Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science II
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 211 of 312 (502515)
03-11-2009 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rahvin
03-11-2009 8:32 PM


Similarly, I have asked Kelly how long she's been studying "creation science". I very strongly suspect that it's not been very long, in part because of the quality of her only reported source on the subject. I believe that she's so excited by her first exposure to "creation science" that she came barging out to "blow those evolutionists away." I already shared the story of what had happened to another young creationist; he never knew what had hit him -- it's briefly referenced below.
Again, Kelly, how long have you be studying "creation science"? What makes you think that you know so much more about the subject than those who have been studying it for decades?
Kelly appears to be yet another example of the "P.T. Barnum Effect" that "creation science" cultivates. Here's an excerpt from my "moondust claim" page that discussed the reasons for that effect:
quote:
2001 October 05
A year or two after I had written the above, I showed it to a fundamentalist friend who then wrote to the ICR asking about this moon-dust claim. The response he received was written by one of their graduate students who did not reference the matter of the NASA document (to be honest, I forget whether my friend had mentioned it in his letter), but stated that they no longer use that claim because they have found the results to be unreliable. For documentation, he included a xerox of a page from Henry Morris' "Science, Scripture and the Young Earth", 1989, which basically said the same thing.
Fine and good, but where does the matter stand now, twelve years after the ICR brushed that moon dust off their sandals? If you visit a Christian bookstore and pick up one of their books off the shelf, you will almost invariably find in it an appendix, "Uniformitarian Ages for the Earth", which still contains the moon-dust claim. The source for that claim, as well as many of the claims in that list, comes from an "unpublished manuscript" by Harold Slusher -- doesn't take much to figure out where that claim came from. Furthermore, the ICR is still selling the edition of Henry Morris' "Scientific Creationism" which contains the moon-dust claim referencing the NASA document (verified through Amazon.com and the ICR site).
So more than a decade after they had "dropped" the moon dust claim, any new creationist reading ICR books "fresh" off the shelf will still have the claim presented to him as if it had never been refuted or recanted. Anti-creationists refer to this as "having to slay the slain," as creationists continue to use claims that have already been proven to be bogus. I first saw this effect when a young creationist (18 to 22) tried to blow away the "evolutionists" with brand-new irrefutable news: Setterfield's claim that the speed of light has been slowing down. He was totally shocked and baffled when they blew him away by repeating the decade-old refutation of that long-discounted claim.
That illustrates one way in which creation science sets its followers up to fail. It keeps circulating bogus claims that sound convincing, especially to its followers, but that had been refuted long ago. A newbie creationist picks up the "latest" books, reads those old claims, and, thinking that they are the newest thing, uses them on the street or in a newsgroup, only to get ripped apart by a more experienced opponent who knows the history of that claim, including its refutation. The effects on that creationist are described in a "Answers in Genesis" article, "What About Carl Baugh?" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/whatbau.htm), by creationist Dr. Don Batten:
quote:
It is sad that Carl Baugh will 'muddy the water' for many Christians and non-Christians. Some Christians will try to use Baugh's 'evidences' in witnessing and get 'shot down' by someone who is scientifically literate. The ones witnessed to will thereafter be wary of all creation evidences and even more inclined to dismiss Christians as nut cases not worth listening to.
Also, the Christian is likely to be less apt to witness, even perhaps
tempted to doubt their own faith (wondering what other misinformation they have gullibly believed from Christian teachers). CSF ministers to strengthen the faith of Christians and equip them for the work of evangelism and, sadly, the long term effect of Carl Baugh's efforts will be detrimental to both.
BTW, a similar case of a "recanted" ICR claim that continues to be used as well as the ICR's questionable handling of it is described in "The ICR and Lucy: Bearing False Witness Against Thy Neighbor" (Page not found | Eskimo North).
An old cyber-friend, Carl Drews, is (or was at the time) a conservative Christian, fundamentalist even, who had no problem with evolution. However, he did have problems with "creation science" and even had to leave his church because its leaders promoted lying. His site is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/ and his story is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html.
I mention him because of the Bible verse that he references:
quote:
Goals
1. The most important goal of this web site is that you will come to know Jesus Christ if you do not know Him already, and that believing in Him you will have salvation and eternal life.
2. The second most important goal is that you will Test Everything! I hope that you will be instructed and inspired to check and verify everything that you hear or read. There is not enough checking going on in the study of creationism and evolution. If you are a Christian, you should test everything because the Bible tells you to in 1 Thessalonians 5:21. If you are not a Christian, you should do it because you don't want to be deceived by false teaching.
Kelly, test everything!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2009 8:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 312 (502523)
03-12-2009 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rahvin
03-11-2009 8:32 PM


Learn a little humility, Kelly. Concede that your position may in fact be incorrect, stop repeating already-refuted points, and you may actually be able to learn something here.
I think that's impossible for her... and if so, she's fucked
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rahvin, posted 03-11-2009 8:32 PM Rahvin has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 213 of 312 (502525)
03-12-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
When it comes to historical science
No one can claim to be doing real science in the operational sense
And people who are doing historical science do not claim to be doing "operational science".
They claim to be doing historical science, which is science (the clue's in the name) since it follows the same hypothetico-deductive method.
and both are guilty of being influenced by their worldviews. Pretending that evolutionists are different is just too silly!Evolution is also just a religious a faith based model as creation and no more scientific in the historical sense than creation.
You remember how I explained to you that you saying something doesn't magically make it true?
This would be a case in point.
The experience for your audience is that of listening to someone repeating: "Pigs can fly. They have wings. Pigs can fly. They really do have wings. Pigs really really can fly. They have wings ..." This is not an argument, this is mere assertion.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 214 of 312 (502529)
03-12-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Kelly
03-11-2009 6:44 PM


Re: When it comes to historical science
Hi Kelly,
As you hopefully now realize and understand, this is a moderated discussion board of long-standing (founded 1998) with a long-established set of policies and guidelines that are set out in the Forum Guidelines that you agreed to follow when you joined. It is the responsibility of moderators to administer these guidelines in as balanced and fair a manner as possible in order to make possible something that is relatively rare on the Internet, constructive discussion on a controversial topic.
If you sincerely want to remain here and continue discussing issues regarding the creation/evolution controversy then you will have to follow the Forum Guidelines, concerning which you've received feedback now from all four moderators. The Forum Guidelines will not be changed to suit individual members. If they are not to your liking then there are many other discussion boards on the web.
AdminModulous moved the Creation science II thread to the [forum=-15] forum (largely unmoderated) instead of closing it because though it had proved impossible to keep it on-topic, obviously many members were still interested in discussing this with you, but we prefer not to have unmoderated discussions. In the future you will have to demonstrate the ability to stay focused on the topic and to move discussion constructively forward or be subject to moderator action, which will be fairly quick now that you've had ample time to understand how EvC Forum operates.
Please do not respond to this post here. If you believe further discussion or clarification is necessary, please post to Report discussion problems here: No.2.
Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 6:44 PM Kelly has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 215 of 312 (502538)
03-12-2009 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by ICANT
03-11-2009 4:35 PM


Show it, don't say it.
ICANT writes:
Stile writes:
Two people can start with the same information (2+2) and end up with differing conclusions (4 or say... 5). But one of them is wrong.
They could both be wrong also.
Not if one of them answers "4"!
Or, are you going to argue that this is incorrect?
That's the entire purpose of science. To phrase questions and make progress in such a way that it is insane to argue against. Because it simply must be.
But you concluded their experiments were tainted with their world view. I don't know how you could determine that without being a mind reader.
I didn't read their minds. I read their statements. I'm sure you've heard of the Wedge Document where they clearly state that their world view is going to be influencing their conclusions. That's who creation scientists are. That's what creation scientists do. They spell it out for everyone to read in plain english. I agree it's not very bright... but no one here is claiming that creation scientists are smart.
No mind reading necessary.
The only man that does not let his world view effect his thinking and findings is a dead man.
This is quite easily shown to be false.
Stile says:
quote:
Using standard mathematics (and anything greater than a base-4 system): 2+2=4
Stile also says:
quote:
Using standard observations from this universe: there exists a measurable force that is relative to an object's observable mass which pulls other objects with mass towards each other. This force can be represented with very specific equations.
Both those statements are findings that are not affected by mine or anyone elses world views. They are simply correct. They are simply "the way things are." They must be. Regardless of all world views.
I'm not dead.
The scientists who figured these things out were also not dead when they figured these things out. They're likely long dead now, though...
It remains that you are mistaken. But don't take it too hard, wives tales usually are rather useless when analyzed against reality.
Smarter people than you and I have gone over and over this problem of world views. And they've devised quite specific and easy-to-follow methods that will ensure that your world view will cannot influence the final results. This is generally called "the scientific method" and it includes peer review which is other people, many (MANY!) other people, (quite likely and hopefully with a polar-opposite world view) trying to show that you are wrong. If they can't, if no one can... then you can be assured that the final solution is independent of all worldviews.
How about little horses to BIG horses as in my avatar?
What about them? I didn't claim to know anything about "little horses to BIG horses as in your avatar." Why are you asking me such a thing? I even clearly explained that I don't even know much about what I did actually show. Are you, just like Kelly and just like creation scientists, not being honest and not talking about what I actually said? Again? Continually? All I said was that the transitional fossils I linked to show a very clear and obvious progression from the picture I showed to modern day horses.
Are you honestly trying to deny such a thing?
Or are you trying to confuse the issue by talking about anything else you can think of?
Phooey. All I was hoping for was honest discussion... better luck next creation scientist, I suppose.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by ICANT, posted 03-11-2009 4:35 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ICANT, posted 03-12-2009 2:38 PM Stile has replied

Sky-Writing
Member (Idle past 5151 days)
Posts: 162
From: Milwaukee, WI, United States
Joined: 03-12-2009


Message 216 of 312 (502565)
03-12-2009 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Jester4kicks
03-11-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Is it Science?
It is "science" as long as experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as the original events took place.
In your forest example...yes there are still some forests left to check for similar situations. But you had better carry out your forest testing soon. After a while, it'll all be just whimsical scientific theory and historical speculation.....like Darwin's ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Jester4kicks, posted 03-11-2009 12:20 PM Jester4kicks has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Theodoric, posted 03-12-2009 11:00 AM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 218 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-12-2009 11:07 AM Sky-Writing has not replied
 Message 219 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 11:10 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 217 of 312 (502566)
03-12-2009 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Is it Science?
it'll all be just whimsical scientific theory and historical speculation.....like Darwin's ideas.
Care to back this up? What is your basis for making this comment?
Do you understand what a Scientific Theory is? Oh and please what do you mean by "historical speculation"?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:56 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 218 of 312 (502569)
03-12-2009 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Is it Science?
It is "science" as long as experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as the original events took place.
In your forest example...yes there are still some forests left to check for similar situations. But you had better carry out your forest testing soon.
You know, you don't get to define what science is.
After a while, it'll all be just whimsical scientific theory and historical speculation.....like Darwin's ideas.
Your ignorance of evolution is understandable; your willingness to post on this forum given that handicap is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:56 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 219 of 312 (502570)
03-12-2009 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Sky-Writing
03-12-2009 10:56 AM


Re: Is it Science?
It is "science" as long as experiments can be carried out under the same conditions as the original events took place.
We already have the results of those experiments. Those results are the fossil record and the genomes of living species. The theory of evolution makes very specific predictions of what one should see in these results, and that is exactly what we do see.
In your forest example...yes there are still some forests left to check for similar situations. But you had better carry out your forest testing soon. After a while, it'll all be just whimsical scientific theory and historical speculation.....like Darwin's ideas.
The fossils and genomes haven't gone anywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Sky-Writing, posted 03-12-2009 10:56 AM Sky-Writing has not replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 220 of 312 (502571)
03-12-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by Kelly
03-11-2009 1:06 PM


Copyrights and Such
I like the Free For All forum so I can ask questions like this:
Here's the copyright text from the site that caused the problem a few posts back:

Do NOT post any material from ChristianAnswers.Net on any other Web site, newsgroup or chat room. All material is copyrighted under U.S. and International Copyright Laws. Please respect the legal and inherent human rights of copyright owners to control their creative works.
To those who may have considered taking material from this Web site (or any other Web site) to use on their own or someone else's site without permission
Without express written permission, it is not only presumptuous, but also against the law to publish, copy, reproduce or plagiarize material from this Web site or any other and put it on your own Web site or anyone else's. This includes all pages, content, pictures, audio, video, code, etc. The same is true of posting it in a newsgroup or chat room. Such use is a clear infringement of the copyright owner's rights under U.S. and International Copyright Law and carries serious penalties. By the way, there is no waiver of this law for religious or educational organizations; we all must abide by it.
My question has to do with this part:
quote:
Please respect the legal and inherent human rights of copyright owners to control their creative works.
Joking aside... does anyone know if it's an actual requirement for things to be copyright-protected that they are, in fact "creative work?"
I know that Religious or ID type internet sites didn't used to carry copyright protections on them.
Then people started to quote things off their pages and show how factually wrong they were all over the place.
So, to stop this, the sites now employ a copyright protection so that others cannot quote and debunk with so much ease.
I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.
Is the "creative work" thing above just a slip-of-the-tongue, or trying to cover most other aspects of the site?
Or is it part of the process of having something copyrighted that it must actually be a creative work?
Are normal scientific studies gererally copyrighted? I thought they were not. Sort of because they are just (at the basic level) observations of the way things are... therefore, it's not really possible to copyright such material.
Just wondering... anyone know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Kelly, posted 03-11-2009 1:06 PM Kelly has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 11:29 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 222 by Modulous, posted 03-12-2009 11:32 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 11:46 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 221 of 312 (502573)
03-12-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Stile
03-12-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
A "creative work" just means that someone created it. It applies to a book, a history of the world, a scientific paper or a computer program to run the NHS equally.
More intriguing to me is that the different places that the same creationist article appears claim different copyrights on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 11:16 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 222 of 312 (502574)
03-12-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Stile
03-12-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
In all fairness, 'creative' means, in this case, 'written'. As in, the people that write these articles (or the people they submit them to depending on agreements) have intellectual property rights for the piece of work that they created. It doesn't necessarily mean, 'invented', 'fantasy' or other possible synonyms for 'creative'.
Some scientific papers are protected by intellectual property laws, including copyrights. Though there is a movement buidling in the community to completely open up scientific papers and make them 'free' (though as with any 'free' or 'open' there are probably restrictions on copying and distributing it).
If we are going to be charitable 'Creation magazine' might be a bit like BBC Focus or New Scientist or some other popular level magazine. Though the articles may be based on scientific findings, the presentation and collation of that information is the intellectual property of the author and/or publisher.
But yes, it is amusing that they chose to call them 'creative works', rather than 'intellectual property'. I'm also amused that they call them 'inherent human rights', but that's probably a topic in its own right.
To answer Mr Jack - most of the big creationist sites are affiliated with one another. I wouldn't be surprised if the author signed off on allowing 'Creation magazine and its affiliates' to distribute the works published herein or somesuch.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 11:16 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 223 of 312 (502575)
03-12-2009 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Stile
03-12-2009 11:16 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.
In the end, it really doesn't matter. If they are going to invoke copyright laws then they must also agree to Fair Use policies which allows small portions of the copyrighted material to be directly copied with appropriate citation. What is not allowed is wholesale copying of the material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Stile, posted 03-12-2009 11:16 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Coyote, posted 03-12-2009 11:59 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 226 by Rahvin, posted 03-12-2009 12:06 PM Taq has not replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 224 of 312 (502576)
03-12-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by Taq
03-12-2009 11:46 AM


Re: Copyrights and Such
I'm wondering if this is sort of a double-edged sword for them. That in order to prevent people from freely debunking their mis-use of facts they now have to fully admit that such things are merely creative ideas, and therefore do not necessarily have any basis in fact at all.
In the end, it really doesn't matter. If they are going to invoke copyright laws then they must also agree to Fair Use policies which allows small portions of the copyrighted material to be directly copied with appropriate citation. What is not allowed is wholesale copying of the material.
And copyright law gives even greater leeway to reviews than Fair Use.
A detailed review/analysis where small sections are reproduced and dissected is usually no problem, even when those small sections add up to much of the work. Or so I've been told.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 11:46 AM Taq has not replied

Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5477 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 225 of 312 (502577)
03-12-2009 12:01 PM


Accomplished What?
What has been accomplished by sweeping Kelly into a dusty corner? That was a foregone conclusion based on the population of this board.
Has Kelly changed her mind? No.
I suppose a visitor might be glad to see that Creation "Science" has been dealt with in a quiet and civil way, but I ask again what real thing has been accomplished?
I'm not sure what I expected, but it "feels" empty.

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dr Jack, posted 03-12-2009 12:17 PM Sarawak has not replied
 Message 243 by shalamabobbi, posted 03-12-2009 2:03 PM Sarawak has not replied
 Message 245 by Taq, posted 03-12-2009 2:10 PM Sarawak 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