Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 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:   2/3rds of Americans want creationism taught.
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 98 of 180 (239555)
09-01-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by jar
09-01-2005 1:10 PM


Re: the truth hurts
Only Naturalistic explanations can be tested, verified, used or known. The supernatural explanation might well be true, but so what? It is useless.
Jar? I thougt you were a theist? Surely it has some use.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by jar, posted 09-01-2005 1:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 09-01-2005 1:21 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 105 of 180 (239574)
09-01-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
09-01-2005 1:33 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
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.
Saying dosn't make it so.
I issued you a challenge earlier.
1 - Can you name One(1) ID/Creationist scientist who is actually persuing SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH in ID/Creation.
2 - This scientist must have a degree from a reputable acredited institution. He must also be schooled in one of the areas of life science. Biology, Zoolgy, or Genetics.
3 - Name this scientists research, experiments, and papers that demonstrate his contribution to creation science.
Can you do it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 1:33 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 1:56 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 108 of 180 (239584)
09-01-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by randman
09-01-2005 1:56 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
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, Gerland Van Dyke, I had mentioned at some length before. He is a YECer.
That's only one part of the question. Which one of those two are currently persuing RESEARCH into ID. What expiriments have they performed, what expirements have they proposed.
In other words, what actual science of ID are they currently practicing?
Will you apologize for making the unfounded accusations?
No. You didn't answer my question. I bolded the important clause of the question for you.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 02:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 1:56 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:11 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 114 of 180 (239603)
09-01-2005 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by randman
09-01-2005 2:11 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
Why don't you google their web-pages and then see the research they are currently engaged in for yourself?
I did. All I find are their books promoting their theory. No actual experiments, lab work, field studies, nothing. Just arm chair conjecture. Where is the actual science they are practicing?
It really seems to me that Behe is streatching his knowledge of science, into some sort of missguided christian apologetic:
Michael Behe - Wikipedia
quote:
While promoting his book and theory, his lectures do not include much tangible empirical testing {scientific data} - instead they feature broad generalizations, rhetorical arguments, and mentions of his Christian faith....
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.
Oh! Am I wrong? Prove me wrong! I'm gonna give you an absolute statemnt.
There are currently NO scientific research projects, being performed by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, being persued in the field of ID/Creationism. Absolutely no experiments have been proposed, no field studies have been done, no credible scientific paperwork has been presented.
There is my position. All you gotta show is that there is at least (1) One experiment, field of study, related to ID/Creationism, that is being carried out by legitemet scientists. Using the scientific method.
Or you can look at some of the work on AIG or ICR.
AIG/ICR is a political, propaghanda, evangelizm site. They don't fund scientific work, nor do they promota any. All they do is deride evolution and never persue any actual science work.
It is interesting with all the money this oragnization has, that they don't fund any reasearch to support their theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 2:32 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 117 of 180 (239608)
09-01-2005 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by RAZD
09-01-2005 2:22 PM


Re: Chiroptera becomes Bonus Round Winner
I must admit, I didn't know the answer off hand. But then again, I can honestly say I have never asked/pondered the question! hehe.
Learn something new every day.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 2:22 PM RAZD has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 129 of 180 (239636)
09-01-2005 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by randman
09-01-2005 2:32 PM


Re: Let's vote on the facts?
1st one: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
What part of this constites scientific research performed by qualified scientists? This paper claims no origional work. It is mearly a collection of data gathered from other articles, then derided, reinterpreted, and twisted to match certain pre-suppositions.
Esentially it's a paper a saying "I know the earth is 6k years old, let me twist the data to fit it." I also find it telling that the bibliography cites ICR and the same magazine as primary sources. The "Scientists" involved are members of ICR.
They don't give their credentials however.
TalkOrigins has an article addressing this particular paper:
RATE's Ratty Results: Helium in Zircons
The results in Humphreys et al. (2003a) and related YEC documents are clearly based on numerous invalid assumptions, flawed arguments, and questionable data, which include:
* invoking groundless miracles to explain away U/Pb dates on zircons,
* misidentifying samples as originating from the Jemez Granodiorite,
* performing helium analyses on impure biotite separations,
* dubiously revising helium measurements from Gentry et al. (1982a),
* relying on questionable Q/Q0 (helium retention) values from Gentry et al. (1982a),
* failing to recognize that the Q0 values (maximum possible amount of radiogenic helium in a mineral) for their samples were probably much greater than 15 ncc STP/μg,
* inconsistently interpreting already questionable helium concentrations from samples 5 and 6 to make them comply with the demands of their "models,"
* seriously underestimating the helium concentrations in the zircons from 750 meters depth and not realizing that their Q/Q0 value for this sample (using Q0 = 15 ncc STP/μg) would be greater than one and therefore spurious,
* not properly considering the possible presence of extraneous ("excess") 3He and 4He in their zircons,
* listing the average date and standard deviation of their 2004 results as 6,000 2,000 years when a standard deviation (two-sigma) of 4,600 years is more appropriate.
* "fudging" old Soviet data that should have been ignored,
* deriving "models" that are based on several invalid assumptions (including constant temperature conditions over time, Q0 of 15 ncc STP/μg, and isotropic diffusion in biotite),
* failing to provide standard deviations for biotite measurements (b values) and then misapplying the values to samples from different lithologies,
* inserting imaginary defect lines into Arrhenius plots, and
* deriving and using equations that yield inconsistent "dates."
2nd) The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Again, this article is mearly a reinterpretation of data. No body of origional research was done to compile it. The credentials of the scientist's involved don't seem to present them as credible geologists:
From AIG:
Michael J. Oard Meteorologist
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?
Sorry, but your answer was not satisfactory. These works do not constitue scientfic research/experimintation. They are mearly fact twising romps down the road of presupositionalism.
ABE: Would you like to see a research paper from Nature so you can see what a proper paper looks like? I can post one for you if you like.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 02:57 PM

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 140 by RAZD, posted 09-01-2005 3:26 PM Yaro has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 152 of 180 (239708)
09-01-2005 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by cavediver
09-01-2005 4:54 PM


Re: the truth hurts
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.
Interesting stuff! I never knew there was so much going on concerning math. I had allways assumed it was just an abstraction of impereicism, but reading thrugh the wiki has made me question that a bit.
I don't know if I buy it all yet, but then again, I'm not a mathematitian . Thanx for the info cavediver.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 09-01-2005 05:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by cavediver, posted 09-01-2005 4:54 PM cavediver has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 156 of 180 (239730)
09-01-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by randman
09-01-2005 5:21 PM


Re: the truth hurts
This is your opinion. Can you back it up?
Define "physical reality" for starters.
Yes. I know only what I observe thrugh my 5 senses. All of those things are by defenition physical. The whol "I think, therefore I am" bit.
Also, define "spiritual."
Scratch that one. I don't belive in spirituality. However, I would say that what people Perceive as spiritual has it's roots in the physical.
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 don't know if I buy this wholheartedly yet. It's tangled up with the phylosophy of mathmatics, which I found quite interesting, however the subject is new to me so I will withdraw from making any conlusions about it.
As far as math being based on objective reality, that's allways seemed the case to me. Perhapse it is not, but it has seemed reasonable to me from what I have read and been taught.
I think a lot of what you say breaks down when you consider what makes up physical reality.
How so? If it is physical, then it is real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 5:21 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 7:28 PM Yaro has replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 160 of 180 (239785)
09-01-2005 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by randman
09-01-2005 7:28 PM


Re: the truth hurts
If you want to talk about the nature of reality/non-reality go ahead and start a new thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by randman, posted 09-01-2005 7:28 PM randman has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 163 of 180 (239894)
09-02-2005 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Phat
09-02-2005 3:22 AM


Re: Sorry to speculate and sound arrogant, but..
Lets concentrate..FIRSTLY...on this word, "dogma." I have actually never met anyone who fervantly feels a relational connection with pink unicorns, magic fairies or flying monsters of any chef! I have read about such people in psychological writings...
Perhapse not those creatures, but I can show you fervent belivers in Hindu mythology that belive it whole heartedly. What would you make of them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Phat, posted 09-02-2005 3:22 AM Phat has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 168 of 180 (239937)
09-02-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by randman
09-02-2005 11:47 AM


Re: Way off topic and science in a non-science forum
Open a thread about the nature of physical reality, I would be happy to respond there. Admin Jar has labeld this Off Topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by randman, posted 09-02-2005 11:47 AM randman 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