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.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #81[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]
I think it was the observations by the James Webb.
1. How smoothness of the distribution of even the most distant galaxies.
2. How the distant galaxies become appear smaller when the BB theory predicts they should look larger.
That supports creationism.
I then made the prediction that there will be theories put forward that indicate that the speed of light can go much faster if not instantaneously to save the BB theory. I simply mentioned the one-way speed of light as an example.
Entangled particles do add an additional element to the discussion. Because quantum mechanics does not have a problem with objects like electrons moving instantaneously. The evidence of this is any type of light production.
The wave function of entangled particles is not broken until an observation is made. This leads to the question. What is an observation and does can light move instantaneously until it is observed? And what type of observations breaks the wave function?
I forget now. I do not even remember what brought on this whole discussion.What different theories are you talking about? The articles you linked are all just based on the inability to measure in principle certain things that involve the speed of light. How do you think that supports any sort of "therefore creationism?"
I think it was the observations by the James Webb.
1. How smoothness of the distribution of even the most distant galaxies.
2. How the distant galaxies become appear smaller when the BB theory predicts they should look larger.
That supports creationism.
I then made the prediction that there will be theories put forward that indicate that the speed of light can go much faster if not instantaneously to save the BB theory. I simply mentioned the one-way speed of light as an example.
Entangled particles do add an additional element to the discussion. Because quantum mechanics does not have a problem with objects like electrons moving instantaneously. The evidence of this is any type of light production.
The wave function of entangled particles is not broken until an observation is made. This leads to the question. What is an observation and does can light move instantaneously until it is observed? And what type of observations breaks the wave function?
- 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 #82[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #81]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients
Electron transitions in radiative processes happen in typically the femtosecond (10^-15) range, but the distances are so short they aren't moving faster than the speed of light. To move 0.5 angstroms (1e-10 meters) in 1 femtosecond is a velocity of 0.5e-10 / 1e-15 = 50,000 m/s which is only 0.017% of the speed of light (see Here).
But why would a creationist want light (or anything else) to travel instantaneously? Is it only to refute the distances to stars and the age of the universe? That is, you wouldn't care about this if it didn't suggest a billions of years old universe?
Light production from electrons transitioning between energy levels in an atom or molecule does not entail the instantaneous movement of electrons. These processes happen on various time scales and the rates depend on several factors. The Einstein A and B coefficients relate to the rates of absorption and emission:Because quantum mechanics does not have a problem with objects like electrons moving instantaneously. The evidence of this is any type of light production.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_coefficients
Electron transitions in radiative processes happen in typically the femtosecond (10^-15) range, but the distances are so short they aren't moving faster than the speed of light. To move 0.5 angstroms (1e-10 meters) in 1 femtosecond is a velocity of 0.5e-10 / 1e-15 = 50,000 m/s which is only 0.017% of the speed of light (see Here).
But why would a creationist want light (or anything else) to travel instantaneously? Is it only to refute the distances to stars and the age of the universe? That is, you wouldn't care about this if it didn't suggest a billions of years old universe?
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
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #83Just so you know, the flip side of this question is you defending genocide as being moral.
You address Jose, but I can provide an answer.
I would not want my nation or ethnic group to be deliberately killed for being part of that nation or ethnic group.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find genocide to be immoral.
I would not want my little girls to be taken and used as spoils of war.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find taking children as spoils of war to be used as seen fit to be immoral. Even if I have been at war for years and years and my horny level is at a 10. It is still wrong because I wouldn't want it done to my children. Heck, even I don't want to be raped.
This is how I know it is wrong for me. What boggles my mind is why anyone would attempt to justify such attrocities. You defend them when you say 'it depends' but you provide no justification for why you defend such things, so we are left to speculate.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- Tcg
- Savant
- Posts: 8495
- Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
- Location: Third Stone
- Has thanked: 2147 times
- Been thanked: 2295 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #84I always find it astonishing when someone, and in this case a theist, needs an explanation for why genocide is immoral. Are we still confused about Hitler? Well, I'm not. Are others? Apparently so. Of course, theists who promote the God of the Bible can't really reject Hitler's approach as their God's actions make Hitler look like an amateur.
Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- American Atheists
Not believing isn't the same as believing not.
- wiploc
I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.
- Irvin D. Yalom
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3047
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3277 times
- Been thanked: 2023 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #85Do you have any source that explains why either of these is inconsistent with standard cosmologies?EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:13 pm1. How smoothness of the distribution of even the most distant galaxies.
2. How the distant galaxies become appear smaller when the BB theory predicts they should look larger.
How? Do you have something more than "these are weird?"
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- 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 #86What's actually astonishing is people's inability to rationally define immoral, you judge this or that act as immoral yet can offer no reason or argument.
Some resort to emotive or "its obvious" arguments as you are doing, yet anyone can reason that way about anything, to some being gay is immoral to others abortion is immoral and to others bombing children is immoral.
Let me paraphrase you:
I always find it astonishing when someone, and in this case an atheist, needs an explanation for why God is not immoral.
- 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 #87Exactly, people define morality personally, what is good or bad in their eyes, at least you admit that. But it isn't a rational argument, because it isn't objective.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pmJust so you know, the flip side of this question is you defending genocide as being moral.
You address Jose, but I can provide an answer.
I would not want my nation or ethnic group to be deliberately killed for being part of that nation or ethnic group.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find genocide to be immoral.
I would not want my little girls to be taken and used as spoils of war.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find taking children as spoils of war to be used as seen fit to be immoral. Even if I have been at war for years and years and my horny level is at a 10. It is still wrong because I wouldn't want it done to my children. Heck, even I don't want to be raped.
This is how I know it is wrong for me. What boggles my mind is why anyone would attempt to justify such attrocities. You defend them when you say 'it depends' but you provide no justification for why you defend such things, so we are left to speculate.
Is torture immoral?
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #88A lot of side-tracking but still no clarification from you as to when you consider genocide or little girls being taken and used as spoils of war is ok.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pmExactly, people define morality personally, what is good or bad in their eyes, at least you admit that. But it isn't a rational argument, because it isn't objective.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pmJust so you know, the flip side of this question is you defending genocide as being moral.
You address Jose, but I can provide an answer.
I would not want my nation or ethnic group to be deliberately killed for being part of that nation or ethnic group.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find genocide to be immoral.
I would not want my little girls to be taken and used as spoils of war.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find taking children as spoils of war to be used as seen fit to be immoral. Even if I have been at war for years and years and my horny level is at a 10. It is still wrong because I wouldn't want it done to my children. Heck, even I don't want to be raped.
This is how I know it is wrong for me. What boggles my mind is why anyone would attempt to justify such attrocities. You defend them when you say 'it depends' but you provide no justification for why you defend such things, so we are left to speculate.
Is torture immoral?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- 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 #89I addressed this in the other thread just now, but will say it here too. Genocide is OK if it leads to a better outcome than not-genocide, taking ownership of children in some war or invasion is OK if it leads to a better outcome than not doing so.brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:57 pmA lot of side-tracking but still no clarification from you as to when you consider genocide or little girls being taken and used as spoils of war is ok.Inquirer wrote: ↑Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pmExactly, people define morality personally, what is good or bad in their eyes, at least you admit that. But it isn't a rational argument, because it isn't objective.Clownboat wrote: ↑Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pmJust so you know, the flip side of this question is you defending genocide as being moral.
You address Jose, but I can provide an answer.
I would not want my nation or ethnic group to be deliberately killed for being part of that nation or ethnic group.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find genocide to be immoral.
I would not want my little girls to be taken and used as spoils of war.
Therefore, I have reached the conclusion that I find taking children as spoils of war to be used as seen fit to be immoral. Even if I have been at war for years and years and my horny level is at a 10. It is still wrong because I wouldn't want it done to my children. Heck, even I don't want to be raped.
This is how I know it is wrong for me. What boggles my mind is why anyone would attempt to justify such attrocities. You defend them when you say 'it depends' but you provide no justification for why you defend such things, so we are left to speculate.
Is torture immoral?
So there we are, consider this now clarified.
- EarthScienceguy
- Guru
- Posts: 2192
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 43 times
- Contact:
Re: Is this it for creationism?
Post #90[Replying to DrNoGods in post #82]
This is actually a fascinating video on how the theory of the atom came to its current state. But the part that discuss what we are talking about is from 30:06 to around 35:00.
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf
That is why I say that there is some basic understanding of the universe that we do not know. And more and more it appears to be something with the speed that light travels. Quantum mechanics has no problem with particles moving instantaneously. General relativity places a speed limit on particles. Both describe the universe in which we live so which one is correct?
This is one of the major arguments that Bohr and Einstein had because Einstein's theory said that there is nothing that can go faster than the speed of light. But Bohr found that an electron cannot exist between two energy values so that means that the electron would have to travel instantaneously between energy levels and orbitals.Light production from electrons transitioning between energy levels in an atom or molecule does not entail the instantaneous movement of electrons. These processes happen on various time scales and the rates depend on several factors. The Einstein A and B coefficients relate to the rates of absorption and emission:
This is actually a fascinating video on how the theory of the atom came to its current state. But the part that discuss what we are talking about is from 30:06 to around 35:00.
It is really not just creationists all of Cosmology atheistic or theistic, would benefit if light could travel instantaneously. Inflation theory is nothing more than an ad hoc theory that tries to explain how the temperature of the universe could be so smooth. But it has its problems serious problems.But why would a creationist want light (or anything else) to travel instantaneously? Is it only to refute the distances to stars and the age of the universe? That is, you wouldn't care about this if it didn't suggest billions of years old universe?
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf
That is why I say that there is some basic understanding of the universe that we do not know. And more and more it appears to be something with the speed that light travels. Quantum mechanics has no problem with particles moving instantaneously. General relativity places a speed limit on particles. Both describe the universe in which we live so which one is correct?