Unanswered questions by Creationists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-08-2011, 12:32 PM
Unanswered questions by Creationists
As I've mentioned before, I am active on a history forum. There are a small handful of diehard creationists there that constantly try to lecture us nasty atheists / theistic evolutionists on how evolution is wrong. One of the guys there always preaches that the various methods used to date geological layers or fossils are flawed. He is one of those "transitional fossils have never been found because they do not exist" types. Anyway, I decided to ask the following questions for our creationist friends:

Quote:1. If these scientists are wrong, why do they continue to participate in their field of study?

2. Why do other scientists support their findings?

3. Do you think these scientists or their colleagues know that they are wrong?

4. If so, what possible merit could they get out of falsely supporting evolution?

For the last question, I've heard some religions people claim that it is a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by Satan, or it's to lead people away from faith so they can sin. What are your thoughts on the issue?

Not one of them have attempted to answer these. This is really surprising because they are quick to reply to any thread on evolution. Other people have noticed this as well. Someone jokingly asked: "What happened to the true Christians on this forum?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 01:20 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Ask them this engineering question too...

If carbon-dating is wrong, what are they actually measuring considering the different results they get?

Let me explain...
Consider a reliable regular high impedance digital volt meter. One of those better industrial types.
[Image: 122746_BB_00_FB.EPS.jpg]
If I hold this meter to an electrical powered system it will show me the potential difference between both conductors, expressed in a standard value (volts). I can do the same for an other system and get a different result. Both results are comparable though.
Now...
If I hold that meter up in the air in AC mode, I will note that I get some result too. It is however meaningless since it is merely a byproduct of high frequency signals and earth magnetism that I am measuring. I DO however get different results.

I wonder what the creationists take on that question is.
My guess: I think they are going to draw the "to difficult to explain" card. Why? Most creationist know shit about engineering. They are not used to debate nuts-and-bolts guys. Tongue

Observer

Agnostic atheist
Secular humanist
Emotional rationalist
Disclaimer: Don’t mix the personal opinion above with the absolute and objective truth. Remember to think for yourself. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 01:43 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Observer,

I own that multi meter... I use them to help up my dynamo bikes Wink

[Image: 1471821-futurama_bender_s_big_score_imag...er-1-1.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-08-2011, 02:09 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
I suppose they would answer most of those questions the same way as if they were geared towards us about creationists. Ergo:

1. If these (creationists/intelligent designers) are wrong, why do they continue to participate in their religious field?

2. Why do other (creationists/intelligent designers) support their findings?

3. Do you think these (creationists/intelligent designers) or their contemporaries know that they are wrong?

4. If so, what possible merit could they get out of falsely denying evolution?

To someone like you and I the answers seem clear in this context and to a creationists/intelligent designer the original set probably does so as well. So much so that they may not feel the need to answer them. It could also be (as I am sure you are implying) that they have never thought about these questions. The sad thing is that the education system (in America at least) is not geared towards teaching critical thinking but instead memorization. The other problem is that most people are so closed minded about questioning their own opinions (whether it be about religion or pizza toppings) that they simply ignore the validity of these questions. Perhaps a better way to start is with a thought experiment along the same lines that does not involve religion. Example:

Tobacco studies began to produce results that contradicted one another. The first set of studies produced by independent researchers showed potential links between tobacco use and cancer rates. Another set of studies by researchers being supported by tobacco companies found no clear link between tobacco use and cancer rates.


1. If these researchers are wrong, why do they continue to participate in these studies?

2. Why do other researchers support/refute their findings?

3. Do you think these researchers or their colleagues know that they are wrong?

4. If so, what possible merit could they get out of falsely denying/promoting the links between tobacco use and cancer?

Thought experiments like this (that are real life examples) can at least open the door of critical thinking and enable them to begin to use the same critical thinking skills on other aspects of their life as well. In this case I would add one more question.

5. Why do people choose to believe on set of researchers over another?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2011, 09:37 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
I finally got a fundie to give answers to the questions. This is what they wrote:

Quote:1. If these scientists are wrong, why do they continue to participate in their field of study?

My Answer: Because if they bucked the system they are out of a job. And also as a personal religious zeal in pursuing it because they are not willing to accept the religious view.

2. Why do other scientists support their findings?

My Answer: Same as above and also with a personal type of religious zeal in pursuing it because they are not willing to accept the religious view.

3. Do you think these scientists or their colleagues know that they are wrong?

My Answer: Some do, I am sure. Others may be unwilling to accept the alternative, and so they have something like religious zeal in pursuing this matter. An atheist can have a religious type zeal.

4. If so, what possible merit could they get out of falsely supporting evolution?

My Answer: Besides a paycheck? Career advancement and acceptance in the high status of peers, and also as a religious type zeal in pursuing it because they are not willing to accept the religious view. A personal crusade.

And so, there we go. And the answers are all remarkably the same. For $$$ and prides sake, and also as a form of religious zeal because they will not accept the religious teachings. And so they form their own religion, and use science as a tool in so doing. And with all of the zeal, closed mind, and energy of a religious fanatic.

It seems that this addresses the personal nature of many of evolutions scientist. But this state of human existence is not limited to just evolution or scientist. It can be applied to many different forms of human experience, can it not?

And so, evolution scientist are not in any way any better than anyone else who is motivated by the same goals and stimuli as many other persons or practitioners that combine the desire to maintain a high status, and also to pursue with dogged devotion, a matter that is religious at its core.

This is in contrast to the poor old Southern Baptist preacher (as an example), who teaches just as tirelessly out of a religious zeal, but not for himself. For others to know the truth, and to serve his God.

And that is the difference between them.

The person is one of those types that tries to use science to disprove science. His big thing is pointing out the "flaws" in scientific dating methods. He is also a big proponent of the "there have never been any transitional fossils found" movement. I try to look at creationists reading up on science as a good thing even if their sources are only creationist websites or they read authentic science sources with "God Goggles." This is more than what some Christians do who haven't read any literature, but still call evolution a fairytale.

However, I lost what infinitesimal amount of respect I had for the guy when he stated this on another thread:

Quote:Why do we use the Bible to explain the world, rather than established science?

Because it is a religious idea that makes more sense, in the larger picture. Religion looks at things in more dimensions. We see Satan as behind evolution theory.

Satan the deceiver.

And we see the obvious scientific holes in evolution theory (every single part of it). But beyond the obvious scientific holes and problems, we see the larger picture.

When we see a pseudo-science (evolution) touted as fact, when it is not...and we see creation evidence suppressed and hidden...and we see any discussion of evolution basically forbidden in schools, while creation is usually banned...and we see evolution theory pushed by backdoor political power groups (especially atheist groups)...onto children in schools (while watching Christianity being forcibly pushed out) then we see the larger picture of what is going on.

And we understand.

Satan is the Father of lies, the deciever. And it is not too hard to trace a deception back to its source.

So, you asked me why so many Christians use the Bible to explain the world instead of established science? The answer is that we see the world clearly for what it is. We see the "established science" of the world for what it is. And we see that this stuff was predicted in prophecy 2000 and more years ago.

And we see it all coming to pass just as predicted. And so, we are watching the Bible being fulfilled every day. And that is why we accept the Bible, rather than a worldly and obviously deceptive concept, to explain the world.

We have eyes to see, and ears to hear. And we feel sorry for the many, whom we feel are deceived.

No matter how much supposed evidence he can come up with to disprove evolution--which "has more holes than Swiss cheese" according to him--he still falls back on the Satan crap.

Seriously, if Satan is really fooling everyone, why doesn't God do anything about it? Creationists believe Satan created the theory of evolution just so people would give up faith for a life of sin. Sinning leads to damnation. Why would a just God allow this to happen? This ultimate makes such claims look ridiculous.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2011, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2011 09:15 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
I began pondering the question of "why would science lie?" this morning. And I still cannot come up with an answer. His response that "they would be out of a job" is preposterous. The problems that exist in the natural world that impact humans requires scientists to continue to work on creating solutions to them. Scientists will never be out of a job, unless we re-enter the Dark Ages. But we won't do that, because people like their TV, internet, medicine and food.

Perhaps we should start asking the reciprocal question of "why would religion lie?" Perhaps that is a little more obvious, and fits his answer of "they would be out of a job."
And the money issue is a laugh. I have never seen a science laboratory with gold trim and stained glass windows. How does he explain televangelists?

I must admit I am unsure of the credentials of this site (http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=...er/Salary) but the average pay for a preacher is between $20,000 - $70,000. Even at $10.00 an hour for 40 hours a week someone would top out at $19,200. That preacher makes a minimum of $20,000 a year for 2-3 days a week of work? And the preacher for the church I went to as a kid had another job, as a car salesman. I imagine a lot of these southern baptist preachers he talks about make less than $20,000, but even if it is $10,000 and they have another job (which is very likely, just like my old preacher) that is pretty much bonus money for preaching 1-2 times a week! Who is in it for the money?
I also know about how many people were at my old church and I would say on average, people give ~$10 a week. So 45 people at $10 a week = $450 a week. Bills for the church a month? Must be less than $75. Upkeep and maintenance? Also pretty low, especially since people tend to volunteer to fix things. So let's say that church brings in $1700 a month...A MONTH! Net profit. AND THIS ASSHAT SAYS THE SCIENTIST WHO WORKS >40 HOURS A WEEK IS IN IT FOR THE MONEY?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-09-2011, 11:54 AM (This post was last modified: 15-09-2011 11:58 AM by Peterkin.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
"Why does/ would science lie?" is already phrased in such a way as to allow re-framing by the opposition: it assumes that science is an entity with a single voice, and that opens the door to accusations of conspiracy.

Breaking it down into disciplines, groups and factions of scientists is a start in the right direction, because these are fallible human beings, who may be wrong, who may disagree. But the questions are still too general. And "why" is too easily side-tracked. "How" is more solid."

Best of all would be to follow the history of a single discovery through the years it took to be accepted as fact.
A scientific theory doesn't just get handed around, and down, as a finished thing. Before a theory gains adherence from the scientific community at large, it goes through a long process and many minds. It's challenged, discussed, tested, questioned, compared with other theories, dissected, altered, refined; supporting evidence is collected from independent sources; incorrect or suspect data are discarded and replaced; calculations and experiments repeated by other teams; alternative models investigated.
Rather than going around and around the conclusion as if it were held on faith, concentrate on the process which produced the conclusion.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peterkin's post
18-09-2011, 03:08 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
Quote:1. If these scientists are wrong, why do they continue to participate in their field of study?

My Answer: Because if they bucked the system they are out of a job. And also as a personal religious zeal in pursuing it because they are not willing to accept the religious view.

That is ludicrous. Science rewards scientists for new discoveries, research grants + reputation + Awards. If a scientist could find ACTUAL evidence of unnatural occurrences, they would instantly get worldwide recognition, a noble prize, and enough research money to last their entire lives.

Problem is, no such evidence exists. Evolution is a stone cold fact.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 06:55 PM
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
I'm always amazed that people make the "there are on transitional fossils" argument for several reasons. First, evolution does not need fossils to be proven true. Second, there are so many transitional fossils that it's embarrassing. Third, all fossils are really a transition between one species and another.

Ask this guy to explain the roughly 80 vestigial remainders in the human body from evolution. Go through a dozen of them 1 by 1 and ask him to explain it. The appendix? Explain it. The Coccyx? Explain it. Wisdom teeth? Explain them. The Vomeronasal organ? Explain it?

You can't explain any of these without evolution.

Btw, I hear the "to keep their jobs" as part of the explanation for the grand global conspiracy to promote global warming, too.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2011, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2011 08:41 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Unanswered questions by Creationists
(19-09-2011 06:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm always amazed that people make the "there are on transitional fossils" argument for several reasons. First, evolution does not need fossils to be proven true. Second, there are so many transitional fossils that it's embarrassing. Third, all fossils are really a transition between one species and another.

Ask this guy to explain the roughly 80 vestigial remainders in the human body from evolution. Go through a dozen of them 1 by 1 and ask him to explain it. The appendix? Explain it. The Coccyx? Explain it. Wisdom teeth? Explain them. The Vomeronasal organ? Explain it?

You can't explain any of these without evolution.

Btw, I hear the "to keep their jobs" as part of the explanation for the grand global conspiracy to promote global warming, too.

You make some good points, but he is a hardcore Fundie. He will find some reason to explain those away with the bible. He claims that all Appalachian people (he's from Tennessee) are born skeptics and see the world clearly. He has been called out on trolling on more than one occasion because of misrepresenting information and his stubborn refusal to admit he was wrong. He once quote mined a head from the British Museum as stating there are no transitional fossils. He even posted a very old anti-evolution video with a so-called creation scientist reading from the head's letter which mentioned the statement. However, it turns out that the quote was greatly taken out of context, and a copy of a rebuttal written by the museum head stating the it was indeed taken out of context was posted by another user (I believe it was found on Talk Origins somewhere). It was 100% authentic, but yet the Fundie kept on saying the museum head proved there were no transitional fossils. Any time someone would question him about the rebuttal letter, he would totally ignore those posts.

I would have to say his favorite word is "Spin". He uses this world A LOT, usually to describe evolutionary research (i.e. "the results can be spun to make it seem like evolution is true"). He also uses it to describe how the atheistic media "spins" information when it is presented to the public. He's a joke.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: