Creation Science ...

[Jason Mallory]

Hey Jason, I'm still going to read your posts, I just jumped on here for a second but will have some time later.

[Joshua Jarboe]

Jason H: That's curious, what predictions does evolution make? I've always had a beef with the testability / observability aspect of the whole thing.

[Aab]

-Lack of evidence for scientific theories does not give the OK to Christianity, which is flawed on so many levels it isn't even fair to argue it
-Making fun of opposition shows poor debate skills
-He at one point actually admitted that Christianity is being used to fill in blanks that science hasn't answered yet (or can never answer).
-The universe is a closed system has almost been completely been disproven. Ever hear of string theory?
-The standard of right and wrong is based entirely on human morality, which you are born with. Most psychologist today would tell you that.
-The concept that evolution makes people killers is just pathetic. If you need a book to tell you to be a morally good person anyway, then you're an ass hole who is just scared of punishment. You should do what is "right" because it is. Not for given reward. But that is a philosophical argument.
-Even if evolution is true, it's useless! Yes, how useless finding the truth is. It isn't about the advancement it will bring us, it is about finding truth.
-Correlation does not prove causation. The fact he tried to say taking prayer out of school caused all those things is just stupid.
-Stating that school shootings were done by crazy atheists = evolutionists are crazy. One word: Crusades. All Christians are bat-shit insane killers and war-mongering barbarians. Right? No? Stop trying to label a group.
-Science is based off of studies, observations, and theories based on these observation. Stop trying to redefine science.
-He argues that the world is only 4,000 years old, but that isn't possible. Even if he could successfully argue away that the world is billions of years ago, population genomes have been linked that HEAVILY support the land bridge theory and that pushes back 10,000 years, if not more (Sorry, I'm crappy at 'recent' history).
-Refuses to state how it is possible for early humans to live so long. It shouldn't be possible. The body simply does not work that way.
-The idea that human growth would be huge if we had been around for millions of years is horse shit. Until modernization occurred, death rates were incredibly high. Remember, plagues have done crazy shit to human population.
-He cites that the solar system we live in can't be billions of years old because of constant motion of planetary bodies. However, inter-dimensional transition and unsure time of planetary creation could argue against that all day.
-The polarity of the Earth argument was empty. Has he never heard of polar shifts?
-Oh look, he commented on polarity shifts. Then ignored them despite us seeing them occur with the sun. That is...wow.
-Constant geographical changes occur. Constantly. Of course the desert wouldn't be that old. That's a horrible argument.

Just a few notes I made while watching it (and yes, I watched it all. A bit tl;dr, but meh, I had time). I liked some of his arguments against scientific theories. Those were interesting, to say the least. However, to try and say "SO CHRISTIANS ARE RIGHT!" is just silly. Interesting look at it all though.

EDIT: To the people saying "Hey man, stick to Jius!" I believe the word is we can talk about anything, not just that. Correct me if I am wrong? Why are you so uncomfortable and insecure listening to other view points? Jason didn't come one saying "YOU'RE ALL FULL OF SHIT HAHAHA!" and insulting people. He said "Hey, check this out" and has been polite about it. Chill out.

I think you just said everything I was going to. It's very important for people to not to accept to organized religion. Eddie made a great point in his book. He said there is so many different Religions and none of them can agree on who God is or how he works. Yea. Get back to us when yall figure out the debate. Until then I'll enjoy my state of Agnosticism. Because we are all human beings and you or any one else do not have supreme knowledge or special powers that allow you to know something I don't.

[Dustin C.]

First of all, I am nobody's son if you're not interested in this thread then don't read it.

totally friendly and respectful. people misinterpret tone or intentions in a writen format.

haha but i agree

[Ben]

Lots of good points made by both sides, and everyone has been really civil about it (Ironically, the least civil statements were by those saying to get it off the board). I my self am an atheist, but I understand it as a purely philosophical view point. I think theism/deism is a completely acceptable philosophy, it just isn't what I think is true. However, I feel there are far too many flaws in most organized religions for them to be accepted as truth. That is my view point on the subject, however I don't really care what you believe in as long as it doesn't sway your morality to some odd extreme.
One thing that bothers me is when "atheists" talk about karma/luck/ect. It's funny how they claim there is no god but follow a "higher" power that is "the universe." They are theists and they don't even know it, simply because of how they define what god is.

[Joshua Jarboe]

One thing that bothers me is when "atheists" talk about karma/luck/ect. It's funny how they claim there is no god but follow a "higher" power that is "the universe." They are theists and they don't even know it, simply because of how they define what god is.

Me too!

[Jason Hyatt]

Joshua: the best place to start is probably with Darwin's four postulates. These are the foundation of Natural Selection which was the mechanism Darwin proposed.

1) in any population there is variability among individuals.
2) variability is heritable.
3) in any population, some individuals will be more successful at survival and reproduction.
4) survival and reproduction are non-random.

As a constructivist, I believe knowledge is best built when understanding is created by the individual. To that end, see if you can make some predictions from these postulates that can be tested. We're still early in building a foundation of understanding here so for now we'll leave out things like the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium equation and punctuated equllibrium theory. Plus my phone is gonna die any minute here...

[Jason Mallory]

OK. I really, really don't feel like typing all freakin' day. My degree is in biochemistry and evolutionary biology. I have had many, many lengthy discussions with both believers and non-believers about the subject. Common to all of them is a fundamental misunderstanding of science, its process, and its terminology. In the interest of brevity I will leave with these few nuggets:

1) A theory is a description of phenomena built from observed evidence. It is not a guess, it is not conjecture, it is not speculation. It is never "just a theory". It is a self-consistent, useful description of a broad range of phenomena. This description fosters the development of questions by making predictions. These predictions are tested. The data from these experiments and observations further refine a theory. A theory is not a guess (even an educated one) and at its core it must be falsifiable. That means one must be able to demonstrate a condition under which the predictions are false. A theory can NEVER be "proved true" nor is it EVER a "fact". This extends to the theory of gravity, the electromagnetic field theory, and the germ theory of disease. All of these theories have something in common: all of them have been tested and found to be highly robust theories (meaning the predictions they make from calculation conform very highly to observation). Another thing they have in common is that all of them can be proven false at any time. One need only design an experiment that tests the predictions of said theory and show that observation does not conform to prediction. If the experiment is thorough, well conducted, and the results can be obtained by others using the same experiment(s) then the theory will be modified to include the new data or be thrown out altogether.

Do you know what the theory of natural selection has over the three theories I mentioned above? It has been tested and verified more than all three of them combined over the last 150 years. If you stacked all of the data testing the predictions of evolutionary theory on top of one another it would dwarf any other scientific theory to date (and among those are included those theories with which you may be more well acquainted; again: relativity, quantum theory, electromagnetic field theory, the molecular theory of gases, and the germ theory of disease.) Natural selection is very, very robust theory.

Why does it matter what I mean when I say "theory" and what the colloquial use means? Because we're not really having a discussion if we're not talking about the same thing. I'll never be able to articulate my point if you don't even understand what I mean when I use certain terms. When I say "theory" you hear "guess". I mean a very large body of data, you mean "speculation". The ultimate problem with intelligent design is that it lacks the core element of any scientific theory: it can never -- under any circumstances -- be verified or not. There is no (even hypothetical) experiment you can design that will test for the presence of God or a god-like being that exists outside of our experience. By definition, if you test for it and find it, it's not the creator of the universe because it then created itself. Thus the theory can never be falsified and is therefore unscientific. If you choose to BELIEVE in a creator, that is certainly just fine. Just understand that it's not science, it's theology.

Note that at no time did I say that science is the only path to truth, that those with a religious belief or a belief in something beyond daily experience are ignorant, or that there is no compatibility between evolutionary theory and religious belief. What I can say quite confidently is that creation science is in no way science. The only reason it propagates as such is because of that communal, fundamental lack of understanding of what science really is in the first place. This is why I am such a fervent opponent of non-science curriculum in a science classroom. If you want to teach theology, fine. Teach it in Sunday school. I'm going to teach the same process that scientists have been using for hundreds of years in my science classroom because the process works. If you don't believe me look at your screen. That you are reading this at all is the result of the same process of prediction, testing, and modification of theory applied from physics, chemistry, material science, and computer science that biologists have been using for 150 years to test evolution. The process is no different and the theory conforms to prediction and testing.

Ok, I just got a chance to read and focus on this post. I agree, defining the term 'theory' is important so that we are on the same page. I would suggest being a little bit more humble in the way you communicate. You kinda came off like 'I'm smart, your dumb so I have to explain myself to the unninitiated.'

The theory of evolution is not fact. Darwin himself said that the weakness of his theory is irreducible complexity. He said that if there were machines on the cellular level that could not function unless complete and could not happen by chance then his theory would be proven wrong. In the last 30 years, with the advancements made in technology with microscopes these irreducible machines have been discovered on the cellular level. A single cell, once thought to be a simple entity is actually more complex then the space shuttle with machines that cannot function unless the machine is complete.

Neither Intelligent Design nor the Big Bang theory can be tested by the scientific process. Neither can be observed, neither can be tested in the laboratory or duplicated. What we can do is make note of observations in the physical universe and interpret them. Intelligent Design/Creation Science is about making observations, testing and creating theories, the same as evolutionists do.

For example, Uranium & Polonium Radiohalos formed in granite are scienfic, observable proof of a young earth. I won't go into detail on it here but for anyone reading this that's interested check this link out.

http://creation.com/radiohalosstartl...-a-young-earth

Again, the tone of this post is totally friendly. This is an intelligent discussion, not a fight. The video below is pretty good about explaining irreducible complexity and natural selection. Check it out !

[Jason Mallory]

I'd also like to point out that this is the problem so many conspiracy "theories" have as well.

I know we have a lot of folks who like conspiracies and conspiracy theories around here. Please note that at no time did I say there are no conspiracies. My problem is with the use of the term "Theory." Understand the terminology and I don't have a problem.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is a psyop, propaganda term to discredit people that are exposing conspriacies like the 911 attacks. I don't agree with the use of that term either.

[Joshua Jarboe]

1) in any population there is variability among individuals.
2) variability is heritable.
3) in any population, some individuals will be more successful at survival and reproduction.
4) survival and reproduction are non-random.

Sure, I learn best when I can form systems (not a random soup of facts). These four observations are easy, and I have no problem with them (survival of the individual is unpredictable but non-random). As the environment changes, those creatures who are best suited to the environment survive and live to pass on their genes. We would expect to see that in nature. We do (the whole black butterflies thing). We would expect to see that in the fossil record. We do to one degree or another (this is debatable and not my strong point, so for now I'll cede the point). All fine, Natural Selection is fine. This isn't foreign to me.


What's next?