By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ultima on 28 July 2013
Edit Thread
happydolphin said:
Figgycal said:

As with many things; I think I'm gonna go ahead and agree with 99 percent of the world's scientist on this issue. And young earth creation scientists are not actual scientists : their works are not peer reviewed, they limit their thinking and conclusions to a religion - these "scientists" will never arrive to the conclusion that they might be wrong, because that's not an option for them. They start out with an answer from their religion and work their way down to find out how that answer might be possible, rather than the other way around. In many cases these scientists are also priests, or preachers, or evangelists, or plumbers, regular people, etc. Their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny from actual scientists. What they're doing isn't science; it's pseudoscience.

You wouldn't want someone who wrote an article that wasn't peer reviewed, and yet went against everything scientists know as fact, for example: "not exercising and eating excessively is good for your health" be your doctor would you? So why let a person like that be the one you trust for accurate information?

@bold. That's your choice, but if you're going to go with majority, just remember that majority was with the church in Galileo's day. Just sayin', majority was wrong.

@Peer review. That's simply untrue -> http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

@Validation of theories. That's wrong, they posit theories to support the biblical claims, and often disagree with each other within the creationist community.

@Pseudoscience. What YOU'RE doing is pseudoscience, excuse me. You're just repeating words from the anti-creationist community and I hear the same words over and over again, they are just meaningless drivel (no joke). This is not to offend you, I just proved a few claims by you and MDMAlliance false already, there is likely much more.

So to answer your last paragraph, I trust them a lot because they actually do science rather than pretend to in order to fit with the concensus. There are good scientists on both sides, but imho the onus is on creationists to prove their worth and so I have seen what they do and trust it more as a true quest for scientific truth than the other way around (so far). It's my opinion. If I were to choose someone to tell me the truth, I'd choose the creationist.

1) You're right that generally siding with majority does not make one right. However, in this case it is completely justified. A scientist is, loosely, an expert in some area of science. Taking the word of the majority of the experts in some area is not fallacious.

2) That article is crap. You don't have to go past the abstract to realize that. It dodges the question of why creationism articles do not appear in secular peer-reviewed journals by trying to discredit the process of peer-review. It then goes on to promote its own "peer-reviewed scientific" journal.

3) Exactly. These people don't actually do any science. In your own paraphrased words, they take the scientific theories that real scientists develop, and try to use them to support biblical stories. The fact that they cannot agree among themselves is in no way demonstrative of anything.

4) No, creationists are pseudoscientists. A scientist does not put forward theories that cannot be verified; a scientist does not use unverifiability of a claim to be indicative of its truth value.

5) They do not do science. They simply try to pass on their theory of the origin of manking as a scientifically verified fact. Creation is not scientifically verified. In fact, it inherently cannot be scientifically verified.