The Latest in Creation Science

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
So here's a thought.

Should ATS start considering, as a policy, to begin automatically placing new "Creation Science" and "Young Earth" threads into the HOAX forum?

I think that is a novel idea. There comes a time where people just have to admit they are wrong. This is one of those times.

a reply to: Tangerine

What determines whether something is a hoax?

I would say that a Hoax is when someone is intentionally trying to deceive or mislead someone else...

Christians actually believe this stuff, and are not intentionally trying to deceive others... they just refuse to listen to reasoning or logical argument because they fear offending their God and his book

Its very similar to why some of the... "simpler" Christians still believe there are no errors in their book... they just refuse to look for them for fear of actually finding them if they look...

Creationism isn't actually a hoax... Its part of a belief system... regardless of how ridiculous it might be...

Its not like every thread based around scientology or Mormonism should be tossed in the hoax bit right?

a reply to: Akragon

Yes, but the people who try to push things under the label "Creation Science" ARE trying to deceive people. That isn't science. If you want it to be a belief system, fine. Make it a belief system, but don't let them call it science.

I started watching it. No science presented thus far. He's going over the Bill Nye vs Kem Ham debate that took place almost a year ago. But this is the latest in creationist "science?" Hmmm, not buying it. I'll keep watching and see if any science is presented or any evidence of evolution is addressed.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Akragon

Yes, but the people who try to push things under the label "Creation Science" ARE trying to deceive people. That isn't science. If you want it to be a belief system, fine. Make it a belief system, but don't let them call it science.

Well I agree with that...

recently I found a new term I wasn't familiar with actually...

Creation Scientist??

Creationism and science are like water and oil... they just don't mix...

Still I would contend that creationists are not trying to intentionally deceive people generally speaking...

its more like something they've been taught from a very young age, and are completely convinced of... so much so that they will reach for anything remotely resembling science to prove their beliefs

People like Ken ham give Christianity an extremely bad name...

a reply to: Barcs

I watched that debate live from my GF's church... being the only one on Bill Nye's side out of 150-200 Christians made my head hurt...

it was funny though, after the event was over there was a sombre silence in the church... almost like we attended a funeral...

I think a lot of them actually saw how much of a moron their hero was...

Hell Christians all over the world made fun of him after that

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

What determines whether something is a hoax?

I would say that a Hoax is when someone is intentionally trying to deceive or mislead someone else...

Christians actually believe this stuff, and are not intentionally trying to deceive others... they just refuse to listen to reasoning or logical argument because they fear offending their God and his book

Its very similar to why some of the... "simpler" Christians still believe there are no errors in their book... they just refuse to look for them for fear of actually finding them if they look...

Creationism isn't actually a hoax... Its part of a belief system... regardless of how ridiculous it might be...

Its not like every thread based around scientology or Mormonism should be tossed in the hoax bit right?

While I do agree they actually believe the stuff a hoax is a hoax regardless of if they believe it.

For example. This person actually believes. The Earth Is Flat: Revisited 2014 yet his thread was moved to the hoax bin.

Let me just say I am arguing the point out of principle here because as I said I enjoy reading creationist threads because they are funny and I don't want to run them off with always placing their threads in the Hoax bin. I would miss out on so many laughs if that happened.

BTW did you see the Star Wars one? That cracked me up.

a reply to: Grimpachi

By the very definition it can't be a hoax IF the person giving said information is not trying to intentionally deceive others...

Perhaps we just need another sub topic section...

We have "above top secret", and below top secret... how about...

To stupid to be secret... Or RDS

Really Dumb S**t?

there has to be a solution without calling every creation thread a hoax...

a reply to: ReturnofTheSonOfNothing

Time for a song.

A musical introduction to creation science by Roy Zimmerman -

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Tangerine

What determines whether something is a hoax?

I would say that a Hoax is when someone is intentionally trying to deceive or mislead someone else...

Christians actually believe this stuff, and are not intentionally trying to deceive others... they just refuse to listen to reasoning or logical argument because they fear offending their God and his book

Its very similar to why some of the... "simpler" Christians still believe there are no errors in their book... they just refuse to look for them for fear of actually finding them if they look...

Creationism isn't actually a hoax... Its part of a belief system... regardless of how ridiculous it might be...

Its not like every thread based around scientology or Mormonism should be tossed in the hoax bit right?

Then perhaps it should be put in a Beliefs Forum to distinguish it from actual science.

a reply to: Akragon

I personally would be rather upset if there were no Christians to talk with on ATS

If you chucked out the young-earthers and born-again bigots who infest this forum, you might actually have some real Christians to talk to. There are a few here, but they mostly keep quiet for fear of being lumped with the ear-pluggers and hate-spewers.

Christians actually believe this stuff, and are not intentionally trying to deceive others.

I don't know about that. Most of the Christians I know in real life think evolution denial and creationism are complete poppycock. And the soi-disant Christians who come on ATS to promote these political agendas are lamentably deceitful. Over the years, I have found routine, unblushing dishonesty, often amounting to barefaced lies, to be par for the creationist course. No doubt they are deceiving themselves with as much diligence as they seek to deceive us, but that's hardly the point, is it?

I vote for 'Evolution and Creation Conspiracies'. That should fail to satisfy all parties in nearly equal measure. Can't be more fair-minded than that.

Just call it the none evolved forum.

a reply to: Akragon

Well that's the thing, I'm pretty sure people who repeat known hoaxes aren't trying to deceive anyone either. They just haven't done the research to confirm that their claim is bunk. But that doesn't mean that the people who write it aren't trying to deceive people, which is what I think "creation scientists" are trying to do. Therefore hoax bin it. If no one does it, we are just letting them perpetuate lies. At some point you have to put your foot down.

ETA: While I admit that I enjoy talking to these people at times when I'm bored. I'd rather talk to Christians anchored in reality who can at least recognize science. I've enjoyed my conversations with them MUCH more than I've enjoyed with the YEcers (as few of them as I've had...). But what happens is that I tend to come in half-cocked and end up being hostile to them as we start the conversation, or make brash assumptions about them. I'd rather not do that. I'd like the idiots to be the exception, not the standard.

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Grimpachi

By the very definition it can't be a hoax IF the person giving said information is not trying to intentionally deceive others...

Perhaps we just need another sub topic section...

We have "above top secret", and below top secret... how about...

To stupid to be secret... Or RDS

Really Dumb S**t?

there has to be a solution without calling every creation thread a hoax...

That forum exists also, LOL: Ludicrous Online Lines.

a reply to: Astyanax



For the most part I agree with you, but on the other hand I feel we are doing some important work here exposing ignorance. If you manage to get rid of all the young-earthers and born-again bigots who infest this forum, it will be harder to shine a spotlight on them. Like Barcs I would like to reach the readers on the sideline.

I believe the change should come from moderation and be enforced.

1. Stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
2. Arguments should be supported with evidence. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. No bare assertions allowed!
3. Make the argument in your own words, preferably with links your source as a reference.
4. No spam, lengthy cut-n-pastes.
5. Argue the topic, not the person.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: BlackManINC

Creationist science is an oxymoron.

No, it's just a moron..lol

second

a reply to: dothedew

Creationism on the other hand..... I have no doubt in my mind that the events that are described back in the day happened, but as far as earth being created in a week, only being 6k years old, etc...... There's no evidence. There's no science. There's no witnesses. Nothing but a book, and the belief that it's true.

You are describing young earth creationism, which some Christians are erroneously clinging to, Genesis 1:1 doesn't give us a time line for the age of the earth, science is most likely correct. The rest of Genesis is telling us about the already created planets' development over a very extended amount of time. The word used for day in Hebrew is "Yom" and one definition for it is "Day-as division of time" not a literal 24 hours. The fossil record shows 24 hours is a false idealogy. However carbon dating isn't 100% accurate either, but the science we have today is closer to the fantastical
thinking God did it all in 144 hours because he can do anything. Yes he can do anything, but he was never bound to do so things so quick, as from his perspective it would be like doing all creation in a few seconds, if the 144 hour model was true.
Since we know light from stars billions of light years from us is just reaching us now, that alone debunks the ultra fast timeline some Christians seem to want to hold on to. It's no wonder atheists think these guys are are ignorantly stupid.

Ah, good ol' Creationist "science." Instead of presenting facts and experiments they ask ignorant questions like, "Why do some moons spin backwards?" I have to wonder, are they that deprived that they have never played a game of pool or billiards? How can you be that ignorant of physics and geometry yet claim to be presenting science?

It's a joke. The creationist model is absurd because it pretends that nothing collided ever in the history of the solar system.
Planets and moons spinning backwards makes perfect sense. But here's a real question since we're talking creationism:

Why would god create all these extra planets and moons in the first place and then intentionally make them spin backwards? How exactly is that evidence for creationism? There's a reason creationist science is an oxymoron. There isn't any science involved.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: Tangerine
a reply to: BlackManINC

No thanks. When you get some testable evidence proving that God exists and created something/anything, put it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll read it.

That works two ways.

Second

Two ways? By that do you mean that when someone gets testable evidence proving that God does not exist....? Uh..it's not possible to prove a negative. The onus is on the one claiming a positive (in this case the existence of God) to prove that claim of fact.

Im saying your quote of

No thanks. When you get some testable evidence proving that God exists and created something/anything, put it in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and I'll read it

I'm saying I'll do the same. Let me know when that journal hits....