john9blue wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Again, what you really show is that you were never taught real science. What is taught as fact IS fact. What is taught as theory is not 100% proven, but has a LOT of evidence backing it.
The ideas that all animals were created at once, that dinosaurs and other ancient animals did not make the ark, that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not millions are plain and simply PROVEN FALSE.
There's always misunderstanding about this. I don't know why I bother posting in this thread. Okay here we go:
- I was definitely taught "real science", and continue to teach myself "real science" to this day. No baseless personal attacks, thanks.
- "Creationism" is the theory that there was a supernatural force at work in the creation of the universe. That's IT. No arks, no coexisting dinosaurs and humans, or anything like that. Player I know you have a crusade against the latter definition, but try not to form stereotypes.
I said "if" you believe the earth is only a few thousand years old then, no, you have not. I don't believe that is your belief. I believe you want to make Creationism synonymous with any Christian. The problem is that is exactly what Creationists want you to believe, because it makes their life a lot easier. And, per their definition, Creationism IS Christianity. It just so happens they think believing the Earth is young, etc is a requirement of Christianity. (though they will mince words about that).
This is NOT stereotyping and that claim is part of why Creationism... Dr Morris' type creationism is now taking such a strong hold.
No. and whatever you wish to believe, when the term "Creationism" is used politically, in schools, etc, it IS Dr Morris' ideas. That is the whole problem and yes, I have taken it on as a crusade and DO harp on it because one big reason Dr. Morris' ideas have been able to take hold (and note, Those are the ideas to which Widowmaker, essentially does subscribe, which is why debate enters into this thread). A lot of Christians, thinking just like you, come out and say "hey", what's wrong with this... there really is no reason to not teach both. Then what gets taught is Dr Morris' ideas.
john9blue wrote:- What is today considered "supernatural" is not outside the realm of science.
Yes and no. Science is and always has been about asking questions and finding answers. When things are so tenuous that any hope of any real evidence is just not possible, it is the realm of philosophy and religion.
You can ask "what is love" and test chemical processes to come up with some sort of definition. OR you can ask what it means in terms of human behavior and again, test some aspects, but you cannot really and truly prove, for example that someone loves another person, not really. Similarly, you can pose the question, in science, "does God exist". However, the tools just do not exist to prove it. The evidence that exists is, for the most part, not testable, not repeatable, etc. They are personnal experiences. Of course, I consider such proof valid, but it is not scientific evidence, not yet.
To be science, requires testing and using the scientific method... that is you put forward a theory, form a testable hypothesis and go on.john9blue wrote: Like "creationism" people have pigeonholed the word "science" to encompass less than it really means. In ancient times the "heavens" were simply outer space, considered by most to be the realm of the gods only and outside human understanding. Science is nothing more than asking questions, collecting evidence, and finding answers.
There are many areas where religion and science broach each other, even occasionally, cross (as in the love bit.. there are physical signs and behavioral signs we use in part to define "love", but there is also something more that is beyond the scope of science).
The distinction, subtle though it is, is very, very important. That it gets blurred in this discussion too often is also a problem, not a reason for justifying the validity of Creationist teaching.
john9blue wrote:The God question and many other aspects of philosophy fall inside this definition.
Again, they cross, but philosophy and religion both deal with "intangible" issues, things that we think and feel but cannot touch or see or hear or feel in a physical way (for the most part). Science deals with things that can be proven. Again, knowing the difference is very, very critical.
Not entirely true.john9blue wrote:- Evolution is a theory, not a fact.
Evolution, the broad and complete theory of how everything evolved specifically is a theory. HOWEVER, within that theory are many, many, many facts, including the FACT that things change over time.
Other facts: fossils represent animals that once lived
fossils showing transitions from one species to another over a very long period of time exist. There are also fossils of animals that have not changed at all or that have changed very little (Nautilus, horseshoe crabs, horsetail ferns, some mosses, slime mold, etc.)
Natural selection -- that species with an advantage in reproduction will tend to have more offspring and will therefore have a greater impact on the succeeding generations than those that produce fewer offspring (NOT that the "strongest always survives") is fact.
That, in general (not 100%, some random stuff happens, too) , this natural selection drives species toward adaption to their environment is fact
That mutations occur and create genetic changes in species -- is fact.
That rocks are formed in layers and that each layer represents a different time, is fact.
The Earth's core is supposed to be a solid core, NOT molten. In either case, it is theory, but a theory backed by much physics evidence. Its not my field, someone else talked about it in the "is God logical" thread pretty comprehensively already.john9blue wrote:- The idea of Earth having a molten core is a theory.
Not really. That is, yes, you can put forward a theory that pink Unicorns exist, BUT there is no credible evidence they exist, at all. Therefore it will not be taken with any real serious consideration at this time. Can we be 100% certain that pink unicorns do not exist? No, because its almost impossible to prove a negative. However, the likelihood is pretty small indeed. So small that anyone putting forward that idea seriously would be met with even more derision than those putting forward young earth ideas.john9blue wrote:The pink unicorn is a theory.
Evolution, by contrast, has so much evidence in support of it that the chances it is wrong are very, very small.
Yes, but before something is taught in school, there has to be a good deal more evidence in support of it than is present for pink unicorns OR Creationism. There IS, by contrast lots of evidence supporting Evolution. In fact, evolution is actually no longer a theory, it is fact. Proveable fact.john9blue wrote:-Any conclusion that is not directly demonstrable is a "theory". Some have more evidence than others. Collecting this evidence is part of what science is about.
evolution -- that things change over time, is true. The questions lie in the details.john9blue wrote:-- The fact that these people treat evolution as a fact doesn't worry me all that much to be honest, seeing as it's almost 100% proven true.
It's the people that claim:
[list][*]creationism = anything supernatural = Earth is 6,000 years old[/quote]
No "anything supernatural" does not mean the Earth is 6000 years old. BUT, Creationism, and specifically Intelligent Design do each refer to young Earth theories. There is some variation... some believe the flood killed the dinosaurs, and created the Grand Canyon, others believe other things. HOWEVER, that is the idea being taught under the guise of Creationism. You can be angry that the term has been co-opted, as I am, but to claim otherwise is to feed in to the political debate firmly on the side of Dr Morris. Make no mistake, Creationism IS the name for the young earth/"God went "poof" and created all the animals we see", etc. set of ideas.
john9blue wrote:-[*]evolution explains the origin of everything
This is semantics. Evolution, originally was used strictly to refer to the biologicl progression of species, one to another. However, it has grown to include other forms of change through time.
Definitions change. This is one that has.
john9blue wrote:-[*]evolution and creationism are incompatible
Again, you have to use the definition that is real and applied. True Creationists like to exploit this confusion and use it as a smoke screen to hide behind. Then, when opposition is settled down .. it is young Earth Creationism that is taught. I used to think (even just 2 years ago or so, when the Dover case hit the news), like you, that Creationism was a more general term, that Intelligent Design pretty well could describe what I believe (more or less that God created all we see, using Evolution as a tool). HOWEVER, this is just not how the term is used.
If you say "football" here, Brits can argue all they want that it should mean "soccer", but sorry-- it does not. In Europe, you may need to specify "American Football", but here, you rarely do.
Dr Morris, CBN, etc have done a great job of co-opting the terms Creationism and Intelligent Design. Your idea of the definition just is no longer valid.
john9blue wrote:-[*]therefore nothing supernatural exists.
that bother me. If you buy into this line of thinking then I won't bother debating with you guys anymore.
It certainly bothers me, too. I believe in God. I believe in other things "supernatural". I also believe science. Though science is fallible, Creationism just does not fill the openings in science.
That's why you're an atheist and not an agnostic.
