nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 85:
Line 85: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Objections: Part 2 (and final part)
: I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
: I think it is fair to cast doubt on so-called "creationist scientists" scientific credentials. How can any process be called scientific when the theory is pre-existing and unmodifiable? A scientist doesn't start with a theory, and attempt to manipulate the data to fit it. They observe facts and attempt to draft a theory to fit it. The very phrase "creationist scientist" already predefines their views, and those views are unchanging regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary. I think the space frame example is a good benchmark for the whole of "creation science", the Bible suggests there existed a man called Noah who build a vast boat. Sceptics of this view have pointed out that there has never existed a wooden boat of similar size, and that it seems that such a boat would be beyond the tolerances of a purely wooden structure. Creationists respond with a theory that it was constructed using techniques humans have only discovered during the 20th century. At this point a real scientist would attempt to create a model to prove his theory is at least possible, but so-called "creationist scientists" do not. All the creationist "evidence" is like this, unfounded speculation with a thin veneer of plausibility. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 21:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Part 2:
I don't know the specific answers to your questions about life on the ark, but I do know that a creationist has studied these issues extensively and published a book on them. The book is ''Noah's Ark; a Feasibility Study''. If you really are interested in finding the answers, I suggest you read that book. He does calculate, if I recall correctly, that only about one third of the space on the ark would be needed to house the animals themselves.
I dispute your characterisation that creationists "fall back" on using ''baramin''. This suggests that ''species'' is the obvious intention, and ''baramin'' is an unlikely alternative. But why is this so? I know of no reason whatsoever, except for an irrelevant etymological one, for supposing that ''species'' was the intention. I also dispute that it is a "movable feast" any more than ''species'' is.
You are simply wrong to assert that creationists don't believe in speciation, and they do accept that wolves and dogs are related. Speciation can happen quite rapidly, and the time available since the flood is quite sufficient.
I think the afore-mentioned book also explains how the people and animals survived after disembarking, but the Bible actually explains that they didn't leave the ark until there was new growth. Clearly it wouldn't take hundreds of years for vegetation to return in sufficient quantities to feed the relatively few creatures that had been on the ark. And I also see no reason for supposing that life continued much as it had done before; I expect that life was quite different. The flood waters would have been nowhere near as salty as they are today, so the salt was likely not a problem at all, or a minor one at worst.
What makes you think that creationism is unmodifiable and unchanging? This is nothing more than a sceptic-spread furphy, and is dead wrong. Your rosy picture of impartial scientists observing facts and drafting a theory to fit it is the ideal, but far from reality. If "creationist scientist" predefines their views, then can the same be said of "evolutionist scientist"?
You say that sceptics point out that there has never been a wooden boat of that size, but surely that is (a) and argument from ignorance ("we don't know of one so there must not have been one") and (b) begs the question ("we reject that the ark—a wooden boat of that size—existed, so we therefore know of no wooden boats of that size").
Your comment about space-frame construction only being discovered in the 20th century is itself ''based'' on your evolutionary views. Evolutionists believe that man has evolved to be smarter and smarter, so in the past was too primitive to invent great technology. Creationists, conversely, believe that man was created without blemish, and has ''deteriorated'' since. It follows that man was ''smarter'' in the past (although lacking the accumulated knowledge that we have built up over time). Therefore, how do you know that Noah (or God for that matter, as he gave Noah the instructions) didn't know about space-frame construction, and that it wasn't ''rediscovered'' in modern times? Your basis for rejecting this possibility seems to be your evolutionary paradigm, not any inconsistency with the facts nor the creationary view.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:45, 29 March 2007 (EDT)