(From Marian Sorin Botez, on Facebook).
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Posted by: DanutM | 13 January 2011
Scientific vs. Creationist Method
Posted in Apologetics, Humour, Science | Tags: creationist, scientific
Responses
Leave a Reply
Categories
- Anglican
- Apologetics
- Architecture
- Art
- Baptist
- Biblical
- Capitalism
- Catholic
- Celtic
- Charity
- Children
- Church
- Cinema
- Collaborationism
- Communism
- Culture
- Development
- Discipleship
- Ecology
- Economy
- Ecumenism
- Education
- Engineering
- Entertainement
- Eschatology
- Ethics
- Evangelicalism
- Family
- File I-1065
- Fundamentalism
- Geography
- Hermeneutics
- History
- Human rights
- Humanitarian
- Humour
- Inter-religious
- Internet
- Islam
- Jesus
- Judaism
- Liturgical
- Media
- Missions
- Music
- Orthodox
- Patristics
- Pentecostal
- Persecution
- Political science
- Politics
- Post-communism
- Prayer
- Protestant
- Psychology
- Publishing
- Reconciliation
- Reformation
- Religion & society
- Religious freedom
- Science
- Secret police
- Secularism
- Sexuality
- Social justice
- Spirituality
- Sports
- Theater
- Theology
- Travel
- Varia
- Wisdom
It’s a good one! Thank you for sharing.
By: Dyo on 13 January 2011
at 3:25 pm
That reminds me of this creationist cartoon. The funny thing is, a creationist (that kind of creationist) could read the one you posted and perhaps think it was serious!
By: atimetorend on 13 January 2011
at 4:15 pm
of course; and that’s the whole point; no sense of humour, usually denotes a defective intelligence
By: DanutM on 13 January 2011
at 4:48 pm
I agree with the sense of humor and think the cartoon is emblematic of the underlying thinking in the two camps, but it is still not a good representation of Creationism, rather twisted. Just the same as the Scientific method, shows absolute no bias and influence from the scientist him/herself.
Funny indeed, but way too exagerated (imho)!
By: Gabriel Borlean on 13 January 2011
at 8:09 pm
Honour cannot be exhaustive. That would kill the fun.
By: DanutM on 13 January 2011
at 8:20 pm
but it is still not a good representation of Creationism
Absolutely. A better cartoon would have a creationist pulling stuff out of their posterior and declaring it fact.
Just the same as the Scientific method, shows absolute no bias and influence from the scientist him/herself.
You are not equating science and the scientific method to the writings of ignorant semi-literate people of 2000 years ago. I hope not, because that sort of equivocation is quite silly.
By: The Arbourist on 15 January 2011
at 5:14 pm
Trying to be little bit more sober,and beyond of the drollness of the caricature, I have a question for whosoever:
What are indeed the undoubted scientific facts of so called scientific evolution?
By: barthimeu on 14 January 2011
at 7:11 am
Let me turn the question on its head and ask:
What are indeed the undoubted scientific facts of so called scientific creationism?
By: DanutM on 14 January 2011
at 10:26 am
Is the agnosticism, in this specific matter, a solution to avoid the “drollness” comming from these questions?
By: Dyo on 14 January 2011
at 12:35 pm
that would be too postmodern for some moderns who can only live with certainty in all matters, even those that have not been revealed.
By: DanutM on 14 January 2011
at 5:42 pm
What are indeed the undoubted scientific facts of so called scientific evolution?
There are no undoubted scientific facts about evolution. Only observations and evidence that support the current theory. If evidence presented itself that evolution was wrong and that assertion could be supported with fact, evolutionary theory would change.
Now, to take a quick survey of the creationist side… has it changed in light of the mountainous amounts of evidence pointing to the conclusion that it just wrong? No, of course not, received ‘wisdom’ is impervious to fact as it based on belief as opposed to fact.
By: The Arbourist on 15 January 2011
at 5:18 pm
What are indeed the undoubted scientific facts of so called scientific evolution?
Look here.
By: The Arbourist on 16 January 2011
at 7:21 pm
Not quite. De-ar fi tot ce numim știință „facts” am fi ajuns mult mai departe.
By: beniamincruceru on 14 January 2011
at 12:29 pm
Cu siguranta ca fiecare partida are premisele sau prejudecatile ei. Dar aici se vorbeste, din ceea ce am inteles, de acele prejudecati care vad in orice ipoteza ce nu s-ar plia pe textul Genesei o ofensa la adresa credintei crestine. Bunaoara, pentru ca fiul meu e pasionat de animale disparute si de preistorie, un credincios era nedumerit de faptul ca eu cred ca au existat dinozauri. Dar poate ca problema fundamentala sta in faptul ca Genesa nu se citeste ca o naratiune istorica si teologica, ci ca un material stiintific.
Acceptam faptul ca Dumnezeu si-a contextualizat mesajul, dar nu mergem mai departe sa inteleg in ce consta aceasta contextualizare.
By: tibipop on 14 January 2011
at 11:06 pm
To Arbourist…but not only!
Please explain to me : what do you mean by “…evidence that support the current theory.” (evolution- my note) ?
If such a evidences are not similar with undoubted facts,in what relationships do they are ?
In what regard, a creationist, should change his attitude in front of mountainous amounts of estimations issued by of evolution?
By: barthimeu on 16 January 2011
at 1:34 am
If such a evidences are not similar with undoubted facts,in what relationships do they are ?
Scientific theories are based on evidence. However, there always remains some possibility that the theory is wrong, and in the light of new evidence, the theory would need to be modified or thrown out completely.
In what regard, a creationist, should change his attitude in front of mountainous amounts of estimations issued by of evolution?
The earth is 6000 years old.
The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
The second statement is supported by falsifiable, reasonable evidence. The first is not and requires faith and belief in magic to be even moderately feasible.
By: The Arbourist on 16 January 2011
at 7:19 pm
Nu trebuie uitat ca si evolutia are ceva probleme. Una din cele mai serioase este cea a verigilor lipsa din marturiile fosile. Darwin era foarte constient de problema, dar credea ca timpul o va remedia. Timpul insa a aratat ca ea a ramas. S-au mai gasit ceva fosile presupuse a fi de tranzitie, dar mult prea putine pentru a considera problema drept rezolvata. Nu intamplator, mari evolutionisti precum Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins si Steven Jay Gould s-au despartit tocmai in modul in care au incercat sa rezolve dificultatea respectiva. Puteti citi mai mult in acest sens in ultima carte a lui Mircea Flonta publicata la Editura Humanitas pe aceasta tema…Desigur, fiecare dintre acesti savanti evolutionisti a incercat o posibila explicatie a situatiei fosilelor. Dar pana la o confirmare sau coroborare mai serioasa a solutiilor propuse de ei, acestea raman din perspectiva multor Young Earth si Old Earth creationisti ad hoc si neconvingatoare.
By: Vali on 17 January 2011
at 1:32 pm
Nici pe cale stiintifica si nici pe cale spirituala nu este inca descoperita vechimea de exzistenta a creierii universului si tot ce este pe el!!Cronologia incepe cu multul mai tirziu dechit creierea universului care prin expunere in cartea Genesei ,nu sint date ,datele anilor de creiere !Iar presupunerile in ambele parti sint relative pina la noile descoperiri!!!Esenta cunoasterii anumitor date este importanta ,dar multe lucruri si date ramin o enigma dupa cum si nasterea domnului Isus Hristos a fost pentru multi ,este si va fi ,mai ales fiinca El este cel ce ajunge sa fie intrupat la o anumita ,data ,intr-un mod deosebit si pentru un scop aparte !!!si prea putina importanta ajunge sa primeasca acest eveniment!!!Deci multe lucruri atit in domeniul stintific ,chit si spiritual ,ramin in puterea filozofica…
By: viorel chis on 16 January 2011
at 9:29 pm
Domnul meu, Scrieti mult si neglijent. Repet un lucru pe care l-am spus de nenumarate ori pe acest blog. Respectul pentru limba este o forma elementara de patriotism. Chiar daca sunteti plecat de multa vreme din tara, scrierea neglijenta a propriei limbi nu este acceptabila.
Daca nu puteti scrie corect romaneste, va rog sa scrieti englezeste, daca asta o puteti face mai corect sau dati va rog cuiva sa va corecteze textele.
Altfel voi fi nevoit sa va refuz comentariile, caci prin forma lor neglijenta ele devin ofensatoare pentru cei care au respect pentru propria limba. Va multumesc pentru intelegere.
By: DanutM on 16 January 2011
at 9:45 pm
To Arbourist,
Please explain to me ,what do you mean by “reasonable evidence”?!?
Probably you have another meaning about evidence than majority of the people!
If this “reasonable evidence” suffered significant mutations (see how many times, in last 5 decades, the evolutionists did change their minds regarding the age of the earth), do you think that only creationist needs faith?
I think that an evolutionist needs much more faith than a creationist!
By: barthimeu on 18 January 2011
at 1:00 pm
Maybe you should take the pain and listen first to John Polkinghorne. You will find the link on this blog.
Asking smart looking superficial questions is cheap. Trying to really understand the other’s position, even if you disagree with it, is a sign of nobility.
But, as the Romanian communist saying goes, ‘who needs nobles?’
By: DanutM on 18 January 2011
at 2:53 pm
Please explain to me ,what do you mean by “reasonable evidence”?!?
Evidence that is repeatable, testable and falsifiable. That would be the definition of ‘reasonable evidence’.
If this “reasonable evidence” suffered significant mutations (see how many times, in last 5 decades, the evolutionists did change their minds regarding the age of the earth), do you think that only creationist needs faith?
This is precisely the scientific method in action. When new information is brought to the table and verified to be true then in light of what the new information says, the theory is updated. The goal being to get the most accurate depiction of the reality we live in.
Theories change as they are always moving toward a better description of the physical world around us. It is not a weakness that they change, but rather one of their greatest strengths.
I think that an evolutionist needs much more faith than a creationist!
That of course is wrong because no faith is required to endorse an evidence based approach to our universe. Conversely, I have no requirements to believe in talking bushes, zombies that come back from the dead, and water turning into wine that are propositions that require faith because those beliefs are intrinsically irrational.
By: The Arbourist on 18 January 2011
at 7:49 pm
Thank you very much, Mr. Manastireanu,
But I’m waiting an answer from Mr. Arbourist!
By: barthimeu on 18 January 2011
at 6:47 pm
Of course, it is your right.
By: DanutM on 18 January 2011
at 6:49 pm
Mr Abourist
How do you explain the situations when in the midst of the scientific discovery development there are undoubted flagrant contradictions?!?
On the other hand,are you still sustaining that “The earth is 4.54 billion years old.” and that is an “repeatable, testable and falsifiable evidence .”?
If your answer is yes, I give up to any decent arguing…
If your answer is no…there is hope!
By: barthimeu on 20 January 2011
at 3:51 am
How do you explain the situations when in the midst of the scientific discovery development there are undoubted flagrant contradictions?!
And which contradictions would those be? To respond one does need to know what your objections are.
“are you still sustaining that The earth is 4.54 billion years old.”
Why would I not as the available facts support this particular assumption.
If your answer is yes, I give up to any decent arguing…
Let me take a shot at getting to what you are really saying. Because I believe in mythology “X” and the facts do not support my suppositions I will now plug my ears and blithely repeat religious dogma until I feel better.
If that is the case, have at it, but know you are wrong no matter what your assorted magic books say.
By: The Arbourist on 22 January 2011
at 5:58 am