First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list? It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

Try because reality says that the blind assertions of creationism are wrong. That a succinct enough answer for you?

willhud9 wrote:I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is)

You've pretty much answered the question yourself - too many creationists come here and aggressively insist that it is science, and claim to be able to prove it (without, of course, actually getting round to doing so!)

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list? It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

Hmmm, you make a valid point as there's nothing to debunk, it's a discipline that (by your own admission) is unscientific. However the brothers and sisters to whom you refer seem to think differently so points have to be addressed and evidence presented whenever any serious* enquiry is made.


*Note for Evolutiondebunked, yours is not a serious enquiry.

This is a casual message board; the administration probably isn't interested in seeking the opinions of philosophers about the proper categorization of creationism. Besides, what difference does it make? Does the location of the sub-forum somehow affect how you can argue whatever it is you want to argue?

willhud9 wrote:First of all, I am a Christian and I do believe in creationism; and I realize creationism is not a science(sorry any of my brothers or sisters who think it is), but why is it on the debunking list? It is rational enough to be debated intelligently and professionally and because it entails and mingles with the realm of science can easily fit into a pseudo-science category rather than a debunk. Just wondering =]

What are you a Creationist?

I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

However, being ever interested in science I was prompted to join this website and give my arguments. Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create. In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

willhud9 wrote:I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

However, being ever interested in science I was prompted to join this website and give my arguments. Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create. In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

Have you researched what "science" is? It's a good place to start.

And welcome and thank you for not coming here threatening hell-fire and with what looks like an inquisitive mind.

I look forward to discussing these issues with you.

- Paul

Science is the logical explanation for natural phenomena, or at least that is the standard text book definition we are drilled in basic science 101 classes. Hence, creationism cannot be a science due to the fact it involves supernatural components. Not to say their is a non existence of said supernatural component, but rather science is trying to discover logical means to the end without presupposing the idea of supernatural phenomena.

willhud9 wrote:I am a creationist in the sense that I believe the Bible is true, the whole controversy over technicalities such as age of earth etc. are questions I'd gladly debate, but ultimately concede to truly know the answer when I die and go to Heaven. If I do not, then I know I was wrong(figuratively speaking of course).

However, being ever interested in science I was prompted to join this website and give my arguments. Where I do not fully agree with macro-evolution, I do not fully agree with creationism and the "theories" creationists claim to create. In fact, I am relativly new to the Christian walk and I have more skill and knowledge in atheistic evolution than I do in creationism.

The first thing that you should learn is that there is no such thing as "atheistic evolution"! There is Atheism and there is Evolution, neither have anything to do with each other!

It's in debunk because it is rubbish and occasionally needs to be shown to be such to people.

And welcome.

saggrock wrote: The first thing that you should learn is that there is no such thing as "atheistic evolution"! There is Atheism and there is Evolution, neither have anything to do with each other!

Force of habit, I say that, because there is theistic evolution, in which "God guided evolution processes." I only used it for clarification purposes.

It's in debunk because debunking is usually all that can be done with creationist arguments.

Welcome btw, don't let us scare you off!

willhud9 wrote:Science is the logical explanation for natural phenomena, or at least that is the standard text book definition we are drilled in basic science 101 classes. Hence, creationism cannot be a science due to the fact it involves supernatural components. Not to say their is a non existence of said supernatural component, but rather science is trying to discover logical means to the end without presupposing the idea of supernatural phenomena.

The problem is, once we permit supernatural explanations, all such explanations are epistemically identical. Explanations that, by definition, are not amenable to empirical inquiry are also indistinguishable from each other.

well willhud, first and foremost, I am always glad to see a polite creationist (I have debated creationists on numerous occasions on other forums and websites) and I am sure that many here (me included) would be more than happy to debate you in a polite and courteous manner. To get to your question, creationism is in the debunk section because this is a site primarily geared towards atheists. Because mostly atheists come here, barely anyone believes in creationism and debate against it regularly. Because it is debated against by most of the members it is put in the debunk section because we frequently feel that it is usually not up to par with actual scientific theories. The number of credible scientists that actually support I.D or creationism are the VAST minority.

It's in the debunk forum because the strands of creationism most people ken - like Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design - have had decades to demonstrate they don't go against the evidence from the real world that scientists work with every day. Not only has creationism failed to do such, it doesn't even provide a coherent framework of its own. Can creationists even agree whether dinosaurs existed? No. Can they agree about the age of the Earth? Again, the answer is no.

We have no grounds to treat it seriously.

Welcome to the forum, btw!

wait, I thought that they all thought that dinos at least EXISTED at some point in time. What organization thinks they didn't? lol.

Indeed, before I address more serious issues with respect to the entire creationist enterprise, the one fact that stands out starkly is that creationists cannot even agree with each other with respect to the answers to certain specific questions. The classic example being the instance where, over at the Richard Dawkins Forums when they were still operating, one poster produced a nice illustration of various skulls of various hominid fossils, and demonstrated that various professional creationists could not agree as to which of those skulls were purportedly "fully ape" and which were purportedly "fully human", two terms that those of us who paid attention in science classes regard as fatuous, because the hard evidence points to the fact that humans ARE apes, and if there is any doubt about this, then I have the Nature paper on the sequencing of the chimpanzee genome and its direct comparison to the human genome, amongst other papers, to bring to the table.

Even worse, several creationists have demonstrated on numerous occasions that when they erect various apologetic fabrications to prop up their doctrine, they cannot even exert the effort required to keep those fabrications internally consistent from one day to the next. They post knee-jerk apologetic pseudo-responses to various questions, thinking that this somehow "answers" those questions, without bothering to take note of the fact that some of their apologetic pseudo-responses are mutually contradictory. And yes, I can point to examples of this if required.

willhud9 wrote:Science is the logical explanation for natural phenomena, or at least that is the standard text book definition we are drilled in basic science 101 classes. Hence, creationism cannot be a science due to the fact it involves supernatural components. Not to say their is a non existence of said supernatural component, but rather science is trying to discover logical means to the end without presupposing the idea of supernatural phenomena.

Science is the art of explaining phenomena which can be shown to exist. No supernatural phenomenon has been shown to exist, which makes investigating them impossible. If it were the case that one or more godlings were to come to Earth and go around performing miracles, we would certainly be able to investigate them, and use the information to make determinations as to the nature of these beings. The only reason science cannot study gods and learn things about them, is because to date there have been no gods for us to study.