The Bible also says that they came from the earth.
There are plenty of creationists and plenty of money available to do that, but none seem to have the faith to step up. Apologetics is so much easier than science.
Why are there no creationist pharma companies?
Why arenāt creationist biology departments incredibly productive?
Why arenāt there creationist oil exploration companies? [There was one, but it was a scam.]
This gets back to weakness of faith.
3 Likes
Exactly how are you defining ācreationistā? How do you know there arenāt scientists who donāt believe in evolutionary origins who do these kind of things?
Why do you think the evolutionary model is impossible to be overturned and that people who want to do so have weak faith?
That wasnāt the claim, though: it wasnāt ācreationists doing science in other fieldsā, it was ācreationists doing creation scienceā. There are empirical claims made by the theories espoused in creation science. They are testableā¦ and they are not being tested.
And the āweak faithā comment was about that: if people have strong faith in these theories, they would test them.
Itās literally what science is and what scientists do: kill their darlings, try to test their best theories to destruction.
3 Likes
There are Young Biosphere Creationists (YBC). Iām actually having some very pleasant conversations with some of these folks on FB.
But thatās what @Mercer is haranguing me over currently.
Sanford has tested his with modeling. Iām assuming Iāll learn about that tonight. Iām assuming eventually Christians may want to fund a lab so they can do so.
Itās apologetics, and does not function as science - there are no patents, inventions, medical treatments, or new areas of discovery from Creation Science. There are some CreationIST scientists, but they use methodological naturalism in their work, just like everyone else.
5 Likes
How do they reconcile old earth with young biosphere? What evidence do they appeal to for each?
For all the ones Iāve seen itās usually theological: various interpretations of the English wording of the first few verses of Genesis.
There are a couple more variants, some with old universe young Earth and some old Earth.
I havenāt seen any with a scientific basis, or that can account for supposedly young fossils in old rock strataā¦ though I suspect the Flood does a lot of the heavy lifting (heh).
Thatās what Iād be interested in. Sal Cordova for a time flirted with a claim that all fossils were intrusive burials.
Sedimentary strata that contain fossils are not old. Only the volcanic material deep from within the planet that you misusing to date the fossils and strata seems to possess deep age due to contamination.
Oh, well, I guess thatās all OK then. Phew!
No they donāt because methodological naturalism is not needed for pharmaceutical work, nor medical treatments, nor āpatentsā or āinventionsā as you say. Hereās a secret. Methodological naturalism is not needed to even work in genetics successfully. Evolution and ME are ad hoc tag alongs that you and yours have required to work in many of those fields, yet in truth, are completely unnecessary.
Methodological naturalism is no more nor less than not invoking miracles as the causal mechanism. It is explicitly used in all fields of science.
Think for just a clear-headed moment how illegitimate it is to use something from a completely different location on the planet, deep from within the interior, to date something far away and on the surface of the planet.
Who lost their scientific bearing in the first place to even allow such a pseudoscientific approach to become mainstream?
If that were indeed what happened, that would be bad science. It is not. This description constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of most of the field of geology.
1 Like
Geology is a great field of study. Radiometric dating is a pseudoscience.
In the standard way. It also applies to proponents of intelligent design.
Itās not a huge community. And, BTW, I donāt believe in evolution; belief doesnāt enter into it. Itās the theory with the most confirmation and predictive power. If thereās evidence thatās inconsistent with it, Iām all eyes and ears. In science, all conclusions are tentative.
But again, you are going to great lengths to try to make real science look like belief to look similar to religious, pseudoscientific apologetics.
Please stop putting words into my mouth. It is a form of bearing false witness.
Valerie, please focus on what Iām actually saying. Iām saying that they lack sufficient faith to even try to do anything serious. Thatās why they mostly talk and very occasionally do pseudoscience.
2 Likes
While modeling is a part of science, one tests models. You are throwing around terms that you donāt understand.
Valerie, you said that you placed significance on degrees. My PhD is in virology, Sanford has never done any. Do the degrees really mean anything to you in terms of authority, or do you only invoke them to assist your tribe?
2 Likes