What do Creationists believe happened 20,000 years ago?

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Ironically, I have seen them play this very "maverick" card to bolster their claims: their "research" is not peer-reviewed because the scientific community is monolithic and exerts a lot of pressure to conform to the established order.

I have seen them use the very example of Einstein, who as you pointed out was largely brushed aside in the beginning.

Creation "scientists", very much like those who challenge the climate change consensus, cannot have their "work" reviewed, for any sympathizer would risk his or her career and grant money.

Yes, that is the irony. The Einstein example is used by Creationists because they know the public's ignorance on how science works will cause them to draw the opposite lesson from it.

They know that notion that fundamental science can be challenged is a sign of weakness for science in the public's eyes, rather than a sign that science is the ultimate sceptical process.

Since Americans especially lean towards being anti-institutional the notion of the lone persecuted scientific maverick challenging the establishment from the outside resonates readily with their cognitive frames of reference. It is the classic American internal narrative.

What they ignore is that scientific theories and findings are challenged daily from the inside and the outside by legitimate claims and pure crackpots. It is the very business of science to constantly challenge and refine scientific theories. What survives in the end are those challenges that are independently verified and applied by other workers in the field such that the new claims show superior utility to the existing theories.

The most useful theory wins, and that usefulness must be documented in the professional journals in full view of all the experts. The documentation needs to be complete enough such that others can duplicate the work and verify it. There is no other process in human intellectual life that is more objective and more sceptical than this.

So the answer to the Creationist's cry that "they laughed at Einstein", is the counter cry, "yes, and they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

Your last point about the dogmatic scientific community rejecting challenges is now called "The Ben Stein Defense" after the idiot Ben Stein's participation in the shamefully dishonest movie, Expelled.

The ridiculousness of this is that if you had a legitimate bit of evidence for the speed of light varying widely, for example, (thus bolstering your YEC claims) you would simply submit an article to the professional physics journals demonstrating discrepancies in the speed of light in such a way that other workers in the field could reproduce it. You don't actually have to preface your article with "I am a Young Earth Creationist and I am here to discredit the established science."

In fact all scientists want to discredit the established science and work hard every day to publish something new, novel, or critical about established science. This is how careers are made and prizes are won.

If you manage to actually publish verifiable proof that the speed of light varies or did vary in the past then you are looking at a Nobel Prize, not dogmatic rejection.

Real scientists hold that all theories are provisional and will ultimately be replaced by better ones. And by better ones, they mean ones that work better. Anyone who thinks this is a weakness needs to ask themselves how it is that their great grandfathers read by gas lamp while only 150 years later people are posting in forums on the Internet using high speed computers the size of a book. The rate at which science reinvents itself while maintaing its astonishing usefulness makes all other fields of human intellectual pursuit appear to be standing still.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The speed of light does vary (when not in a vacuum or when passing through other objects). :biggrin:

So, what prize do I win? I hope it's not the Nobel prize. The king of Sweden is very dull and I'd have to buy a tailcoat.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The speed of light does vary (when not in a vacuum or when passing through other objects). :biggrin:

So, what prize do I win? I hope it's not the Nobel prize. The king of Sweden is very dull and I'd have to buy a tailcoat.

Haha, yes of course. I was oversimplifying it. I am referring to the speed of light in a given medium varying by huge amounts over time.

Where do I mail the prize? It is taking up lots of space in my living room.
 

BIGBULL29

Worshipped Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
7,603
Media
52
Likes
14,215
Points
343
Location
State College (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
Yes, black holes are interesting and unusual, but they are no more mysterious than anything else in the universe we are studying scientifically.

Some scientists would not agree with that...

Don't we tend to disprove in science and not prove? Prove to me that no higher being created the universe.

And yes, theories are theories and never facts.
 
D

deleted213967

Guest
Some scientists would not agree with that...

Don't we tend to disprove in science and not prove? Prove to me that no higher being created the universe.

And yes, theories are theories and never facts.

Once again, a vast misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context.
 

BIGBULL29

Worshipped Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2006
Posts
7,603
Media
52
Likes
14,215
Points
343
Location
State College (Pennsylvania, United States)
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Male
Once again, a vast misunderstanding of the meaning of theory in a scientific context.

Theory: In science, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.ave been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.

It's possible something may come along and disprove it. It's just not the case now.
 

HazelGod

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
7,154
Media
1
Likes
31
Points
183
Location
The Other Side of the Pillow
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The speed of light does vary (when not in a vacuum or when passing through other objects). :biggrin:

Ah, yes...always remember refraction.

Heh...I remember being amazed in HS physics to learn that photons originating from fusion reactions in the stellar core take anywhere from 10,000 to 200,000 years to reach the photosphere and make the leap into space. And then another ~8 minutes to reach us. :wink:
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male

Ah, yes...always remember refraction.

Heh...I remember being amazed in HS physics to learn that photons originating from fusion reactions in the stellar core take anywhere from 10,000 to 200,000 years to reach the photosphere and make the leap into space. And then another ~8 minutes to reach us. :wink:

I was slightly more shocked to discover that light passing through diamonds has its speed cut by over half. That's one hell of a slow down.
 

Zeuhl34

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Posts
2,027
Media
19
Likes
145
Points
208
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Theory: In science, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.ave been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports the current theory or at least does not falsify it by contradicting it completely.

It's possible something may come along and disprove it. It's just not the case now.

The same goes for the germ theory of disease. But like the germ theory, the odds are very good that evolution will remain the most scientifically-valid theory out there.
 

jason_els

<img border="0" src="/images/badges/gold_member.gi
Joined
Dec 16, 2004
Posts
10,228
Media
0
Likes
163
Points
193
Location
Warwick, NY, USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The same goes for the germ theory of disease. But like the germ theory, the odds are very good that evolution will remain the most scientifically-valid theory out there.

The problem is that the Creationists possess a counter-theory which states that any evidence of evolution was placed there by God to test the faithful. This frees of them of the nearly unsupportable situation of having to defend humans living alongside dinosaurs or dragons as they call them. This neat theory also allows a host of cosmic, geologic, and biological claims Creationists have to make, far more reasonable. If God tests us with the emotional temptations of sin, then why would he not also test us intellectually?

The deceptive God theory is one of the reasons that Creationists will never be convinced by science itself. It doesn't matter how many proofs of evolution exist. Science is no match for faith. It never has been and it's an error of scientists to continue to argue evolution to Creationists. What does work is broad and liberal education combined with a tolerant culture.

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. My high school bio teacher started the section on evolution by making a statement. To paraphrase what Mr. Highly said, though it is close to verbatim because it was the first time I heard something from my logic courses appearing in a different part of the school and it singularly struck me:
What I'm asking you to do is to learn evolution as the most accepted current scientific theory. I'm not asking you to believe it, just to learn it. If you want to argue whether evolution is true or not, then go upstairs to Mr. Post's class [he taught philosophy and rhetoric]. If you do not accept evolutionary theory as being true, learn it anyway because you'll need to learn what evolution is before you can say what it isn't. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Nobody raised their hand.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted213967

Guest
The problem is that the Creationists possess a counter-theory which states that any evidence of evolution was placed there by God to test the faithful.

Au contraire, Answers In The Bible pretty much argues that all the evidence we have collected so far neatly fits within the framework of the holy book God allegedly gave us. The fact that the skeletons of "dragons" are so well preserved attests to the authenticity and timing of The Flood, for example.

Indeed, arguing with them seems futile, but I had my conscience raised this summer while I was working on a construction project with a team of young contractors: we were commenting on the sheer beauty of huge slabs of slate, their marbling and layering, wondering how many millions of years it had taken to achieve the effect.

The head of the team, college-educated 20-something, son of a teacher, by all measures a good-looking, self-confident stud, snapped back that it had only taken thousands of years to create the whole universe and that dinosaurs/dragons had perished after The Flood.

To think that his yet-to-be-born kids will be force-fed that completely lunatic horseshit deeply troubles me.


 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The problem is that the Creationists possess a counter-theory which states that any evidence of evolution was placed there by God to test the faithful. This frees of them of the nearly unsupportable situation of having to defend humans living alongside dinosaurs or dragons as they call them. This neat theory also allows a host of cosmic, geologic, and biological claims Creationists have to make, far more reasonable. If God tests us with the emotional temptations of sin, then why would he not also test us intellectually?

The deceptive God theory is one of the reasons that Creationists will never be convinced by science itself. It doesn't matter how many proofs of evolution exist. Science is no match for faith. It never has been and it's an error of scientists to continue to argue evolution to Creationists. What does work is broad and liberal education combined with a tolerant culture.

You know, I used to have the same understanding of how creationists operate, and I am sure that there are those who fit this description, especially if you are talking about ordinary evangelical church-goers rather than the "creation science" types who make a public case for creationism. But since I have started reading writings and hearing lectures and interviews by those types, some (though not many) of whom have legitimate scientific credentials (e.g., I have heard one speak who just got a doctorate in microbiology from Harvard University), I have found that they do not operate in this fashion at all -- at least, I have not yet observed any who do so. Rather, they offer what purport to be scientific arguments in support of their views. For instance, they argue that radioactive carbon dating is completely unreliable because, supposedly, such dating indicated that one part of some fossil was a million years old and another part of the same fossil was only a few thousand years old, or something of the sort (I don't recall the details). They argue that the formations of volcanic ash around Mount Saint Helens show how rock strata such as we find at the Grand Canyon could be formed in a matter of days rather than over millions of years (yeah, I know: huh?). And so on. All of the arguments are easily refuted by looking into the specifics from which they argue: their arguments always turn out to depend on false or distorted factual claims, neglect of pertinent contrary evidence, fallacious inferences, or rhetorical diversions. But to someone who doesn't know anything besides what they tell you, it can sound like genuine science.

I don't think that these "creation scientists" aspire to change the minds of people who actually know something about the natural sciences. I think that their aims are, first, to win converts among the ignorant and gullible; second, to strengthen the faith of their followers; and third (what is their most important goal for political purposes), to make the general public think that they have a genuine scientific case to make, and that their views therefore deserve a place in public school curricula. (Get 'em while they're young.)

What I have never figured out about these people is: do they believe their own pseudo-science? Some of them, like the Harvard Ph.D. that I mentioned before, are quite learned and intelligent. It seems to me that if they are sharp enough to produce effective pseudo-scientific buncombe, they must be sharp enough to know that it is buncombe. Do they know that? Do they think of themselves as employing scientific lies for the sake of a higher religious truth? Or are their minds so deeply corrupted that they are fundamentally incapable of telling the difference between lying and telling the truth? I don't know, but it's an interesting question.

I've mentioned this before but it bears repeating. My high school bio teacher started the section on evolution by making a statement. To paraphrase what Mr. Highly said, though it is close to verbatim because it was the first time I saw something from my logic courses appearing in a different part of the school:
What I'm asking you to do is to learn evolution as the most accepted current scientific theory. I'm not asking you to believe it, just to learn it. If you want to argue whether evolution is true or not, then go upstairs to Mr. Post's class [he taught philosophy and rhetoric]. If you do not accept evolutionary theory as being true, learn it anyway because you'll need to learn what evolution is before you can say what it isn't. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Nobody raised their hand.

Where did you go to school, Jason? It makes me queasy to think of a school environment where a teacher would have to give a speech like that in order to teach the theory of evolution without having his class disrupted by protests.

Edited to add: Domisoldo, your post seems to have appeared while I was writing mine, saying much the same kind of thing. But please allow me to correct you on one point: the phrase is "to have one's consciousness raised," not "to have one's conscience raised."
 
Last edited:

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,328
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I am hesitant to even begin discussing "logic" (which is a beautiful and perfect area of study) when "common sense" seems more appropriate as an entree into this subject.

Christ.

And I didn't mean that literally. Sue me for being pejorative.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,677
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
I wonder what happens when creationists get up there to heaven and God tells them that the Book of Genesis is just a metaphor for evolution? That all those begattings were really about species, not men. I'd love to see the look on their faces.
 
Last edited:

Zeuhl34

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Posts
2,027
Media
19
Likes
145
Points
208
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I wonder what happens when creationists get up there to heaven and God tells them that the Book of Genesis is just a metaphor for evolution? That all those begattings were really about species, not men. I'd love to see the look on their faces.

Something tells me they may keep arguing.:tongue:

"No, Lord, you're wrong!"
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
At the risk of offending 340 million Americans: What an interesting educational system you have there.
The source of the problem, I think, is not so much the educational system as it is the rural American version of Protestantism. To expect the public schools to counteract the damage that a moronic religious culture does to the minds of young people who grow up in it is a very tall order.

By the way, the figure is about 300, not 340, million.
 

Calboner

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 16, 2007
Posts
9,027
Media
29
Likes
7,873
Points
433
Location
USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
A nice piece by Richard Dawkins taken from his forthcoming book, The Greatest Show on Earth:

Creationists, now they&#8217;re coming for your children - Times Online

Dawkins presents a couple of analogies to represent the situation of teachers of biology in the present day. I have added bold type.

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world &#8212; for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That&#8217;s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class&#8217;s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin. [. . .]

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here&#8217;s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaust-deniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to &#8220;teach the controversy&#8221;, and to give &#8220;equal time&#8221; to the &#8220;alternative theory&#8221; that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
"A baying pack of ignoramuses" -- well said, Professor Dawkins.