|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the point of this forum? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 792 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
I would have to say that, even though it appears to be geared to "evolutionists", this site gives creationists and religious zealots an extremely fair opportunity to state their case. Just look at all Calypsis4 has been able to spout off unabated.
I have learned more here than I have in all my time searching the internet, namely because specific issues are addressed by people with different points of view. just look at how many interpretations of the bible by people that claim the same god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 154 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined:
|
and most especially Crashfrog I've been wondering where Crash vanished to, too. I liked his/her aggressive stance. Hope s/he's okay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
I arrived here at EvC as a charismatic evangelical Christian. I would have NEVER guessed that. Even back then, I didn't tolerate bullshit with a particularly Christ-like level of patience - should see my old conversations with Randman...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
I thought we did it for the lulz.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
cavediver writes: As an aside, whatever happened to Crash? He seemed to quietly slip away around the time of the Purge. Yes, although I think he left enough before the Purge as to say that it wasn't the reason he left. But it could be the reason he stayed away... not sure. Crash and Dan Carroll both had the same impact on me. Reading their posts to others is what forced me to account for certain... facts of reality. The two of them had wonderful posting personalities which included tearing off an opponent's stupidity, then beating them with it; all the while forcing you to laugh and see the light of logical rationalization at the same time. Unrelenting advancement of factual reality in an entertaining and educational way, what more could you ask for?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Of course, when I talk about making debates and putting it on the front stage. I was meaning real debates between true scientists who know what they are talking about. (Not idiots like Kent Hovind)
And of course, as I've said, if certain evolutionists would take the responsibility Iw ould like them to take, then the debates would be as unbiased as can be. I would absolutely LOVe for someone like Dawkins to organize a debate himself, instead of always going there on invitations and then complaining that it was biased. (Besides, he only debates with theistis evolutionists anyways)
The creationists also LOVE to gish gallop, then claim victory. And for the layperson, it appears as such, since the scientist can't possibly be an expert in every field raised by the creationist (hence the despise for Gish Galloping). Of course, and this is why a multi-panel debate should be the way to go. Organisms like CMI have scientists in just about every domain. But as I've said, the debate does not take place for the simple reason that the Very qualified evolutionists do not want to debate. They want to silence the discussion, make it seem as there is no debate. Because of this, the Qualified creationists also rarely debate, since they want to debate the knowledgeable evolutionists usually. And so we are left with people such as Kent Hovind and unknown evolutionists doing the debates, which are often biased because organized by Hovind. It all stems from the major proponents of evolution not wanting to engage the issue on. (Which itself comes historically from Gould saying that if they did not debate the issue, then there would be no isue eventually. That was back in the 80's, and I think it is safe to say that he was not right as the debate is even more presen now then it used to) AbE I've had quite the difficulty expressing the idea I wanted to convey lol, I hope it makes a bit of sense. (I speak french ...) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
I was meaning real debates between true scientists who know what they are talking about. (Not idiots like Kent Hovind) There essentially are none on the creationist/ID side. If there were they would be producing a substantial body of research, and it simply isn't there. The idea that science should be resolved by live public debates is the sort of thing only people who don't actually do science want to believe. That may have been viable a century or more ago but now it is done in the labs, in the field and at scientific meetings. If you think there should be a scientific debate then the correct venue would be where actual science goes on, at research conferences and in the research literature. Of course they don't want a scientific debate, they want to baffle the public with bullshit, they don't care what actual scientific research shows. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Of course, I'm not proposing to settle science with debates lol, I'm developping on the subject of the OP which was what utility this forum had, since the qualified scientists don,t debate it in the public sphere.
In brief, I was saying that if the qualified scientists did debate this in the public sphere, then the consequence would be that this forum would have less utility.
There essentially are none on the creationist/ID side. If there were they would be producing a substantial body of research, and it simply isn't there. There are very brilliant and qualified scientists in the creationist camp. Sarfati was copublishing in Nature at 22 years old. I know you know bout John Sanford, and so only by his example it shows that your comment was much more smokes and screens rather than a factual statement. Besides, between 1980 and 1983, Euginie Scott studied creationist publishing practise in 68 journals and found 135 000 submitted papers from creationists (with only 18 that could be described as advocating scientific creationism) In other words, creationist scientists publish just as much as any scientists, they just don't give an evolutionnary explanation at the end of the paper. So when I talk of '' true scientists who know what they are talking about'' and you respond ''there are none'', It seems much like elephan hurling to me ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5231 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
But as I've said, the debate does not take place for the simple reason that the Very qualified evolutionists do not want to debate. They want to silence the discussion, make it seem as there is no debate. My point is that there is, in fact, no informed debate about evolution. It's just as much a fact as is the Holocaust. Debating it offers credibility to the misguided.
the Qualified creationists Oxymoron. Maybe no oxy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
My point is that there is, in fact, no informed debate about evolution. It's just as much a fact as is the Holocaust. Debating it offers credibility to the misguided. Just as in the historicity of Jesus, there is no debate amongst the historians. It doesn't stop many people even on this forum to promote it, and even people such as Richard Dawkins to allude to it in his books ... Of course, the idea that it is as much a fact as the Holocaust is a subjective view on your part, and I'm not going to debate that since it won't amount to anything.
Oxymoron. Maybe no oxy. Oxymoron ??? Dr Paul Ackerman, PsychologistDr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr James Allan, Geneticist Dr Steve Austin, Geologist Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony) Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Dr Bob Compton, DVM Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr Andr Eggen, Geneticist Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr George F. Howe, Botany Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr Pierre Jerlstrm, Creationist Molecular Biologist Dr Arthur Jones, Biology Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr John Leslie, Biochemist Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Ral E Lpez, meteorologist Dr Alan Love, Chemist Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr David Menton, Anatomist Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr John Meyer, Physiologist Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist Dr John D. Morris, Geologist Dr Len Morris, Physiologist Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics Prof. Richard Porter Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr A.S. Reece, M.D. Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr David Rosevear, Chemist Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr Ron Samec, Astronomy Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist Dr Ian Scott, Educator Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics Dr Henry Zuill, Biology Yeah I agree, maybe not oxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blzebub  Suspended Member (Idle past 5231 days) Posts: 129 Joined: |
Appeal to morons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined:
|
I know you know bout John Sanford, and so only by his example it shows that your comment was much more smokes and screens rather than a factual statement. Except that it doesn't. Like Behe Sanford prefers to put his creationist writings out as popular science books rather than produce actual publishable research actually supporting his contentions.
135 000 submitted papers from creationists (with only 18 that could be described as advocating scientific creationism) I didn't say people who were creationists couldn't produce scientific papers, probably perfectly good ones, but don't you think that the fact that creationist scientists have produced 135000 papers and only 18 of them are actually supportive of creationism is suggestive? That is only 1 in every 7500 papers. Although I also note these were submitted papers, was there a figure for published papers? After all anyone can submit a paper and it doesn't have to meet any scientific standards.
In other words, creationist scientists publish just as much as any scientists, they just don't give an evolutionary explanation at the end of the paper. I'll let that stand all though you certainly haven't shown any such thing. But surely the point is that they could be using their research to produce creationist explanations? Creationists doing science doesn't produce creationist science any more than jews working in science produce jewish science. I'm sure if we added up all the papers published by people who accept evolutionary theory regardless of the topic of the papers we would get a huge number, but it wouldn't say anything about the validity of, or evidence supporting, evolution. Similarly until they actually produce research supportive of creationism or ID theory all of those creationist researchers aren't doing anything for your argument. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3634 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined:
|
Yeah I agree, maybe not oxy So, all of these suggest that the Earth, Universe, whatever is 6000-10,000 years old? And I'm assuming that they come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds? Hindu, Bhuddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Christian, Agnostic, New Ager, Atheist, Jewish, Islam? and of course from the whole spectrum of these beliefs from most fundemental to most liberal? What's that? No??? The almost total sum of them are Christian??? Huh? Not just Christian, but fundemental evangelical Christian??? Wow, so fundemental evangelical Christians are the only subgroup of scientists not blinded by the propeganda of evolutionism, and the only ones who have the ability to see the real science going on behind the scenes. Jeez, I'm glad you're here slevesque, 'cos we might have missed this otherwise. Oh, can I just say,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 141 days) Posts: 673 Joined:
|
...if certain evolutionists would take the responsibility Iw ould like them to take, then the debates would be as unbiased as can be. I think you are forgetting about Ken Miller (of Dover trial fame) and Eugenie Scott (of the National Institute for Science Education), as well as other evolutionary biologists who debate extensively in various forums. I would vastly prefer to see these biologists in the lab doing productive work and leave the creationists to their delusions. A major reason that debates between evolutionists and creationists seem to often be very one sided in favor of the creationists is that these are contests between unequals; I'm not referring to unequal in the quality of the debater or the logic of their arguments but in the simplicity of their positions. The bible presents a theory - actually two different theories - of creation (in narrative form) that is stated in one-half a page. Contrast this with Stephan J. Goulds "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" which is almost 1500 pages long, and the preface of which spends a few pages apologizing for the topics not covered. A public debate in which the presenter gets 45 minutes to prove his case and 15 minutes for rebuttal is a preposterous venue to argue about evolution (or superstring theory or algebraic topology or ...). The most the defender of evolution can hope to do is present some recent interesting evidence that supports the theory, such as Tiktaalic rosea or Ambulocetus or some other very narrow topic in evolution. This almost forces the Gish gallop. Unlike many of the posters on this forum, I am not horrified, or even dismayed, by the prevalence of creationists and evolution deniers in the US. Public funding for science in this country is quite high and is increasing at a steady pace. While half the country seems to be anti-science, or at least anti-evolution in their responses to various polls, they still gobble up ipods and other products of science avariciously, and when they or a family member has a medical crisis or severe accident, they tell the ambulance driver to take them to the nearest hospital for emergency medical treatment, not to the nearest church for emergency prayer treatment. I am not even overly concerned about the teach of "alternative views" of biological origins in the public schools. There are still a majority of schools that understand the difference between real science and nonsense. Biology departments and companies are not having any trouble finding qualified new-hires. In fact, I think it would be a really neat experiment if we were to take one state, Mississippi for example, and teach only biblical creationism in the public high schools, and another state and teach only flat earth geocentrism. We could then study these kids reactions when they get to colleges (for those of them that go to real colleges and universities) and are exposed to modern science. I think the real threat posed by bible literalist teachings to youngsters is not to the progression of science in this country, but to the continued viability of religious institutions. This is borne out by the large percentage of students raised in evangelical environments who go on to college and wind up rejecting their religious upbringings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4631 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So, all of these suggest that the Earth, Universe, whatever is 6000-10,000 years old? And I'm assuming that they come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds? Hindu, Bhuddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Christian, Agnostic, New Ager, Atheist, Jewish, Islam? and of course from the whole spectrum of these beliefs from most fundemental to most liberal? What's that? No??? The almost total sum of them are Christian??? Huh? Not just Christian, but fundemental evangelical Christian??? Yeah, well to believe that the Christian God created the earth 6000 years ago, and that Adam and Eve were historical People, etc. You pretty much have to be christian, don't you think ? (Unless someone can live with an extreme dichotomy in his head) But of course, to go from ''Only christian can believe in Young earth creationism'' to ''Therefore young-earth creationism is false'' is quite the jump of logic. It neither proves it to be true or false. Furthermore, the intention was to show that the terms ''qualified creationists'' was not an oxymoron.
Wow, so fundemental evangelical Christians are the only subgroup of scientists not blinded by the propeganda of evolutionism, and the only ones who have the ability to see the real science going on behind the scenes. Jeez, I'm glad you're here slevesque, 'cos we might have missed this otherwise. Why do you jump from creationist to evolutionary skeptic ? We were talking of qualified creationists, not the later. Of course, there are skeptics of evolution from a broad spectrum of backgrounds. David Berlinski for example is a Jewish agnostic. There are ''creationists'' amongst the muslims also, who also reject evolutionnary theory, only to replace it with their own idea of origins. Lot's of people reject Neo-Darwinian evolution, that doesn't make them creationist, nor does this force them to be evangelical christians ...
Oh, can I just say, I appreciate you very much, but I would wish you had a little more interest in philosophy. just in order to be able to not jump over the logical hurdles between your premises and conclusion.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024