"YOU ARE A WICKED CHILD AND WILL BE PUNISHED WITH THE FLAMES OF HELL". That's how I see it at least...probably because my dad is a devout christian and spanked me for arguing carbon dating with him.
Okay, it helps to understand what happened. With due respect, I know you love your father but I don't believe that was good parenting. Even God does not behave that way with us, biblically speaking. We are all given freedom to choose but ultimately the punishment (according to the bible) is our fully decided choice. As God judges the heart, and the bible is clear when it says that he has revealed himself through his handiwork, so that men are without excuse. His provision of redemption also leaves us with no excuse. In other words, hell is our decision and God leaves us that solemn choice. Okay I'm done, I'll just say that helps me understand the hostility and you are right to feel that way.
|I know not everyone would agree with me, but it is just as important WHY someone is doing something as WHAT they are doing. If a scientist were the one saying that some entity created everything, and had more evidence than conspiracy theories (which, face it, is one of the predominant circumstantial evidences in use) then I'd try to take the idea for its merit because he is trying to explore something new, which is what science is all about.
I understand what you're looking for and that's an unbiased search for what truly happened. The truth is theprof00, no matter what name people give themselves (professor, doctor), when it comes to the topic on origins, unless the person is an agnostic, they will be affected by a bias. It's an a priori towards either the metaphysical or the natural. When I study the topic, I try to put my a priori aside, but it's exceedingly difficult. So, I just try to learn as much as I can despite my bias so as to at least be informed. The reason I have this struggle is due to my conviction of the supernatural. However, I don't let my bias affect my learning/discovery. It could cause me to challenge things more, but as one friend of mine (also a proponent of evolution) told me through a supported link of his that science is always challenging itself. In that way I'm glad my bias favors the scientific process, as it makes me that much more critical of explanations/theories that contradict my conviction. However, the point I don't want to find myself in is denial. Thankfully I haven't hit the end of the room just yet. Now here I'm being completely transparent with you. The day I'll be in denial bud, I'll let you know. For now, I'm still just not convinced.
With that in mind, I try to look at both sides of the debate (both creationist and evolutionist), and try to see how each are progressing with their challenges and answers to challenges. Right now I'm looking at the fusion of primate chromosomes as a serious challenge to creationism. I still think it's presumptouous to completly ingnore the alternate view simply because some theories of theirs were laughingly discarded. Okay, it is humiliating and awkward but that's true to both sides. No-one is uninformed enough to tell me that ToE is what it is today without having to discard intermediate, disproven explanations. So the same fairness should be awarded the alternate view. Let's go multiplat with science! lol
|However, MY gripe is that exploration of the possibilities is not on the table for creationists. There is no push for discovery. It is what it is and there is no arguing with it. In fact, it is an Achilles heel of science that it uses methodology that people can call conspiratorial. Carbon Dating, for example is called a conspiracy, just because it is not understood, or other scientific principles involved are misunderstood.
But it shouldn't be that way! And I feel like the defensive nature of certain proponents of ToE is also leading to that. It's not good in either camp. Liken it to fanboyism in console gaming fandom. It's not good, neither on Nintendo products, nor on Sony product, nor on Microsoft products. Fanboyism is bad wherever it is, and that's not limited to any platform. The same can be said about these two viewpoints. They should just have their fair share, and anything scientifically unfeasible is considered and discarded. If there is a new challenge, it must be considered no matter where it originates from.
If Carbon Dating is considered conspirational, try to understand why. If their challenge is valid, or seemingly valid, it's important to consider it, if science is truly honest and constantly challenging itself. That's the right approach. If I tell you carbon dating is something I don't consider completely accurate, if you are honest you will ask me why. Then I will go on to tell you its possible failings, scenarios where it was inadequate, and the possibility of using alternatives dating methods which may be more faithful to the actual timeline of past events (examples would be the rate of helium decay, or sedimentary depositing in the sea floor, the movements of the stars, etc.).
|And yes, you are correct that scientific theories are debated..however...they are usually debated with OTHER scientific theories.
It is not because a theory assumes the metaphysical that it cannot be debated scientifically. You were witness to my debate with Sri Lumpa, and I was providing creationist claims which we were debating on scientific terms (sadly I lost track of that thread but it's still on my mind). Examples of things we were debating were the depositing of fossils given a global flood, chalk deposits, all kinds of challenges and possible explanations which can be verified scientifically, just like any other naturalistic claim. That's what most people on this forum fail to understand, even the believing ones. It's that the creationist claims are subject to the same scientific laws as naturalistic claims, only that in the case of a metaphysical event of origination the only part you leave out of scrutiny is the miracle itself. Anything after that is fair play and it works we've tried it on the other thread. Things are verifiable, refutable, and self-challenging.
I believe the alternate view has been discredited already too strongly and I believe we are subject to hidden agendas and naturalistic agendas in this case specifically. Put the bias aside and you'll see there is still value in working with the opposing view. If it's honest science there is place for it.
|Like I mentioned in my first post, these ideas are all related, it's only the specifics which are replaced. At it's root is "orbit occurs" and it's just a matter of what is orbitting what.
I understand. And it is the same thing here. For instance, for creationism natural selection and speciation are explained one way (inbreed mutation, genetic defects and loss of genetic complexity due to enthropy - as I understand it atm though I have to look into that) going from top to bottom, yet for evolution they explain it with an increase in genetic complexity going from bottom up. Indeed, both attempt to explain the same thing, it's just the specifics as you say that differ. The truth is the one that fits the best with what we see around us and to be honest I see more loss of genetic complexity in the mutations I've witnessed (fruit flies, general deterioration caused by inbreeding in certain cultures) than I do increase (of these I have witnessed none but have yet to research this more in depth).
- There is value to exploring the alternate explanations, and not to let dogmatic thinking in either camp spoil scientific advancement and increase of knowledge.
- There is dogma in all camps, it's human nature.
- There are hidden agendas we are to be wary of. We don't need to be subject to such things from either camp.
- Theories change, and sometimes they are only differing on specifics. Sometimes they are altogether replaced (the five elements that comprise matter of Aristotle).
- Creation science is verifiable and falsifiable.
and more. ;)
k, I'm done :D