For the last few years or so I've noticed a decided decline in the number of people trying to advocate and/or defend creationism online. Not only that, I've also noticed a definite decline in the quality of arguments they put forth, and that many of the ones who are left seem to mostly argue via empty assertions.
I believe both stem from the same overall cause....creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments.
To illustrate the above, consider Talk Origin's "Index to Creationist Claims". Note that it was last updated sixteen years ago (2006) and how it still pretty much covers just about every argument you can expect to see an internet creationist make, even today.
This tells me that creationist organizations really don't have any new arguments, and because of that, online creationists have nothing new to present and therefore are reduced to relying mostly on argument via assertion.
Question for debate: Am I missing some new creationist arguments, or is what we've been seeing from creationists over the last sixteen years all they have?
Subquestion for creationists: Given that the arguments in the TO Index have not had any impact on science, do y'all have any expectations that repeating those arguments will change anything?
Is this it for creationism?
Moderator: Moderators
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Is this it for creationism?
Post #1
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri Oct 07, 2022 12:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #11I disagree. An atheist scientist does not utilize their non-belief in gods when doing science, and I've seen no examples of creationists utilizing belief in gods when doing science either.
That's all very off-topic. If you want to debate whether the scientific method is a belief, start another thread.I'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.
I've pointed out before (but unless you've studied physics you'd likely not grasp this) that just because an experiment yields the same outcome when repeated does not serve as proof that it will always do so, this is why physics is essential in my opinion, to attain a deep understanding of science.
Again, in science those are all basically the same thing.Well you do keep choosing new words once you realize that the prior word works against you! Initially you used "impact" then you moved the goalposts and used "contribute" and then you moved them again and used "based on" and now you move the goal posts again and use "utilize", very specious Mr. Fly, very specious.
Your dodge of the question is noted.So, were back to "impact" now, very well!
You're just repeating yourself. "Inspired by" is not the same thing as "utilized" (see previous example of a scientist who is inspired by impressing women, but does not utilize impressing women in his work).But the old argument "God created an orderly, rationally intelligible universe" had an impact (it led to and drove the scientific revolution) there aren't many historians of science Mr. Fly that would disagree with this either.
I think we've confirmed the point of the OP....creationists do not have any new arguments, nor do they seem interested in coming up with any.
That leads me wonder....what do you think those old arguments have accomplished?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #12[Replying to Inquirer in post #4]
Which is just what I said in my post ("and since we don't know the full mechanism yet, both a purely natural explanation and a god being of some sort can be speculated."). Your phrasing then must be just as naive as you think mine was.That's all fine and dandy, but dare I say a trifle naïve. If you're going to invoke naturalism as an explanation then that's fine, if you are free to assume naturalism without explaining it then I am free to assume supernaturalism on the same basis.
You seem to have missed the word "could" in that sentence, which clearly shows it wasn't a claim of any kind ... just stating it as a possibility. When a problem has yet to be solved then hypotheses can be put forth to try and explain it. This is how science works.Now you just wrote "It could have come about completely naturally" is that a scientific claim? can you support that with evidence? No, it isn't science at all it is belief, faith not science.
And no amount of inspiration, or belief in gods, can make the result right or wrong. The results are independent of what inspired an idea or experiment. You seem to think these are connected somehow.You did that for me, without inspiration there can be no science.
And who said otherwise? The point was about creationism in science, and what it has contributed (which is nothing). If you believe Russell Humphreys planetary magnetic field "theory" go right ahead (ESG here defends it vigorously). That is the kind of pseudoscience creationism has contributed, and it is rightfully ignored by the scientific community worldwide because it is nonsense.But some creationists spouting nonsense does not invalidate creationism any more than some naturalists spouting nonsense invalidates naturalism.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #13Do you believe that laws of nature actually exist when you do calculations relating to energy, temperature and so on? Yes you do, therefore you are basing your conclusions on those beliefs.
Not at all, highlighting your illogical reasoning when discussing a topic is never off topic.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:54 pmI'm afraid you are very wrong here Jose. The scientific method is based on unprovable claims, beliefs! The belief that the universe is rationally intelligible, the belief that nature is governed by laws, the belief that same results will always be obtained with the same test under the same conditions all of these are beliefs, rational I agree but assumed, taken for granted.
I've pointed out before (but unless you've studied physics you'd likely not grasp this) that just because an experiment yields the same outcome when repeated does not serve as proof that it will always do so, this is why physics is essential in my opinion, to attain a deep understanding of science.
That's all very off-topic. If you want to debate whether the scientific method is a belief, start another thread.
So why use one word when four will do, is that what they taught you in science class?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 1:54 pmAgain, in science those are all basically the same thing.Well you do keep choosing new words once you realize that the prior word works against you! Initially you used "impact" then you moved the goalposts and used "contribute" and then you moved them again and used "based on" and now you move the goal posts again and use "utilize", very specious Mr. Fly, very specious.
Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence:
Well "utilize" carries a different meaning to "impact" but clearly you don't care what words means, you just make it up as you go.
We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine and still stands unrefuted, of course you'll likely make up a definition for "old" and "argument" things are so much easier for you when you do that aren't they.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #14Sometimes I forget that you're a solipsist. Yes, non-solipsist scientists base their work on the belief that reality actually exists.
I'm sorry that the concept of synonyms baffles you so.So why use one word when four will do, is that what they taught you in science class?
This is the question you dodged (by complaining about my use of synonyms): "If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?"Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence
"Does just fine" for what?We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #15I'm not a solipsist, it is that that you forgot.
I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.
Reality exists and in quantum physics there are models of that reality, different models, different interpretations, this is unrelated to solipsism.
Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.
Why you'd choose to use four words that have identical meaning is what baffles me, but I don't expect an answer.
For explaining what scientism cannot explain.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 3:12 pmThis is the question you dodged (by complaining about my use of synonyms): "If old creationist arguments haven't had any impact on science, what do you expect to gain by repeating them and not coming up with any new ones?"Except I addressed the question in the very next sentence
"Does just fine" for what?We don't need a new argument for "God created the universe" the old one does just fine
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #16Yeah you are...or at least you invoke it at your convenience.
So sticking to the point of this thread, those models have been an important and essential component of some scientific advancements. Creationism OTOH....hasn't.I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.
I'm content to allow scientists determine those sorts of things for themselves.Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.
Such as?For explaining what scientism cannot explain.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #17I'm not a solipsist.
Right, so do you believe models of reality are real or just models? or like so many here do you conflate reality with models of reality?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:19 pmSo sticking to the point of this thread, those models have been an important and essential component of some scientific advancements. Creationism OTOH....hasn't.I believe reality exists but as for laws? well these are human constructs, models of reality, beliefs about a model of reality are not to be confused with the belief that there is a reality.
Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:19 pmI'm content to allow scientists determine those sorts of things for themselves.Is the universe deterministic or not? well the answer depends on which interpretation one believes, there are several and there is no way to experimentally select one as better than any other, each interpretation is consistent with observation and to the same degree, one picks one's model Jose - this is real science, a subject you profess to know so much about.
Such as why is the universe rationally intelligible? why does science work at all?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #18Models approximate reality, with some being closer to it than others.
It depends on the subject.Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?
And creationism's answers to those questions are........?Such as why is the universe rationally intelligible? why does science work at all?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Inquirer
- Banned
- Posts: 1012
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2022 6:03 pm
- Has thanked: 23 times
- Been thanked: 30 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #19You really do need to understand that the different interpretations of quantum physics are equally close, they use the same mathematics, exactly the same yet they are fundamentally different in the nature of reality they describe.
I get the impression you are uncomfortable with the question though and that's OK I would be too if I held the simplistic views about science that you do, in fact I once did.
The subject is reality and models of reality, isn't that what were just talking about?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:45 pmIt depends on the subject.Which scientists? some embrace a many worlds interpretation, some the Copenhagen interpretation? others embrace other interpretations, all models agree with observation to the same degree so how do you pick which scientists to believe?
Things were created this way by a mind.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #20You're not really making much sense here, especially in the context of the topic of this thread. AFAICT, no one is disputing that there are different interpretations in quantum physics.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:52 pm You really do need to understand that the different interpretations of quantum physics are equally close, they use the same mathematics, exactly the same yet they are fundamentally different in the nature of reality they describe.
I get the impression you are uncomfortable with the question though and that's OK I would be too if I held the simplistic views about science that you do, in fact I once did.
Okay, and to stay in on-topic, are there any creationist models of reality?The subject is reality and models of reality, isn't that what were just talking about?
What kind of "mind"?Things were created this way by a mind.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.