Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 9 of 139 (535442)
11-16-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
11-15-2009 6:23 PM


Most academic historians refuse on principle to "debate" the Holocaust with Holocaust-deniers, and most scientists similarly refuse to debate evolution with evolution-deniers.
You forgot that most historians refuse to ''debate'' with Jesus-Deniers, and yet this subject has come up very often here
It is on forums like these that skeptics can discuss. I think it is essential that skeptics of evolution can have places to discuss their opinions. It is essentially BECAUSE of the very reason you said (qualified professionals don't want to discuss it in the public sphere) that forums like these have to exist.
Imagine an instnce a world where the qualified scientists agreed to debate it, and make this a public debate, where the vast majority of the population is reached. Then the young 13 year old who is being told ''crap'' by his pastor, or similarly the other one was raised in a totally atheist family, being fed godless ideas from birth (I'm taking the extremes obviously, I'm not generalizing) would be exposed to debates between scientists, then he could 'watch the whole race' as Jon said. But since this debate does not take place on the public stage (primarily because the proponents of the ToE refuse to take this responsibility), then it is essential that this takes place on the internet, sicne there are no other places where it can have a large audience.
And obviously, on the internet, you will find a lot of scientifically qualified proponents of evolution, but very, very, veyr few on the YEC side (primarily because those that are interested in the subject are already working for CMI, AiG, etc.). And so the debate becomes very one-sided and artificial (since one side is not well qualified and usually don't have a good understanding ot it), but at least the debate takes place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 11-15-2009 6:23 PM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2009 12:39 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 11-16-2009 6:55 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 139 (535542)
11-16-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
11-16-2009 6:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 11-16-2009 6:55 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 5:01 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 24 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-16-2009 7:36 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 23 of 139 (535550)
11-16-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Wounded King
11-16-2009 5:01 PM


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 ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 5:01 PM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 6:34 PM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 139 (535554)
11-16-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Blzebub
11-16-2009 6:04 PM


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, Psychologist
Dr 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM Blzebub has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:24 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 6:57 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 56 by Trae, posted 11-17-2009 6:32 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 139 (535594)
11-16-2009 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
11-16-2009 6:57 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 6:57 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:22 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 139 (535595)
11-16-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Wounded King
11-16-2009 6:34 PM


You are changing the goalpost, since we are not discussing creationist science peer-reviewed papers.
I am adressing your initial stance that there are no true scientists who know what they are talking about on the creationist side of the debate. This is the position you had that I adressed.
In order to adress this, I used the fact that creationist publish in peer-reviewed journals, just liek every other scientist, and that they do research, just like every other scientist. And that, in fact, they know what they are talking about, just like every other scientist.
Therefore, that they were ''true scientists who know what they are talking about'', and so contradicting your position that no such thing existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 6:34 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2009 10:52 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 2:10 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 34 by Blzebub, posted 11-17-2009 2:49 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 139 (535626)
11-17-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
11-16-2009 10:52 PM


Re: True scientists
you are redefining creationist as one who rejects the scientific method in favor of scripture "divine" revelation as the highest form of knowledge?
But of course, this is not the definition of creationist. It goes more along the lines of someone who believes that God created the universe. (... 6000 years ago for YEC, which is what I am referring to when using simply creationist)
Given the correcte definition, I find it safe to say that someone can be a true scientist and be a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2009 10:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 11-17-2009 11:05 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 37 of 139 (535628)
11-17-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
11-17-2009 2:10 AM


I used two adjectives in my sentence ''brilliant'' and ''qualified''. I was using Sarfati as an example of ''brilliant'' because, well he is. (Anyone else able of playing 12 people at chess while blindfolded. I sure can't ...) and John Sanford as an example of qualified (with his extensive resume of publishing. He was a geneticist who became creationist at age 50. Meaning he spent almost his whole career publishing about genetics from an evolutionnary point of view. I do think it makes him as knowledgeable as anyone in the domain about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 2:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:26 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 3:53 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 39 of 139 (535630)
11-17-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blzebub
11-17-2009 2:49 AM


I don't really know where you are going with this, but I did not make a difference between the two.
A creationist can be a true scientist who believe in a recent creation. Just as a Lamarckian can be a true scientist who believes in evolution in a Lamarckian manner. And an evolutionist a person who believes in evolution is a Neo-Darwinian manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blzebub, posted 11-17-2009 2:49 AM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 11-17-2009 5:12 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 139 (535631)
11-17-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:26 AM


Hey, as I've said. You can't be YEC without being christian. His conversion became before.
But this does not impact the fact that he did become a creationist. He could have very, very easily stayed a proponent of the ToE while being christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:26 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:37 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 139 (535633)
11-17-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:22 AM


God? Where did I mention any gods? And who are these Adam and Eve? We're talking about your long list of scientists whom, having studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6000-10000 years old. I'm merely suggesting that if this were a valid conclusion based upon the evidence, we would see this conclusion evenly spread through the body of scientists, irrespective of religious belief. Do we?
The list were people who accept the biblical account of creation. Not just that the earth is 6000 years old.
The evidence rarely speaks for itself, and is always interpreted. No, you don't arrive at a recent creation by studying the evidence by itself. This does not mean it is therefore a false conclusion. The evidence can however be put up against the biblical account of creation, and see if there is a contradiction. FOr whatever reason that is not the subject here, these scientists think that the evidence fits well with this recent creation idea.
I don't believe I did this. Did I?
I don't recall you doing it in the post I was quoting, but I wrote this for two reasons: because by your text someone was bound to post some sort of similar reasoning. And because it was sounding rather implicit in the text, and in fact it sounds almost explicit in the previous text when you say '' I'm merely suggesting that if this were a valid conclusion based upon the evidence, we would see this conclusion evenly spread through the body of scientists, irrespective of religious belief. Do we?''
Do you want me to list all the evangelical born-again Christian scientists I know personally (ranging from the ex-head of the UK space-program - don't laugh! - through cytogeneticists, doctors, chemists, physicists) who all think creationism is pure idiocy? My list would rival yours, and would be a hell of a lot more prestigious.
Of course, this is not a name calling contest, and I'm pretty sure you would win. I was merely posting what I thought were legitimate scientist, who know what they are talking about, and yet are creationist (to the objections that no such thing existed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:22 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 43 of 139 (535635)
11-17-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:37 AM


Huh? You mean that you can't see the evidence that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old unless you are a Christian. Does God have a special set of Paulian scales just waiting to fall from the eyes of all scientists the moment they accept Jesus into their lives? Curiously, they only seem to fall from the eyes of those scientists who convert in the presence of other creationists
Well, no, obviously, you can't interpret the evidence in a biblical creation account framework without thinking this is the correct framework to interpret them with.
Hmmm, do we know the leaning of those Christians and the church that surrounded him during his conversion? You don't think they themselves may have been creationist? Nah, probably has nothing to do with it
He remained an evolutionist for some years after his conversion, then became a proponent of ID, then finally became a proponent of YECism. He was probably surrounded by evolutionists at work I guess ... don't know about his church ... (although it's a coin flip that it was a liberal church who accepted evolution)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:37 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 11-17-2009 4:34 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 49 of 139 (535740)
11-17-2009 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
11-17-2009 3:53 AM


WK was the one demanding that they publish creaitonist research in order to be viewed as ''true scientist who know what they are talking about''. I find this a bit odd, since I find that simply publishing about your area of research should be sufficient to make you a 'true scientist who know what they are talking about'' ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 3:53 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 11-17-2009 4:54 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 6:02 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 51 of 139 (535742)
11-17-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Huntard
11-17-2009 4:34 AM


Einstein once said in a conversation with Schrodinger that ''it is the theory which determines what one can observe''.
Meaning that, in theory, it is the facts who determine the theory. But in fact, it is the theory which determines the facts.
This may sound like blasphemy, but think about it and I hope you will see that it is in fact the reality of things. If I'm a scientist, I don't just collect data and theorize on it afterwards. No, I start with a theory that I want to prove, and then set out to experiment to prove it. Why does a scientist do 'this' experiment instead of 'that' one ? Because he thinks that 'this' one is the one that will confirm his theory. Of course, sometimes, the experiment shows a contradictory result and you are forced to change your theory. But most of the time, you are only going to adapt your theory as to incorporate the new data. Only when the new data is imposible to fit with your theory do you abandon the idea completely. this is, in essence, what Einstein was talking about. 'The theory determines what one can observe'
Is this not what the early paleontologists did when evolutionnary theory came out ? Even when it was far from an established theory, paleontologist reinterpreted the fossils they had in terms of evolution, and every fossil discovery afterwards was fit in the evolutionnary framework. Heck, some of them even traveled solely to find the 'missing link'. The fact of evolution was not discerned from the fossils, it is rather the fossils who were fitted in the grand idea of evolution.
And I find absolutely no problem with that, because this is how science works in reality. There is always a bias, what you think is true will always bias the experiments you make and how your interpret the results. Philosophers of science explained this very well, and scientists up to Einstein's days had a great understanding of the philosophy behind science, and how it works. Unfortunately, this 'culture of science/philosophy' has been somewhat lost currently, probably because of how the education sytem is built.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 11-17-2009 4:34 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Percy, posted 11-17-2009 9:01 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 61 by Huntard, posted 11-18-2009 4:50 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 52 of 139 (535743)
11-17-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Wounded King
11-17-2009 4:54 PM


I'm saying sites like these exist because the debate doesn't take place on the front stage. And so obviously, I would see them debate what we sometimes discuss around here, every time a good question comes up.
Now maybe I misexpressed myself. I'm not saying to take the scientists out of the labs and into debate circles. I'm talking about the Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, those who listened to Gould's advice to not discuss the creation issue on the front stage, and so creationism would eventually die out lack of credibility. I think we can safely say that after 20 years, Gould was wrong, and the place left by the public debate was taken by the internet forums. I'm thinking about them, if, as many here claimed, creationism is easy as shizzle to knock to the ground and laugh, why don't they do it in the open ? Wouldn't this be everyone's dream to see a debate, organised by a neutral third party, where Dawkins has the chance to give the creation movement the knockout blows ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Wounded King, posted 11-17-2009 4:54 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 11-17-2009 9:21 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 59 by Blzebub, posted 11-18-2009 3:19 AM slevesque has not replied
 Message 60 by dwise1, posted 11-18-2009 3:54 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 63 by Rahvin, posted 11-18-2009 11:48 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024