Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?
Nomaster
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Aug 4th, 2016, 3:51 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Nomaster »

Really, zzontar? "Not that long ago"


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

He lived from 276 BCE to 194 BCE

He is best known for being the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stadia, a standard unit of measure during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate. He was also the first to calculate the tilt of the Earth's axis (again with remarkable accuracy). Additionally, he may have accurately calculated the distance from the Earth to the Sun and invented the leap day.[4] He created the first map of the world, incorporating parallels and meridians based on the available geographic knowledge of his era.
Nomaster
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Aug 4th, 2016, 3:51 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Nomaster »

youjustcomplain wrote:Should we abandon science because their theory, at the time, turned out to be wrong?

Beauty of Science is that when a theory is proved wrong, scientists get excited, examine new evidence then come to a new hypothesis which they test and have tested by their peers until it becomes the latest theory. This happens all the time. This is why many of us believe what scientists tell us. If the current model fails a test, a new model is created.



EXCELLENT!


I'd like to see zzontar or others to examine the science facts that the bible got right way before we had the scientific method.
that will be a short list.

Here's lists of what the all- knowing God of the bible got wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36330
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Glacier »

zzontar wrote:It wasn't that long ago that scientists thought the Earth was flat, even though there was no proof to back it up.

Perhaps you're thinking of geocentrism? The earth was known to be round for thousands of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
Nomaster
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Aug 4th, 2016, 3:51 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Nomaster »

More biblical nonsense ... If you were getting the impression that smart people wrote the bible.

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter5.html

A snippet
The suggestion that the Bible is lacking a scientific foundation is nothing less than a colossal understatement. The Bible has failed fair, impartial, and universally applicable tests in multiple fields of science. If God truly is the inspiration behind this purportedly divine declaration to the world, he shows absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology, geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other disciplines not covered in this chapter. In fact, the Bible handicaps those who use their “God-given” talents of reason and logic to settle blatant biblical problems. Nothing can be more detrimental to the authenticity of a statement than contradictory phenomena that we readily observe and experience. With no other evidence to consider, these natural manifestations should always override what we might hope and think to be correct explanations for unignorable discrepancies. such is the power of science and reason. They are the impartial pursuit of an answer to a question, not the search for supplements to a predetermined answer.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by zzontar »

youjustcomplain wrote:Should we abandon science because their theory, at the time, turned out to be wrong?

Beauty of Science is that when a theory is proved wrong, scientists get excited, examine new evidence then come to a new hypothesis which they test and have tested by their peers until it becomes the latest theory. This happens all the time. This is why many of us believe what scientists tell us. If the current model fails a test, a new model is created.


What about "facts" that were proven wrong?

http://www.reptileknowledge.com/squamat ... dragon.php

Another interesting fact about Komodo dragons is that they have toxic saliva (not the same as snake venom). The bacteria in this lizard's saliva helps lubricate the food that it eats, and also to begin the breakdown process of its meals


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2 ... illed-bite

His study found that there is lots of bacteria in a Komodo dragon's mouth--but, to be fair, that's true of our own mouths as well. And he found no microbes that surprised him; all the bacteria is consistent with other lizards from Indonesia and none of it would cause the kind of rapid tissue degeneration and blood loss that Komodo dragon bite victims show.
Even more damning, the level of bacteria in a Komodo dragon's mouth proved to be even lower than many mammalian mouths, especially those of carnivores. The dragon's mouth, he found, was kind of...clean.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1656
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by youjustcomplain »

zzontar wrote:What about "facts" that were proven wrong?


What about them? (I don't think I mentioned "facts")
I'm not going to try and get into Komodo Dragons as I know very little about them.

But, what about facts that were proven wrong? What importance does that have? Look, scientists study something not well understood and make a hypothesis to explain how it works. They test their hypothesis then it gets tested by other scientists who try and prove it wrong. If the hypothesis stands up to this peer review, then it becomes a theory. Theories are tested hypothesis.

If a scientist sets out to prove a current theory wrong, they come up with their own hypothesis that conflicts with the existing theory then prove theirs is a better working model than the old one and the cycle continues. Everything we know is available for challenge, unlike holy books.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36330
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Glacier »

Holy books are also up for challenge. It's called the science of textual criticism.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1656
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by youjustcomplain »

Glacier wrote:Holy books are also up for challenge. It's called the science of textual criticism.


Science of textual criticism? What part about textual criticism is scientific?
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36330
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Glacier »

youjustcomplain wrote:Science of textual criticism? What part about textual criticism is scientific?

All of it, when applied appropriately. Diplomatics is a science, a rigorous investigative method used to discover the secrets of the past.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
youjustcomplain
Übergod
Posts: 1656
Joined: Jun 14th, 2016, 12:56 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by youjustcomplain »

Glacier wrote:All of it, when applied appropriately. Diplomatics is a science, a rigorous investigative method used to discover the secrets of the past.


Definition of science as found on google as the first result I saw:
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

If Textual Criticism hits that criteria, then yes, it's science.

I won't begin to argue whether it is or is not since I have no idea *bleep* it is.
User avatar
zzontar
Guru
Posts: 8868
Joined: Oct 12th, 2006, 9:38 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by zzontar »

youjustcomplain wrote:
What about them? (I don't think I mentioned "facts")
I'm not going to try and get into Komodo Dragons as I know very little about them.

But, what about facts that were proven wrong? What importance does that have? Look, scientists study something not well understood and make a hypothesis to explain how it works. They test their hypothesis then it gets tested by other scientists who try and prove it wrong. If the hypothesis stands up to this peer review, then it becomes a theory. Theories are tested hypothesis.

If a scientist sets out to prove a current theory wrong, they come up with their own hypothesis that conflicts with the existing theory then prove theirs is a better working model than the old one and the cycle continues. Everything we know is available for challenge, unlike holy books.


With the Komodo Dragon it was in the textbooks as fact, not an hypothesis or theory. How they came across this "fact" was so unscientific it's pathetic. Feel free to google it.
They say you can't believe everything they say.
Nomaster
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Aug 4th, 2016, 3:51 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Nomaster »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searche ... ah%27s_Ark

How did the Ark finally settle on Mount Ararat, or the mountains of Ararat, and then all the creatures disembarked,migrated to places like Australia, and yet leave not a trace (like koala bones) anywhere but in their final destination.

More than 80 per cent of our plants, mammals, reptiles and frogs are unique to Australia and are found no-where else. Some of our best-known animals are the kangaroo, koala, echidna, dingo, platypus, wallaby and wombat....

What was available as food on this amazing 11,000 Km. journey to another continent?

Did Noah build some ancient drone delivery system as well as an Ark?
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36330
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Glacier »

According to the Bible, God gathered the animals in, so it can be assumed that he lead them away through safe passage afterwards.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray
Nomaster
Board Meister
Posts: 457
Joined: Aug 4th, 2016, 3:51 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Nomaster »

Brilliance once again.
User avatar
Glacier
The Pilgrim
Posts: 36330
Joined: Jul 6th, 2008, 10:41 pm

Re: Creationism = Science Illiteracy

Post by Glacier »

Nomaster wrote:Brilliance once again.

Well clearly there was divine guidance. If there is no divine power, then obviously it never happened. If there is, then obviously it could have happened.
"No one has the right to apologize for something they did not do, and no one has the right to accept an apology if the wrong was not done to them."
- Douglas Murray

Return to “Religion & Spirituality”