15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[abu afak]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!

Evolution is a far more stable and reasonable science, they have improved a lot in recent decades in how they explain their fossil and other evidence to create a basic picture of what it is.

 

[abu afak]

Jesus.
Your signature is ******* (USMB's fault) IDIOTIC.
They shouldn't allow Long BILLBOARD sigs that are bigger than 80% of the posts and in which you can't find the posters one and two sentence, replies. Where's the post?

But yes, the #1 Fallacy of Creationist Morons is NOT knowing the difference between the routine use of 'theory,' and the definition of Scientific Theory.

`

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

 

[theHawk]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I don’t get it, are you denying the universe was created? Even quantum physicists believe in a creation theory, the Big Bang Theory. Although they have to twist the rules of science and make up some fairy tales with no scientific backing to make the theory work, like “inflation” and “dark matter”.

 

[Sunsettommy]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.

30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools
John E. Taylor
Professor of Law, West Virginia University

June 23, 2017

Excerpt:

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.

Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?

As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.

While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.

LINK

 

[justinacolmena]

Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!

There is a spiritual component to life, which is not explained by science or by trials of scientific experimentation.

The Bible says humans inhabited the lush rain forest of the Garden of Eden, that they were naked and not ashamed of it, and that they ate the fruit of certain species of trees, and that they wore undergarments of fig leaves and overcoats of animal skin or fur after they realized they were naked.

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

This does not differ much from Darwin's theories of evolution of great apes who lost their fur and began to wear clothes.

The Bible gets the truth, and the big picture of it right. The theories of evolution are just that: the explanations are too detailed and too precise for the given knowledge, and they get small details wrong in places that really matter.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Creationism has never made sense, some of their explanations are wildly tortured and well.... stupid!

There is a spiritual component to life, which is not explained by science or by trials of scientific experimentation.

The Bible says humans inhabited the lush rain forest of the Garden of Eden, that they were naked and not ashamed of it, and that they ate the fruit of certain species of trees, and that they wore undergarments of fig leaves and overcoats of animal skin or fur after they realized they were naked.

3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

This does not differ much from Darwin's theories of evolution of great apes who lost their fur and began to wear clothes.

The Bible gets the truth, and the big picture of it right. The theories of evolution are just that: the explanations are too detailed and too precise for the given knowledge, and they get small details wrong in places that really matter.

It is religion pure and simple, thus can't be taught in public schools.

What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.

30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools
John E. Taylor
Professor of Law, West Virginia University

June 23, 2017

Excerpt:

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.

Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?

As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.

While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.

LINK

I don't realize this? Crazy. How did I miss it? Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?

I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point. I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.

If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.

 

[justinacolmena]

It is religion pure and simple, thus can't be taught in public schools.

I'm not saying I disagree. If it's going to be taught out of the Bible, then it can certainly be reserved for Sunday school, because there is always a board of directors at the local church, most of whom sit on the local school board as well.

Schoolteachers can a little bit more reserved in teaching evolutionary science at public state-run schools that are officially distinct from the church.

The theories can be taught as theories — to the best of the knowledge of certain scientists — without insisting on the absolute unquestionable truth of them.

If Charles Darwin's theories are taught, then the sources be cited academically by the schoolteacher. If other scientists have theories that reinforce or differ from Darwin's, they they should be cited as well, even for the schoolchildren.

Kids have to learn the theories as theories and be able to cite major sources in their reports.

 

[Mac-7]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I wonder how liberals can keep pushing the Dumb Luck Theory of creation when it defies logic?

 

[zaangalewa]

Still the discussion "creation vs evolution" is one of the most stupid discussions in the English speaking world. Creation and evolution are totally different things. Example: Evolution is created - but creation is not evolved.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Creationism is unfalsifiable. ...

Creationism : the "ism" shows normally always an ideolgy. Ideologies are in general closed systems of thoughts, Falsifyable within this system of thoughts - not falsifyable outside of this system of toughts.

But the Christains religion is not an ideology - while "darwinism" is the same time often nothing else than an extremist racist ideology. On the other side: The real scientific theory of evolution is not an ideology too.

But the discussion in the internet seems only to be a discussion from ideologists with ideologists, who share a common bad "knowledge" about the belief in god and about the Christian religion as well as about the basics of natural science and the methods and essential arguments of natural science in case of biology.

 

[zaangalewa]

... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism

Nothing.



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

 

[abu afak]

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.


`.

I will never understand why atheists try to disprove religions with scientific arguments.

Creationism is unfalsifiable. The people who declare themselves the champions of science ought to understand from the get-go that this puts the concept beyond the capacity of science to prove or disprove, so why bother?

When you say, "That magic wand isn't real! It doesn't even have any batteries in it!" your initial point may be correct, but your reasoning is irrelevant to that point.

Ha ha ha, you don't realize that creationists have for a while tried to have their unprovable belief be taught in the public schools. They LOST, yet still try anyway, despite that it isn't science, it is religion.

30 years after Edwards v. Aguillard: Why creationism lingers in public schools
John E. Taylor
Professor of Law, West Virginia University

June 23, 2017

Excerpt:

This month marks the 30th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, a groundbreaking case that ruled it unconstitutional to require creationism to be taught in public schools.

Though much has changed in 30 years, the broad questions raised by this case remain timely. Who gets to decide what knowledge will be transmitted to the next generation – parents? Elected officials? Academic experts? What role (if any) should the courts play in policing such decisions?

As a scholar of education law and First Amendment law, I’ve seen these very questions animate curricular controversies over climate change, American history, and more.

While recent debates seem to share a common structure with controversies about the teaching of evolution, there’s a key difference: Edwards v. Aguillard stands not for the broad idea that it’s unconstitutional for public schools to teach “bad science,” but for the narrower idea that it’s unconstitutional for them to teach religion as truth.

LINK

I don't realize this? Crazy. How did I miss it? Was a living under a rock for, I don't know, all of the 38 years of my life?

I didn't say that arguing to keep creationism out of science classes was a moot point. I said that disproving creationism with science is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE, and people who claim to champion science ought to understand that you can't apply scientific argument to unfalsifiable ideas.

If you want to keep creationism out of schools and technical decision making, the logical argument to make would be that it isn't objective or scientific specifically BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable, rather than trying to bypass that obvious impediment by bastardizing the very concept of scientific inquiry in your crusade to defend science.

One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.
That's the reason for the Pastafarianism/The Flying Spaghetti Monster which also cannot be "disproven."

YOU CAN'T PROVE I'M NOT GOD.
That does not give ANY weight to the claim I am.
Got it now?
You're posing Junior High semantics, not logic.

And even for that shallow claim, we know specific creation Myths are false.
Indeed at least 75% of Religions are wrong even if One of their creations myths is correct.
Further, a literal reading of Genesis creation version is demonstrably ridiculous. As is Adam and Eve.

`
``

 

[Sunsettommy]

... What is preventing Churches from teaching Creationism

Nothing.



In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.

It is useless to me because it is a fairy tale story, nothing more.

 

[ding]

Jesus.
Your signature is ******* (USMB's fault) IDIOTIC.
They shouldn't allow Long BILLBOARD sigs that are bigger than 80% of the posts and in which you can't find the posters one and two sentence, replies. Where's the post?

But yes, the #1 Fallacy of Creationist Morons is NOT knowing the difference between the routine use of 'theory,' and the definition of Scientific Theory.

`

Then I bet you hate mine.

 

[Indeependent]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

 

[ding]

One hardly should believe in things just because they cannot be disproven.

Triple negative. Tricky.

 

[ding]

Anyone who has studied even the simplest form of life, which is far from simple, and believes in evolution is either an idiot or lying to themselves.
The anatomy, physiology, biology, chemistry, etc... of all life forms is so incredibly tied into an ecosystem that evolution is nothing more than a reason to deny God and thus abandon all respect for human life.

Why can't I believe in both?