Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons for Creationist Persistence
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6100 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 166 of 220 (399210)
05-04-2007 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by nator
05-04-2007 11:17 AM


Re: don't be too hard on us
nator writes:
But are they really "good Christian men" if they lie, distort the evidence, misquote scientists, and fail to correct their errors even when they are publically shown to be wrong?
I should have clarified that statement. I meant to say that from our perspective at the time, they are good Christian men. Without sites like Talk.Origins and this fine site, we might never realize their claims are disputed. As far as whether they are good Christian men, I think they are all probably different, with some truly believing what they say, and some in it for the fame or money. In a few of the replies above I tried to discuss my own opinions on a few of the leaders though I must qualify they I don't know any of these men personally.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by nator, posted 05-04-2007 11:17 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 3:13 PM Pete OS has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 220 (399217)
05-04-2007 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:07 PM


good posts
Welcome to the fray, Pete OS.
If your asking how I reconcile my views of science with my views of inerrancy of the Bible...well, if you have seen a few other threads I have started such as “How Literal is Genesis” in the Faith and Belief forum; you can see I haven't arrived at that yet. It has only been a handful of months since I started concerning myself with it.
I'm wondering if you are up to posting a Belief Statement thread on Columnist? There are a couple of examples there to look at.
As silly as this sounds to us, they truly believe mainstream scientists are closed minded and/or protecting their career, and that only the general population will truly be receptive to the TRUTH.
Or that is the party line anyway. Where I fault them is not taking out references to known misinformation, fallacies and frauds. Sure they say Hovind is unreliable, but they don't say that he is spreading false information. That inability to police their own website for misinformation, fallacies and fraud makes all their pages unreliable.
Do you know of any creationist site that does either answer the refutations or change their pages?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:07 PM Pete OS has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ringo, posted 05-04-2007 3:20 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 170 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 3:25 PM RAZD has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 168 of 220 (399235)
05-04-2007 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 1:09 PM


On Ethics and the lack of ethics in Theology
One problem is that in religion there is no internal ethics policy or procedure.
That may sound contradictory and an extreme claim, that religion is without ethics, but let me try to explain.
In the world of science, you are expected to make your finding public and freely distributed throughout the community, for the purpose of criticism, testing and replication.
This means that you must publish both that data which supports your conclusion as well as the data that does not support it.
Someone in science who publishes false data or even withholds negative material, when discovered, is sanctioned. Sanctioned not for being wrong, but for being dishonest. In addition, the sanctions are extreme and far reaching.
If a scientist is discovered simply withholding data, or worse falsifying or misrepresenting data, it is very likely that not only will they be thrown out of the profession, every single piece of work they have done in the past will be called into question.
There is nothing comparable to the ethics system found in science in the realm of theology.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 1:09 PM Pete OS has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-06-2007 11:22 AM jar has not replied
 Message 199 by Phat, posted 06-03-2007 9:47 AM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 169 of 220 (399237)
05-04-2007 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
05-04-2007 2:01 PM


Re: good posts
RAZD writes:
Do you know of any creationist site that does either answer the refutations or change their pages?
I know of one change - that last update is thanks to me. He removed a reference to the infamous "vertical whale".
The remainder of the two-year email exchange was less fruitful. He (almost) admitted to me once that Steve Austin screwed up the Mt. St. Helens dating thing, but the rest of the page is still Mt. St. PRATT.
He doesn't answer my emails any more.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2007 2:01 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Pete OS
Junior Member (Idle past 6100 days)
Posts: 31
Joined: 04-26-2007


Message 170 of 220 (399239)
05-04-2007 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
05-04-2007 2:01 PM


Re: good posts
RAZD writes:
Where I fault them is not taking out references to known misinformation, fallacies and frauds. Sure they say Hovind is unreliable, but they don't say that he is spreading false information. That inability to police their own website for misinformation, fallacies and fraud makes all their pages unreliable...Do you know of any creationist site that does either answer the refutations or change their pages?
I think AiG makes at least some attempt to remove unreliable information, correct the references, and occasionally admit when they have been in error. I'm sure not to the satisfaction of others though. The quality goes sharply down hill after them.
I agree that they should make a stronger statement then "Hovind is unreliable". I'm guessing it is important for them not to create too much stir since they don't want to make it look like creation science is undecided among itself. That is one of their very attacks on main stream science! I have seen letters which they have posted where they get criticized for having any criticism whatsoever of another creation scientist. That people believe in a literal genesis is much more important to them then why they do. It would be more fitting if they clearly spelled out Hovind's errors, and honestly I thought I once saw a page where they did, though I can't find it at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 05-04-2007 2:01 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Archer Opteryx, posted 05-06-2007 11:16 AM Pete OS has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 171 of 220 (399525)
05-06-2007 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Pete OS
05-04-2007 3:25 PM


Re: good posts
Pete OS:
I'm guessing it is important for them not to create too much stir since they don't want to make it look like creation science is undecided among itself. That is one of their very attacks on main stream science!
Yes, Pete, and another one of their favourite charges is fraud. But it's hard to play the 'hoax card' on old news like Piltdown Man when you're publicly disavowing the likes of Hovind, Baugh, and Wyatt in the present.
I'm sure one reason for the tepid wording, though, is that they still have Hovind supporters in their group. They can only say so much in trying to distance themselves from the man before they lose those people. At that point any statement they've posted likely gets withdrawn.
_______

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Pete OS, posted 05-04-2007 3:25 PM Pete OS has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 172 of 220 (399526)
05-06-2007 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by jar
05-04-2007 3:13 PM


Re: Lack of Ethics in Religion
You got that right, Jar. The biggest problem with religion is the lack of quality control.
Don't you wish Jesus retained legal rights to his name? We'd see it on the label of a lot fewer bogus products.
_____

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jar, posted 05-04-2007 3:13 PM jar has not replied

  
Tyberius
Junior Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-30-2007


Message 173 of 220 (402900)
05-30-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mjfloresta
04-09-2007 1:47 PM


Re: The Current Plan of the Christian Cult of Ignorance
The main point is the fact that evolution is not possible due to the Natural Laws and Science. It has been proven that there has not yet been a lab experiment showing mutations(EVOLUTION) as ever making new genetic information. Every doctor will tell you that mutations are rarely for the good and in the very rare occasions they still result in the loss of genetic information. How is it possible for molecules to man then? Without even talking about apes turning into a man, how can you say that molecules slowly gained new information when that goes against the laws of nature!!! I mean, you don't have to become a creationist because that requires faith. But at least admit your "theory" of evolution isn't even possible!!!
Also the claim that viruses evolve to be resistant to antibiotics. Viruses never mutate for the better, into organisms with more information. For example: viruses sometimes get a bad mutation which hinders the bacterias ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus making the virus "immune" to the antibiotic. The virus does not mutate into a better organism ie:a virus slowly turns into a fish with more genetic info than when it began.
Evolution isn't even a probable theory for existence. It's own science goes against it. It has only become popular because people are not told about the major flaws. Going against the laws of nature with evolution is like trying to go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics with perpetual motion.
You don't have to become a creationist, but please, take a deeper look at how evolution mocks the laws of nature and science.
Edited by Tyberius, : No reason given.
Edited by Tyberius, : providing more info about virus and antibiotics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mjfloresta, posted 04-09-2007 1:47 PM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Taz, posted 05-30-2007 4:51 PM Tyberius has not replied
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 05-30-2007 5:25 PM Tyberius has replied
 Message 179 by Omnivorous, posted 05-30-2007 6:43 PM Tyberius has not replied
 Message 180 by Chiroptera, posted 05-30-2007 8:15 PM Tyberius has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 174 of 220 (402901)
05-30-2007 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Tyberius
05-30-2007 4:43 PM


Re: The Current Plan of the Christian Cult of Ignorance
Tyberius writes:
Also the claim that viruses evolve to be resistant to antibiotics. Viruses never mutate for the better, into organisms with more information. For example: viruses sometimes get a bad mutation which hinders the bacterias ability to transport the antibiotic into the cell, thus making the virus "immune" to the antibiotic. The virus does not mutate into a better organism ie:a virus slowly turns into a fish with more genetic info than when it began.
Wow, just wow.


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 PM Tyberius has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 175 of 220 (402910)
05-30-2007 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Tyberius
05-30-2007 4:43 PM


Re: The Current Plan of the Christian Cult of Ignorance
Tyberius writes:
... thus making the virus "immune" to the antibiotic. The virus does not mutate into a better organism....
Ummm.... Isn't resistance to death "better"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 PM Tyberius has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 5:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Tyberius
Junior Member (Idle past 6147 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 05-30-2007


Message 176 of 220 (402913)
05-30-2007 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by ringo
05-30-2007 5:25 PM


Re: The Current Plan of the Christian Cult of Ignorance
your not reading it.
IT does not matter that it is "better". It is a degenerated form of the original virus.
For example(kind of jokingly to get the point): If a mutated human was born with 4 arms he could then play more instruments at once or multitask. "couldn't that be better?"
The virus is degenerating and losing information. It does not matter if this seems better. The overall fact remains that it is against science to believe that a virus, let alone a group of molecules could slowly become a better species. Genetics is a lot like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is never a decrease in disorder, always a increase.
You are not being forced to believe creationism. Just that evolution needs to be looked at for its flaws.
Many people counter by talking about the earth and its being naturally created. This has nothing to do with how evolution has its faults in genetics. And believe me genetics is a major flaw that cannot be ignored.
Edited by Tyberius, : more info about evolution at the end
Edited by Tyberius, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by ringo, posted 05-30-2007 5:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by AdminPD, posted 05-30-2007 5:47 PM Tyberius has not replied
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 05-30-2007 5:52 PM Tyberius has not replied
 Message 181 by Percy, posted 05-30-2007 8:37 PM Tyberius has not replied
 Message 182 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-31-2007 7:12 AM Tyberius has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 177 of 220 (402916)
05-30-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Tyberius
05-30-2007 5:35 PM


Welcome to EvC
Welcome Tyberius,
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure.
Using informative subtitles will give viewers an idea of your post content and give them an idea of what direction the discussion is taking.
As members, we are guests on this board and as guests we are asked to put forth our best behavior. Please read the Forum Guidelines carefully and understand the wishes of our host. Abide by the Forum Guidelines and you will be a welcome addition.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant.
Please direct any questions or comments you may have to the Moderation Thread.
Again, welcome and fruitful debating. Purple

Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encyclopedia Brittanica, on debate

Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Great Debate Proposals
    Helpful links for New Members:
    Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 176 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 5:35 PM Tyberius has not replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 178 of 220 (402919)
    05-30-2007 5:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 176 by Tyberius
    05-30-2007 5:35 PM


    Tyberius writes:
    IT does not matter that it is "better". It is a degenerated form of the original virus.
    For evolution to work, two things matter:
    1. The organism has to change - e.g. by mutation.
    2. The "new" organism has to be able to survive and reproduce.
    "Degeneration" is irrelevant.
    There is never a decrease in disorder, always a increase.
    Nonsense, but off topic. We have lots of other threads where people will be glad to show you that you don't know the first thing about science.
    The topic here is "Reasons for Creationist Persistence". If you're a creationist (and a persistent one), maybe you can give us some insight.
    Welcome to EvC.
    Edited by Ringo, : Removed inappropriate subtitle.

    Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 176 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 5:35 PM Tyberius has not replied

      
    Omnivorous
    Member
    Posts: 3978
    From: Adirondackia
    Joined: 07-21-2005
    Member Rating: 7.3


    Message 179 of 220 (402925)
    05-30-2007 6:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 173 by Tyberius
    05-30-2007 4:43 PM


    You are living proof of creationist ignorance.
    1. Antibiotics are used against bacteria, never against a virus--except when some ignorant parent badgers a physician into "doing something" for their kid's viral infection, an error that has helped to prompt antibiotic resistant TB, STDs, staph, etc.
    2. Bacteria almost always develop resistance to a given antibiotic, and that resistant form becomes the dominant strain. How is that not better from the bacterial point of view?
    3. If you don't know the difference between viral and bacterial infections, where do you get off telling anyone anything about any scientific theory? You are demonstrating (like many before you) that the typical reason for creationist persistence is, in fact, ignorance.

    Real things always push back.
    -William James
    Save lives! Click here!
    Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
    ---------------------------------------

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 PM Tyberius has not replied

      
    Chiroptera
    Inactive Member


    Message 180 of 220 (402944)
    05-30-2007 8:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 173 by Tyberius
    05-30-2007 4:43 PM


    Oh, dear!
    Hello, Tyberius, and welcome to EvC.
    Every doctor will tell you that mutations are rarely for the good and in the very rare occasions they still result in the loss of genetic information.
    This is false. If you read the creationist literature carefully, you will see that they do not give a scientific definition of information that is precise enough to determine whether or not it can or cannot increase in an organism's genome. Now, I do understand that some aspects of information theory are relevant to genetics, but in these cases they use a definition of information that actually can and does increase.
    -
    Going against the laws of nature with evolution is like trying to go against the 2nd law of thermodynamics with perpetual motion.
    Evolution does not go against any law of nature that we know of. Not information theory, nor thermodynamics.
    Unfortunately, the sources from which you got this information are lacking in even basic science. It may be due to ignorance on the part of your source (in which case they really have no business publishing on this topic), or it may be due to outright dishonesty. But your sources on this are pretty bad.

    Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 173 by Tyberius, posted 05-30-2007 4:43 PM Tyberius 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