Summations Only

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

quote:

---

...underestimating Dawn "liar for Spock" Bertot's error....

---

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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. Well, creationists can't do that either. Let us say rather that only creationists wish they could.

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. 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." 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.

quote:

---

...followed from replicable testable procedures as opposed to the mush-minded conclusions historical sciences come to...

---

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.

quote:

---

We're the only ones who care. Nobody else has the motivation.

---

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?

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.

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.

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?