Has the bias made this forum essentially irrelevant?

You really have to admit that creationist/fundamentalist/literalist attitude most of the time comes hand in hand with ignorance of the most basic knowledge of science.Of all my years in this debate, I have only run into may be 2 people who actually knows a thing or two about science.Off and on, over the years I have tried to play devil's advocate. Sometimes, I really really tried to think with a creationist mindset and from what I know of science to come up with arguments. Percy probably have noticed this over the years. The problem I have always run into is not knowing everything.Which brings me to my next point. Science is pretty much unified. Those of us who dedicate our lives to scientific research will agree with each other on the principles of science. Creationism lacks this unity. Every creationist has his own version of creationism. And because of this fact, in a debate you will rarely ever see creationists helping each other out and backing each other up.Not only that, but creationists never seem to have what it takes to correct each other. On the side of science, you will always see people correcting each other all the time. Suppose I make a statement "linear momentum can be converted into angular momentum." Every person with the most basic knowledge of physics will pile on me to correct this statement.I'm sorry, but you simply don't see the same kind of systematic self-correction in the creationist community. Creationist A might make a totally out of wack statement and creationists B, C, D, and E will simply let it pass. On another forum, there was a creationist that claimed that he can prove the existence of god by the fact that there should be an external power source for the earth but that we simply don't see any external power source for the earth. Not a single creationist jumped in to tell him we have the sun...The point is the reason why we have a lack of creationist number on this forum is because many of us here are involved in some kind of scientific field. We have physicists, biologists, geologists, etc. here so creationists will find very quickly that they can't bullshit their way through a debate. I myself am a material science engineer doing research on alternate materials for construction projects. People like myself, coyote, etc. can sniff out bullshit too easily for creationists to stick around too long.

I can understand the frustration. Not only do creationists don't know the most basic things about science, they think they know everything and they think those of us who work in science are a bunch of dumbasses.As I understand it, crashfrog has a degree in biology. I can understand that it's frustrating as hell talking to someone who not only not understand the most basic things about science but also thinks you're a dumbass.Speaking as a researcher and an engineer, I try to avoid talking to people about my field because most people think they know everything about the world. Quite annoying.

And tada you just demonstrated another major reason why people such as myself are often frustrated by creationists.At no point did I say that what I do makes me more qualified to make assessments about the validity of arguments... what a mouth full.Misreading/misinterpreting people's words is another characteristic that plagues the creationist community. Well, may be. While I agree with you that my background in evolutionary biology probably isn't my strongest, most of the time we don't even get that detailed about evolutionary biology.Going to an example earlier that I gave. There was a poster that declared his proof of god's existence and continued influence in our lives is that the earth required a huge amount of energy from an external source. And his reasoning was that because there was no such source of energy, god must be the source of energy. This person failed completely to account for that big-ass bright object in the sky we call the sun.But more importantly, what I do DOES give me an edge over people who are do not work in science. Why? Because I understand how scientific research work. I understand the approach a researcher takes and the journey the researcher must go through to get his work verified over and over before it is recognized by mainstream science.Did you really believe each field of science works in a vacuum? And goddunit answers it? Have you ever tried to read honest to god messages from creationists? Most of them show the total lack of understanding of the most basic things about science. And I'm not talking specifically about evolutionary biology. I'm talking about everything in science. Those of us who work in a field of science and have talked to creationists at one point or other know how frustrating it is to talk to a creationist about any subject in science. Most of them lack the most basic understanding of how science works. Why not propose a topic and give us your 10 ways evolution doesn't stand up to scrutiny?Edit.Here's an extreme example of how frustrating it is to talk to a creationist. I'm showing you an extreme example to demonstrate my point just how frustrating it is to talk to people who (1) lack the most basic understanding of science and (2) think they know all.EvC Forum: desdamona Topic IndexSomeone linked me to her posts a while back. Made me shudder while I read her posts. Notice how this person felt the need to weigh in on every subject known to man.Now, I'm a man who knows my limits. You will never see me discuss topics like genetics and geology. The reason creationists drive us off the deep end is because they think they know everything about everything, and nothing bother us more than people who try to sound like they know what's going on but we can see right through that they don't know jack shit.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

We don't ever see creationists helping each other out... at all... ever. People on the science side work together and help each other out. For instance, when the conversation wanders a bit into something like geology, I am absolutely certain that others more knowledgable with geology will come and help me out because I'm a geology dummy. But on the side of creationists, you will never see another creationist coming to help a fellow member who's in trouble.

Well, when science comes under attack it is hurtful, too. It's my livelihood we're talking about.The material science community continually improves on the quality of life by keep coming with better material for people to use. Without things like fiber steel, fiber optics, etc. the nation's infrastructure as we know it wouldn't exist today. Bridge design, high rise skyscrapers, and even an average person's home have been vastly improved in the last 50 years alone because of the concerted effort of the engineering and scientific community.I am currently working on a non-corrosive material that has a higher yield strength than conventional reinforcing steel. We'll be doing some more testing next week. We're the first group to be investigating this new material for construction design. We're in direct contact with another group that's working for the army to use the same material for vehicle armament.The benefits that will result from our research will be more far reaching than most people can think of. Imagine cutting the weight of high rise buildings by as much as 30%, thus vastly reducing the risk of earthquake damage. Imagine structures in marine environment that doesn't corrode or rust. Imagine homes that can withstand earthquake several times greater than conventional earthquake design. Imagine our bridges lasting 4 times longer than conventional steel reinforced bridges. Imagine 9/11 happening but the reinforcing material doesn't yield because of extreme high temperatures like what happened with the twin towers.The point is scientific research produce REAL results. I have yet to see anything of substance coming from the creationist community.So, yeah, I'm deeply offended when I see creationists trying to downsize science. This goes beyond personal belief. Remember the dark ages when science was banned for 800 years because of superstition? We'd be colonizing space by now if it weren't for people so determined to cling on to age old superstitions of the past.Added by edit.Just came to my mind. Google fly ash. Did the creationist community come up with the idea to use fly ash in concrete mixing, thus vastly reducing the amount of material dumped into landfill? Hell, no.If creationists wanted to be taken seriously, they need to start producing real results for us to see and use. They need to start doing honest-to-god research to better the human living condition.Here is what a society that embraces science and technology looks like. Here is what a society that embraces religious dogma and superstition looks like. A few years ago, someone pointed out to me a fact that I'd been able to confirm since. The Arab community has some very bright individuals, and I mean scary bright. Yet, the number of research that goes on in the middle east is virtually non-existent. And we're talking about some very affluent oil rich countries here. Children in many areas of the middle east spend all their time in school learning about the koran and god instead of math and science.Is that what you want for our society? Think about it. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

You are absolutely correct. I am a firm believer that it was monotheism that was the foundation of all scientific endeavor. To explain this thought, it would require me a lot more than a single post to explain.In a nutshell, this is why early scientists were monotheists. There have always been great minds in the world. People who saw the world and wondered how it worked while the vast majority of the populace just went along with life. But back then, if you weren't christian then you'd get burned at the stake. Also, being christian was the only possible way back then to obtain any kind of education.Anyway, going back to early scientists, while most people accepted "goddunit" as the explanation to everything, people like Newton and Kepler wanted to take a step further and understand god's wondrous creation. It took Kepler 15 long years but eventually he figured out that the planets orbited the sun in elliptical orbit.Newton went away on a vacation and during that time he invented calculus.So, the question is were they inspired by religion to achieve these things or did they achieve these things despite religion? Try to imagine this for a moment. Suppose you're a great musician. And earlier this year, you just created the greatest piece of music composition ever created by man. But I'm the god emperor of the country you live in, and the state's official religion is tazism, meaning everyone worships me. So, either you attribute your music composition to me inspiring you or you face a horrible torturous death by red hot iron poker up your butt.1000 years from now, people would be looking back and say "gee, tazism sure was a really good religion, since it inspired GDR to have composed such a wondrous piece of art!"The point is we are completely unclear whether these great minds did what they did because of religion or despite of religion. All evidence seem to show that they did so in spite of religion. Would it be fair for anyone to say that Galileo retracted his claim about the heliocentricity of the heavens by his own free will?

Again, did you missed the part where I said either you attribute your musical art to me, your god emperor, or you will suffer a horrible death.Of course Newton and other great minds attributed their works to their belief in god. To not do so would have meant alienation by their peers. Is this one of those no true scotsman thing?