|
Author
|
Topic: 2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4928 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
asked and answered If you guys won't accept Behe, then we have nothing to talk about. There is no level of accreditation you would accept. Talking with you guys is useless over this. It's like I say the sky is blue, and you insist it is orange and no amount of data can convince you otherwise.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 134 by mikehager, posted 09-01-2005 3:09 PM | | mikehager has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 137 of 180 (239654)
09-01-2005 3:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
09-01-2005 2:32 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
from: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The Creation Research Society (CRS), a scientific society with worldwide membership, is recognized internationally for its firm commitment to scientific special creation. First, members of the Society, which include research scientists from various fields of scientific accomplishment, are committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history. Thus, they advocate the concept of special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and of the earth with its complexity of living forms. All members must subscribe to the following statement of belief: 1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. 2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds. 3. The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect. 4. We are an organization of Christian men and women of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and one woman and their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ as our Savior. (bold, yellow, mine for emPHAsis) Now, there is a basis for scientific freedom of thought. And you claimed Message 101 "ToE itself cannot be real science, but the indoctrination techniques, pseudo-logic and values-system employed by evos in the teaching and presenting of evolution is in need of correction ... " when you think this is science? riiiiight. ... far right Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand
Rebel AAmerican .Zen [Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 119 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:32 PM | | randman has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 145 by deerbreh, posted 09-01-2005 3:36 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: 07-04-2004
|
|
|
Message 138 of 180 (239657)
09-01-2005 3:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
quote:
asked and answered
em..with examples who didn't seem to be doing anything.. Behe is an interesting one and I'll search for the actual quote (or I'll retract this statement in the morning) - he says he doesn't even try to put stuff in peer-reviewed journals and one of the main reasons is that he can make more money the other way.
quote:
If you guys won't accept Behe, then we have nothing to talk about. There is no level of accreditation you would accept.
Common creationist tactic, you are trying to argue the scientists not the science. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:25 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Sep-2005 03:26 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 139 of 180 (239658)
09-01-2005 3:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 126 by CK
09-01-2005 2:44 PM
|
|
Re: What a joke
heh, ya beat me to it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 126 by CK, posted 09-01-2005 2:44 PM | | CK has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 140 of 180 (239661)
09-01-2005 3:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 129 by Yaro
09-01-2005 2:52 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Education:
B.S. Atmospheric Science, 1969, University of Washington
M.S. Atmospheric Science, 1973, University of Washington Why is Mr. Oard qualafied to speak about geology?[/qs] Because he's light on basaltics and full of hot air?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 129 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 2:52 PM | | Yaro has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 141 of 180 (239662)
09-01-2005 3:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
09-01-2005 2:42 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
The truth is you guys are just wrong. That's a convincing argument.
Clearly there is a host of scientists doing a lot of research, work, etc,...in creationism and ID. Apparently clearly only to you. A host? My dictionary says a host is a multitude. How many is a multitude? 100, 1000, 5000? How many ID scientists are there outside of the handful at the Discovery Institute and how many creation scientists are there outside of a handful at the Creation Science Institute? And so what if there were a host? "Research, work,etc." does not equate to scientific research. There are people doing research, work, etc. on therapeutic touch therapy, palm reading, and astrology as well but that doesn't make them sciences.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:42 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17828 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 2.3
|
|
|
Message 142 of 180 (239665)
09-01-2005 3:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
And this demonstrates why you are suspended from the science forums. Instead of supporting your assertion you demand that it is simply believed. And in a rather insulting way, suggesting that the mere idea that your opinions could be incorrect is equivalent to suggesting that the sky is orange. You didn't even bother to find out if the paper written with Snokes had been published (it was - and the current issue of Protein Science contains another paper rebutting it).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 143 of 180 (239666)
09-01-2005 3:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 135 by randman
09-01-2005 3:12 PM
|
|
Re: thanks for your honesty
You are again mistaken. First, what is a circular argument? It is an argument in which the conclusion is assumed as a premise. For instance: P1. The bible is divinely inspired to be true. P2. The bible says God exists. C. Therefore, God exists. C is necessarily implied in P1, so the argument is circular. Now, to break down the argument you are referencing: P1. Science addresses that which is testable. (By the definition of "science") P2. Science journals publish only articles which peer review concludes are science and will not publish others. P3. Both ID and YEC require elements that are not testable. C1. ID and YEC are not science (By P1 and P3). C2. Science journals will not publish YEC and ID articles (By P2 and C1). The opinion that journals should not waste their time in reviewing ID and YEC articles for publication is a corollary to the above. The argument is in no way circular.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 135 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:12 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
mikehager
Member (Idle past 6496 days) Posts: 534 Joined: 09-02-2004
|
|
|
Message 144 of 180 (239670)
09-01-2005 3:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
The answer was inadequate and I showed why. I'm sorry if you don't like that. Perhaps you can reply with something more substantive than "Is too!" Perhaps we should lower the bar for you, Randman. You support Behe as a researcher doing significant work in ID. I will be satisfied if you can produce of reports of actual experimental attempts by Behe to prove an hypothesis that directly supports ID from any even semi-reliable source. We will remove the whole peer-reviewed journal requirement. Is Behe doing anything other then writing popular books and articles?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 145 of 180 (239671)
09-01-2005 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by RAZD
09-01-2005 3:18 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
The Creation Research Society (CRS), a scientific society with worldwide membership, is recognized internationally for its firm commitment to scientific special creation. Note what the CRS leaves out here. "Worldwide membership" but how many members? And who can be a member? Most scientific societies require scientific credentials in the field. You don't just pay your money and you are in. You usually need a M.S. or a Ph.D. or some equivalent or at least are a student getting one of those degrees (and the student status is for a limited time - if you don't get the degree they drop you). I don't know but my guess is that anybody who signs the loyalty oath and pays the dues is in, regardless of their scientific credentials.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 3:18 PM | | RAZD has not replied |
|
deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2922 days) Posts: 882 Joined: 06-22-2005
|
|
|
Message 146 of 180 (239677)
09-01-2005 3:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Randman writes: It's like I say the sky is blue, and you insist it is orange and no amount of data can convince you otherwise. Pretty good example of projection there, not? How about if we put it this way? It's like if I say the theory of evolution is true, and you insist "God did it!" and no amount of data can convince you otherwise.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 4.5
|
|
|
Message 147 of 180 (239681)
09-01-2005 3:55 PM
|
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
09-01-2005 2:42 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
randman writes: In fact, the vast majority of research by evolutionists is not research to validate ToE since they assume it as a given, but they research various areas and apply the ToE assumption to the research.
You demonstrate a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. We adopt scientific theories because of their goodness of fit, not because of their "validity". Nobody is researching the validity of the theory of gravity either, nor that of the theory of general relativity. However, any serious problem in fitting the data would be quickly noticed. We check the validity of observations. That's what the replicability of results is all about. But the requirement for theories is different from the requirement for observations. If you want to overturn the theory of evolution, then you must either produce a replacement theory which is an even better fit, or you must find incontrovertible data which is such a bad misfit that it cannot be accomodated within the theory.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 125 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:42 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
Chiroptera
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 148 of 180 (239687)
09-01-2005 4:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 147 by nwr
09-01-2005 3:55 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
quote:
We adopt scientific theories because of their goodness of fit, not because of their "validity". Nobody is researching the validity of the theory of gravity either, nor that of the theory of general relativity. However, any serious problem in fitting the data would be quickly noticed.
Very nice way to put it. I'll have to use this one myself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 147 by nwr, posted 09-01-2005 3:55 PM | | nwr has not replied |
|
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2522 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: 08-09-2005
|
|
|
Message 149 of 180 (239693)
09-01-2005 4:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
09-01-2005 3:15 PM
|
|
Re: Let's vote on the facts?
There is no level of accreditation you would accept. Kettle, it's me Pot, you're black. Kinda stinks when the other side won't accept what you are saying, doesn't it Randman? This is exactly what we've been dealing with from you. We present evidence. You simply state that you don't accept it. Guess what, you don't get to complain about people treating you the same way you treat them.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 136 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 3:15 PM | | randman has not replied |
|
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: 06-16-2005
|
|
|
Message 150 of 180 (239702)
09-01-2005 4:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by Yaro
09-01-2005 9:02 AM
|
|
Re: the truth hurts
L What about mathematical truths?
Cannot there be valuable truths which have no physical component? No actually. Just as an aside, Yaro, not all mathematicans think this way, and to present this as anything other than your particular take on mathematics is misleading. I certainly disagree with your post. Check out Link for an introduction into the various takes on this matter. Edit for spelling This message has been edited by cavediver, 09-01-2005 04:55 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 9:02 AM | | Yaro has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 152 by Yaro, posted 09-01-2005 4:59 PM | | cavediver has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2