Creationism does NOT belong in science.

I just have to say that after reading a bit of this post I have come to the conclusion that the topic was poorly presented and poorly criticized. I will post some thoughtful excerpts that may help set some definitions for further – fruitful – discussion. This means not merely saying something is not science or scientific, but actually defining what science is. This will cut down on the ad hominum attacks and deal with the argument more that the arguer or name calling.

I would love to debate these issues with you, but first we must get some terms straight. I will do so by excerpting a mock conversation from the jr. high level book, What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution. After you give me the okay on these definitions, we will have a more fruitful discussion about the evidences for creation. Until then I highly recommend you investigate a site alongside your TalkOrigins investigations. It is a site put together by doctorate holding scientists, professors and the like… enjoy ( http://www.trueorigins.org/index.htm )

• Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.
• Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.
• Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?”
• Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?
• Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. “Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words.
• Evolutionist: Wagon words?
• Creationist:Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].
• Evolutionist: How do you mean?
• Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.
• Evolutionist: You mean I win already?
• Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
• Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”
• Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
• Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?
• Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the sponatanious appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).
• Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.
• Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?

This Term… will mean this.

Creation or Creation-science
The belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence.

Intelligent Design or Design Theory
The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation.

Darwinism
The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent).

Micro-evolution
Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.

Macro-evolution
Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. [species and classes are a hot – debatable – topic.]

Common Descent
The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

a site to debate at-

Go to christianforums.com. It's easy to become a member, and, being run by Christians, they probably don't spam you when you put your email address. anywho, go to "Open Debate and Discussion" for Christians and Nonchristians, then "Science, Creation, and Evolution". It's actually visited mostly by evolutionists, both theistic and atheistic. If you want to really prove your point to people, go to answersingenesis--oh wait, they're too afraid to have a message board.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Because creationism is NOT science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why don't you try to convince everyone that a blind evolution trough natural selection is science based on empirical evidence! Maybe you can be refuted to.

 

avatar...i've never felt the need for science either. yet i'm as sure that it has benefited me as much as god has benefited you.


i am just so amazed by that statement

written and posted as it was on the internet

like the computer that it was typed on
the phone network it was distributed through
the electrical network that runs both
no need for science indeed
i feel fully justified in saying
BAH HUMBUG

 

Zero, I know you asked to debate Creationism several months ago, and I don't even know if you are still at this forum, but if you would like to debate there are plenty of people at www.christianforums.com who will debate with you. Go to the "Open Discussion and Debate," then go to the "Science, Creationism, and Evolution," to debate long and hard with Creationists.

Creationism is not science. Science works by the scientific method, creationism does not.

 

Here is a more direct link: http://www.christianforums.com/forums/70.html

Warning! Most of the Creationists over there have absolutely no understanding of science, especially Hector Medina.

 

Yep, your completely right. Some times when I'm reading some of the posts over there I just want to :bang head against walk:

 

Nice to see you here, seesaw. They banned my notMichaelJackson, BlueSubmarine, and Scottster accounts, otherwise I'd talk to you at CF.

 

I kind of thought it was you. Well they ban a lot over there it's like if you say something they don't like they ban you. Do you still post at Infidels?

 

Not really. I'm not an atheist so there really isn't any reason for me to post there. I'm here because I'm a science major.

Stupid CF and their "no free email account" policy. If it weren't for that rule I could create as many accounts as I pleased.

Isn't Hector a kick? That Creationist with the green cartoon character avatar is almost as bad as Medina.

 

Ahh.. I have been here for a while but I don't post much. I have kind of stoped posting on all forums i'm starting to get a little bored with them mostly I stay on IRC.

 

Bored at which forum? What is IRC?

 

By the way, seesaw, I love some of you avatars at CF! The guy with the solar system around his head (Hawking?) was great! I'm not sure about the monkey mask though...

 

I'm getting bored with posting on all forums there but I would have to say that CF and www.physicsforums.com is getting really boring there isn't really anything new ever talked about. IRC is an Internet Relay Chat Network. If you are using windows you can download a client at www.mirc.com. I mostly stay in the physics, and math channels on EFnet. You can learn all about mirc and IRC at www.mirc.com.

 

LOL thanks. I like the Hawking one also. Dang I thought the monkey mask one was cool heh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What were you tought about the historical record of our planet?

I would recomend an author who has spent his life contemplating this subject.

Zecharia Sitchin.

 

I'm getting a whee bit off topic but....

Errr I just read an article that it's possible to get something faster than the speed of law and not violate any laws.

Aslo don't forget about tachyons. They could exisist if we can find them.

 

this sentence probably sums up the current state of the theoretical field of physics

 

im certainly not an expert in this field
but as far as i understood the c limit problem

a massless particle shouldnt have a problem going faster than the speed of light as it is only the infinitely large amount of energy require to go past it(due to the infinately increasing mass)

and from what ive read about tachyons-they go faster than the speed of light but have the same problem as they drop down to it-ie the speed of light is as LOW as they can go and would need an infinite amout of energy to get that slow

is this right??

and i havent been able to find anything about `proving' tachions existence -lots of theory type stuff but so far not actuallly detected