Creation Science ...

[Ben]

-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.

[Jason Mallory]

-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.

Some of the things that he didn't go into detail about like how did people live so long before the Flood are covered in his other lectures. In the video below Hovind debats three evolutionists at once about the creation vs evolution debate.

[michael craig]

so micks a athiest,jason is a christian,im a buddhist,im sure there are also democrats and republicans etc etc on the board..just remember no matter what your here to represent 10th planet jiu-jitsu and figting on the forum is not a way to represent or support are art.

[Jason Hyatt]

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.

[Jason Mallory]

so micks a athiest,jason is a christian,im a buddhist,im sure there are also democrats and republicans etc etc on the board..just remember no matter what your here to represent 10th planet jiu-jitsu and figting on the forum is not a way to represent or support are art.

I'm not fighting with anyone, just sharing and isn't that what a message board is for ? I rep 10th Planet to the fullest and I believe I do it in an honorable way.

Sorry Jason, I haven't read your post yet but I will.

[Jack LaBarge]

There are two subjects that make people go crazy...religion and politics! Why are we discussing or debating religion...facts....None!!! When you die is when you finally get the answer but who are you going to tell, your dead! Scientist...whats their real agenda!! Be happy and respect others...Stop the non-sense

Peace and Love

[Scott Yockel]

I'm on Jason Mallory side on this one. He posts a lot of things on this site and I may not agree/ believe everything he posts. I think as a person its important to expand your mind. Jason is just passing along information he found interesting. You should still show the man respect even if you don't agree with him or his views. Jason thank you sharing new things with us andd please keep posting interesting things like this!

[DavidJohn]

Some of the things that he didn't go into detail about like how did people live so long before the Flood are covered in his other lectures. In the video below Hovind debats three evolutionists at once about the creation vs evolution debate.

Hovind *is* an eloquent speaker, too bad he's in jail.

[Jason Hyatt]

I'd also like to point out that this is the problem so many conspiracy "theories" have as well. They are lacking in one or more of the following areas:

SELF-CONSISTENCY
A theory is not a very robust theory if it contradicts itself. Seemly logical paths that fold back on themselves are common to conspiracy theories and is one reason I hate that the term theory is applied to them at all. Example: let's say there's a conspiracy about a government cover-up. The evidence for the cover up is that there is no evidence and/or fake "evidence" has been planted. When it's pointed out to the "theorists" that there is no evidence, they say "Of course. They got rid of it all." While that may even be true, it is not scientific and it is not properly called a theory. Since it is never possible to prove their theory false (because any evidence that contradicts the theory has already been defined as evidence of a cover up) it can never be called a theory. This is also a major problem with creation "science".


OBSERVATION FROM PREDICTION
Many theories started as little more than calculations; some are still only calculations -- string theory one of the most prominent among them; which is in fact a major criticism of the theory. Calculations and thought experiments are great but without observed phenomena it's only so much mental masturbation (as physicists frequently refer to pure mathematics). Einstein -- the physicist, not the black belt -- wrote a very compelling paper developed between 1907-1915 that refined the description of gravity. Until then, gravity was described as an unseen force transmitted between massive objects that decreases with the square of the distance between them. Newton first described gravity that way and it conformed very well to observation. But not quite. There were a few things in nature that didn't seem to like Newton's approximations. There was a problem with the procession of the orbit of Mercury. Mercury never returns to the same spot on the same day each year (neither does Earth but it's really close. So close we only have to correct for it by 24 hours every four years). The procession of Mercury's orbit was a big problem for scientists for a long time. There just weren't any laws of motion that accounted for it without the presence of another massive object (and for a very long time it was thought there had to be another planet perturbing the orbit). Then Einstein wrote a paper in which he described gravity as the curvature of space. A massive body bends the space around it like a bowling ball placed on a sheet. If you place another massive object near it, it will follow that curvature of space.

[You can prove it to yourself: throw a baseball to a person standing 30 feet away such that it takes 10 seconds for it to arrive. How would you do that? You'd throw the ball high into the air so that it flew in an arc. Now throw the ball such that it takes 2 seconds to get there. You'd throw a pretty straight line drive, right? OK. Throw a fly ball that only takes two seconds to get there. You can't. Throw a line drive that takes 10 seconds. You can't. The ball MUST travel in the curvature of the space the Earth creates. Now not only baseballs and massive objects must travel in that curved space but so must light in all it's wavelengths. This is why light can never "escape" a black hole. A black hole is just a region of space where gravity has curved space so much that everything just travels in an ever-shrinking orbit until it encounters the singularity at the center. There is an exception to this called "Hawking radiation" that is a great story of two theoretical predictions coming together, observations, and modification of the original theory. If you'd like I'll happily go into that too...]

So what? What did that do? Gravity didn't change at all, only how we described it. Einstein changed the theory of gravity. That's all well and good, but if it's not observed in nature it just isn't very good science. The predictions of Einstein's new theory said that an object as large as a star with that much gravity should bend the light traveling very near it at a predictable rate. If Einstein's curved space were true in nature and not just on paper, it would account for the perturbation of Mercury. Not only that, it should be possible under the right conditions to observe a shift in position of background stars as their light passes near the sun. As it happened, there was an eclipse in 1919 that allowed scientists all over the world to observe the sun and see this "gravitational lensing." I imagine you've heard the term. The reason you've heard the term is because Einstein was right and he became world famous almost overnight. What is important about that from the perspective of a conspiracy "theory" and other non-scientific "theories" is that few if any of them make testable predictions. Without a prediction, General Relativity is just Einstein doing math. Without an observation, it's just a really nice set of equations.


FALSIFIABILITY
This is huge. This is what makes a theory science or not. If any of the postulates of a theory are shown through observation to be false, the theory requires modification. Again, a theory must make predictions. If it does not, it is not a theory by definition. Those predictions must be testable. There must be some way to either design a bench-top experiment, observe in nature, or otherwise test the predictions a theory makes. Most importantly, the experiment must actually test the prediction.

I'll use gravity as an example again. Let's say my theory of gravity says that what we observe as gravity is the result of air pushing objects towards the ground. I can design an experiment that can prove this wrong. Note that what I can't do is prove this true. I can design a million experiments that will all seem to show that air pressure is the reason objects always return to the ground. All I need is ONE experiment that demonstrates this to be false to junk the theory (provided, of course, that experiment is also verifiable by others). This is not what happens with most conspiracy theories and with creation "science". Those "theories" that can't make testable predictions are not theories at all -- they are speculation and nothing more.

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.

[Jason Mallory]

Hovind *is* an eloquent speaker, too bad he's in jail.

Yeah, it is too bad he's in jail. The new world order and our out of control federal government with it's illegal 'incom tax' are the reason he's behind bars. His faith probably has something to do with it too. Here's Aaron Russo's film on the illegality of the so called income tax.