2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.

Imo, you don't understand and are misrepresenting creationism and creationist scientists. Someone here said something like no credible scientists are creationists, but that's just ignorance talking. There are university professors in biological sciences that are creationists.Take the time to learn what they are saying, and then you can slam them.What you are doing now is arguing with a straw man. Maybe and maybe not, but maybe this is a time when science is beginning to change a little on this. Anthony Flew certainly felt so.But having faith that science will always be right or some such is fallacious on it's own. For one, that time of catching up can take a long time. Around the turn of the century (1900 not 2000), Tesla claimed to have discovered and used over-the-horizon radar, except he referred to it as waves and not radar. He was laughed at, scoffed at, ridiculed and mainstream science disparaged his name and reputation mercilessly, as they still do today although that has changed a little in the past 20-30 years. Mainstream science said it was impossible, against the laws of physics.Well, we rediscovered over-the-horizon radar in the 50s, but mainstream science still did not give Tesla too much credit, and still to this day deny many of his other claims, and in general, even organizations like the Smithsonian do not properly credit Tesla with many things he invented such as radio, the power grid, etc,....Telsa demonstrated wireless transmission of power in a way not well-understood, but perhaps via the vacuum. He claimed to have discovered non-Hertzian waves before 1900, and demonstrated that to Lord Kelvin who agreed. It's not exactly clear what Tesla did, but he seems to have tapped into vacuum energy or manipulation and propagation of energy in a manner not well-understood at all. At one point, in experimenting, he caused shallow earthquakes, and seems to have been able to create resonating waves which could draw out energy that resonated at those frequencies so that the very energy in the fabric of the universe and the earth could be tapped directly.

ToE is not a fact, and unfortunately evos making the claim that is a fact essentially is a large part of why the public needs to get involved and help get this area of pseudo-science back into real science.It's not that 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, and unfortunately, the scientific community just seems to want to pass the buck, dismissing the problems of illogic and false data as merely the responsibility of textbook authors.Well, since that is the case, the public needs to promote a healthier curriculum not riddled with evolutionism, but with a sober and rationale presentation of the data and the underlying assumptions involved in assessing the data.That's real education, and hopefully America's schools can return to that in this arena and get away from some of the propaganda.This message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 01:34 PM

Probably we need to start another thread to get into the energy side of things. Suffice to support the original point here are the examples of his not being credited at the Smithsonian with designing the Niagra Falls power plant (which was a large exhibit), developing ac/dc electricity system for the power grid we use today, and wireless technology.Tesla did claim to develop the technology, and was in the process of building the system at Wardenclyffe when JP Morgan pulled the plug, for a system of wireless transmission and distribution of power to any point on earth. Many have dismissed the concept based on the mistaken impression he was talking about generating all of the power to be distributed. In fact, what he seems to have been doing was generating the frequencies and power to draw power from what he called the ambient energy or the ether all around us.Tesla did work on a lot of things, and it can be confusing sometimes if you mix up one technology with another, but reading some of his stuff more closely and reading others that looked into his work, I believe he was discussing pulling energy from the vacuum, or said another way, he seems to be talking about manipulating energy waves to resonate and tap into what he claimed were non-Hertzian waves that he claimed were all around us at all times.The non-Hertzian quality and some features suggest to me that he was tapping into vacuum energy and figured out a way to produce a flow from that ambient energy into a usable form in the manipulation of frequencies.

Yaro, already done that before, but it's interesting that you are not being censured for your post by the mods.Behe is one, in terms of an IDer, and as you know full well, there are plenty of scientists that are creationists, including the botany professor at NC State, Gerald Van Dyke, I had mentioned at some length before. He is a YECer.But you knew that already, didn't you?Irregardless, you are now shown to be wrong.Will you apologize for making the unfounded accusation?My suspicion is you won't.edited to correct name spellingThis message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 02:14 PM

Why don't you google their web-pages and then see the research they are currently engaged in for yourself?You juvenile posts in this area are not worth wasting time on since you know full well you are wrong, and that plenty of working scientists are doing research that are IDers and creationists.Or you can look at some of the work on AIG or ICR.Moreover, there is no such thing as ID science or evolution science. It's just science. ID, creationism and ToE are merely interpretations of the data accrued by scientists.

The topic is public opinion. Maybe we should get back to that.I believe the public has been moved more to want to include alternatives to ToE not because they are mere dupes, but that there are real problems with ToE, especially in the way it is presented.But the point of the thread is not really to debate the merits of ToE, but to discuss the fact that despite the massive funding for ToE proponents, this issue is not going away.

The topic is public opinion. Maybe we should get back to that.I believe the public has been moved more to want to include alternatives to ToE not because they are mere dupes, but that there are real problems with ToE, especially in the way it is presented.But the point of the thread is not really to debate the merits of ToE, but to discuss the fact that despite the massive funding for ToE proponents, this issue is not going away.

OK, here's some in a creationist peer-reviewed publication. It's a waste of time to try to publish explicit criticism of ToE in evo journals, but some creationists do publish in evo journals, but leave off conclusions critical of ToE. Gentry, for example, published his studies in mainstream journals.The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)I expect a full retraction from you, and if you don't provide it, don't expect me to ever waste my time looking up stuff that you can easily do yourself.This message has been edited by randman, 09-01-2005 02:35 PM

What an idiotic post. No southerner I have ever known wants history to teach the South won. Many do want to characterize the war as an invasion and plunder by Yankee armies, which incidentally is a fairly accurate description of the war.

The problem you and others are making is assuming that there is such a thing as evolution science or creationist science. All research and data is used in both examples.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.The truth is you guys are just wrong. Clearly there is a host of scientists doing a lot of research, work, etc,...in creationism and ID.

Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? | Answers in Genesis

It's refreshing to hear an evolutionist just come out with it and be honest instead of pretending that overtly creationist articles could be accepted instead of dismissed a priori out of hand.

So when you guys argue as evidence for the non-scientific nature of creationism, the fact they are not published or not often published in evo journals, you don't see that as a making a circular argument?Moreover, you don't see that criticism as suggesting that creationist articles "could be accepted"?It amazes me you guys cannot see the self-contradictory and hypocritical nature of such stances and arguments? It really looks like some sort of brainwashing effect, imo.How could you insist no creationist article should be fairly considered, and then argue that the reason they should not be fairly considered is because they have not published in evo journals?The blindness in the evo argument here is astonishing.

asked and answeredIf 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 is your opinion. Can you back it up?
Define "physical reality" for starters. Also, define "spiritual."On the issue of math, it is not considered to be a mere abstraction of physical observations, and in fact, often the math is taken as evidence of what reality should be. In that sense, you could say there is a connection, except that this reality is not so "physical" sense it does not consist solely of observable 3-D space.I think a lot of what you say breaks down when you consider what makes up physical reality.