|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: why creation "science" isn't science | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
So, let's get this straight. If I author a book and it includes false information, I have no responsibility as long as I'm only including it? Fascinating. I don't think you will get very far arguing that.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Gene,
University Press books are almost always peer reviewed. It isn't commonly known outside of folks trying to publish, but tenure standards revolve around books that have been under such review. Larry
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
Wouldn't have guessed that. Thanks Larry.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
I should add, they aren't put under quite the same rigor because the purpose is different than an article, but they are peer reviewed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
What do we think of my post #245 as a response to Cobra's creation theory? No one seems to like it or are ignoring it
------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5054 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
IF??? so-called scientific creationism for any reason that we/you/me bother to post is (otherwise this post would simply be deleted), given that you asked this question I can say that insofar as creation science or scientific creationsm (and I do not know which nor is the distinction so clear in my mind as I type this today) has influenced my scientific attitude that was picked up in popular works and schooling Prior to have heard of or choose to read any of this work subsequently I think (and I will not answer the question with another one)that having "learnt" of Maxwell's pedagogic hope for future (that means me) students to have as gravity, entropy, I do. I think that makes scientific creationism (creating an interest and use for this entropy) "scientific". You may disagree that influencing a student is not making something "scientific" and in some worked out philosphy I guess that could be socially maintained but I am speaking as a biologist who NEeds a handle on "quantitive evolutionary theory" and this "science" knowledge is helpful prior to turning the same work that has made it a trick these days to speak on creation and evolution as not sitting on the fence thought ___________.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 02-06-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7904 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
quote: i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated? they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere, which is what we do. were the caretakers of the earth and god gave us the ability rational thought so that all existence wouldnt end. without us the nothing has a chance for survival over an extended amount of time. ------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3844 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
[QUOTE][b]i have a question how do animals know they have to kill eachother to make sure they dont get overpopulated?[/QUOTE]
[/b] I've never heard of a deer or a gazelle devouring another deer or gazelle to cut down on the population. I have heard of lions eating gazelles out of hunger, and gazelles reproducing until their population is limited by predation or underavailability of food, at which point population growth stops. Animals don't "know" to eat each other, they just have a system that naturally progresses towards a stable equilibrium.
[QUOTE][b]they would undoubtedly spread like a virus unless an intillegent species such as human was to interfere[/QUOTE] [/b] Until the population was checked with competition for food or by predation.
[QUOTE][b]which is what we do.[/QUOTE] [/b] Only after our wanton and irresponsible destruction of ecosystems wipes out the real predators.
[QUOTE][b]were the caretakers of the earth[/QUOTE] [/b] We sure seem to mess things up then.
[QUOTE][b]so that all existence wouldnt end.[/QUOTE] [/b] The most anthropocentric claim I've heard yet. Tell me, do you wander about your yard squashing every third grasshopper you see for fear that they will form a great horde and devour the Earth's plant life? No because their populations are kept in bounds by birds and other predators. Do you uproot sod from your lawn to continually open up space for younger shoots of grass before the whole yard dies of overcrowding? No because if the grass gets too crowded some shoots will die and open up more space. Two decades or so ago we found an ecosystem based around deep sea vents that we haven't quashed yet. Should we mount an expedition to kill every other tube worm down there to open up space before the system collapses? These suggestions are absurd. Why? Because natural ecosystems can stabilize themselves and have been doing so for hundreds of millions of years and would continue to do so even if we were not here. By the way, try to kill mainly the diseased or injured grasshoppers. [This message has been edited by gene90, 02-06-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: I think I know what you mean,
http://www.leohome.com/ladybugs/Workshts/worksht2.htm If there are a lot of predators, they will diminish the prey population. As the prey population diminishes, life gets tough for the predators, & they begin to suffer starvation. As the predator numbers drop off, the prey population can boom again. As the prey population booms again, life gets easier for the predators , & so their population increases..... ad infinitum. Basically you get a graph similar to one in the link. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: As mark said.... basically can be modelled (to a very superficial level) as a set of differential equations with the rate of change in numbers of predators proportional to the number of prey and the rate of chane in prey organisms inversely proportional to the number of predators.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
toff Inactive Member |
I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: The short anwer to your question is, no, they don't read Gould or Dawkins or Dennet. The longer reason as to why this is the case is, I think, because Creationists, in general, have already decided that they are right, because they are coming at the problem from a religious viewpoint. The Bible says X, and the Bible is the word of God, and God can't be wrong, so it doesn't matter what the evidence shows or what 150 years of research has produced. Creation "science" is based upon revelation, rather than evidence, and this is why they find it so easy to ignore evidence. The evidence is secondary to revelation in importance within the tenets of Creation "science". IOW, when all is said and done, it is perfectly acceptable in Creation "science" to ignore evidence and fall back on, "All evidence points to X, but that can't be true, because if X was true, it would contradict the Bible. Therefore, X isn't true, and we interpret the evidence to mean Y." It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to fit nature into Creation "science". ------------------"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow- minded." -Steve Allen, from "Dumbth" [This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-07-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
joz Inactive Member |
quote: I think you mean secondary to the scriptural record (to use a phrase from one of those statements of belief).......
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?"
--I don't know about the other creationists in these forums, but technically I could say the same about many (I ofcourse won't mention any names) Evolutionists that havent had the pleasure of reading some rather abundant creationist literature on subjects, mainly quantifying the many arguments against Noah's Ark Feasability and some points on the Flood Tectonic Action, thoush some are very well thought-out and well worth intelligent conversation. For myself, I try to keep up with as much literature as I can, currently I am more straying into the development of Geology and Geophysics and Plate Tectonics and the like on Earth Behavior, so I have less time to read other literature, and further reducing my ability to read more is being on this board, but ofcourse I always get a good abundance of new information and love to read it when I receive it on the boards. There is a rather lengthly book on Evolution which Gould authored, I will attempt to read it sooner or later, but untill I am satisfied at some reasonable point in my geophysics. ------------------
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
If your accusations were true, I wouldn't be able to survive in these discussions as even a well worth debate. I have already proposed the problem numerous numerous times on why Creation science has nothing to do with being based on the truth of the bible as yourself and few others continually assert. I would wish it to stop unless a creationist implies this definition incorrectly, then and only then could you say that the way they say creation science is, is not a scientific method.
------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024