I’m at ComiCon for the next few days, and I don’t know how often I’ll be able to report to the blog. I do have some other posts ready to go, so these oughta keep you sated until I can talk more about the geekorama.
As a follow up to the post I made about flawed creationist reasoning when it comes to plate tectonics, I missed something obvious that, in retrospect, is (yet another) killer for creationism: heat.
Creationists need the Earth (and the Universe, don’t forget) to be 6000 or so years old, due to a lengthy list of "begattings" in the Bible. The problem is, we see lots of processes going on right now that are very slow — but we see their effect because the Earth is incredibly old. But if the Earth is young, these processes have to have been cooking a lot faster in the past.
Cooking indeed, because these forces expel a lot of heat. And it can be hard to dump that heat: it has to go somewhere (like an oven heating up a room when you open the door), and we just don’t see that happening. Some people — and by "some", I mean every reality-based person in the whole Universe — say it’s impossible to do that in 6000 years and still have a nice, hospitable planet today. And in fact, any Earth-forming process must have taken far less than 6000 years, since according to creationists people have been around nearly all that time. Even being generous, and giving these processes a few hundred years, makes it like impossible squared to happen.
One of these processes is plate tectonics. As mentioned in the previous post, sliding plates around the planet and on top and underneath one another is a problem for creationists. A big one; it takes a long time to move a plate around when it crawls at an inch per year. But creationists, of course, think it all happened quickly, right after Noah’s flood.
However, this is impossible. And I mean impossible. Happily, the National Center for Science Education has a nice explanation of why, which boils down (haha) to the energy release from such rapid motion being enough to vaporize the oceans and melt the Earth’s crust completely.
And it really bugs me when Biblical literalists try to rely on science for some stuff, then just say "It’s a miracle!" for other stuff. Why even turn to science at all then? The paper says this beautifully:
Fourth, we would criticize this concept on theological grounds. In Humphreys’s article in the RATE book, he postulates that God performs lots of miracles in order to explain things. God is supposed to have changed the mass of the pion, changed the parameters of gauge bosons to accelerate beta decay, and changed the effective distance of the strong force to alter alpha decay. With all these miracles, why then does God switch to a naturalistic solution to the heat problem — albeit one that requires a rapid cosmic expansion of unexplained origin? All of this raises two serious theological questions. Why does God dance to Humphreys’s whim, performing a miracle each time Humphreys requires one? Demanding miracles of God raises certain questions of who is the master and who the servant. And why does Humphreys insist on any naturalistic approach at all, given all the miracles he postulates? Why not simply remove the heat miraculously?
That is how you debunk creationism: cut to the quick. And I love their conclusion:
For these reasons, we reject Humphreys’s cooling mechanism: because it is wrong, it is ineffective, it is falsified by observational data, and it is theologically flawed.
Ouch.
Tip o’ the continental shelf to RBH in the comments of my previous blog post for pointing out that awesome article.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
No, no, BA. All that heat goes into heating Hell. Don’t you remember the Siberians drilling into Hell a few years ago? I heard Art Bell talk about it, and Peter Popoff sold tape recordings of it!
July 24th, 2008 at 11:06 am
You are a really good insightful writer. It is a pleasure wandering through your well based arguments. I like the experimentation in your literary voice and I definitely learned somnething new. I think you are the right man for the job. Thanks. Have a good time at the ComiCon.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
You should know by now, Phil: all you need is the f-word, and lots of it! (That’s faith, of course, this being a family blog an’ all.)
July 24th, 2008 at 11:15 am
I love it!
I have been vexed for a long time by some young-earth creationist’s use of scientific explanations of natural processes when it suited their purposes, while immediately retreating to the supernatural when their argument is pointed out to be false.
It’s the “god of the gaps” concept, turned upside down.
Vexed, I say, but never to the point of thinking through a concise rebuttal. *Finally* someone has been kind enough to eloquently provide one.
Thanks, Phil, and thanks, NCSE.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Another explanation for the heat not being a problem are all of the iced kegs provided by the FSM, in His wisdom. The cooling effect of the kegs balances out the heating effect of rapid plate movements.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Just another thought on using science when it suits them. We often hear arguments that though something is currently unexplainable, future scientific discoveries will shed light on the true nature of something. We just need to get to that level of technology and discovery. When it comes to matters of faith/belief (YEC, miracles, ghosts, UFOs, etc.), this argument is often used to bolster belief in these things. Yet, the argument is rejected when the timeframe shifts. For example, what was unexplainable back in biblical times, thereby taking on the guise of miracles, can now be explained through our current scientific and technological advances. Yet, because the explanations don’t mesh with the faith/belief, the science must therefore be wrong. Wonderful example of cherry-picking.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
OK, now how do you argue with someone who has their hands over their ears?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I see that after correctly identifying the belief that the world is mere 6,000 years old as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), we now have this post which lumps it all together as Creationism. Actually, the issue of Old Earth Creationism has been around since the first estimates showed that the earth was older than 6,000 years. The key issue is whether the term ” day” in Genesis 1 means a literal 24 hour period or an indeterminate amount of time. YEC say it’s 24 hours; OEC says it’s not. And then we have theories such as the one Scofield advanced in his notes on Genesis 1, where he speculates that perhaps there is a gap in the narrative and that a previous creation had been destroyed. So no, Creationists don’t need for the world to be only 6,000 years old in order to match the genealogies. YEC do, OEC don’t, and this debunks the former, not the latter.
While it might bug Phil that Christians would look to science for some things and declare others a miracle, that’s actually not all that odd. If you accept that there is a Creator who interacts with His creation yet is not bound by it, then you must also accept that this Creator isn’t bound by His own “source code” as it were. Strictly speaking, miracles are those events which transcend the bounds of physical laws. A Christian has no problem accepting that God could, if He desired, move the continents around at a fair clip and dissipate the heat. This, however, raises the question of why He would want to do so.
In any event, this is neither here nor there, nor does it means the YEC could declare the heat vanished as part of a miracle. They could just as easily claim that some unknown natural mechanism removed the heat, and then proceed to look for such a mechanism. More to the point is that a little digging turns out that there’s evidence of much slower continental drift than the tens of thousands of kilometers per year required under the YEC model. If I were a YEC, I’d be looking for a single mechanism to account for all data points.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
@Jose
“OK, now how do you argue with someone who has their hands over their ears?”
The naturalistic approach: with a bullhorn.
The woo-woo approach: with telepathy.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
KC -
The problem is that OEC’s want to have it both ways, and should be equally dismissed, because the argument of “is a day in Genesis a ‘literal’ day” suddenly brings up all new contradictions and complications.
For example, we all agree that plants (lets stick to those that require photosynthesis), on this planet, require the sun in order to survive… correct?
Well, in genesis, although ‘light’ was created on the first day, the sun was created in the “firmament” along with the moon on the fourth day… a day after he created plants. So… I could potentially buy plant life surviving a single 24 hour period without sunlight… but not a “day” translated as thousands, or hundrads of thousands, or millions of years.
It’s a problem of contradiction… one of many that run rampant throughout the OT and the reason that you have to just discard creationism on the whole, YEC, or OEC… you just can’t look at it objectively or scientifically in either case and sa that it holds up.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Just wanted to point out that Glenn Morton, co-author of the excellent paper at the NCSE referred to by Phil, is the former YEC who ’saw the light’ and coined the phrase ‘Morton’s Demon’ (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html) to explain the filter that YECs use to ignore any data that contradicts their beliefs.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@ Todd W.
The naturalistic approach: with a bullhorn.
The woo-woo approach: with telepathy.
The Spanish Inquisition Method: torture and death threats until you see it their way, or die… or sometimes both.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
As much as it pains me to say, any argument you pose to a creationist is entirely in vain as they will always go back to the old faithful ‘god created the universe with apparent age.’
That pretty much trumps any kind of logic or science you can throw at them.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
@Brian
Of course, then there’s the discussion of whether the Christian god did both the creation and the age make-up, or if other gods were involved (keep in mind that nowhere in the Bible does it say that only one god exists, but that the people addressed by the Bible should only worship one god). Who knows, it could end up being a theatre production of cosmic proportions. You have the carpenter gods who build everything, the set dresser, charge artist and make-up artist gods that give things that “lived in” look, the sound designer god that makes the soundtrack, lighting designer god handling the design of the sun, moon, starts, galaxies, lightning, and other light-related effects, not to mention fog and such. The stage manager god calls the cues, and so on.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I see that after correctly identifying the belief that the world is mere 6,000 years old as Young Earth Creationism (YEC), we now have this post which lumps it all together as Creationism.
Yes BA,
Next time be clear that old earth creationists only use some of the same lies to support their position that young earth creationists do. In some cases, they have to make up new lies.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
@Jose
But are they lies if the YECers/OECers really, truly believe themselves?
July 24th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
The thing I don’t get about the Creationists is why do they keep trying to explain things?
If their faith were as strong as they claim they wouldn’t feel a need to explain it all using the unbelievers science. They would just knock it all down to “God made it” and keep on walking.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
@Ray
Because the Bible contains the command to go out and spread the good word and basically make converts out of everyone who doesn’t already believe. To do that, they need to learn to speak in the language of those they’re trying to convert…at least enough to sound like they’re stating facts.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I’m sure this has been put forth before, but I just don’t get it…
What I mean is that how can so many members of a species that has accomplished so much still believe that some omnicient being brought everything that is into being and controls every aspect of the species’ destiny. Even more vexxing is that these same people, instead of listening to reason and evidence simply cover their ears and scream “Lalalalalala…I’m not listening” simply to protect these beliefs? Is it a matter of pride that they don’t want to think they’ve been wrong for so long?
Do people need to believe in this to give their lives meaning? Life is too short as it is. Why waste such a large portion of it pleading to some invisible being to make their lives better? Why not just go out make it better themselves? Laziness?
I was raised in a catholic family and never bought into it. Why do we go to this special building once a week and mumble incantations to some “thing” that never manifests itself nor shows any sort of evidence of its existence?
Is the human mind still so weak that it can’t see work this out logically? That makes me a Sad Panda(tm).
I just don’t get it…
July 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@drsky
It’s much easier to believe in a god than to use reason, rational thought and research to come to an answer.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
But are they lies if the YECers/OECers really, truly believe themselves?
Oh, they’re still lies. Everyone who truly believes the lies isn’t a liar though. They’re just suckers.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
It seems that some religious people, when they try to explain away things, sometimes end up with a view of the world that approaches solipsism. Some seem to think that you can decide at will what exists or not and that they see objective reality as something very subjective that you can fine-tune to your heart desires.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I don’t understand the need to argue so vehemently with these people. It only makes them respond with increasingly far-flung and even dangerous ideas to explain their faith. That’s doing nobody any good, as I see it. Why validate them by arguing with them? Seems childish and potentially irresponsible.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
All that lost heat is slowly going into global warming. It’s so obvious!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Now excuse me while I shower after making that statement.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@Per
A lot of the arguments stem from the religious people who vehemently try to push their beliefs and values on everyone they come in contact with.
In my local newpaper, due to the recent issues of gay marriage, there has been a spate of letters to the editor from people thumping their bibles saying that allowing gay marriage is harmful to them and their faith and is going to be the end of civilzation as we know it. Several of the comment repsonses attempt to get out of them what sort of damage allowing this is doing to anyone not involved in the marriage. The responses are the usual “they’ll go to hell” or “what they are doing is an affront to god”. But WTF does it matter to someone what someone else does with their own life.
I have no problem with someone having religion, but they need to stop trying to shove it down everyone else’s throat.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Per: because if we don’t point out their fallacies it is taken as given, both by them and their followers and before we know it, it will be taught as science. Think ID in school science, if we had simply ognored it they would know be teaching it as sience in schools. Part of their problem is that science has over the centuries replaced all their faith based explanations and has acquired a level of respect, even among believers. Hence they try to garner some of that respect by finding what appears, to the ignorant at least, as scientific sounding explanations to con the faithful that their beliefs are really backed up by ’science’.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Sorry for the typos, should read:
Think ID in school science, if we had simply ignored it they would know be teaching it as science in schools.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I don’t understand the need to argue so vehemently with these people.
Well, there’s always a few that don’t have their hands on their ears (The judge in the Dover case is a good example). And the consequences of letting their silly ideas go unchallenged are much worse than forcing them to come up with even sillier ideas.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Why is it that to be a creationist that you have to believe the planet is 6000 years old? I’m a creationist. I believe that where there was once nothing, there is now something. I believe in a, what is it you call it…big spaghetti monster in the sky? Does this mean I don’t believe is some form of evolution? No. Does this mean I don’t believe is some sort of big bang? No. I believe something was created, and I enjoy learning more about what that was or is.
I suppose we simply have a difference of definition here. What you call creationist is truly those who believe the Bible in a literal sense. That’s a rather short-sighted definition which surprises me coming from such a scientist.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I’ve not yet had an opportunity to try it out on a creationist (of any stripe), but I did put together an entirely theological argument against Intelligent Design a while back. Quick summary is that it’s essentially a version of the Babel Fish argument, based on the fact that in 1 Corinthians, Paul explicitly says that you can’t ever have miraculous proof of God. Since logical and scientific arguments don’t work, I wonder how a theological argument in favor of evolution would play?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Jeff: probably because those are the ones who create
organisations like creation ministries and the like and who pushed for creation science in schools. Creation science being the father of ID when it lost a case in 1987 and the books about creation science changed the wording from creation to Intelligent Design, as was shown in the Dover trial. So while I can understand where you are coming from, BTW we tend to call people like yourself theistic evolutionists, don’t blame us for the current usage.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
@Todd W.: I love the idea of a backstage army of gods “staging” the Universe to look “just right”. In fact, I think that would make a great HGTV show. They could even have a contest to find “Earth’s Next Great Designer God”. What do you think? We can pitch it to HGTV’s owners and share “Executive Producer” credit.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Celtic_Evolution:
Actually, one of the things Scofield muses on is that most of the verses in Genesis 1 describe the recovery of the earth from a catastrophe. He speculates that from the point of view of someone who might have been standing on the earth’s surface, the sun, moon, and stars were obscured by his hypothetical global disaster and didn’t clear enough to allow an unobscured view until this point.
Whether or not anyone agrees with that, it does address the very point you brought up.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
@Carl
It would never fly. I mean, what prize do you give a god?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
That’s a rather short-sighted definition which surprises me coming from such a scientist.
Oh come on Jeff, you’re reaching here. BA’s using the commonly accepted meaning of creationist. If you don’t fit that description, make up a new word for yourself. Don’t dilute the meaning of an existing word so that it becomes useless.
July 24th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
This whole discussion reminds me of this old joke.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1829343/posts
July 24th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
@KC: The problem with that kind of musing is that it really doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.
First, why hypothesize a *global* disaster based on the writings of a Bronze Age society whose communication networks barely extended as far as the next major river valley? Especially when none of the other civilizations extant at the time recorded a corresponding catastrophe? If the events of Gen. 1 describe anything at all, the most plausible explanation is a very local catastrophe.
But even then, given that every known culture has a creation myth, why is it necessary to muse that Gen. 1 describes *anything*? The simplest explanation is that it’s just another creation myth (or, strictly speaking, two or three creation myths clumsily munged together)… *especially when there is a complete absence of evidence for a local or global disaster that might provide a historical foundation*. Occam’s Razor would like a word with Scofield…
July 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
>It would never fly. I mean, what prize do you give a god?
Tricky. The traditional prize is a nice new temple, isn’t it?
July 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
There’s not really any point arguing with creationists. God created the Earth 6000 years ago, and he created it to look like it was much older, _to test our faith_.
Seriously, they’re not interested in science. They’re impossible to convince because they’re not interested in finding out the truth - they’re interested in justifying their beliefs.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
drksky: “In my local newpaper, due to the recent issues of gay marriage, there has been a spate of letters to the editor from people thumping their bibles saying that allowing gay marriage is harmful to them and their faith and is going to be the end of civilzation as we know it. Several of the comment repsonses attempt to get out of them what sort of damage allowing this is doing to anyone not involved in the marriage. The responses are the usual “they’ll go to hell” or “what they are doing is an affront to god”. But WTF does it matter to someone what someone else does with their own life.”
A lot of the absurdities in the Bible are justified by the religious with “So we can have free will.”
So I wonder: by stopping gays from marrying, aren’t they opposing God’s plan for “free will?” In other words, if people are not allowed to make “wrong decisions,” what happened to their precious free will?
July 24th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
“First, why hypothesize a *global* disaster based on the writings of a Bronze Age society whose communication networks barely extended as far as the next major river valley? Especially when none of the other civilizations extant at the time recorded a corresponding catastrophe? If the events of Gen. 1 describe anything at all, the most plausible explanation is a very local catastrophe.”
14 flood myths from around the world specifically mention a solar eclipse happening. Dr. Masse of Los Alamos National Laboratory believes this leads to a common event - an asteroid impact in the Indian Ocean on May 10th, 2807 B.C. which may be the origin of the Biblical story of the flood as well as stories from several other cultures. The crater for this event has now been found at the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/science/14WAVE.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=35b395ffd080eb47&ex=1321160400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
July 24th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Well, if you’re into magical thinking, you wouldn’t be much impressed by scientific reasoning, would you? The only way you can hope to gain any ground with YECs is via theological arguments.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
14 out of, what, several hundred? Especially consider that eclipses were often considered omens of impending events and also considering you can’t see the moon when it is raining, that is not at all surprising.
July 24th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Don’t worry, I think Tom Marking is attempting his usual apologetics mode.
From his article:
“Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, Dr. Masse said, “and we’re not there yet.” “
July 24th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
14 myths or 14000 it doesn’t matter. Noah’s flood didn’t happen. It is impossible. If there were many regionalised floods in the past that contributed to the legend fine. The Noah myth may even be derived from some of these stories but it didn’t, couldn’t, happen as described in Genesis. What the apologists seem to be saying is because many cultures have a flood myth then the Genesis one is true.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
What can I say, but [b]PYGMIES + DWARFS[/b]?
July 24th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Tom Marking, if you’re going to make a claim like that, you ought to link to an original source, rather than the NY Times.
And its one thing to find and date a crater, but to make a causal link between some such event and some culture’s myth? That’s when our human tendency to see patterns in random noise has a tendency to come up behind you and bite you in the ass.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Carl, I don’t seem to follow your argument. I’m referring to Scofield’s speculation. And in any event, I couldn’t help but remember archaeological evidence for long-range trade in the prehistoric Americas, specifically materials found far from their points of origin (obsidian comes to mind). And before you rule out planetary catastrophe, might I mention a certain spot on the coast of the Yucatan peninsula? Something we didn’t even know about forty years ago? Or the recent theory of a comet strike that devastated North America and ended the Clovis culture?
July 24th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
>>It would never fly. I mean, what prize do you give a god?< <
>Tricky. The traditional prize is a nice new temple, isn’t it?<
That, and, if it’s Yahweh you’re talking about, rather copious quantities of blood.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
@ Phil : “Creationists need the Earth (and the Universe, don’t forget) to be 6000 or so years old, due to a lengthy list of “begattings” in the Bible.”
I know where you are coming from, but that statement just needs clarification. There seems to be this constant “pigeon holing” of creationists. It is freaking lame and annoying. Let me be clear. I largely do not agree with any of them. The point is you are obviously reffering to ‘Youg Earth Creationists’. ‘Old Earth Creationists’ (whether you agree r disagree … itdoes not matter with this point), do not, let me repeat, DO NOT believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Last one I spoke to said the Earth was 4.7 billion years old.
Can we please get this clear? You cant make a statement like that when it is just not true. Not true. Can’t make it. There is a huuuuuge different, like um 4.6ish billion years difference.
You can group the lot of creationism together all you like. IF you find fault .. fine, but be clear about it when you say ‘creationist all believe this or that’. They all don’t. So in the end it just makes you look like you don’t know what you are talking about. I know what you are talking about, but many people will misunderstand.
All you would have had to do when typing the word ‘creationist’, in most of this post,(and others) would be to specifically say ‘young earth creationist’, or if that is too long, YEC.
You might not see a difference, but there is. If you don’t specify it, you are debunking nothing.
July 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Quasidog,
The problem is that at least the YECs aren’t vigorously moving goalposts as new information comes in.
An Old-Earth-Creationist, as you have postulated above, agrees that the Earth is as old as science indicates, has progressed since its formation exactly as science indicates, and may have even been predated by the existance of a universe much like the one science indicates!
However. . .
The first gap of any sort in the data is met with a triumphant smile, and the offering of a miracle as “the only way”. Once this gap is filled by actual knowledge, the OECs retreat, and protest that “we don’t argue that this science is wrong, only that a Creator is still required” while waiting to pounce on the next gap as “proof”.
So while the YECs are at least subject to rebuttal, OECs are simply instinctively worshipping a deity who continually recedes into obscurity.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:45 am
I’m surprised they don’t use the argument;
“it’s only 6000 years [or whatever] but God, who can do anything, just slows time down”
Yes, I know that wouldn’t work for so many reasons but that applies to all their other “theories”
July 25th, 2008 at 1:54 am
The can’t just say “goddidit” and that’s that. Why not? Their god can do anything but they have to rationalise it “scientifically” anyway. Who are they trying to convince? Us or themselves?
July 25th, 2008 at 2:34 am
I’m surprised they don’t use the argument; “it’s only 6000 years [or whatever] but God, who can do anything, just slows time down”
Actually, they use about that argument to explain away radiometric dating. When faced with a twelve thousand year old piece of wood, or two hundred million year old rock, they argue that radioactive decay used to happen much more quickly than it does today. The same goes for tree ring data. In the past, trees must have produced many more rings per year than the 1 they produce now. They don’t seem to find it odd that the slowing of carbon 14 decay and reduction in ring production show an exact correlation with each other.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:41 am
This could be old hat:
Similarly, the Flood would have bored holes in rock let alone an exposed wooden vessel. Say, 3,000′ of water to near the top of some small mountain, in 40 days.
That is 3000′/40*24 = three feet of falling water per hour for near on a thousand hours.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:03 am
But that leads to Leibniz’ objection:
Or, to use your analogy, the Creator was unable to write the perfect program, but rather has to pop by to fudge it every now and then.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Okay, just to keep everyone happy - There are three main types of theists: Young Earth Creationists (YEC), Old Earth Creationists (OEC) and just plain old religious people who accept reality for what it is. The latter are often referred to as “evolutionary theists” as they accept evolution, and indeed pretty much all of science same as most other normal people. The first two are classed as creationists because they usually involve denying some form of science or claiming that some form of science specifically proves that their particular interpretation of their religion is correct.
YEC’s are most definitely away with the fairies, believing in global flood, special creation and a less than 12,000 year old Earth. OEC’s are more varied, so their particular beliefs will depend on who you talk to. MANY of these reject evolution specifically in favour of special creation of human beings. MANY still believe in a global flood. And MANY still believe that SOMETHING in either science or history PROVES their beliefs in some way, and will engage in apologetics to that effect. Of course, none of their claims can be taken at face value and they have no evidence to back themselves up.
So to a certain point, Phil is correct when he says this thread debunks creationists - it’s just that religious beliefs vary so wildly from person to person that it would be ridiculous say “Okay, this specifically debunks this type of person and that type of person and this one… “. So it’s best to just look at the content of the thread, and we can see that the information within it is primarily directed at ANYONE who believes in a global flood.
(Which is MOSTLY YEC’s, but also many - but not all OEC’s).
There, that was hopefully done so as not to offend too many people. Feel free to jump in if I got something wrong there or missed something out. But if you are a creationist (of any sort) and are still offended then uh, get a clue. Thank you.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
You forgot,
NEC’s (No earth creationist) - God created the earth, but only in his dreams.
OOTEC’s (Only on Tuesday creationist) - On Tuesdays, they think that god created the earth 27 minutes ago. The rest of the week, they’re Confucianist.
EEC’s (Earthy earth creationist) - I don’t know what these guys believe, but they’re mostly farmers.
July 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Darth Robo: That was the best, most intelligent and accurate post in this entire thread. A very good description of the various types of creationists. Very well done.
I’d also suggest that most creationists, YEC and OEC are not intentionally lying or distorting things. (Most, maybe some do but I choose to give people the benefit of the doubt…usually). They start from a position that they believe true and try to make the connections and hypothesis/theories to fit what they think they observe and know. I don’t agree with them, but I don’t believe they are trying to be as underhanded as the posters here think.
I also think it would be illuminating for the skeptics who post here to listen to some of the creationist podcasts or read their articles. Not to be convinced, but to see what the “otherside” really thinks and understand their opponents better. I’ve done so to understand where they are coming from. One podcast was called Reasons to Believe (they’re Old Earth Creationists). Its worth checking out. While it can be tough to get through the various episodes, I learned a lot. They are very smart people. Each of the people on their panel have advanced degrees. One is an astronomer who has a pretty good grip on various subjects and sounds very reasonable. They seem sincere. They are organized and have a pretty slick production. I also found it interesting because their religous beliefs (literally interpreting the bible) are much different than mine and for some reason it was almost startling. I don’t agree with them, but I think I understand them better and probably have a better feel now for their strategies.
Oh, and believe it or not, they each seem to have a book to sell.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
@drksky:
“A lot of the arguments stem from the religious people who vehemently try to push their beliefs and values on everyone they come in contact with.”
“I have no problem with someone having religion, but they need to stop trying to shove it down everyone else’s throat.”
Yes, well isn’t this exactly what the scientific (and atheistic) community is doing right back, causing an escalating cycle of throat cramming? Science, whether we like it or not, is also a system of value and belief (I’m not calling it a religion). At some point the most mature party is going to have to stop the cycle of turd-hurling. We can’t just insist that our way of looking at the universe is somehow better than all others. That, again, is childish. To me, anyway.
@ John Phillips, FCD
“Think ID in school science, if we had simply ignored it they would know be teaching it as science in schools.”
Same thing. They’re merely reacting to attacks from overzealous seculars. It’s an increasingly nasty cycle. So nasty, in my view, that I had to turn my back on atheism a couple years ago. I didn’t want any part of it.
July 25th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
There are certainly problems with the day-age interpretation of Genesis and the gap theory about genesis 1. But there is also very credible evidence to support the old earth creationist view. It is well documented in Hebrew writings (in and out of the Bible) that the Hebrew word for ‘begat’ does not necessarily refer to father-son linage, rather progenator-decendant relationship. Therefore, there is no basis for insisting that the Bible requires 6000 and only 6000 years of history. Therefore there is no basis as the author implies, to lump and excoriate all creationists with one swip.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I don’t think there are anyone is suggesting that all creationists are intentionally lying (other than to themselves), but they are intellectually dishonest. I’m not aware of any creationist arguments that haven’t been debunked over and over again. And I don’t think there’s a need for us to understand where they’re coming from. We know exactly where they’re coming from. Creationists start with a conclusion, and then clumsily try to twist the evidence so that it supports their conclusion. Their level of education is irrelevant. One thing all creationist share, is that when shown evidence that contradicts their beliefs; they just pretend it doesn’t exist. This tactic is dishonest and shameful.
July 25th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
July 25th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
When I read about the large tally of miraculous explanations, I can’t help but think of Occam’s Razor. Tons of miracles = false hypothesis.
July 25th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Points taken. But I still feel that you’re not being objective. I could just as easily say that a world without all those technologies you mentioned is a far more civilized place than what we’ve created with our gadgets. I could say that science and technology causes as many, if not more perhaps, problems than it solves. Overpopulation, pollution, climate change, mass systematic torture of living beings, disease, and spiritual deafness, to name a few.
There’s a persistent myth out there, inherent in your statements, that science will ultimately solve all problems. But the truth instead seems to be that problems will continue to increase exponentially along with scientific progress. When you begin to see the truth of the situation, you begin to see how it is in fact a belief system, but that the belief part is concealed underneath all the cool stuff that science can do. Trying to explain this to a devotedly indoctrinated science-minded person, however, is like trying to explain to a Creationist that his or her facts are flawed.
July 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
For what it is worth, we need to remember that whoever wrote the Flood account in Genesis had a very narrow field of vision, so to speak. An especially large flood would have made an impact on him. Remember, the “whole world” to him, consisted of that one very small geographical location.
July 25th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
You are missing the point: science can only have this impacts because it is a more effective way to look at the universe. Religion tells us some about how to manipulate people (although not as reliably as science), but it does not tell us anything about manipulating nature. Science does. Those things are all true (or some of them, at least), but they are true because of science’s ability to tell us about nature, not despite it.
What does solving societal problems have to do with anything? The question that you brought up is whether there is anything that remotely approaches science in its ability to tell us about the universe. There isn’t, and you have provided no evidence contradicting this position.
Yes, science has given us more effective ways to do damage to ourselves and other organisms. But the moral implications of science are irrelevant to whether it tells us anything useful about the universe. You are making the same mistake creationists make when they try to link evolution to Hitler or Stalin. The more implications of how people choose to use science has no bearing whatsoever on whether it actually works or not. Atomic bombs are horrible weapons, but if science did not tell us about the universe they would not work. Religion has no way to instantly level a city (or even a paperclip, at least not with any more effectiveness than just waiting for nature to do it for you) because it cannot give us the same sort of insights into the universe.
Oh, and how exactly did you quantify this? What evidence do you have that problems have been increasing exponentially up to this point? How do you even begin to determine whether problems have been increasing or decreasing overall? Whose perspective do you take? After all, a problem for one organism is often a benefit for another.
Oh, I see, it’s my fault that you haven’t bothered to try to back up anything you have said. Of course. You just know right off the bat that anyone who supports science is automatically so closed minded that it is a waste of time even bothering to back up your assertions with facts, evidence, or logic. That means you win by default, right?
July 25th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
@Per
You bring up an interesting thought. You say that science leads to bad things, like overpopulation and such, and that these things are worse than the benefits provided by science. The overpopulation bit, in particular, illustrates how your argument is a bit of a double-edged sword.
On the one hand, yes, science has led to better hygeine, medicine and food production methods. These have increased population health, extended lifespans, and led to the survival of those who otherwise would likely have died, resulting in an ever-increasing population. Overpopulation then leads to increased crime, abuse of resources, increased pollution, etc. So, science, in improving health and food supply, is bad because of these negative aspects.
Now for the other edge. Jesus taught that we should help those who are sick and hungry. So, providing all that food and medicine and improved health could be said to be a Christian ideal. But if we follow this ideal, we get all those bad things that result from improved health and lifespan.
I’m not sure I’m explaining this quite right, but I hope you see my point.
Mind if I ask a question of you? You seem to be very much against science because of all the bad that comes from it. When is science good? When should we pursue it and apply it? If science causes more bad than good (an argument for which I would like you to provide some evidence or at least explain your reasoning), then should we abandon everything that has come from science? Keep in mind that that includes everything humans have achieved, including the use of tools.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:34 am
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not bashing science. I love science. I was raised by scientists.
Nor do I claim any affiliation with religion of any sort.
All I’m trying to do, in my stumbling, rhetorical, metaphysical sort of way, is give the perspective of someone who has, I think, managed to take some steps back and take a look at the situation with a bit of what I, at least, consider perspective. In other words, I’m trying my best to be objective and not take sides at all. Taking sides - affiliating - is where trouble and violence and mutual antagonism seems to occur.
My point really comes down to the idea that truth is entirely subjective and relative, and that truth is a spectrum of colors. That doesn’t mean that what has been proven for repeatability in a lab is subjective. These are two different things. What I mean is that what is truth for a Creationist is just as valid to a Creationist as that which is truth to a scientist, and that goes for all the truth that exists between as well as outside these two systems. Which ultimately means that truth is couched in belief, what each institution believes is the real truth. Seems to me they’re all true, and none of them are true, simultaneously.
I don’t think many people would argue that science doesn’t work. But that’s not the point. The point is that most scientists and atheists take the fact that science works and use this point to say that science is therefore the only reasonable system for describing/grasping/relating to the universe, and that anyone else is crazy and/or stupid and/or ignorant and/or savage, and so on. A Creationist has a very similar attitude, equally simple-minded, related to his or her own system of belief in the universe. Because the two are incompatible and are attempting to share the same space, a war has erupted that has been escalating in stupidity for many years. And because both sides are so blinded by ideology and the ultimately irrational need to be RIGHT - to win the war! - the situation has spiraled into idiocy, both sides having lost perspective long ago. And in my view, both sides, having allowed themselves to be corroded and corrupted from the inside out for the sake of winning what is an irrational war to begin with, have lost track of their original purpose, and have therefore lost validity. We’ve seen over and over and over throughout history that wars between belief systems simply cannot be won. Both sides ultimately lose, and are indeed lost from the start.
Science and religion both have very significant parts to play in the advancement of civilization, and both fulfill crucial roles, as they have done for thousands of years. As Einstein says, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Creationism was undoubtedly a lot less scary before scientists and atheists started making fun of it and fanning its little fire. Instead, a monster has now been created, and science and atheism, in its arrogance, is largely to blame. Science has the upper hand in the war, and always has, because it actually has a basic, practical use in modern society. Therefore it should be the side that should back down before it makes a larger monster than it knows how to handle. Then again, like I’ve said, maybe the creation of monsters is a fundamental side-effect of science and progress as we currently know it, in which case, well…
Science needs to realize that it has a basic practical role to play, and that the universe is not entirely practical. It does a fantastic job of explaining the slice of reality it has access to, and should learn to stay out of larger matters in which it has no jurisdiction, namely those of faith and spirit. Instead, in order for civilization to take the next great big leap into REAL progress, the two must somehow learn how to co-exist and cooperate side by side, hand in hand. The two have MUCH to teach and to learn from one another, and cannot do so if in constant playground war with one another.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:13 am
Hi, Per -
Great post on truth.
I only know two definitions of truth:
Philosophical; the truth is a statement which matches the condition it describes.
Biblical; God’s word is truth.
I have found no more concise defifnitions in dictionaries.
Regards,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Hi, Todd W.
“Jesus said that we should help those that are sick and hungry.”
Eh, actually, Matthew, in Chap 25, records him as saying,
Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
welcome the strangeer
clothe the naked (most slaves in those days are said to have been naked)
comfort the ill
visit the imprisioned
When a body does those things, they find a new perspective on life.
BTW, not much technology required, to do any of the above.
Respectfully,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 3:30 am
About the heat
It’s either Egyptian or Greek tradition that has it, the planet has been twice destroyed by fire.
Could that perhaps have been in two episodes of rapid plate movements?
If so, there’s your heat venting, then.
Respectfully,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 7:48 am
Don Snow -
It’s either Egyptian or Greek tradition that has it, the planet has been twice destroyed by fire.
In order to accept your explanation, you have to first accept that either of those stories is historically accurate…
And… ummm… we don’t. There’s no more evidence for those “myths” than there is for the flood “myth”. You can’t use myths from one culture to support myths from another, Don… that’s a bit too conveniently selective. Where do you draw the line? Do you only believe myths from other cultures that support biblical accounts? What about those that contradict it? See the problem here?
July 26th, 2008 at 8:36 am
The astronomer in question is presumably Hugh Ross, who runs RTB. I quite agree that he sounds very reasonable, but I’m afraid his grip on science is pretty abysmal. One would expect an astronomer to have at least a passing familiarity with general relativity, especially one who uses it in his arguments, but his understanding doesn’t rise to the level of a minimally competent undergrad.
But that’s just the problem; how is a layman supposed to tell the difference between a competent scientist and a cargo-cult simulacrum? This is precisely what makes pseudoscience so difficult to combat.
July 26th, 2008 at 9:18 am
@ Per
Creationism was undoubtedly a lot less scary before scientists and atheists started making fun of it and fanning its little fire.
Totally wrong. It’s been said a thousand times or more on this site, but in and of itself, science could not be less interested with religious dogma, including creationism. Ask yourself this question: does science go out of its way to publicly attack creation myths of other religions? No. So what is it about creationism? WHht you fail to understand, or do and are just ignoring it, is that the reason there is so much focus on battling christian bible creationism is because it is christianity that continues to try and insist itself upon science. Science simply disregards creation myth, and that really pisses christians off… and that my friend, is the reason this “little flame” is fanned. Chrsitians are not content to simply have their little mythical belief and leave it at that… they want it put into science curriculum… they want it taught in schools, they want it accepted as science by the general public. What is science supposed to do, simply abide by this because the big bully in the classroom insists upon it? No… science is based on certain principles and foundations, none of which creation myth can stand upon.
Instead, a monster has now been created, and science and atheism, in its arrogance, is largely to blame.
Again… you have it backwards… see my statement above. The only people who call science “arrogant” are people who don’t understand how it works. Science isn’t arrogant, it isn’t humble, it isn’t cocky, it isn’t altruistic. These are emotional descriptions assigned to science by people who are angry that science shines a light on their long held beliefs and shows them to be faulty at best. Science is simply a process of discovering truth and discarding falsehood. Calling it arrogant is simply spitting in the wind because you don’t like the outcome.
Science has the upper hand in the war, and always has, because it actually has a basic, practical use in modern society.
Again… assigning terms like “war” to describe science’s role versus any long held belief is a term only the person with the belief would use. And it’s not the “basic, practical uses” in modern society that give science an upper hand. It’s the simple concept that science will not be influenced by someone’s loud yelling about their beliefs in order to arrive at a conclusion. As you said, as a method of discovering truth, science works.
Therefore it should be the side that should back down before it makes a larger monster than it knows how to handle.
Ok… so you define for me what “backing down” would be. Does backing down involve consideration of ideas already shown to be scientifically faulty? Does backing down mean accepting chrsitian, or any other religious dogma for that matter, because they don’t like the conclusions science comes to? How does such “backing down” benefit anyone? Science isn’t “on the attack” here… it simply asserts its findings. And if faith would stop trying to assert itself into the scientific realm, science would just as soon allow religion to go about its business.
Science needs to realize that it has a basic practical role to play, and that the universe is not entirely practical. It does a fantastic job of explaining the slice of reality it has access to, and should learn to stay out of larger matters in which it has no jurisdiction, namely those of faith and spirit.
OK… that statement is junk from the get go, Per… First, science doesn’t have to realize anything. And it doesn’t explain a “slice” of reality. Reality doesn’t exist in “slices”. It explains reality. Period. If your “slice” of reality says the universe was created 6000 years ago over the course of a week, well, you have no more right to call that “reality” then I have the right to claim my “slice” of reality tells me that we have seasons because Persephone ate the pomegranate. That’s not any “slice” of reality, Per… it’s a belief in a story. The only “slice” of realty such beliefs belong in is the world of human invented fiction.
Instead, in order for civilization to take the next great big leap into REAL progress, the two must somehow learn how to co-exist and cooperate side by side, hand in hand.
No… in order for civilization to take the next big leap into real progress we need to throw off the shackles of unfounded myth and believing things because we were told to and indoctrinated at a young age. To truly evolve, we need to start thinking and learning for ourselves… stop insisting that 2000+ year old texts are any basis for fact in a world the writers didn’t even fully comprehend at the time it was written. We will progress and learn not by science walking hand-in-hand with mythology and treating each as a sound basis for learning the truth about the world around us… that’s impossible, Per… and you know it. Mythology contradicts science more often than not. One was derived from observation and repeated scrutiny and testing to arrive at an answer that itself is always up for scrutiny and revision… the other is subjective specualtion written, passed on, and demanded to be followed without question… ever… you tell me… which of those two do you think will arrive at more truths about nature and reality?
July 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Celtic_Evolution
I noticed, how smoothly you transitioned from my “tradition”, to your “myths”. Sir, I will not accept, ‘It’s the same differece’. It’s not.
Why can’t I then transition from Egypt’s myths to an unproved specualation about plate tectonics, re heat venting? Is plate tectonics your other myth? What other myth?
I don’t reject your evolution story out of hand, as a modern myth. If I did, your ire would raise as much as mine would if you out of hand rejected the Holy Bible as a book of myths.
That’s very disrespectful.
Did you ever try to view the Holy Bible as unproven documentation? I accept that the Holy Bible is documentation. I can understand your saying unproven documentaion, and we can then agree to disagree on the proven and unproven points. Heh?
I’m sure that a seasoned writer such as you, can do better than to continually choose wording which pushes emotional buttons.
Now, back to the point. Destruction by fire is not in the Holy Bible. So, in my giving the unproven speculation that rapid tectonic movements (another modern myth? Careful, the early 1900’s had continental drift as, some would say, a modern myth.) was fast enough to generate great heat, but not so fast as to incenerate the entire planet, may have caused global fire storms, two different time … is that the other myth?
Clarify yourself, please (quizzical look).
Respectfully,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Celtic_Evolution
Got a couple of chores to do. Back in an hour or so.
Per
I’m with you man. Both God’s people and science people really need to make a truce. Agree to disagree, whatever. But a mutual respect for each others view, or at least for the liberty to choherently express them, the world really need this.
Respectfully,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 10:08 am
Jose
Before I go
Your words to the effect, that Creations start with a conclussion then find facts to twist and support it
I put it much more mildly, quite similarly about what Charles Darwin did, during his voyage on the HMS Beagle. I submit again, imho, Mr. Darwin, went forth with the theory of uniformtarianism evolution, and looked for facts to fit it. I really believe that.
So, people who live in glass houses (open science) should not throw rocks.
Respectfully,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 10:27 am
The difference being, of course, that Jose’s position is supported by the existence of several major creationist ‘research’ organizations whose members are required to sign statements of faith declaring that creationism must be true, regardless of any empirical evidence. Whereas your position - that Darwin set out to prove a theory he hadn’t even conceived of at the time - is supported by the fact that you ‘really believe’ it.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:53 am
@ Don -
That you won’t accept it means nothing to me. Your saying so gives it no authority in my eyes. It wasn’t a transition. They are both “myths”. The only difference? For some unknown reason most people easily accept one as myth while taking the other as fact, while offering no more evidence or proof that they should. The “tradition” part is what’s responsible for that. You live with that concept. Don’t demand that I do.
Why should I accept your “myth” anymore than I should accept Greek mythology? (Hint: because the Bible says so is not an acceptible answer).
Why can’t I then transition from Egypt’s myths to an unproved specualation about plate tectonics, re heat venting? Is plate tectonics your other myth? What other myth?
Which unproven specualtion would that be, Don? Please… stick to what you know. There’s no unproven speculation regarding plate tectonics. It’s measurable. It happens. You can’t transition myth to fact. I didn’t so that. I trasitioned myth to myth… see my above paragraph.
I don’t reject your evolution story out of hand, as a modern myth. If I did, your ire would raise as much as mine would if you out of hand rejected the Holy Bible as a book of myths.
This is where you’re really going to look bad, Don… you presume to tell me how I would act if you rejected my “evolution story”. My ire would not raise. I would, like any good scientist, simply reply “really? Show me your evidence.” Then I would review your evidence, submit it for peer review, and let the scientific community decide if your results are reproducable, have predictive powers, and are falsifiable and hold up to scrutiny. If they did, I would then congratualte you and hold you in the highest of esteem, while a whole new understanding of nature takes its place in the scientific realm. That’s how science works. It takes religion to get offended at one’s beliefs being challanged, Don… however that idea of challenging ideas and theories is one of the very basic concepts of science. See the difference? So your claim of “you wouldn’t like it if I did that to you” is pure whiny bologna.
That’s very disrespectful.
I’m sorry you feel that way. And sad that you have so little faith that you feel disrespected because someone doesn’t believe in your myths. If you are right, why would you care? This is where biggest problem with religion comes in… your statement of disrespect inplies that such respected is demanded, out of hand. Malarkey. You respect your beliefs. Don’t insist that I, or anyone else do the same.
I’m sure that a seasoned writer such as you, can do better than to continually choose wording which pushes emotional buttons.
Again, your feeling that “emotional buttons” are being pushed comes purely from your own self-insistence that I respect your beliefs equally as you do. I don’t, and that is my right. I did not come by this conclusion out of ingorance. I was once a confirmed catholic, with very little knowledge of the actual bible or christian history. It was in the effort I took to actually read the bible and learn about christian history that I realized how completely silly the whole thing was. I’ve earned the right to question the stories in the bible as myth by actually reading and learning… on my own. You have not earned the right to demand that I respect them as otherwise simply because you say so.
Now, back to the point. Destruction by fire is not in the Holy Bible. So, in my giving the unproven speculation that rapid tectonic movements (another modern myth? Careful, the early 1900’s had continental drift as, some would say, a modern myth.) was fast enough to generate great heat, but not so fast as to incenerate the entire planet, may have caused global fire storms, two different time … is that the other myth?
That quizzical look you see on my face is my complete inability to pull a single cogent argument from this muddled mess… but I will try…
First, no-one ever had “Continental drift” as a modern myth in the early 1900’s Don… that was even discussed earlier in this thread. Please do some more research before making such claims. Continental drift was essentially the predecessor to plate tectonic theory. Plate Tectonics is simply the more elegant, well developed term for what was first described as “continental drift”. And neither is, or has ever been, classified as “myth”.
Second… please read Phil’s original post again… in order for rapid plate movement to have occured as put forht by YEC’s, the earth would have been incinerated. Period. Oceans gone… crust melted. And it would have been impossible for the earth to have recovered from such an event in merely 6,000 years. Especially, as Phil pointed out, since people have supposedly been around for that whole time. And no Egyption or Greek myth of “global fire” could account for the dissepation of the heat either… not even close.
I put it much more mildly, quite similarly about what Charles Darwin did, during his voyage on the HMS Beagle. I submit again, imho, Mr. Darwin, went forth with the theory of uniformtarianism evolution, and looked for facts to fit it. I really believe that.
Of course you do. Because your belief system holds that it’s OK to believe things even when there are no facts or evidence to support such a belief. So it’s OK to just go ahead and make up lies about people who find fault with your belief systems (Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch trials… the list goes on and on). Christianity has a long and glorious history of doing exactly what you just did with that paragraph, Don. And yet you still insist on “respect”. Feh.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
The biblical flood is the other myth. It is simply impossible that there was ever a worldwide flood later than about 3.8 billion years ago. It is simply impossible that the Earth’s crust was ever melted completely in that time frame, either, and in order for the plates to move at that speed, in order for radioactive decay to accelerate to that speed, that is what would have happened (actually there is several times more energy than is needed). It doesn’t matter how many myths say there was a flood, or how many said there was a fire, it did not happen. We have solid rocks that go back to the time I mentioned, rocks that were never melted. We have rocks that cannot form underwater going back to that time frame as well.
The difference is there is massive evidence supporting evolution. There is massive evidence against things like a worldwide flood or a 6,000 year old Earth or humans descending from a single couple 6,000 years ago. Those are myths, they simply could not have happened. So yes, we would be upset if you called evolution a myth because it isn’t, there is massive amounts of evidence supporting it. But there being a worldwide flood or fire is a myth, there is massive amounts of evidence refuting it.
“Science people” have no problem with religious people privately practicing their beliefs. The problem is that religious people try to force everyone else to share their beliefs. At least for Christianity and Islam, they have an order from their God to do exactly that. And a great many people follow that order very seriously. As long as that sort of opinion is held, that they have the one true path and that it is their duty to turn every other person on the globe to that path, there can never be a truce. If people kept their religious beliefs to their churches and their homes it would be no problem. But a large number do not. That is not the fault of “science people”, it is the faulty of religious people and the fault of the exclusionary, expansionist doctrines they follow.
You still have provided no grounds whatsoever for that belief. You have provided grounds to believe that someone else had a “uniformatiarianism bias”, but none that Darwin himself did. You can throw out assertions it all you want, you can believe them as strongly as you want, but you have provided no reason whatsoever to believe it. It doesn’t matter if you “really believe that”, and than you will be able to walk through walls if you really believe you can.
It is not the same with Creationists. Many have said flat-out that their religious beliefs are the source of their conclusions, and that anything that disagrees with those beliefs must either be wrong or interpreted incorrectly.
And you still fail to grasp that Darwin is not the sole person responsible for the modern theory of evolution. We are talking probably hundreds of thousands of people here, and perhaps several orders of magnitude if you include people who are inadvertently testing it every day by coming down with antibiotic-resistant diseases, or by eating modern crops bred using principles derived from evolution, or riding the London subway and being bitten by a new species of mosquito that evolved there.
No, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t. Be we live in a house made of reinforced titanium, you simply imagine that is is glass.
July 26th, 2008 at 10:56 am
shoot… sorry for the HTML formatting error there…
At the top of my last post should have appeared this quote from Don:
I noticed, how smoothly you transitioned from my “tradition”, to your “myths”. Sir, I will not accept, ‘It’s the same differece’. It’s not.
The respons to that is in the italics below it. Darn the lack of a preview mode…
July 26th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Celtic_Evolution
Great put down, congradulations.
OK, back up, sit down, and spell it out. Five points, which will mean, as usual, nothing to you. Nevertheless, they are true. So, please read slowly, think ‘em over, before you reply. Thank you.
1. I have been a Christian for 54 years. Participating for 53 years. (Converted to the Roman Catholic Faith forty years ago).
2. It is not only my right, but also my duty to protect my faith. and the truths it has taught me.
3. I very seriously doubt if any of you are ever going to change 1 and 2.
4. (And this may irratate some creationists and other fundies) After my reading of the Holy Bible in an eight month period of time, for myself, in 1975, I came to the conclusion that the Holy Bible is a love story. (It’s not about science, economics, or other number languaged studies. Those studies have neither bearing nor authority over the Holy Bible, nor anything in it.
5. I have the freedom of choice, to invest my faith, my reason, my thoughts, my body, my mind, my money, my time, my life and my death…in…any…thing…I…choose. My right. My Freedom. You shall not abridge neither nor infringe neither, as I have dedicated all these to Jesus the Christ.
In closing, none of you here, except for the moderators, have any authority whatsoever over me. Nor I over you.
I now close with the traditional Christian greeting and farewell,
Peace be with you
July 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@C_E
I very much respect your practical thinking and the points you’ve made. You’ve helped me to see certain things differently. I also only agree in part with several things you said, but I’m not here to argue because that would defeat the purpose of my little message.
Regarding your final question, I still firmly believe that, once both sides gain mutual respect and recognition for one another’s value, and a system is put into place that unanimously filters out the dangerous and opportunistic ideologies like Creationism, that the two will be able to co-exist fruitfully. Indeed that they must before humankind can advance to the next level. Keeping in mind that religion also has a practical and useful purpose that is different from that of science. Always has, always will, in all likelihood, judging from our past as a species. Jesus and Buddha, for instance, who had very similar things to say initially, have seriously important things to teach a person before science can take on a more fully-rounded, multi-tiered meaning and consequence.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
@Don Snow
Mr. Darwin, went forth with the theory of uniformtarianism evolution, and looked for facts to fit it.
A theory is not an unchangeable conclusion. If evidence pointed to creationism, science would follow. Knowledge that didn’t even exist in Darwin’s time, like DNA, has had the potential to utterly destroy the theory of evolution. But it hasn’t.
Here’s how it works. I have a new theory that some humans on our planet must be more closely related to monkeys than others. As evidence I cite their monkey like inability to grasp simple scientific concepts. In addition, their inability too see the impossibility of an infallible bible despite its blatant, obvious, internal contradictions, also points to monkeyism.
Damn. By looking at their DNA and examining genealogies, I find that my theory is bunk. I’ll have to abandon it and look for a new explanation for their stupidity. If I were like you, I’d just ignore that evidence and stick with my bunk theory.
If you’re going to try and argue science, you have to play by the rules of science. One of those rules is following the evidence where it leads. Because you can’t do that, you’re just wasting everyone’s time.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Don -
I will address each of your points, gladly.
1. I have been a Christian for 54 years. Participating for 53 years. (Converted to the Roman Catholic Faith forty years ago).
Congratulations. I say that with no sarcasm or ill intent, whatsoever. But that statement has no bearing to this discussion, or anything else really.
2. It is not only my right, but also my duty to protect my faith. and the truths it has taught me.
Although I disagree with both of those statements, I will address them on face value. Protecting your faith is not the same thing as projecting your faith. You came here, into this discussion, on a science-based site, to wilfully engage in a debate over reality. In doing so you forfeit the right to claim that you or your faith are being “attacked” in any way that requires you to “protect” them. You started out by projecting your faith, and as a result of the response, felt the need to protect it. Neither of those things is the fault of any other person in this thread.
3. I very seriously doubt if any of you are ever going to change 1 and 2.
Nor is that my goal. The truth is, my goal in arguing with you over some of these points is not for you to change your way of thinking, is it was clear pretty early on that wasn’t possible. The goal is to bring the debate to those people reading this, that may be on the fence… to give them a dose of rational, critical thought in a life otherwise spent being spoon-fed dogma and asked not to question it. That is the aim, for me.
4. (And this may irratate some creationists and other fundies) After my reading of the Holy Bible in an eight month period of time, for myself, in 1975, I came to the conclusion that the Holy Bible is a love story. (It’s not about science, economics, or other number languaged studies. Those studies have neither bearing nor authority over the Holy Bible, nor anything in it.
And I can totally respect this point if view, Don. I honestly do… I understand that for you and many others, the bibel is a “love story” between Jesus, God, and his people. This is an area I am not interested in debating. Its meaning to you is special, and I do not wish it otherwise for you… however, this fact is not at the heart of this debate. The heart of this debate is the taking of the specific details within that “love story” and attempting to assert it as science fact, and force it to be taught as such and accepted as such. That is where I draw the line. As I stated before, if religion would keep itself to the church and the home, I and most every other like-minded, science-based person would simply ignore it and leave it be. However, as has been pointed out by BlackCat above, religious teaching often commands just the opposite… hence the need for this debate. Christianity in particular has a long history of attmepting to impose its beliefs on society, and not just simply co-exist with it.
5. I have the freedom of choice, to invest my faith, my reason, my thoughts, my body, my mind, my money, my time, my life and my death…in…any…thing…I…choose. My right. My Freedom. You shall not abridge neither nor infringe neither, as I have dedicated all these to Jesus the Christ.
Again… we are agreed on this point. And I do not, and have not attempted to infringe upon any of those rights here in any way whatsoever. But please do not forget, Don, that this site, and the commenters in it, did not go and seek you out for this debate… you came into it, freely and willingly.
In closing, none of you here, except for the moderators, have any authority whatsoever over me. Nor I over you.
Then we are agreed. I do not wish to impose authority over you. And I respect, fully, your right to observe your faith in any way you choose, as long is it does not impose itself upon me. And it may surprise you to hear this, but I even respect you, as a person, for your willingness to engage in the debate. I simply do not share in the respect you have for your beliefs or your faith. Nor am I required to.
It is clear that you have taken my views on your beliefs and your faith as personal attacks. They were never intended as such, at all. Hopefully the day will come when you will no longer feel the need to use your faith as an excuse for being offended… if and when that day comes, you will be better off… I assure you.
July 26th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Per -
Thanks for your reply. Look, these are tough issues to grapple with, and I in no way think I am going to convince you of a different point of view in one single debate. However, I am glad if I was able, even in some small way, to get you to think on the issues differently.
On your second point… I think it’s often mis-construed that science and scientists “hate” religion, and feel the need to be constantly at odds with it… I assure you that’s not the case. As I’ve stated above, I find most often it’s the other way around. I will concede the point that there are certain aspects of religion, both modern and ancient, that have greatly benefitted mankind… in the areas of art, music, philosophy and others… but sceince and critical thinking go against basic tenets of religions: those of faith and unquestioned authority. Therefor it becomes difficult to achieve advances in scientific knowledge while still constrained by those basic tenets.
So, I would say that I understand your position, and to a degree respect where you are coming from… I think that as long as religion keeps itself out of science, the two can co-exist to the betterment of all. History has shown, however, that religion is unwilling to accept that role. And thus I fear we will have to continue to actively attempt keep the two separate.
The best thing you can do, Per, is to continue to engage in these discussions. Knowledgable debates on difficult subjects are like food for the mind. And don’t just get your perspectives from here… go to other sites and books as well, both science and faith-based. The more you know, on all sides, the better armed you will be to make decisions for yourself. Good luck to you.
July 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Black Cat
You wrote, “The Biblical flood waa the other myth.”
Thank you, really, for answering a question that Celtic-Evolution did not answer, but which I asked him.
Only, nowhere in my post About the Heat, did I mention a global flood. Nowhere.
I addressed plate tectonics, heat and global firestorms. Not flooding. Why are you off the topic of my post?
“We have solid rocks that go back to the time I mentioned [3.8 billion years ago], rocks that were never melted. We have rocks that cannot form underwater going back to that timeframe as well.”
Got some more rocks, for ya. In the December, 1999 [3.8 billion years later] of the Smithsonian Institute magazine on page 28, the article “When the Earth Froze Over”, by James Trefil starts with glaciers almost covering the earth 18,000 years ago. Then he goes to Africa, and rocks dated between 550 and 750 million (not billion) years ago. Harvard geologist Paul Hoffman and his chemical analyst Daniel Shrag studied these rocks. Dr. Hoffman studied and Daniel Shrag studied and analyzed these rock for six years (presumably six seasons, but maybe six full years).
0n page 29, beginning of third paragraph, Mr. Trefil writes, “‘During the great freezing’”, says Schrag, “‘carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere droped, the earth’s temperature fell to around 58 degrees below, and the ice covered everything - ocean and land alike.’ Glaciers moved down from the mountains, dragging along rocks and the rubble that would be left behind when the ice melted.”
What they found in Nambia and other places in Africa, were, “‘…strange sequences of rocks … laid down on the bottoms of long vanished oceans between 550 million and 7500 million years ago.’”
Not billion, by half to three quarters of a billion, earth covered by ice, and rocks on the bottom that could only have been made from carbonic acid,. but with reduced carabonic acid. Because very little carabonic acid was falling out of the atmosphere.
So you have a source that says, all the way back to 8.3 billion years, That, “…there were rocks that cannot form underwater…”, on the one hand. On the other hand, I have a source, who says in so many words, he found carbonate on the ocean floor, which could have formed only underwater, from 550 to 750 million years ago. To prove that land and oceans alike were covered by ice. So, what happens when ice melts, then?
And, it surely did.
You can read it for your self, if you can get a copy of that issue.
Then, you wrote about all the massive evidence. I think geology and paleontology are facsinating. Only, they’re not in my sphere of interest.
I accept evidence which you don’t. I do not reject evidence, which you do.
My first attempt at college in 1975, was a philosophy major, until I withdrew. My second attempt in 1999 was Networking, until I withdrew. I have about 12 college credits, but hundreds of hour OJT in different industrial businessses. I also read my own interests, on the side, while I do blue collar work for a living.
I do not reject your evidence. But I keep the evidence of mine, which you reject. I don’t drop it, because you won’t dicuss it.
“Science people have no problem with religious people…”
I wish you could have sat in my ‘99 English Compisition 101 class. That Professor, without provocation, bashed God to the class, day in and day out. He sure had some problem with religious people. However, I’m not going to bash science, to get back. Most of my close family and friends have college degree. I, too, get along with them, and other science people. I get along with most other religious people, too.
I have not tried, am not trying and will not try to save you. Please return the courtesty. OK? thanks.
Oh, about Charles Darwin… you can through out bias all you want, but people are biased. It’s a fact of life. To read a persons thumbnail biography, and thing he has no bias, that is naive.
“It’s not the same with Creationists …”
1. I’m not a Creationist.
2. My religious beliefs are based upon instruction, personal experience and the Holy Bible. My religious beliefs guide me in my relations with others. For science, which I like, there’s library books, these blogs, and such. I’m really not trying to quarrel with you. I merely have a limited education.
About the glass house: naw, you merely imagine it’s titanium. Try to get funding, without catering to the funders biases.
Peace be with you,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Black Cat
My computer has lost the internet twice. The second time, I was getting reading to click on the ’submit’ button, to send my completed reply, to you.
I’ll have to rewrite the whole thing. After I get some sleep. I’ve been up for 16 1/2 hours.
Peace be with you,
Don
July 26th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Don -
I’m starting to get irritated with you…
You wrote, “The Biblical flood waa the other myth.”
Thank you, really, for answering a question that Celtic-Evolution did not answer, but which I asked him.
In your ORIGINAL post you said:
It’s either Egyptian or Greek tradition that has it, the planet has been twice destroyed by fire.
My response was: “In order to accept your explanation, you have to first accept that either of those stories is historically accurate… ”
Meaning, EITHER the Egyption OR the Greek tradition… since you didn’t know, I was covering both.
So… I DID answer you. The first time. Pay attention.
This is tiresome.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Don -
Reading something and comprehending its meaning are two totally different things. It is clear that you don’t understand either the research nor its implications with several things you wrote, not the least of which is this gem:
So you have a source that says, all the way back to 8.3 billion years, That, “…there were rocks that cannot form underwater…”
Your homework assignment is to figure out the fatal flaw in this statement.
I think geology and paleontology are facsinating. Only, they’re not in my sphere of interest.
Or understanding, apparently. I’ve read this article… and just re-read it again… and the suppositions you make in the quote-mining you did from this article do not in any way support any argument you are making. Not only that… you go from making an argument between a PIECE of an article you picked out of a scientific journal, and a paraphrased “quote” from a “source you have”. I am not moved to call this evidence of anything.
To make an argument that you are trying to make, you need to have a far better understanding of geology, plate tectonics, and the study of ice age geology. You don’t have that.
Oh, and by the way… if you’re going to quote James Trefil… I urge you to read the following:
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i02/02b00601.htm
Enjoy.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
“And don’t just get your perspectives from here… go to other sites and books as well, both science and faith-based. The more you know, on all sides, the better armed you will be to make decisions for yourself.”
Then we agree. Good luck to you as well. Over and out.
July 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Don Snow -
Let me retract something from my last post… it’s pretty clear upon reading that a second time that you did not mean to say “8.3 billion years”, but simply transposed the 8 and the 3. My apologies… I will argue your points, but I don’t want to be merely pedantic for the sake of argument.
I stand by the rest of my post, however.
July 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Sorry, when I said “underwater” I meant “under liquid water”, since we are discussing the biblical flood myth and not any myth ab