Is anything more frustrating than trying to explain science to a creationist?

Question

I suppose scrubbing down an elephant with a toothbrush would be tedious, but I don't know if it would be as bad!

Answer 1

Yes.
Trying to get scientists and creationists to respect one another's pov.....

Here, I found this old electric toothbrush way in the back of the medicine cabinet the other day...you might want to use it on that elephant.

Answer 2

I know it. what gets me is that they think scientific laws govern the universe instead of just describing, they think a theory is an absolute truth instead of just our best guess yet. They want to talk about the religion of science without realizing that science is not a religion. But a practise of total scepticism. And if you tell them that they are not understanding science then they want to say that they can read a table of data, or follow a formula. But it is all about belief with them. They can curse science but they would never read a text and think about what it might mean. they think they are smart trying to prove a theory wrong or demanding we prove the god hypothesis wrong Do they not understand that the first and constant thing that a scientist does is try to prove the theory wrong, so that a new and better theory can be built, one that provides more useful tools for understanding how all of this works. Or that whether or not god exists is not of any use in understanding how it all works. The whole idea of science is to understand enough to be able to make_useful_ predictions of what will happen if we do something one way or another way.
This is hard to explain to them, how the concept of science functions, and what the concepts of science are. that the math and the formulas are the easy part. Any idiot can work an equation, that is what computers are for.
The hard part is to come up with a new idea, a better more useful guess about how reality works.
sorry to run on like this

Answer 3

I'm a creationist and I find science to be quite intriguing. This is a true story - a new science teacher who started teaching the same year my mother did, approached her one day and said all the kids are always talking about how great your class is, can I watch you for a day and see why they enjoy your class and yet I can tell they loathe mine? My mother agreed. When the class was over they discussed what he had written down. She used displays, she did not read verbatim from the book nor asked them too, she used wit, she allowed open discussion - subject focused, and she laughed with the students and corrected in exaggerated means as to show how wrong she must have explained it for them to have not got it - he slowly began to incorporate in his lesson plan more freedom and artistic approaches to science and within two years, his science class was the first to be filled - my mother taught English. So, if you find you are frustrated, maybe you need to consider your approach and explanations and accept that as you probably are not going to be swayed to creationism, a creationist isn't probably going to be swayed by science unless it is to support creationism.

Answer 4

The hard part is trying to explain how free hydrogen gas that ALWAYS EXSITED AND ALWAYS WILL EXIST (matter is forever, under the current sets of laws, Anti-Matter notwithstanding -- MATTER CAN'T BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED, that fundamental physics in the real world, it's also what is said about GOD, God always existed and always will, my how Science and Religion can sometimes agree on generalities) eventually Banged and created planets and stars and complex matter and then several amino acids came together to form the Amoeba, which eventually mutated into everything else and one day...

This is the hard part to explain

Some monkeys (or whatever) started making MUTANT babies with less hair, no claws, smaller teeth. OF course the FACT that in the animal kingdom such "babies" are left and deserted. Animals generally desert defects.

OK, so enough of these "defects" come out in the SAME LOCATION to make 25 couples (the scientific required amount to create a pure gene pool free of defects) which means 50 male mutalnts and 50 female mutants, all within 5 miles of each other in the African or South American jungle, filled with snakes, lions, tigers, elephants, monkies, etc, all of whom can over power the new little mutants with their thin skin, flat teeth and finger nails.

Then these defects get together make babies which eveolve even further and become Africans, South American Indians, certainly not WHITE BLUE EYED SCANDINAVIANS, we have no archological evence to show cultures OLDER in Denmark or Sweden than in Afica or the Middle East or even France.

And then this new spiece starts out numbering the Lion, Triger and Bear population in only 250,000 years?

I mean Lions have mutliple offspring! Humans rarely make twins.

And, of course, it tooks thousands and thousand of years to make tools and weapons so MAN, in the jungle a NEW SPIECES, smaler, frailer, with no incisors and no claws what, out hides lions, Tigers, crocodiles and snakes?

The do this successfully for 250,000 years?

Now, here's an assignment for you that will get you a NOBEL PRIZE if you make it happen.

Go get a big bottle. Clean it out. Throw in some Animo Acids and then starting thinking of things to do to make an Amoeba happen from just Amino Acids.

Shake it, stirr it, heat it, cool it, do a rain dance around it.

Whatever it takes to make ONE AMOEBA.

Science has yet to do that and until SCIENCE CAN all it is saying is:

GET READY, THE BIG ONE IS COMING. We don't know when. We don't know where. But it's coming! How do I know. I Have a PH D In Big ONe PRedictology!

I be an expert!

Don't laugh at creationists until you put a picture of a chimp up and start to claim you're a Monkey's Nephew.

WE happen to want to beleive WE COME FROM BETTER STOCK THAT THAT!

Got a problem with that concept!

Got a problem with not wanting to think of one's self (like most women tend to think of us) as some hairy ape!

Now, go shake up that bottle Amino Acids and DON'T COME BACK TO YAHOO ANSWERS WITH QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU CAN SHOW US AN AMOEMBA YOU CREATED OUT OF NOTHING and we might start calling you God and write books about you!

Answer 5

When you get done scrubbing the Elephant, remember this Carbon dating is not accurate.. All the millions & Billions of years are not true.. Dinosaurs were here with man.. Jurrasic Park is a fiction movie..

Rev 6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.

Answer 6

Yea - science still has not shown how life came from nothing. We are just supposed to believe life just happened - we are all mishaps of science.

Well - you may be a mishap, but I was created by a living being. Has science changed since the beginning?

First there was no life then BANG there it is!! Even then cave men believed in a higher being - You smarter than cavemen?

Sorry - but your question was just funny!

Answer 7

EVOLUTION

The introduction to Genesis and to the whole Bible ascribes everything to the living God, creating, making, acting, moving, and speaking. There is no room for evolution without a flat denial of Divine revelation. One must be true the other false. All of God’s works are good, great, wondrous, and perfect.

Man starts from nothing. He begins in helplessness, ignorance, and inexperience. All his works, therefore, proceed on the principle of evolution. This principle is only seen in human affairs: from the hut to the palace; from the canoe to the ocean liner; from the spade to the plowshare to machines. But the birds build their nests today as at the beginning. There is growth and development within man, but no passing, change, or evolution out from one into another.

For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be evident stages of evolution today. You would be able to find species in many stages of evolution in nature right now. For this theory or fallacy of evolution to be true there would be no God. And that’s exactly what evolutionists believe and are trying prove. The evolutionist bases his or her conclusions on human assumptions and reasoning, instead of on the documentary evidence of the manuscripts.

Answer 8

Science's scope does not include things you can't see like a God that is outside of space and outside of time.

Science needs to stay at its purpose which is to explain natural laws with formulas and put these rules to practical use. If a scientist thinks he can just dismiss parts of the infinite universe because he/she can't see them here, then they are acting insane. It is better to admit that you can't disprove God or prove God with science.

Answer 9

Trying to explain Richard Lewontin to Stephen Jay Gould. RL knows he's an evolutionist for religious reasons and admits it, publicly. SJG is in the same situation, but try getting him to admit it...

Answer 10

You forget that none of us where there when it all happened.

Evolution is a theory based on interpreting scientific evidence with our finite minds.

Creation is a written testimony by someone who claims they heard it firsthand from the Creator. It doesn't conflict with scientific facts, but differs from some people's scientific theories.

You have your theory and I have mine. I just happen to believe there is more scientific evidence (and more) to prove mine than there is to prove yours.