you about what you think a creationist belief is specifically. You would do this thread a service by addressing those questions more directly.

Just like there are vastly different flavours of Christianity.....however the particulars of the slightly different variations of creationism does not warrant such specificity.

The group that seems to be easy target here are the literal biblical creationists, as I like to call them. These are the people who take every word of the Bible to be the universal truth. Would this be the so called movement you are targeting? Is this the one that is dead in your view?

I don't want to speak for the OP, but it seems to me that he's 'targeting' all the ever so slightly different flavours of creationism. However the biblical camp are the ones with the most influence over young minds in the US and other places and are the people that attempt to dishonestly discredit evolution at every attempt.

If one chooses to believe the universe was created in 7 days some 5000 yrs ago by a man with powder white hair and a robe, then I guess that's their prerogative. They'd be wrong I'm afraid... but who am I to judge...

Disagreeing is not judging, however many theists make this mistake and become irate if you do so.

Yet I find it amusing to watch some of you know it alls take aim at this group as if they're a threat to everything that science has given us. What are you people so worried about if you think the movement is dead?

There's some concern over the influence they will have on some young and impressionable minds along with the fact that we all have to live together, and if some of us believe in such things then it affects us all. If you still find that 'amusing' then you're part of the problem.

The thing about evolution and creationism is that they are only interpretations of how life operates ( some of which are shrouded in ignorance and driven by agendas). Even within evolutionary biology there are many different interpretations of the evidence. There have been and continue to be debates about how evolution works. The interesting thing is, the more our technology advances the more questions keep arising.

There is some debate on some specific elements of evolution, but there isn't any debate over the actual process of life diversifying through evolution via natural selection, not any more (unless you're a creationist ofc).

I just don't understand the purpose of a thread like this other than to take aim at creationists when it wasn't provoked, only to spurn the age old tit for tat debates that would be a natural bi product of a thread like this. Maybe that was your underlying intention?

Provoked? are we not able to discuss something unless provoked?

If it's dead, then let it RIP.

It's not dead, just dying.

a reply to: charles1952

You list various types of belief and ask me whether they are subsumed under the heading 'creationism'.

I respectfully propose that you put that question to a creationist. My definition of a creationst has already been given, and it does not involve a description of creationist belief, because it doesn't need to.

*

a reply to: PhotonEffect

I just don't understand the purpose of a thread like this other than to take aim at creationists when it wasn't provoked, only to spurn the age old tit for tat debates that would be a natural bi product of a thread like this. Maybe that was your underlying intention?

My intentions were stated on Page One of the thread.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Unless you're completely ignorant on the issue, creationist proponents have been attempting to change the education curriculum to include 'creation science' in the classroom in place of actual science. They have creation museums taking in thousands of people every year teaching children that people lived alongside and rode dinosaurs.....this kind of deliberate deception of the minds of young people should be addressed don't you think?

Sure it should be addressed but what are you going to do? As a parent you don't have to send your child to a school that teaches these things, nor do you have to take them to a creationist museum. Parents can avoid this deception if they so choose. If you have a problem with the deliberate deception of young minds, then I have news for you friend - creationism is but one of several agendas out there that are vying for fresh minds to mold. If that's your concern then you better pace yourself because a long war awaits you....

Children of the same ages as those being taught this brand of "creation science" in the US, are being taught to die for their god in other parts of this world. If you ask me, that's a type of deception to be really concerned about.

There's some concern over the influence they will have on some young and impressionable minds along with the fact that we all have to live together, and if some of us believe in such things then it affects us all. If you still find that 'amusing' then you're part of the problem.

Yes, we all have to live together don't we... If you let if affect you that much then I guess that's for you to deal with. It's not about science not being able to show these people what the facts are. They don't care. It's about these people believing what they want to believe. In the same way you can't understand how anyone could believe that god created us all only a few thousand years ago, they don't understand how you can think he didn't.

There is some debate on some specific elements of evolution, but there isn't any debate over the actual process of life diversifying through evolution via natural selection, not any more (unless you're a creationist ofc).

You'd be wrong in your assertions, respectfully.The debates are ongoing. And evolution via natural selection is losing ground.

a reply to: Astyanax

Dear Astyanax,

Even our good friend PhotonEffect, mentioned that it would be helpful for the thread if you answered my question. But since you care not to, I can solve this debate instantly.

Creationism is the belief that matter, energy, or both, were brought into existence by an intelligent supernatural being which we have chosen to label God.

No scientist can ever prove differently. Almost all scientists say that it is not even something which can be scientifically studied. They have not even come up with a theory by which a possible explanation might exist. So, if you believe that something exists, the only explanation is creationism. Therefore, creationism is not dying, it is the only explanation which is alive.

See, why it was important to define things? Let me define it (and I used a plausible definition), and your position is discredited within a few sentences.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Howdy,

Wait... what?

I agree that operationalizing terms is an important first step when one wishes to communicate ideas, sure. I am even in agreement that creationism is an unscientific hypothesis by nature. But can you please clarify what you mean by "So if you believe that something exists, the only explanation is creationism."?

Do you mean creationism is the default? I mean, isn't the default to say I/the scientific community do not currently know, and may never know, but may one day know? If I am misinterpreting your statement, I apologize, but the way I interpreted that would certainly be a logical false dichotomy.

Also, in your scenario, why does the being have to be intelligent, why does there only have to be one being, and why does it have to be supernatural? This further demonstrates the false dichotomy...

Sincere regards,
Hydeman

a reply to: hydeman11

Dear hydeman11,

I can't tell you how happy I am to see your response. In part because you have earned a lot of respect in your discussion here, and in part because it forces me to clear out intellectual cobwebs. Let me see how well my feather duster can perform.

I agree that operationalizing terms is an important first step when one wishes to communicate ideas, sure.

Ah, you've discovered my secret. It seemed to me that Astyanax was not going to commit himself, so I was using this post in an attempt to tweak him into taking a stand.

But can you please clarify what you mean by "So if you believe that something exists, the only explanation is creationism."?

As I may have mentioned, I'm a firm believer in ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. If there is a rock in my path, where did it come from, ultimately? The creationist has an explanation, an intelligence outside of nature, supernatural. Science does not. It's fine to disagree with creationists on this point, but there is no other explanation available to take its place.

I mean, isn't the default to say I/the scientific community do not currently know, and may never know, but may one day know? If I am misinterpreting your statement, I apologize, but the way I interpreted that would certainly be a logical false dichotomy.

If scientists believe they may one day know, then they have misunderstood what science is. Science studies nature, the atoms, blood cells, minerals, energies, that make up this world. Nature couldn't have created nature, something outside of nature did, and that's beyond the tools of science to reach.

Also, in your scenario, why does the being have to be intelligent, why does there only have to be one being, and why does it have to be supernatural? This further demonstrates the false dichotomy...

Here, you've caught me when I was getting impatient. I was a little too brief, and careless in my explanation.

I think I've explained why it has to be supernatural, or "extranatural" if you prefer.

Why one instead of another number? Why intelligent instead of a blind power? I'll chew those over and look for some traditional arguments if you'd like, but I don't see many creationists claiming there were 17 blind forces interacting. Besides, don't tell anybody but, no matter how I speak to it, my brain seems to be slowing down in sending messages from one part to another.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Creationism is the belief that... God. No scientist can ever prove differently. They have not even come up with a theory by which a possible explanation might exist. If you believe that something exists, the only explanation is creationism. Therefore, creationism is not dying, it is the only explanation which is alive.

I am not interested in debating your beliefs with you, charles. That would be an exercise in futility. Besides, this thread is not about the truth or falsity of creationist belief. We are discussing the health of the creationist movement.

Your position throughout has been that I have not supplied a definition of creationism, and therefore my arguments cannot be valid. Either you haven't read my posts — which is strange, because you have been contributing to this thread since Page One — or you're pretending you haven't.

I gave my definition of creationism here.

The terms of debate for this thread were manifestly clear in the opening post, and stated quite explicitly here.

I even give a short list of creationist claims here.

Claiming I haven't defined my terms is, therefore, a somewhat transparent pretext for attempting to drag this thread back to the stale old yes-it-is-no-it-isn't argument. Still, I hope you're feeling better now that you've 'testifed'.

*

Oh, and...

I was using this post in an attempt to tweak Astyanax into taking a stand.

Good luck with that, Mastermind.