What scientific fields are the most/least tolerant to Creationists?

[Northeast Rep Snowball]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is not proof.

This is a statement from a book. Now, I could accept it as evidence but I would have to have a reason to do so rather than accept it as so. I have no reason to do so. For me, this piece of evidence - without further corroboration - is as much as evidence as quotations from the Illad or the Vedas or a copy of Batman would be. Which is to say of no worth whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I'm aware of the theology (I'm doing research on New England Puritanism atm btw) - but again, this fails basic epistemology. I have to have some reason to accept what you say is true. I currently have none as of this present moment. Would makes your truth claims superior to anyone else's?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above.

I will now add that find this particular idea from the bible particularly obnoxious. It's an act of profound self-importance on Man's part to think that he (and it is he) was created as an ideal of the ultimate. We are a remarkably provinicial species.

Are you intentionally dense?  You asked me to “defend the idea that man was created in God's image”…which is stated in Genesis 1:27, so I merely quoted that section to PROVIDE CONTEXT, not to “prove” it true by merely quoting.  And I am assuming you’re going to allow the God of the bible, from which the statement comes, to be God for the sake of this argument, otherwise there is no basis for discussion.


…and if you would bother to look at the context, the very next verse (Gen 1:28) gives a prophecy about man’s physical dominion upon the earth. 

Does man have dominion over animal life on earth?   Obviously.  Is the statement truer today than when Genesis was written?  Obviously.

So, we can factually state:  man has dominion over the earth and his dominion is increasing.   So, the prophecy of Gen 1:28 has come true, man does have dominion over the earth, which the bible prophesied would be an effect of man being made in God’s image

So, why can’t I use the correct prediction of Gen 1:28 to defend Gen 1:27?!

Also you cannot use the correct prediction of 1:28 to defend 1:27 for one simple reason. Its very vague and easy to foresee, considering the height of egypt during the 1440s BCE. As the civilizations get stronger, its easy to assume that they will continue to get stronger, and that means nothing for the truth value of 1:27

[Associate Justice PiT]

     What scientific field does not have at least elements and subfields within it that rely in large part on the assumptions that life has evolved into the forms that we know today and that the Earth and universe are are far older than 6,000 years old? I'm drawing a blank here.

[© tweed]

as a side remark, YEC relies not only on Genesis 1 but Genesis 5 to find the age of the planet.  unless you believe that metaphorical days 1-5 are 13.7 billion years, and day 6 is now in its 6000th year.  a literal account of Genesis would certainly only allow humans 6000 years or so on the planet.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Most
Biology

What the...?

Isn't it obvious, especially with the theory of evolution?

Most
Biology

What the...?

Oldies hasn't met many social scientists if he thinks that psychologists and other social scientists are among the most likely to be creationists   I, of all people, am probably the second most religious person that I know of in my program.

I don't think psychologists or social scientists are among the most likely to be creationists.  In fact, quite the opposite, which is why I put them in the middle (but behind geologists, due to the age of the Earth debate.)

BTW: I would also rank astronomy near the bottom of the list as well.

[pbrower2a]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

Psychology?

Astronomy establishes the age of the Universe. Paleontology is a farce if one tries to make it fit new-age creationism. Archeology establishes human activity  contrary to an earthly age of 6000 or so years.  Biology on the whole, and especially genetics, tells a different story from Genesis. Geology? Creationists claim that oil-seekers need only memorize such formulas as 'the so-called Carboniferous Era', but one obviously loses something. Chemistry? OK until one starts looking at long-lived isotopes for the ratios of U-238 and Pb-206 or Th-236 and Pb-208.  Physics or mathematics? Both give the tools with which to judge the validity of creationism to the other sciences.

The only way in which to defend creationism is to accuse the Creator of forging a Universe that deceives us into disbelief in Him. God as a forger denies the goodness    

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

Psychology?

Astronomy establishes the age of the Universe. Paleontology is a farce if one tries to make it fit new-age creationism. Archeology establishes human activity  contrary to an earthly age of 6000 or so years.  Biology on the whole, and especially genetics, tells a different story from Genesis. Geology? Creationists claim that oil-seekers need only memorize such formulas as 'the so-called Carboniferous Era', but one obviously loses something. Chemistry? OK until one starts looking at long-lived isotopes for the ratios of U-238 and Pb-206 or Th-236 and Pb-208.  Physics or mathematics? Both give the tools with which to judge the validity of creationism to the other sciences.

The only way in which to defend creationism is to accuse the Creator of forging a Universe that deceives us into disbelief in Him. God as a forger denies the goodness    

Your criticism of Creationism as being incompatible with Science only applies to one form of Creationism, namely Young Earth Creationism.  In the broader sense, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Creationism and Science so long as Creationism does not insist upon a particular timescale.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

Psychology?

Astronomy establishes the age of the Universe. Paleontology is a farce if one tries to make it fit new-age creationism. Archeology establishes human activity  contrary to an earthly age of 6000 or so years.  Biology on the whole, and especially genetics, tells a different story from Genesis. Geology? Creationists claim that oil-seekers need only memorize such formulas as 'the so-called Carboniferous Era', but one obviously loses something. Chemistry? OK until one starts looking at long-lived isotopes for the ratios of U-238 and Pb-206 or Th-236 and Pb-208.  Physics or mathematics? Both give the tools with which to judge the validity of creationism to the other sciences.

The only way in which to defend creationism is to accuse the Creator of forging a Universe that deceives us into disbelief in Him. God as a forger denies the goodness     

Your criticism of Creationism as being incompatible with Science only applies to one form of Creationism, namely Young Earth Creationism.  In the broader sense, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Creationism and Science so long as Creationism does not insist upon a particular timescale.

Then you would have to consider theistic evolutionists as creationists if you throw out a timescale.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Yes, remember not all Creationists are YECs, OECs (such as theistic evolutionists) exist too.

[DC Al Fine]

Yes, remember not all Creationists are YECs, OECs (such as theistic evolutionists) exist too.

I.e. Most of the theists on this forum.

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Would any of the less friendly to YEC fields (biology, geology) tolerate a:

1. OEC that rejects evolution
2. OEC that accepts evolution

[John Dibble]

Would any of the less friendly to YEC fields (biology, geology) tolerate a:

1. OEC that rejects evolution
2. OEC that accepts evolution

1. No. Evolution is well established using things from all of those fields.
2. Yes, depending on how. If by accepting evolution you mean intelligent design, biology rejects that pretty handily. If you're inserting a creator into the process earlier, for instance such as a deist clockmaker god making the universe and then leaving, then those fields wouldn't have anything to say on that.

[DemPGH]

Well, timeframe is not the only discord between Biblical creation and science, although that is a large enough obstacle to overcome. It's clear in the Bible that things were created quickly and as they are - simultaneously, and we know that's simply not true. Humans and all the animals were presumably created at the same time, and we know that is not true. Humans emerged about 165,000 years ago or so, and yet animals in primitive forms are millions of years old. OEC and YEC are closer than they appear, and the "thousand years is like a day" argument would probably be simply laughed at because the endeavors of science run completely counter to a statement / belief like that.

Would any of the less friendly to YEC fields (biology, geology) tolerate a:

1. OEC that rejects evolution
2. OEC that accepts evolution

Part of the endeavor is to discover the origins of life, and if we're crediting a deity, that's not science. There are plausible mechanisms that involve chondrites, amino acids, and the early Earth atmosphere that can account for the rise of life in, I don't know, several hundred million years. If it's all a cosmic experiment by a deity, we simply cannot ascertain that, so we have to stick to what we can ascertain.

[pbrower2a]

Evolution is compatible with God -- so long as one attributes to God the laws of mathematics, physics, and logical reality. Those realities of nature may never be reduced.

So if one's creation story begins "Let there be logical reality so that I can make sense of what I crate,  so on the First Day He created the laws of logical reality." one might have a case. 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

Psychology?

Astronomy establishes the age of the Universe. Paleontology is a farce if one tries to make it fit new-age creationism. Archeology establishes human activity  contrary to an earthly age of 6000 or so years.  Biology on the whole, and especially genetics, tells a different story from Genesis. Geology? Creationists claim that oil-seekers need only memorize such formulas as 'the so-called Carboniferous Era', but one obviously loses something. Chemistry? OK until one starts looking at long-lived isotopes for the ratios of U-238 and Pb-206 or Th-236 and Pb-208.  Physics or mathematics? Both give the tools with which to judge the validity of creationism to the other sciences.

The only way in which to defend creationism is to accuse the Creator of forging a Universe that deceives us into disbelief in Him. God as a forger denies the goodness    

Your criticism of Creationism as being incompatible with Science only applies to one form of Creationism, namely Young Earth Creationism.  In the broader sense, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Creationism and Science so long as Creationism does not insist upon a particular timescale.

Young Earth Creationists aren't necessarily wrong.  Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate; for example, some of the rocks formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have been dated as several million years old by carbon dating technology.

[DC Al Fine]

All in all, Creationism is heavily despised in most of the scientific world, but are there any fields that are more tolerant than others? y contrast, which field is the least tolerant?

I'd say the least tolerant is palentology, but what is the most?

Creationism may be heavily despised by most of the scientific world, but not by science.  Until the scientific world can use a physical process to demonstrate the creation of time, space, matter, and energy...then all science is in agreement with Creationism.

Psychology?

Astronomy establishes the age of the Universe. Paleontology is a farce if one tries to make it fit new-age creationism. Archeology establishes human activity  contrary to an earthly age of 6000 or so years.  Biology on the whole, and especially genetics, tells a different story from Genesis. Geology? Creationists claim that oil-seekers need only memorize such formulas as 'the so-called Carboniferous Era', but one obviously loses something. Chemistry? OK until one starts looking at long-lived isotopes for the ratios of U-238 and Pb-206 or Th-236 and Pb-208.  Physics or mathematics? Both give the tools with which to judge the validity of creationism to the other sciences.

The only way in which to defend creationism is to accuse the Creator of forging a Universe that deceives us into disbelief in Him. God as a forger denies the goodness    

Your criticism of Creationism as being incompatible with Science only applies to one form of Creationism, namely Young Earth Creationism.  In the broader sense, there is nothing inherently incompatible between Creationism and Science so long as Creationism does not insist upon a particular timescale.

Young Earth Creationists aren't necessarily wrong.  Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate; for example, some of the rocks formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have been dated as several million years old by carbon dating technology.

Do you have a link for that? I'd like to check it out.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are other kinds of absolute dating than carbon dating.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate; for example, some of the rocks formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have been dated as several million years old by carbon dating technology.

You do realize that the upper limit of the range of carbon dating is roughly 60,000 years BP don't you?  A carbon dating of several million years old is pure quackery.  Additionally, almost all radioactive C₁₄ is produced in the atmosphere, so anything that releases large amount of underground carbon which lacks C₁₄ will cause problems with measurements.    It is well known that volcanic eruptions typically release copious quantities of non-radioactive carbon which causes samples taken shortly after an eruption to appear older than they really are, and for quite understandable reasons.  Sounds like whoever provided that info to you either is a poor scientist or they were deliberately providing misleading data.

[John Dibble]

Carbon dating is notoriously inaccurate; for example, some of the rocks formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 have been dated as several million years old by carbon dating technology.

You do realize that the upper limit of the range of carbon dating is roughly 60,000 years BP don't you?  A carbon dating of several million years old is pure quackery.  Additionally, almost all radioactive C₁₄ is produced in the atmosphere, so anything that releases large amount of underground carbon which lacks C₁₄ will cause problems with measurements.    It is well known that volcanic eruptions typically release copious quantities of non-radioactive carbon which causes samples taken shortly after an eruption to appear older than they really are, and for quite understandable reasons.

Also, you may not be aware of this but there are forms of radiometric dating other than carbon dating, and those are the ones used to measure truly old things. Also, dating typically involves using multiple methods whenever possible because that provides multiple data points to get a more accurate date range.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I can almost guarantee you it initially came from a creationist source. This is a piece of 'information' that they distribute regularly, either out of ignorance or as you say a deliberate attempt to mislead.

[pbrower2a]

C-14 dating has been shown terribly imprecise because the isotopic distribution is rarely uniform.

U-238 dating of rocks is far more reliable. Find a certain ratio of U-238 to Pb-206, and one gets a reliable age... and as a rule it isn't 6000 years old.

[DemPGH]

There are actually a number of dating methodologies - not just a couple, and certainly not just Carbon. The thing is, they're reliable because what we're aiming for is often a ballpark figure, and they are good for that. When we're talking about something that is eons old, the question is not one of precision down to the day, but to within an acceptable window. The dating methods are fine for that. And again, if we're talking about something found in the Earth as opposed to on the ground, it gets easier because of rock layers and their ages, so you have something to situate it in.