Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 19 of 139 (535473)
11-16-2009 7:52 AM


i Can Haz EpICAricACy
I thought we did it for the lulz.

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 139 (535548)
11-16-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
11-16-2009 4:14 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 4:14 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 5:58 PM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 27 of 139 (535559)
11-16-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
11-16-2009 5:58 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 5:58 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 10:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 50 of 139 (535741)
11-17-2009 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by slevesque
11-17-2009 4:36 PM


So what are these public debates you are saying scientists should be engaging creationist scientists in about then? Since obviously they aren't going to be about scientific evidence supportive of creationism or intelligent design?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:36 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:01 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 71 of 139 (535935)
11-18-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Arphy
11-18-2009 6:00 PM


So an athiest is not "restricted" to telling the truth, they may "choose" to, but they are not compelled by anything other than what the "choose" to be compelled by
The idea that this doesn't apply just as well to christians/creationists is dotty. If christians don't simply choose to be compelled, because they choose to live their life in a 'christian' way, then how come plenty seem perfectly capable of lying? Do you just put your fingers in your ears and sing to yourself when news about high profile christians lying and cheating comes on? Or instead of singing do you just chant 'No true christian' to yourself over and over again?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 11:19 PM Wounded King 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