Is this it for creationism?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
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

Post by Jose Fly »

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?
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.

User avatar
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

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #78]
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 forget now. I do not even remember what brought on this whole discussion.

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?

User avatar
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

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #81]
Because quantum mechanics does not have a problem with objects like electrons moving instantaneously. The evidence of this is any type of light production.
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:

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

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #83

Post by Clownboat »

Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion
Just 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

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #84

Post by Tcg »

Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm
Forget about me, you're fixated on me man, get back to the subject - you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion, how is that reasoning any different to someone who considers abortion immoral?
I 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

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #85

Post by Difflugia »

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.
Do you have any source that explains why either of these is inconsistent with standard cosmologies?
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 1:13 pmThat supports creationism.
How? Do you have something more than "these are weird?"
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #86

Post by Inquirer »

Tcg wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:36 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm
Forget about me, you're fixated on me man, get back to the subject - you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion, how is that reasoning any different to someone who considers abortion immoral?
I always find it astonishing when someone, and in this case a theist, needs an explanation for why genocide is immoral.
What'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.
Tcg wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:36 pm 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.
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.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #87

Post by Inquirer »

Clownboat wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion
Just 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.
Exactly, 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.

Is torture immoral?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Is this it for creationism?

Post #88

Post by brunumb »

Inquirer wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion
Just 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.
Exactly, 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.

Is torture immoral?
A 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.
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.

User avatar
Inquirer
Banned
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 #89

Post by Inquirer »

brunumb wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 7:57 pm
Inquirer wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 12:08 pm
Clownboat wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 2:21 pm
Inquirer wrote: Wed Oct 12, 2022 4:58 pm you object to genocide as immoral yet can't explain how you reach that conclusion
Just 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.
Exactly, 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.

Is torture immoral?
A 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.
I 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.

So there we are, consider this now clarified.

User avatar
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

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #82]
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 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.

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.



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?
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.

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?

Post Reply