you're reading...
Creation/Evolution, science

What it all comes down to…


About Tim



14 thoughts on “What it all comes down to…

  1. I thought you started with Genesis infallibility.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 25, 2013, 6:30 pm
  2. No, it’s not what you said. You essentially said that you start with ‘supernaturalism’ and ‘catastrophism’.

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 25, 2013, 11:14 pm
  3. Catastrophism – which you contrasted with the reality of uniformitarianism as used to explain many though not all geological features – is not synonymous with Genesis.
    Though you did clarify in brackets what you had in mind (without explaining how the latter two things you mentioned could or would have changed permanently the appearance of the planet).

    Posted by Ashley Haworth-roberts | October 25, 2013, 11:40 pm
    • Don’t mind him. He’s a bitter apostate that pa-TROLLS the Web, looking to stir up strife. Hope you like your new stalker. Until he gets bored and wanders off.

      Catastrophism is a strong point in biblical creationism. The Noachian Flood was catastrophic, and explains geological features far better than uniformitarian geology (which our mutual stalker knows, since he reads my posts and then goes back to his den whining, “Liar!”). Wikipedia is biased and unreliable. These starting facts would be helpful in understanding creationism and terminology, instead of letting dishonest, disingenuous anti-creationists tell us what we stand for.

      Posted by Question Evol Proj (@PiltdownSupermn) | October 27, 2013, 7:30 pm
  4. While this is an immensely popular talking point, it isn’t how actual science works. In science you don’t make a discovery then try to fit it into your model, you use the model to predict the discovery before it is made. Einstein’s theory of relativity is accepted by so many physicists because he used it to predict, among other things, the angle light would bend around the sun from a star behind the sun in an upcoming eclipse. Darwin’s theory of evolution is accepted by so many paleontologists because he used it to predict, among many other things, the existence of species like archeopteryx, (prehistoric extinct birds with separate digits in their wings) before they were discovered.


    Biologists accept the theory of evolution because darwin used it to predict, among many other things, a the existence of a moth with a nearly foot long tongue a century before it was discovered.


    Geneticists accept darwin’s theory of evolution because it was used to predict, among many other things, the fusion of two primate chromosomes before they were discovered.

    And so on and so forth. Science is prophecy. Another thing that separates actual science from creationist philosophy is that real science yields practical applications like curing diseases, producing new industries etc. I can list half a dozen industries off the top of my head that rely on evolutionary science. We use evolutionary predictions to make vaccines because guess what, the viruses we’re making the vaccines against *evolve* so quickly that we have to get ahead of evolution and make a vaccine for a future version of the virus so we have time to manufacture and distribute the vaccines before it changes so much your immune system won’t recognize it. This is why people get the flu every year when the antibodies they produce whenever they get it should make them immune for about a decade. It’s because the flu migrates and evolves and by the time it comes around again it’s not the same virus. The 1918 flu killed around 50-100 million people and was about as lethal as the black death.

    This is just one application of evolution science. Just one.

    What applications are there of creation science? None. Because there is no such thing as creation science. It’s just science bashing and, at best, philosophy. Which is fine (philosophy, that is), so long as it’s not misrepresented as science.

    Posted by agnophilo | November 1, 2013, 10:40 pm
    • I’m going to respond to your main and first point: “In science you don’t make a discovery then try to fit it into your model, you use the model to predict the discovery before it is made.” I do not believe historical science works this way. The past has already happened, we can’t predict the past anymore. We can make observations in the modern world and extrapolate it backwards to predict what may have happened in what order – but that’s a different game all together really. The event has already occurred. It’s like piecing together a crime scene after the fact. One piece of evidence omitted and it changes the whole story. Does your models and predictions make sense? Yes, I would never argue that. BUT I argue you have omitted a piece of evidence that changes the conclusions. Your conclusions do not conclude mine wrong because my conclusions are drawn from additional evidence you are not willing to include in your models.

      This is also a difficult subject because historical science (macro-evolution) gets muddied with modern/observational science where we do see changes and make successful predictions – and then just call it all the same thing. I do not agree. I agree that these changes occur today and help us to predict things like the flu vaccination, but I do not believe that proves macroevolution. I believe that takes science out of the realm of observation and repeatability into imagination or at best extrapolation – which is not observation, which is not science. I believe creation and evolution would much better be classified as philosophy.

      Posted by Tim | November 1, 2013, 10:55 pm
      • I gave multiple examples of predictions made about events in the distant past. As long as there are artifacts from the distant past we can perform new tests and predict things we have no way of knowing other than this or that model. This is also the basis of forensic science, how we can prove who the killer was. Is criminal forensics also not real science? Are paternity tests, finger prints etc, not real science? They are all used to determine past events.

        Any time something has to be true or can’t be true, and we have a way of seeing if it’s true after we make the prediction, it’s observable, testable, repeatable science.

        Posted by agnophilo | November 1, 2013, 11:17 pm

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: