Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Negative Impacts on Society
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 222 (94993)
03-26-2004 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Servant2thecause
03-26-2004 4:46 AM


quote:
You see, I was just simply providing a small list of scientists who do not necessarily believe in evolution for the purpose of proving that it DOES NOT require believing in evolution to get further in the field of scientific research. I have known plenty of people, even in my personal experience, who have made ample additions to modern science WITHOUT the aid of evolution, or even believing thereof. My grandfather was a chemical scientist, and graduate of Oregon State University, and yet a creationist (who subscribed regularly to Nat. Geographic, Scientific American, and a few peer-reviewed magazines without ever being swayed into the belief in evolution). My father is a veteran with a degree in Physics from West Point Academy (FYI West Point is tax-funded) and yet my father believes in creation as firmly as I do. Two of my cousins are students at Texas A&M majoring in science-related fields who are not evolutionists. One of my friends' father is a Phd-chemist who believes in creation. Many of my high school teachers were creationists. The physician whom I seek medical advice from when in need is a creationist. My brother and I are both creationists, which by the way we have studied both sides very in-depth and are yet happy with our system of beliefs. My brother's girlfriend--majoring in Sociology at Carroll College in Wisconsin--is a creationist. Several other friends, relatives, and aqcuaintances hold B.S.'s if not Ph.D's in their fields and yet believe in creationism.
And how many of the above scientists use theories based on supernatural manipulation of natural phenomena? Do all of the scientists above use methodological naturalism? I think they do. No matter what they believe about the origin of life or the diversity of life, I would bet my bottom dollar that they all expect a natural mechanism for natural phenomena. Or perhaps you want us to believe that the chemists listed above think that any chemical reaction is due to God's special intervention instead of free moving electrons? Maybe they feel they can throw out any theory in chemistry just because it can never be proven 100%?
I think it is ludicrous to point to creationist chemists and claim that believing in supernatural explanations for natural phenomena is warranted. Those same chemists that you hold in such high regard follow the same methodology that evolutionists use, methodological naturalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-26-2004 4:46 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 222 (95721)
03-29-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Servant2thecause
03-28-2004 10:46 PM


quote:
Now I wonder, if evolution is credible and well-documented, then why should creationism be shunned from discussion--if nothing else--in the classrooms (I mean, neoDarwinists should have nothing to fear or get angry by if they know that their theory is so well-supported that creationism won't stand up if presented in public school science classrooms)?
Creationism is dangerous because of the way it distorts scientific findings. It is the same reason White Supremists are not allowed to talk about the scientific basis for the genetic superiority of the aryan race. Would you want this discussed in a high school classroom, knowing it was based on distorted data, out of context quotes, and some outright lies? I sure wouldn't. This is how educators look at creationism.
If creationists would follow strict scientific methodologies in their own research, and did not distort data or misquote scientists, then there would be nothing to present except the motto "God did it, and my proof is my faith." And by strict scientific methodologies, I mean collected data that is interpreted so that there are no inconsistencies with other measurements. An interpretation of the data must be corroborated with other independent measurements, as has been done with measurements leading to the conclusion of and old earth and billions of years of evolving life. What you would be teaching students, by allowing creationism into schools, is that science can be manipulated to fit any preconception. This is something that science has been fighting against for centuries, and is the reason that the current reliance on naturlistic methodology is so important.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Servant2thecause, posted 03-28-2004 10:46 PM Servant2thecause has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 222 (98437)
04-07-2004 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Servant2thecause
04-07-2004 2:15 AM


quote:
The difference-ratio between C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially. The problem for the earth's speculated age is that equilibrium has not been reached in the atmosphere (the ratio has not equalized).
1. C-14 is increasing in the atmosphere due to nuclear bomb tests in the 1950's. If the C-14 ratios were in flux to a degree that would prevent dating, then why does Abbylever's graph show a strong correlation between age defined by number of layers and C14/12 ratios? This is a very strong piece of evidence that you continue to ignore.
2. The age of the earth is not measured by carbon 14 decay rates. In fact, the 4.5 billion year old solar system is supported by non-terrestrial bodies, ie meteorites. So you have to show how 15 or so ratios of parent and daughter pairs could all be wrong and still give the same number. If you think C14 is used to measure the age of the earth, then you are mistaken.
3. You claim in your posts that you want to discuss scientific data, but then go on and on about how you are being attacked. I, personally, would love to get in a scientific debate on a subject of your choosing. I might attack your logic, but I will never attack you personally. I have great respect for people's faith in their god, even if I disagree with them on theologic or scientific grounds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-07-2004 2:15 AM Servant2thecause has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 04-07-2004 4:12 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 222 (98483)
04-07-2004 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coragyps
04-07-2004 4:12 PM


Thanks for the correction Coragyps. Increased fossil fuel use would also explain the disequilibrium that Servant was complaining about. Of course, no one has ever claimed that the isotopes would be in PERFECT equilibrium anyway, just close enough to date organic matter younger than about 75,000 years old within a margin of error that is acceptable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coragyps, posted 04-07-2004 4:12 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-10-2004 2:27 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 222 (99417)
04-12-2004 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Servant2thecause
04-10-2004 2:27 AM


quote:
If carbon dating was matched up with the layers, what was the set-standard for the age of the layers?
One layer per year with the corresponding organic matter in the layer corresponding to that year as well.
quote:
The reason I ask this question is because it remains quite possible that the standards be tampered with or otherwise manipulated to *fit* the speculated dates obtained by the C14 tests.
Calling scientists liars won't get you out of this predicament. Again, one layer/varve per year. The organic life within that laye is measured for a 14C/12C ratio. That ratio is used to date the organic layer using the half-life of 14C. The radiometric date is then compared to which layer it was found in by counting from the top layer. Guess what, they match up very well. If C14/C12 ratios in the atmosphere were fluctuating to such a degree that it made 14C dating impossible, this would have been very obvious with the above data. The data points would have meandered across the page instead of lining up like little soldiers, exactly where they would be expected to be. Your hypothesis does not touch this data. In fact, the data presented falsifies your theory that fluctuating radioactive carbon levels makes dating impossible. On top of this, we also have other methodologies (tree rings and ice layers) that not only match the varves, but match recorded volcanic eruptions (refuting multiple ice layers in one year), dendrochronology which shows annual ring production in trees and correlates to every other tree in that ecological system (no multiple rings a year, unless the whole forest made mutliple rings at the same time). So, you have a problem if you want evidence for the inaccuracy of 14C dating. What you are left with is sample contamination or carbon from an older pool such as the ocean (BTW, marine samples are not dated with 14C since the derive their carbon from dissolved carbonate).
Just to summarize:
1. Three different annual deposition models (varves, ice layers, annual tree rings) all agree. These three models can be checked between each other and with historical events, such as volcanic ash found in ice layers that correlate to the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius approx 2,000 years ago.
2. 14C ratio fluctuation should have shown up in the three models above. Instead, we find a set of data that is consistent with only small fluctuations, as would be expected with a system that depends on multiple variables.
3. The only arguments left are a jokester God that plants evidence to make a 6,000 year old earth look like at least a 100,000 year old earth, and a global conspiracy of millions of scientists to cover up information that any person could study, including creationists. Kind of like leaving the gunman on the Grassy Knoll for the last 40 years while denying that there was anyone standing there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-10-2004 2:27 AM Servant2thecause has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Servant2thecause, posted 04-15-2004 12:42 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 222 (100071)
04-14-2004 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Brad McFall
04-14-2004 7:50 PM


Re: Bad examples
quote:
Why do you guys have to make this so complicated??
  —Brad McFall
I think this is the most ironic statement ever in the history of EvC. (Hope you don't mind a little ribbing).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2004 7:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Brad McFall, posted 04-19-2004 7:43 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 222 (101921)
04-22-2004 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Syamsu
04-21-2004 8:25 AM


Re: Once again...
quote:
Validity, or scientific validity, is not the end all on which basis beliefs get accepted or not, of course, it's a personal responsibility.
Ehhh, wrong answer. For scientific theories, the social impact is ignored in favor of the evidence. It is what we call unbiased. It is not a personal choice, but a choice forced upon us by the evidence. Of course we can personally choose that a scientific theory is wrong, but then only on personal biases and emotions, not on an evidenciary basis. You might as well tell us we should believe in a flat earth because of the negative impacts a round earth would have on society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Syamsu, posted 04-21-2004 8:25 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 160 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 222 (102209)
04-23-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Syamsu
04-23-2004 10:16 AM


Re: Once again...
quote:
I think you are just mistaken what your teacher might have told you so you would learn things without much fuss (you are forced to accept this on account of the evidence), with how science actually works.
I know how science works because I work in science. I have had to drop quite a few personal hypotheses due to the data. This happens to every scientist. There have been many times where I wished the data would have gone one way or another, but alas it hardly ever does. Science follows the data, not the wishes of the populace or the scientist. I am sorry, but your words ring very hollow given my experience in practicing science. Perhaps you should go into philosophy or politics, but leave science to those who actually understand it and will pass along the honesty and integrity that come with well executed methodology and theory formation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 10:16 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 11:04 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 222 (102814)
04-26-2004 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Syamsu
04-23-2004 11:04 PM


Re: Once again...
quote:
So is black skincolor or ugly or beautiful mr scientist? You have abdicated your honesty and integrity because you denounced your personal responsibility in accepting or rejecting beliefs.
You just don't understand yet, do you. There is no way to scientifically measure beauty, so it is a question that science can not address. It comes down to personal preference. My responsibility is honestly reporting data and interpreting this data for the furthering of science, and hopefully an improvement in people's health. If I twisted the data or tried to interpret it wrongly only to fit in with current social climes, how honest would I be then? Where is the integrity in that? You sir are a blowhard that has been shown to be dishonest, egomaniacal, and dogmatic to the point of telling scientists that they don't know how to study something they have worked with for years. Perhaps you should start listening a little closer to those with actual experience with science, you are making yourself out as a fool.
[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 04-26-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Syamsu, posted 04-23-2004 11:04 PM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Percy, posted 04-26-2004 1:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 212 of 222 (103194)
04-27-2004 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by kofh2u
04-27-2004 7:18 PM


Re: Why school?
quote:
School is a community, one that, at its best, reflects the larger community which it serves. In this, instruction which is comprehensive and as free of biasis as possible is its goal. The purpose is not to pre-set the students' thoughts, but to create a foundation for later thinking.
The public school system is biased, biased towards being areligious. Not non-religious, or anti-religious, but devoid of sponsoring one religion over another. By teaching the Judeo-Christian creation story, this line would be crossed. By teaching the areligious theory of evolution, no matter how limited, the public school is still staying within it's mandate. The same could be said for health class. When was the last time you heard about faith healing having equal time with normal western medicinal techniques? Should we have witch doctors come and talk about how good spirits keep STD's away? After all, equal time is the creationist mantra.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by kofh2u, posted 04-27-2004 7:18 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by kofh2u, posted 04-28-2004 2:46 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 220 of 222 (103423)
04-28-2004 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by kofh2u
04-28-2004 2:46 PM


Re: Why school?
quote:
As far as the "witch doctor" point, yes, if that educational experience is taking place where witch doctors in fact are a significant element in the culture being publically educated. If, for instance, Native American "medicine men" are significantly present in the larger community, (and I have no idea if they do presently), yes, what do they have to say.
I apologize for not making my point clearly in the previous post, hopefully this reply will clarify things. The danger that many see in taking an areligious position within public education (private education is outside of this argument) is that local communities will be Westernized, as in the case of Native Americans on reservations. This is a real fear, but this can be avoided by avoiding indoctrination, as you mentioned later in your post above. However, this doesn't mean that we have to ignore real, scientific research as a concession to local religious leaders. Prefacing education with phrases such as "according to present scientific knowledge" is a legitimate approach, showing that this branch of knowledge has come to a certain conclusion but leaving personal truths open for interpretation.
quote:
By the way, the study of these ancient arts has provided much modern medicine coming out of the Amazons and Africa.
As confirmed by scientific investigation using scientifically accepted methodologies. I would argue that even certain African rituals offer a psychological benefice to the patient, but no amount of chanting will cure a person of HIV. School should be about what we have confidence in, and the community should foster what people have faith in. Schools should reflect the values of the surrounding community without injecting the religious dogma of the community.
Hopefully I haven't muddied the waters again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kofh2u, posted 04-28-2004 2:46 PM kofh2u has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by kofh2u, posted 04-29-2004 2:03 AM Loudmouth 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