Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 265 (130436)
08-04-2004 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Brad McFall
08-04-2004 5:31 PM


Re: some cleaned down
quote:
I do not even use this idea though if I was to program i might do some Perl with it.
Reading your posts, I assumed that you were always using encryption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Brad McFall, posted 08-04-2004 5:31 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Brad McFall, posted 08-11-2004 12:04 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 107 of 265 (130482)
08-04-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Robert Byers
08-04-2004 3:27 PM


Byers reminder...
All textbooks present the origin of things as factually as they present the origins of the U.S.A.
Robert - please respond to my previous message to you regarding this issue:
http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" -->EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
I fear you are ignoring it because you don't have any examples of textbooks, and are merely restating propaganda you've heard - the simple fact that you use the absolute term "all" is one reason for my view...
Please, prove me wrong and give me some examples...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Robert Byers, posted 08-04-2004 3:27 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 5:11 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 108 of 265 (130767)
08-05-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by pink sasquatch
08-04-2004 8:49 PM


Re: Byers reminder...
Finding texbooks is work and I'm a thinker not a doer.
Rather you should seek out any school textbook that deals with origin issues. That is geology,human evolution,biology etc and you will see that they are not mute on the subject.
The whole controversy in the States is about adding disclaimers etc not about disclaimers for material not written.
It is your country however and if you insist high school or before does not deal with the origin subjects then I stand corrected.
But I bet they do with gusto.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-04-2004 8:49 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-05-2004 5:20 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 109 of 265 (130770)
08-05-2004 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Robert Byers
08-05-2004 5:11 PM


Re: Byers reminder...
Byers, you state:
I'm a thinker not a doer... Rather you should seek out any school textbook that deals with origin issues.
However, you were the one that made the claim (not me):
All textbooks present the origin of things as factually...
Your claim, you provide the evidence. Even just a single textbook that presents a scientific origins theory as fact.
I realize that by you saying "I'm a thinker..." you must be saying that you just think stuff up (make it up), since you repeatedly make broad generalizations as well as detailed assertions with no evidenciary foundation whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Robert Byers, posted 08-05-2004 5:11 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 6:02 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 110 of 265 (130880)
08-05-2004 11:33 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by jar
07-24-2004 10:26 AM


I'm back, and within a few days I'll be responding to all the posts addressed to me. I have a question for Jar, though. You said:
First, can you use the little red button to respond to each post, that way someone knows when you have responded to them.
If I am replying to a bunch of people, is it standard etiquitte to use the "little red button" for each post? I thought it would be better to do one big post, but if not, I guess I could be persuaded to change my ways...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by jar, posted 07-24-2004 10:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by jar, posted 08-05-2004 11:37 PM jt has not replied

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


Message 111 of 265 (130881)
08-05-2004 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by jt
08-05-2004 11:33 PM


If you use one big post, most folk will not know you've responded. By doing it as you did this one, they get notified quickly that you have responded.
This message has been edited by jar, 08-05-2004 10:37 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by jt, posted 08-05-2004 11:33 PM jt has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 112 of 265 (131040)
08-06-2004 3:32 PM


Hey guys, I have a question. Does it make a difference if I call myself an anti-evolutionist instead of a creation scientist?
My position is that it is possible to scientifically disprove/discredit evolution, but it is not scientifically possible to examine (prove/disprove) creation.
If anyone wants me to respond to their post, I will, but I think this clears up a lot of stuff.

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 08-06-2004 4:17 PM jt has replied
 Message 115 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-06-2004 6:30 PM jt has replied

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


Message 113 of 265 (131050)
08-06-2004 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jt
08-06-2004 3:32 PM


Well, since Evolution and the theory of evolution have absolutely nothing to do with creation, I don't see how it can make much difference. But it's fine to describe yourself anyway that you think explains your position. For example, I fully support evolution and also believe in Creation. But those are two different and unrelated subjects.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 3:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:03 PM jar has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 114 of 265 (131071)
08-06-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by pink sasquatch
08-05-2004 5:20 PM


Re: Byers reminder...
Whoops I just realized what your saying. Your saying,I think, that when a textbook talks about the origins it is not saying what the origins were but rather what science in its process has concluded it most likely was as opposed to any other idea. WHEW
Truly as Rush Limbaugh says words matter.
This is not the real world of science presentation PS.
Lets get beyond words and into what words are to do.
We do not think in words but rather pictures in our mind.
Words are used by people to communicate picture to picture. In order to get the same picture we use the same words.
The misuse of words accident or on purpose cause strife.
I wish to put the picture into your mind and the millions of people reading our conversation, I presume, that it is taught and insisted that the origins as presented is a solid truth or fact. Just like they present the holocaust as a fact. For example.
I use the words they teach origins Conclusions ia a assertive way. Also they teach it replaced previous Wrong ideas like the the Bible.
You say they don't teach conclusive origin science and so would leave the picture that nothing is taught.
I am perplexed.
I belive you mean a very strick interpretation of fact/truth that is not employed by society.
I belive your picture in your mind is not the picture most people hold on what is presented as true and what isn't.
To be frank I believe under my cross examining you have had too retreat to a skewed defination of "teaching facts"
We've hit a wall.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-05-2004 5:20 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-06-2004 6:54 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 115 of 265 (131080)
08-06-2004 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by jt
08-06-2004 3:32 PM


Does it make a difference if I call myself an anti-evolutionist instead of a creation scientist?
Not necessarily, since you still have put the conclusion/bias in your title.
A large portion of the problem with 'creation science' is that, (when it is not trying to disprove evolution), it is trying to find hypotheses and evidence to fit a foregone conclusion - which is not science, where the conclusion comes after the hypothesis and evidence.
If you are using science to study evolution, you are doing evolutionary science - it doesn't matter if you confirm or falsify evolution, you are still an evolutionary scientist.
If you come in from an anti- or pro- evolution perspective, (as in you are biased in only looking for evidence against or for evolution), you are not a scientist at all...
One issue I would like you to comment on from an earlier message of mine:
You've defended creation scientists by saying that only some of them practice bad science - Can you provide a single example of a peer-reviewed publication by a creation scientist in a reputable journal? That would settle the dispute whether a creation scientist can indeed practice true science.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 3:32 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:33 PM pink sasquatch has replied

  
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 116 of 265 (131091)
08-06-2004 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Robert Byers
08-06-2004 6:02 PM


Re: Byers reminder...
I use the words they teach origins Conclusions ia a assertive way. Also they teach it replaced previous Wrong ideas like the the Bible.
Again, until you give me some sort of textbook examples, or even some secondary analysis of teaching methods or textbooks, your ideas that public schools teach evolution as fact are nothing but assertions. Also, no public school science class should ever teach for or against the Bible - that would be grounds for teacher reprimand in my mind.
I was taught evolution in high school and Christianity was never mentioned, and I understood that evolution was theory.
You say they don't teach conclusive origin science and so would leave the picture that nothing is taught. I am perplexed.
You continue to be perplexed because you apparently can't, or don't choose to, understand how the scientific method works. Just because evolution is taught as theory instead of fact, does not mean it is not taught at all - that is absurd.
I share your concern that the public is not getting a proper education in science. I believe that teaching a real understanding of the scientific method should be the foundation of science curricula - then we don't have to worry that someone will misconstrue hypothesis as conclusion, or theory as fact. We also would have to worry less that they are mislead by the media, or worse by those spewing false anti-science propaganda.
To be frank I believe under my cross examining you have had too retreat to a skewed defination of "teaching facts"
To be frank, I feel you have ignored my very reasonable comments on science education, and instead continue to write mumbo-jumbo about your misconceptions of science.
Please reread my message in this thread, where I discuss the importance of teaching scientific method and terminology, so that the public isn't fooled or confused into the type of preconceptions you have:
http://EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science" -->EvC Forum: The Nature of Scientific Inquiry - Contrasted with Creation "Science"
If we teach students what a 'theory' is and how it works, we don't have to qualify every theory that is taught.
I'll ask you again, since you didn't answer me the first time I asked:
Do you believe the Germ Theory of Disease should not be taught in public schools? It contradicts the religious beliefs of some, and they would prefer it not taught. What is your stance?
Should the science behind the Germ Theory of Disease be removed or qualified because of the spiritual beliefs of some?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Robert Byers, posted 08-06-2004 6:02 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 117 of 265 (131100)
08-06-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by jar
08-06-2004 4:17 PM


Well, since Evolution and the theory of evolution have absolutely nothing to do with creation...I fully support evolution and also believe in Creation. But those are two different and unrelated subjects.
When I was talking about creation, I meant the seven day, young earth version; that is incompatible with evolution. I apologize for the miscomunication, and I'll be more specific next time.
I don't see how it can make much difference
The difference it makes is that it is clear that I am not claiming to be able to scientifically prove/examine creation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by jar, posted 08-06-2004 4:17 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 8:12 PM jt has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 118 of 265 (131106)
08-06-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by jt
08-06-2004 8:03 PM


When I was talking about creation, I meant the seven day, young earth version; that is incompatible with evolution. I apologize for the miscomunication, and I'll be more specific next time.
The difference it makes is that it is clear that I am not claiming to be able to scientifically prove/examine creation
Put that particular version of creation can be examined. It makes statements about the physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry and biology that can be shown to be false.
And I agree with you; your definition of "creationism" is what is usually understood by it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:03 PM jt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by jt, posted 08-06-2004 8:36 PM NosyNed has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 119 of 265 (131109)
08-06-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by pink sasquatch
08-06-2004 6:30 PM


Not necessarily, since you still have put the conclusion/bias in your title
"Evolutionist" implies bias for, and "anti-evolutionist" implies bias against.
If you are using science to study evolution, you are doing evolutionary science - it doesn't matter if you confirm or falsify evolution, you are still an evolutionary scientist.
Ok, so maybe evolutionary scientist would work. In fact, now that you say it, that sounds right.
If you come in from an anti- or pro- evolution perspective, (as in you are biased in only looking for evidence against or for evolution), you are not a scientist at all...
Here is my plan, so you guys can critique me personally, instead of others, for whom I am not answerable. I am going to get a BS in bioengineering, then a Phd in the genome sciences, and maybe later a Phd in cellular biology. I hope to become a research professor at a major university; I will be working in a lab, observing, hypothesizing, and testing, learning more about the mechanisms which control the replication and modification of DNA, and maybe discovering new ones.
My bias will not affect my research; it has affected the area I want to research (I think that the area of genetics holds many problems for the TOE), but it will not get into my way when I am researching. If I did let it get in the way, my research wouldn't be worth peanuts; that would defeat my goal of doing valid research which shows flaws with the TOE.
You've defended creation scientists by saying that only some of them practice bad science - Can you provide a single example of a peer-reviewed publication by a creation scientist in a reputable journal? That would settle the dispute whether a creation scientist can indeed practice true science.
I don't know if any "creation scientist" ever has been published, and if they called themselves that, I doubt they would be published, because of the oxymoronic nature of the name. It would help my case to have an example like that, but honestly, I don't want to spend/don't have the time to find one. So, to be fair, we can assume for this debate that there is no such article.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-06-2004 6:30 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by pink sasquatch, posted 08-09-2004 2:27 PM jt has replied
 Message 156 by Loudmouth, posted 08-09-2004 6:37 PM jt has replied

  
jt
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 239
From: Upper Portion, Left Coast, United States
Joined: 04-26-2004


Message 120 of 265 (131112)
08-06-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by NosyNed
08-06-2004 8:12 PM


Put that particular version of creation can be examined. It makes statements about the physics, cosmology, geology, chemistry and biology that can be shown to be false.
YEC, 7D creation can be falsified, but it cannot be observed, and its cause and mechanisms cannot be examined. Its falsification is possible, but to be studied by science needs more than falsifiability, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 8:12 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NosyNed, posted 08-06-2004 8:46 PM jt has replied
 Message 155 by lfen, posted 08-09-2004 6:18 PM jt has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024