|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Science in Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
Why is someone who started a "The Science in Creationism" thread filling it with constant requests for the science in evolution?
Give us what you promised please. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
quote: I would like to rise in limited defense of Dawn Bertot. As Paul's epithet for Dawn suggests, since arriving here in 2007, Dawn has demonstrated a breathtaking ability to misunderstand the simplest points and write with a brain numbing lack of clarity on a variety of subjects. Given this more than amply evidenced tendency, I think more proof is needed to support the claim that Dawn is lying, as opposed to just being as confused and inarticulate as Dawn normally appears to be. I did say it would be a limited defense.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Well 782,562 posts at EvC and almost 400 posts in just this thread and over a hundred from the person that started the topic of "The Science in Creationism" without a single bit of evidence for any Science in Creationism might be a hint that there simply is no science or facts or reality or model or theory or procedure or process or method in Creationism other than trying to avoid reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods.
It's hard and in fact may be unreasonable to expect reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods in a subject where there is no reality, facts, models, theories, procedures, processes or methods. Can't get blood from a turnip.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
With all due respect, I would point out that the epithet is based on an actual event, and is given in quotes to allow for the possibility that Dawn is actually unable to understand the word "they"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Perhaps I could have worded my point better.
I didn't mean to suggest that Dawn never lies. Instead, my point was that Dawn's inability to communicate on a normal human level is sufficient to explain this thread, and many others as well. And, I didn't mean to single you out necessarily. Others in this thread have accused Dawn of lying in this thread. Yours was simply the most recent mention of the word, so that's the one I responded to.Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You were also talking about evolution. Your claim, so far as I understood it, was that people with expertise in the shape of DNA would know the difference between that, as being proper science, and evolution, which (as you think) isn't. But they think it is. I certainly couldn't mean to be implying that. People who believe in evolution of course think they are doing proper science. It takes a creationist who doesn't think so to make the attempt to point out the difference between the valid and replicable science that arrived at the shape of DNA and the fanciful science that arrived at stories about vast aeons of time in which the condition of the planet and the activities of life forms are deduced from a few dead things in a slab of rock. I'm overwhelmed at the moment with too much going on here and elsewhere to do more than answer a particular part of a post here and there, but I hope I'll get back to the whole thing eventually. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I certainly couldn't mean to be implying that. Well, what you said was: "Somebody who knows exactly what went into identifying the DNA molecule [...] could make this case a lot better than I can." So it is interesting to note the people who know best what went into that particular discovery think that creationism is bollocks and have said so at length and in public.
It takes a creationist who doesn't think so to make the attempt to point out the difference between the valid and replicable science that arrived at the shape of DNA and the fanciful science that arrived at stories about vast aeons of time in which the condition of the planet and the activities of life forms are deduced from a few dead things in a slab of rock. Well, creationists can't do that either. Let us say rather that only creationists wish they could.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I certainly couldn't mean to be implying that. Well, what you said was: "Somebody who knows exactly what went into identifying the DNA molecule [...] could make this case a lot better than I can." I can see how you got the wrong idea here, but what I thought I was saying was that those who understand the science that went into identifying the DNA molecule (lots of people, not just Crick and Watson) could say exactly what it was that went into that identification, the facts they were working with and the procedures they followed and the insight that occurred and when. I wasn't thinking that they'd be able to make the argument for creationism, although I suppose you could think that was implied. HBD had given a list of scientific discoveries that I was trying to show followed from replicable testable procedures as opposed to the mush-minded conclusions historical sciences come to, which they nevertheless pronounce factual, which deceives the poor ordinary human being into thinking they have the same kind of solid foundation for their fanciful scenarios as supports the shape of the DNA molecule and the recognition of the gas the sun burns etc. HBD pointed out that those discoveries rested in indirect scientific evidence too, and I was trying to make a distinction between different senses of "indirect" at that point.
So it is interesting to note the people who know best what went into that particular discovery think that creationism is bollocks and have said so at length and in public. Nothing at all interesting about that, just the usual delusion held by even intelligent people who don't see the difference I'm trying to account for. Note I said "trying."
It takes a creationist who doesn't think so to make the attempt to point out the difference between the valid and replicable science that arrived at the shape of DNA and the fanciful science that arrived at stories about vast aeons of time in which the condition of the planet and the activities of life forms are deduced from a few dead things in a slab of rock. Well, creationists can't do that either. Let us say rather that only creationists wish they could. I did say "attempt" although I think we do a lot better at it than you are wiling to recognize. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: How do you explain the fact that the only people who make this distinction are creationists?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
How do you explain the fact that the only people who make this distinction are creationists? We're the only ones who care. Nobody else has the motivation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
quote: You're seriously telling me that you think creationists are the only ones who care about whether science is accurately described and delineated? Physicists don't care. Astronomers don't care. Biologists don't care. Anthropologists don't care. Chemists don't care. Physicians don't care. Geologists don't care. Criminal forensic investigators don't care. Meteorologists don't care. Botanists don't care. Only creationists. Please, think about that for a few minutes. Does that sound even a little bit reasonable?Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate Howling about evidence is a conversation stopper, and it never stops to think if the claim could possibly be true -- foreveryoung
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Faith writes: We're the only ones who care. Nobody else has the motivation. Your team thought they had the answers up to about 1750 and most believed them, because belief was all that there was. After that we started to learn things and test them against what the real world was showing us. The honest investigotors into 'truth' then began to understand that the old explanations for how the world is, was wrong. Gradually over a couple of centuries the majority of those old beliefs were supplanted by evidence-based explanations and the vast majority of peope, were taught the new explantions that they could test for themselves and we had the enlightenment, the industrial revolution and the scientific, rational age which has given us all the great things that belief systems reliant on prayer and faith alone couldn't - it's a very, very long list. Your belief system is a throwback to the 18th century, you are a lingering part of a historic problem which will disapear in a few generations, it's only on weird, niche web sites that this nonsense is even spoken about. It's a settled, non-issue as relevant as the flat earth society. You're interesting in the way something odd and rare is interesting - for being just so damn weird. It's what we have museums for.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Today's creationism is nothing at all like the creationism of earlier times. There were some very silly ideas, and not biblical ideas either, just silly ideas creationists held for who knows what reason, that did have to be given up. Silly ideas about the origin of fossils, for instance, silly ideas about species being specially created to fit particular environments -- despite the fact that the Bible is clear that God stopped creating after six days. Unfortunately the silly ideas were given up for just as silly ideas in the old earth and evolution. Today's creationism is not silly at all, it does follow the Bible and it does account for the actual facts, a lot better than the prevailing theories do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sigh. It's an illusion of science that deceives people into thinking it's science. Only creationists are in a position to recognize that fact and spend time opposing it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Sigh. It's an illusion of science that deceives people into thinking it's science. Only creationists are in a position to recognize that fact and spend time opposing it. Whereas those 72 Nobel Prize winners are apparently not in any position to know what is and isn't science. Strange, isn't it, that all the understanding of science should be on your side, and all the actual scientific achievement on the other?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024