Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8925 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-20-2019 11:10 PM
26 online now:
DrJones*, Tanypteryx (2 members, 24 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,145 Year: 15,181/19,786 Month: 1,904/3,058 Week: 278/404 Day: 92/73 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 16 of 139 (535466)
11-16-2009 7:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Blzebub
11-15-2009 6:23 PM


I would have to say that, even though it appears to be geared to "evolutionists", this site gives creationists and religious zealots an extremely fair opportunity to state their case. Just look at all Calypsis4 has been able to spout off unabated.

I have learned more here than I have in all my time searching the internet, namely because specific issues are addressed by people with different points of view. just look at how many interpretations of the bible by people that claim the same god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Blzebub, posted 11-15-2009 6:23 PM Blzebub has not yet responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3990
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 17 of 139 (535467)
11-16-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
11-16-2009 3:49 AM


and most especially Crashfrog

I've been wondering where Crash vanished to, too. I liked his/her aggressive stance. Hope s/he's okay.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 3:49 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 18 of 139 (535468)
11-16-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by hooah212002
11-16-2009 6:56 AM


I arrived here at EvC as a charismatic evangelical Christian.

I would have NEVER guessed that.

Even back then, I didn't tolerate bullshit with a particularly Christ-like level of patience - should see my old conversations with Randman...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by hooah212002, posted 11-16-2009 6:56 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 19 of 139 (535473)
11-16-2009 7:52 AM


i Can Haz EpICAricACy
I thought we did it for the lulz.
    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3778
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 20 of 139 (535483)
11-16-2009 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by cavediver
11-16-2009 3:49 AM


1. Entertainment 2. Education
cavediver writes:

As an aside, whatever happened to Crash? He seemed to quietly slip away around the time of the Purge.

Yes, although I think he left enough before the Purge as to say that it wasn't the reason he left. But it could be the reason he stayed away... not sure.

Crash and Dan Carroll both had the same impact on me. Reading their posts to others is what forced me to account for certain... facts of reality.

The two of them had wonderful posting personalities which included tearing off an opponent's stupidity, then beating them with it; all the while forcing you to laugh and see the light of logical rationalization at the same time. Unrelenting advancement of factual reality in an entertaining and educational way, what more could you ask for?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 3:49 AM cavediver has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2868 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 21 of 139 (535542)
11-16-2009 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by hooah212002
11-16-2009 6:55 AM


Of course, when I talk about making debates and putting it on the front stage. I was meaning real debates between true scientists who know what they are talking about. (Not idiots like Kent Hovind)

And of course, as I've said, if certain evolutionists would take the responsibility Iw ould like them to take, then the debates would be as unbiased as can be. I would absolutely LOVe for someone like Dawkins to organize a debate himself, instead of always going there on invitations and then complaining that it was biased. (Besides, he only debates with theistis evolutionists anyways)

The creationists also LOVE to gish gallop, then claim victory. And for the layperson, it appears as such, since the scientist can't possibly be an expert in every field raised by the creationist (hence the despise for Gish Galloping).

Of course, and this is why a multi-panel debate should be the way to go. Organisms like CMI have scientists in just about every domain.

But as I've said, the debate does not take place for the simple reason that the Very qualified evolutionists do not want to debate. They want to silence the discussion, make it seem as there is no debate. Because of this, the Qualified creationists also rarely debate, since they want to debate the knowledgeable evolutionists usually. And so we are left with people such as Kent Hovind and unknown evolutionists doing the debates, which are often biased because organized by Hovind.

It all stems from the major proponents of evolution not wanting to engage the issue on. (Which itself comes historically from Gould saying that if they did not debate the issue, then there would be no isue eventually. That was back in the 80's, and I think it is safe to say that he was not right as the debate is even more presen now then it used to)

AbE I've had quite the difficulty expressing the idea I wanted to convey lol, I hope it makes a bit of sense. (I speak french ...)

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by hooah212002, posted 11-16-2009 6:55 AM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 5:01 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 24 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 29 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 11-16-2009 7:36 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 139 (535548)
11-16-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
11-16-2009 4:14 PM


I was meaning real debates between true scientists who know what they are talking about. (Not idiots like Kent Hovind)

There essentially are none on the creationist/ID side. If there were they would be producing a substantial body of research, and it simply isn't there.

The idea that science should be resolved by live public debates is the sort of thing only people who don't actually do science want to believe. That may have been viable a century or more ago but now it is done in the labs, in the field and at scientific meetings. If you think there should be a scientific debate then the correct venue would be where actual science goes on, at research conferences and in the research literature.

Of course they don't want a scientific debate, they want to baffle the public with bullshit, they don't care what actual scientific research shows.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 4:14 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 5:58 PM Wounded King has responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2868 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 23 of 139 (535550)
11-16-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Wounded King
11-16-2009 5:01 PM


Of course, I'm not proposing to settle science with debates lol, I'm developping on the subject of the OP which was what utility this forum had, since the qualified scientists don,t debate it in the public sphere.

In brief, I was saying that if the qualified scientists did debate this in the public sphere, then the consequence would be that this forum would have less utility.

There essentially are none on the creationist/ID side. If there were they would be producing a substantial body of research, and it simply isn't there.

There are very brilliant and qualified scientists in the creationist camp. Sarfati was copublishing in Nature at 22 years old. I know you know bout John Sanford, and so only by his example it shows that your comment was much more smokes and screens rather than a factual statement.

Besides, between 1980 and 1983, Euginie Scott studied creationist publishing practise in 68 journals and found 135 000 submitted papers from creationists (with only 18 that could be described as advocating scientific creationism)

In other words, creationist scientists publish just as much as any scientists, they just don't give an evolutionnary explanation at the end of the paper.

So when I talk of '' true scientists who know what they are talking about'' and you respond ''there are none'', It seems much like elephan hurling to me ...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 5:01 PM Wounded King has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 6:34 PM slevesque has responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3469 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 24 of 139 (535551)
11-16-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
11-16-2009 4:14 PM


But as I've said, the debate does not take place for the simple reason that the Very qualified evolutionists do not want to debate. They want to silence the discussion, make it seem as there is no debate.

My point is that there is, in fact, no informed debate about evolution. It's just as much a fact as is the Holocaust. Debating it offers credibility to the misguided.

the Qualified creationists

Oxymoron. Maybe no oxy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 4:14 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 6:14 PM Blzebub has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2868 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 25 of 139 (535554)
11-16-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Blzebub
11-16-2009 6:04 PM


My point is that there is, in fact, no informed debate about evolution. It's just as much a fact as is the Holocaust. Debating it offers credibility to the misguided.

Just as in the historicity of Jesus, there is no debate amongst the historians. It doesn't stop many people even on this forum to promote it, and even people such as Richard Dawkins to allude to it in his books ...

Of course, the idea that it is as much a fact as the Holocaust is a subjective view on your part, and I'm not going to debate that since it won't amount to anything.

Oxymoron. Maybe no oxy.

Oxymoron ???

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Raúl E López, meteorologist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology
Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Ron Samec, Astronomy
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

Yeah I agree, maybe not oxy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:04 PM Blzebub has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Blzebub, posted 11-16-2009 6:24 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 6:57 PM slevesque has responded
 Message 56 by Trae, posted 11-17-2009 6:32 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3469 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 26 of 139 (535556)
11-16-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
11-16-2009 6:14 PM


Appeal to morons.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 6:14 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


(2)
Message 27 of 139 (535559)
11-16-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by slevesque
11-16-2009 5:58 PM


I know you know bout John Sanford, and so only by his example it shows that your comment was much more smokes and screens rather than a factual statement.

Except that it doesn't. Like Behe Sanford prefers to put his creationist writings out as popular science books rather than produce actual publishable research actually supporting his contentions.

135 000 submitted papers from creationists (with only 18 that could be described as advocating scientific creationism)

I didn't say people who were creationists couldn't produce scientific papers, probably perfectly good ones, but don't you think that the fact that creationist scientists have produced 135000 papers and only 18 of them are actually supportive of creationism is suggestive? That is only 1 in every 7500 papers. Although I also note these were submitted papers, was there a figure for published papers? After all anyone can submit a paper and it doesn't have to meet any scientific standards.

In other words, creationist scientists publish just as much as any scientists, they just don't give an evolutionary explanation at the end of the paper.

I'll let that stand all though you certainly haven't shown any such thing. But surely the point is that they could be using their research to produce creationist explanations? Creationists doing science doesn't produce creationist science any more than jews working in science produce jewish science. I'm sure if we added up all the papers published by people who accept evolutionary theory regardless of the topic of the papers we would get a huge number, but it wouldn't say anything about the validity of, or evidence supporting, evolution. Similarly until they actually produce research supportive of creationism or ID theory all of those creationist researchers aren't doing anything for your argument.

TTFN,

WK


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 5:58 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 10:01 PM Wounded King has not yet responded

    
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1871 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(2)
Message 28 of 139 (535564)
11-16-2009 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by slevesque
11-16-2009 6:14 PM


Yeah I agree, maybe not oxy

So, all of these suggest that the Earth, Universe, whatever is 6000-10,000 years old? And I'm assuming that they come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds? Hindu, Bhuddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Christian, Agnostic, New Ager, Atheist, Jewish, Islam? and of course from the whole spectrum of these beliefs from most fundemental to most liberal? What's that? No??? The almost total sum of them are Christian??? Huh? Not just Christian, but fundemental evangelical Christian???

Wow, so fundemental evangelical Christians are the only subgroup of scientists not blinded by the propeganda of evolutionism, and the only ones who have the ability to see the real science going on behind the scenes. Jeez, I'm glad you're here slevesque, 'cos we might have missed this otherwise.

Oh, can I just say,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 6:14 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 9:49 PM cavediver has responded

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 139 (535577)
11-16-2009 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
11-16-2009 4:14 PM


Creationisms real threat.
...if certain evolutionists would take the responsibility Iw ould like them to take, then the debates would be as unbiased as can be.

I think you are forgetting about Ken Miller (of Dover trial fame) and Eugenie Scott (of the National Institute for Science Education), as well as other evolutionary biologists who debate extensively in various forums.

I would vastly prefer to see these biologists in the lab doing productive work and leave the creationists to their delusions. A major reason that debates between evolutionists and creationists seem to often be very one sided in favor of the creationists is that these are contests between unequals; I'm not referring to unequal in the quality of the debater or the logic of their arguments but in the simplicity of their positions. The bible presents a theory - actually two different theories - of creation (in narrative form) that is stated in one-half a page. Contrast this with Stephan J. Goulds "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" which is almost 1500 pages long, and the preface of which spends a few pages apologizing for the topics not covered. A public debate in which the presenter gets 45 minutes to prove his case and 15 minutes for rebuttal is a preposterous venue to argue about evolution (or superstring theory or algebraic topology or ...). The most the defender of evolution can hope to do is present some recent interesting evidence that supports the theory, such as Tiktaalic rosea or Ambulocetus or some other very narrow topic in evolution. This almost forces the Gish gallop.

Unlike many of the posters on this forum, I am not horrified, or even dismayed, by the prevalence of creationists and evolution deniers in the US. Public funding for science in this country is quite high and is increasing at a steady pace. While half the country seems to be anti-science, or at least anti-evolution in their responses to various polls, they still gobble up ipods and other products of science avariciously, and when they or a family member has a medical crisis or severe accident, they tell the ambulance driver to take them to the nearest hospital for emergency medical treatment, not to the nearest church for emergency prayer treatment.

I am not even overly concerned about the teach of "alternative views" of biological origins in the public schools. There are still a majority of schools that understand the difference between real science and nonsense. Biology departments and companies are not having any trouble finding qualified new-hires.

In fact, I think it would be a really neat experiment if we were to take one state, Mississippi for example, and teach only biblical creationism in the public high schools, and another state and teach only flat earth geocentrism. We could then study these kids reactions when they get to colleges (for those of them that go to real colleges and universities) and are exposed to modern science. I think the real threat posed by bible literalist teachings to youngsters is not to the progression of science in this country, but to the continued viability of religious institutions. This is borne out by the large percentage of students raised in evangelical environments who go on to college and wind up rejecting their religious upbringings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 4:14 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 2868 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 30 of 139 (535594)
11-16-2009 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
11-16-2009 6:57 PM


So, all of these suggest that the Earth, Universe, whatever is 6000-10,000 years old? And I'm assuming that they come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds? Hindu, Bhuddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Christian, Agnostic, New Ager, Atheist, Jewish, Islam? and of course from the whole spectrum of these beliefs from most fundemental to most liberal? What's that? No??? The almost total sum of them are Christian??? Huh? Not just Christian, but fundemental evangelical Christian???

Yeah, well to believe that the Christian God created the earth 6000 years ago, and that Adam and Eve were historical People, etc. You pretty much have to be christian, don't you think ? (Unless someone can live with an extreme dichotomy in his head)

But of course, to go from ''Only christian can believe in Young earth creationism'' to ''Therefore young-earth creationism is false'' is quite the jump of logic. It neither proves it to be true or false. Furthermore, the intention was to show that the terms ''qualified creationists'' was not an oxymoron.

Wow, so fundemental evangelical Christians are the only subgroup of scientists not blinded by the propeganda of evolutionism, and the only ones who have the ability to see the real science going on behind the scenes. Jeez, I'm glad you're here slevesque, 'cos we might have missed this otherwise.

Why do you jump from creationist to evolutionary skeptic ? We were talking of qualified creationists, not the later. Of course, there are skeptics of evolution from a broad spectrum of backgrounds. David Berlinski for example is a Jewish agnostic. There are ''creationists'' amongst the muslims also, who also reject evolutionnary theory, only to replace it with their own idea of origins.

Lot's of people reject Neo-Darwinian evolution, that doesn't make them creationist, nor does this force them to be evangelical christians ...

Oh, can I just say,

I appreciate you very much, but I would wish you had a little more interest in philosophy. just in order to be able to not jump over the logical hurdles between your premises and conclusion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-16-2009 6:57 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:22 AM slevesque has responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019