"Creationists believe the straightforward interpretation of Scripture—the earth and all living things were supernaturally created in six solar days by the God of the Bible about 6,000 years ago."
I am writing a paper refuting religious claims in a philisophical manner (using science, history, archeology, and anthropology to back my claims). I was looking at a Creation Science website and saw the above quote on this page: http://www.creationsciencetoday.com/01-Creation%20_vs_Evolution.html
After browsing this site, I realized that these people are stunningly wrong, and are making up scientific evidence!
What do you guys think?
I find a lot of people don't really understand that scientific method varies by the science.
I was in a philosophy of science class that was being audited by someone majoring in social science. He said he didn't understand how a science like astronomy could be carried on. "Where is the control group?" he asked.
Geology is another science that largely isn't amenable to testing.
Cosmology is largely done on blackboards anymore, plus the occasional supercollider, of course.
** atheists have to get the facts right -- it's so much easier to be a lying fundie
It's just not going to do, Unseen. The history of science refutes those claims. If these ideas come from course work -- tell the instructor that she/he needs to get more training --
Steve Gould's volume 'Wonderful Life' will disabuse you of the notion that geology is not testable -- the age of the Earth wouldn't be known if geology couldn't be tested.
... as for the notion that cosmology is divorced from testing except for the LHC -- take a look at Bernard Schutz. An introductory course in General Relativity 2nd ed 2009. Chapters 9-12 -- the 12th is on Cosmology.
Work your way through chpts 1-8 of Schutz and then say how testable are the Einstein Field equations -- which metrics give us the best notion of the structure of black holes.
It's not testable in the sense of being able to run a repeatable experiment, which is what many are (mis)taught is the scientific method. I don't doubt that many people who make statements like this are thinking of this sort of thing, and as far as they go with it, they are correct.
It IS testable in the sense that you can beforehand say "if this theory is true this is what we would expect to see [or not see] when we go looking here" and that is what geologists and astronomers do. Every time you look at a pre-cambrian rock and don't find a fossilized rabbit, evolution passes a test. More to the point in a positive way, paleontologists targeted certain rock formations in the Canadian arctic as being places where they might find the transitional form between fish and tetrapods (land vertebrates including us), because the rock was the right age and had been laid down in the right environment, and sure enough they found Tiktaalik. Hmm, I should change my name to that, no one here is named after a transitional fossil.
I BEG your transitional PARDON!!?
Didn't take long for you to spot that, did it? :D
At least you know that SOMEbody reads what you write --
Speaking of CO, I used to own a home in Golden - I miss it, sometimes.
There really is no such thing as an evolutionist. That was a word created by creationist in attempt to bring biological evolution down to their level. There are only those who understand biology and those who don't.
It doesn't surprise me in the least. Typical crap from creationists. Just direct people to talkorigins.com if they try to use that stuff as fact. :)