i have to do an english essay, taking up a position in the debate "should ID be taught in schools". well clearly im going to say that ID is bullshit and shouldnt be taught as fact.

ive done a search through the forums here and am currently reading alot of the threads on ID. im wondering if anyone has any external sites i could read. or any good phrases/strong points i could include.



thanks in advance guys

If I were you, I'd write a really sarcastic essay. I'd take the position that we should teach Biblical creation in schools, as it is the Will of God. Spend the rest of the essay attempting to reconcile the two creation stories presented in Genesis 1 and 2.

quote:Originally posted by jsaxton14:

If I were you, I'd write a really sarcastic essay. I'd take the position that we should teach Biblical creation in schools, as it is the Will of God. Spend the rest of the essay attempting to reconcile the two creation stories presented in Genesis 1 and 2.



Great advice, that would be exactly what I would do. I'm not kidding, I always write very funny papers in school. I straight up called Bush a douche in an oral presentation once and even the teacher was laughing.

I agree with the sarcastic essay.

Highlight the "intelligence" (sarcasm) in:

1. The blind spots in the eyes of mammals.

2. Vestigial organs.

3. The recurrent laryngeal nerve

4. Natural abortions.

5. The existinction of species.

6. Junk DNA.

7. Various cataclysmic events that have happened in the universe or will happen (i.e. meteorites and comets that have or will hit the earth at some point in time.

8. The lack of predictive power in the "theory" itself. (Which is one of the reasons there are scientific theories/hypothesis to help explain what has happened in the past, but also what will happen in the future).

9. The lack of any meaningful material to teach.

10. The waste of time and resources spent teaching something in the Science classroom, which the scientific community does not believe is valid to begin with.

11. The absence of any possible description for the "intelligent designer".

Some resources:

- " Unintelligent Design (http://tinyurl.com/4f682)"

- Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html)

- http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI100.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2006).]

For some resent good points made against ID I would suggest looking over the recent rulling at the Dover school district.

The wikipedia page which provides a good overviews as well as links to more info http://tinyurl.com/hkdsk

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-21-2006).]

Maybe even mention the threats that have been made on the life of the judge by supporters of Intelligent Design. So much threats that the government issued protection against the judge.

Excerpt from the decision handed down by Judge Brown in Kitzmiller v Dover et al:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."



Intelligent Design is not science, simply renamed Creationism. Not a subject to be taught in a science class.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 04-21-2006).]

I'm still trying to figure out why this keeps showing up in this topic?

If this is about science and make believe then how does it fit in the God vs god debates if it really is not about science vs. God or science vs. Christianity?

I don't believe people are being upfront and honest.

Many of you seem very certain on their stance that the "science" of evolution is true and dispelled any theological belief.

Great! Unless you are still open to the idea of a created universe why else would you keep bringing this up here if it isn't to attack the faith of a believer?

Please be honest this time.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Maybe even mention the threats that have been made on the life of the judge by supporters of Intelligent Design. So much threats that the government issued protection against the judge.

Does anyone have any more sources for this? or any more information?



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



2. Vestigial organs.

3. The recurrent laryngeal nerve

6. Junk DNA.





sorry if this sounds stupid. im going to research alot more about all this tonight.

but until then, can somebody please elaborate on the above 3 things, as i have absolutly no idea what they are (yet).



thanks for everyones help so far. it really has helped alot. and yer, ill write it as a sarcastic piece. ill post it here in like 3 or 4 days (its due in in 6 days)

quote:Originally posted by head__hunter:



sorry if this sounds stupid. im going to research alot more about all this tonight.

but until then, can somebody please elaborate on the above 3 things, as i have absolutly no idea what they are (yet).



Vestigial organs: I said "organs", but a more correct term would be vestigial structures, as things other than organs can be vestiges.

They are structures whos function has diminished (or lost completely) as generations have passed. The classic example is the appendix, though there are many others.



recurrent laryngeal nerve: It is a nerve that goes from our brain, to the larynx. But instead of it going directly straight to the larynx, the nerve passes through the neck(the larynx is in the neck), goes to the chest and then goes back up again, until it reaches the larynx. In other words, it makes an useless and unintellegent deviation.

Junk DNA: Junk DNA is DNA contained in our genome that seems to have no purpose; they don't code for anything, hence the term "junk".

Although there have been studies that imply some areas of junk DNA might have a function, the majority of it does not seem to have one; we would expect that from evolution but not intelligent design.

quote:

thanks for everyones help so far. it really has helped alot. and yer, ill write it as a sarcastic piece. ill post it here in like 3 or 4 days (its due in in 6 days)

Doing it sarcasticly is not that easy (at least, employing sarcasm well is not) so you might want to see if you can pull it off first before committing to a sarcastic piece.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-21-2006).]

Interest: This keeps showing up here because creationism and ID are religion and that's what most of these topics are about.

Evolution doesn't contradict a created universe.



Rust: Speaking of vestigials I quite like the tail that every human has coded in their genes but another gene was added to turn it off. Everyone grows a tail in the womb but then loses it. There are babies who have a problem with the off gene and are born with a tail.

no, and if you see someone teaching it, punch them in the face.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Interest: This keeps showing up here because creationism and ID are religion and that's what most of these topics are about.

Evolution doesn't contradict a created universe.



Rust: Speaking of vestigials I quite like the tail that every human has coded in their genes but another gene was added to turn it off. Everyone grows a tail in the womb but then loses it. There are babies who have a problem with the off gene and are born with a tail.

Sorry, that's called a "spine".

Perhaps you've heard of it.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Sorry, that's called a "spine".



What's called a spine? The mass of cells that we've come to call a tail, that eminates from the tail-bone and often has no bone structure at all?

The fact remains that we have genes which code for an unused structure called a "tail", one which can caused painful and debilitiating conditions on those who do manage to keep the "tail" after it is develop ed in the womb.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

This supposed tail is nothing more than the coccyx, which is the fourth of four series of lumbars that comprise our spinal column. Furthermore, there is nothing vestigial about it. All sorts of bad things would happen without your tailbone. This belief in vestigial organs and recapitulation was debunked in the early 1900's. That's pretty funny that you are using really old arguments that are completely moot.

No, the so-called "tail" is not the coccyx. Not only can these tails be completely removed wiithout removing the coccyx, but these tails often have no bone structure inside them at all (which would refute the possibility of them being coccyx to begin with).

The tails do not equal the tail bone (i.e. the coccyx), the tails simply eminate from it.

Also, "vestige" does not mean "without function" so the fact that the coccyx serves a function is irrelevant.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rust:

No, the so-called "tail" is not the coccyx. Not only can these tails be completely removed wiithout removing the coccyx, but these tails often have no bone structure inside them at all (which would refute the possibility of them being coccyx to begin with).

Are you talking about a fetus in the womb supposedly retracing their evolutionary development or are you refering only to

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/babytail.html

I see the creationists have done their usual bang up job on research.

Digital: Why do you pop in and out of these threads instead of staying for the duration? Why are there a number of threads about this general topic you have left hanging once people started to address your posts?

Hyro: What rust said although more. Some tails have been found complete with multiple vertebra (beyond the normal set we have), muscles and nerve endings and actually reacted to stimuli. This isn't just an odd growth. Furthermore they have found the gene that creates the tail, and have turned tails off in mice.

Also as rust said Vestigial doesn't mean useless but changed or reduced that often has only redumentary function.

Hyro: Please tell me you posted that as a joke and you don't seriously see that article as evidence?

First no we aren't talking about embryos retracing evolution (please stop reading about strawman evolutionists) but I am talking about babies born with functioning tails (something odd to give humans if we really have no relation to apes). I loved how that article ignored it and went on to say something stupid. Apparently the paper thinks evolutionists believe apes magically appeared and then became human. Guess what, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor too. Oops.

I swear that paper reads like a parody.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:



Are you talking about a fetus in the womb supposedly retracing their evolutionary development or are you refering only to

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/babytail.html



They are one and the same. Normally the tail fails to develop further, during the development of the embryo, and we don't have it when are are born. However, there are cases were it does continue to develop, and we get to see it once we are born. Among those tails that do develop, there are those which don't contain bones, and those that do.

Neither of them of serve any purpose - hence the "unintelligence" of having genes which code for them. The ones which do have bones, have the added "unintelligence" of actually being more than just a nuisance; they actually cause pain for the individual who develops it.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 04-24-2006).]

To get back to the point, which is that an intelligent designer (which is different from the pseudo-scientific theory of intelligent design) didn't design many animals very intelligently. Acting as if he was really more of a blind natural process than a supreme being. Leaving bits and pieces of evolutionary-older designs in his more advanced designs. He also apparently got stuck within the then non existent taxonomy.

[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-24-2006).]

quote:Posted by Beta69:

Digital: Why do you pop in and out of these threads instead of staying for the duration? Why are there a number of threads about this general topic you have left hanging once people started to address your posts?

Because I have a life, and much of these debates I have had a million times, and do not relish the thought of spending hours of my time on researching the information, all over again.

I like to have resources for my claims, and that takes time.

If you don't want to take the time to research, engage and finish a conversation, maybe you shouldn't start it or join it, and you really shouldn't make any statements you aren't willing or able to backup.

You say you have been in these debates a million times but have you ever stuck around to the end? Starting the debate and then running away to ignore the rebutal isn't really being part of a debate. Your responses suggest you have never fully researched some of what you post in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

This belief in vestigial organs and recapitulation was debunked in the early 1900's. That's pretty funny that you are using really old arguments that are completely moot.

The appendix is a vestigial organ.

If you wish to claim otherwise please describe the vital function that it currently performs in humans, because after having mined removed over ten years ago I fail to see what I'm missing.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Hyro: Please tell me you posted that as a joke and you don't seriously see that article as evidence?

I used it for the picture because I wasn't sure if Rust was refering to recapitulation or babies born with tails. That was the only picture I found of a human tail. It so happened to be a pro-creationist site. In any case, I glanced over the site and have to concur that it was pretty cheesy.

First no we aren't talking about embryos retracing evolution (please stop reading about strawman evolutionists) but I am talking about babies born with functioning tails (something odd to give humans if we really have no relation to apes). I loved how that article ignored it and went on to say something stupid. Apparently the paper thinks evolutionists believe apes magically appeared and then became human. Guess what, apes and monkeys share a common ancestor too. Oops.

I swear that paper reads like a parody.

All the instances I've ever seen of 'tails' on humans has been a mass of flesh extending not from the coccyx, but actually out of one of the hosts butt cheeks. I've only heard of two instances where it actually had bone mass inside the growth. In any case, neither of them had any ligaments or tendons or musculature of any kind that would have caused it to actually move this 'tail.' If you have a source for such I would enjoy seeing it. (And no, that isn't me being facetious. If you know of any I'd legitimately like to see it). The only instance I've ever seen or heard of a tail-like appendage actually capable of being used in any way was in the movie "Shallow Hal." Funny flick, I recommend you take a gander at it at some point if you haven't already seen it. Anyway, I've got to run to work but I'll go into more depth about it later.

Oh, and to add: Digital and I are pretty busy with kids, work, school, etc... Totse is an extra-curricular activity when we have a moment to spare. Aside from which, as she already pointed out, some of these discusions are a broken record for her and I that we've had many times over with many different Totseans.

Sure,

Human tails http://www.talkreason.org/articles/section2.cfm

A good read with some x-rays of tails with vertebra. (also a recommended read about vestigial organs, often includes ways evidence could be falsified)

"the true atavistic tail of humans results from incomplete regression of the most distal end of the normal embryonic tail found in the developing human fetus (see below)"

"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands. True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move via voluntary striped muscle contractions in response to various emotional states."

"In fact, the genes that control the development of tails in mice and other vertebrates have been identified. As predicted by common descent from the atavistic evidence, these tail genes have also been discovered in the human genome "

embryo tails

"human embryos initially develop tails in development. At between four and five weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae which extend beyond the anus and legs, accounting for more than 10% of the length of the embryo. The embryonic tail is composed of several complex tissues besides the developing vertebrae, including a secondary neural tube (spinal cord), a notochord, mesenchyme, and tail gut. By the eighth week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and the fifth and fourth tail vertebrae are still being reduced. Likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress."



As you can see, everyone has a tail thanks to having genes that create a tail, most people reabsorb it, but for some it never gets reabsorbed.

Digital

Yep, I'm sure she has a lot to do, but she has enough time to come here and posts creationist claims just apparently not enough time to defend them or read responses to them. It does cause a broken record of Digital making old claims then running away from the thread only to make the same claims later in another thread, then to run away from that one as well.

I can't see why ID can't be touched upon in a science lesson as part of the history of the course, as long as it's stressed that it's no longer an accepted theory, and that evolution is. After all, it used to be taught as science. It's the same with the theories of DNA replication, for example; the currently accepted (well, proven) theory is that of semi-conservative replication, but I was taught the reasoning behind the conservative and dispersive theories of replication too, it's good background/side information to the course.

I guess it's different in America, though, what with the more heated debate over teaching it or not. It wouldn't be hard for someone to... accidentally leave out the fact that ID isn't an accepted scientific theory anymore to further their own beliefs.

ID was never a scientific theory to begin with.

How to get a theory into science textbooks:

1) Formulate a hypothesis.

2) Research. If your hypothesis is supported it now becomes a theory.

3) Peer review.

4) Consensus within the scientific community.

5) Printed in textbooks.

Proponents of ID want the "theory" to be published in textbooks with out meeting criteria 2, 3, and 4. Skipping the most important steps in the scientific process.

INTERVIEW WITH DR. DIMITRI KOUZNETSOV (http://www.incolor.com/stuart/dimitri.htm), of the Sedov Biopolymer Research Laboratory in Moscow. He is known for his exhaustive experiments on the accuracy of radiocarbon dating performed on the Shroud of Turin.

Carl Wieland: Dr. Kouznetsov, your visit to Australia has aroused a tremendous amount of interest. Obviously the packed crowds that turned out to hear you at universities, for example, were because it was so revolutionary for most students to hear about a truly world-class researcher such as yourself rejecting evolution. Could you tell us something about how this happened?

Dr. Kouznetsov: About eight years ago, I read a book, in Russian, by Dr. Henry Morris (Institute for Creation Research). I was totally unaware at that stage that there was any alternative explanation for the facts of science. I began to do some real thinking on the matter, and wrote letters to both creationists and evolutionists. I also looked closely at my own fields of molecular biology and biochemistry to see which of the two models makes more sense scientifically. I became convinced of creation as a better scientific explanation eight years ago, and became a Christian oniy two years later.

Carl Wieland: Dr. Kouznetsov, with top-level scientists such as yourself totally disbelieving evolution, why do more scientifically educated people today believe in it as if it were a complete fact, like the law of gravity?

Dr. Kouznetsov: It's such a deeply ingrained faith, such a strong dogma on which we all are raised from an early age. Interestingly, I've read a number of biographies of scientists who are leaders in both creationist and evolutionary thought. The overwhelming trend is that the leaders of evolutionary thought all make their living purely from evolutionary theory. They are 'specialists in evolution' and there is no way that you could see how someone whose entire life and reputation and livelihood were bound up with the theory could turn against it.

On the other hand, the leaders of the creationist movement usually have made a name for themselves in some area of fundamental and applied science - real science - before moving into creation science.

That has what to do with the topic besides an appeal to authority?

That people who hold a degree in a field can believe false information isn't that amazing, I'm sure virtually every crackpot theory has at least one degree holding scientist shouting its truth from the rooftop. Doesn't change the facts.

He's a scientist that believes the theory of ID. He is saying that evolutionists are not typically specialists in any one field, but specialize singularly in the field of evolution.

This begs us to question the validity of their science, because it is evident that they operate under an intense position of bias.

It's funny that you would resort to claiming "the facts" as a reason to discredit creationism, when the evolutionary community is ever sweeping under the rug their numerous attempts at bamboozling the world.

Piltdown Man, Archaeorapter, Lucy, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Ramapithecus, Henckel's embryonic chart, pepper moths...all of these are prime examples of the evolution communities penchant for dishonesty. You will never hear an apology, a recant, or a regret about these completely fraudulent "scientific proofs." Ignoring the lies they have told won't erase them from our memories !

And they have the audacity to consider creationist's "pseudo-scientists" !! http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Wow, just wow, do you bother to read anything on these forums or do any research at all?

quote:It's funny that you would resort to claiming "the facts" as a reason to discredit creationism, when the evolutionary community is ever sweeping under the rug their numerous attempts at bamboozling the world.

...

all of these are prime examples of the evolution communities penchant for dishonesty. You will never hear an apology, a recant, or a regret about these completely fraudulent "scientific proofs." Ignoring the lies they have told won't erase them from our memories !

Ok, lets take a look at these the evolutionary community has supposably swept under the rug and refused to recant.

Piltdown Man,

•Found in 1912 exposed in 1958.

•Never seriously accepted by the scientific community.

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

Archaeorapter,

•found in 1998 exposed in 2000.

•Never accepted by the scientific community. Papers on it were rejected by peer review journals (only National Geo and the News accepted it).

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

Lucy,

•Lucy is a valid fossil of Australopithecus afarensis.

•Claims the parts of Lucy were found in multiple places then assembled are false. The researcher that found Lucy found other specimens in the same area and they have been mistaken as part of Lucy.

Nebraska Man,

•A single tooth.

•Reported in 1922 exposed in 1925-27.

•Never accepted by the scientific community.

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

Java Man,

•A valid fossil.

•Was not found with human skulls and was not a gibbon (often claimed by creationists)).

Ramapithecus,

•A valid fossil.

•evidence since it's find has pushed it out of the Hominid category.

•Research and re-categorization was done by scientists/evolutionists.

Henckel's embryonic chart,

•Drawings trying to support a no longer accepted theory of recapitulation (although something slightly similar does happen).

•Many scientists/evolutionists have spoken out against the use of this image in modern school textbooks.

pepper moths...

•a valid observation showing change in a species. The experiment could have been better, but it isn't false.



If you are honest I expect you to never use any of these as examples as false evidence evolutionists have used or the supposed dishonesty of evolutionists.

Ok, lets take a look at these the evolutionary community has supposably swept under the rug and refused to recant.

Piltdown Man,

•Found in 1912 exposed in 1958.

•Never seriously accepted by the scientific community.

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

Piltdown Man was the focal point of evidence at the Scopes trial. It was very much accepted by virtually all naturalists.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v3i7f.htm

Archaeorapter,

•found in 1998 exposed in 2000.

•Never accepted by the scientific community. Papers on it were rejected by peer review journals (only National Geo and the News accepted it).

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

Archaeoraptor was so obviously a fake that one hardly wonders why it even took two months to discover the fraud.

Lucy,

•Lucy is a valid fossil of Australopithecus afarensis.

•Claims the parts of Lucy were found in multiple places then assembled are false. The researcher that found Lucy found other specimens in the same area and they have been mistaken as part of Lucy.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm

Nebraska Man,

•A single tooth.

•Reported in 1922 exposed in 1925-27.

•Never accepted by the scientific community.

•Exposed by scientists/evolutionists.

This one doesn't even need mentioning other than the fact that it too was used at the Scopes trial as evidence. Out of a single tooth an artists rendition erected Nebraska Man and his entire slope-headed family. The courtroom was in dumbfounded awe over a pigs tooth.

Java Man,

•A valid fossil.

•Was not found with human skulls and was not a gibbon (often claimed by creationists)).

http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_explanation/cx5j.htm



Ramapithecus,

•A valid fossil.

•evidence since it's find has pushed it out of the Hominid category.

•Research and re-categorization was done by scientists/evolutionists.

Henckel's embryonic chart,

•Drawings trying to support a no longer accepted theory of recapitulation (although something slightly similar does happen).

•Many scientists/evolutionists have spoken out against the use of this image in modern school textbooks.

What similarly happens to embryos that retrace their supposed evolutionary ascent?

pepper moths...

•a valid observation showing change in a species. The experiment could have been better, but it isn't false.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/moths.asp

If you are honest I expect you to never use any of these as examples as false evidence evolutionists have used or the supposed dishonesty of evolutionists.

Its important to remember that an entire branch of science was propagated by the very frauds that they now denounce only because they were refuted. Therefore, it bears much relevence to the subject.

Piltdown man

Again, not accepted by the majority of scientists.

That it was used in court is not evolutionists fault, take it up with the lawyer.

Thus it does not match the claims DS made about it.

Archaeoraptor

Good that you agree.

Lucy

The site agrees, Lucy was and is a valid fossil.

Their argument about what that fossil means to science doesn't really matter in this conversation.

Nebraska Man

And again the choices of a lawyer does not a whole scientific community make. If I remember right many scientists seriously criticized those drawings.

Java man

Again the article agrees, a valid fossil (remember DS claimed these were examples of fraudulent evidence).

Skimming the article about Java man I found two common errors, Dubois did not hide his Wadjak skull finds but published them in 1890. He also never claimed Java man was a giant Gibbon but that it was giant genus related to the Gibbon.

Henckel's embryonic chart

Embryo's don't retrace their evolutionary development but they do often contain remanents from ancestors that were turned off or adjusted instead of deleted. Take the Human tail we were talking about which develops in embryos then vanishes. Baleen whales grow and then reabsorb teeth. Whale also grow hair all over then loose it.

Many embryos of related species oddly look rather similar.

pepper moths

This can be a complicated debate (trust me, I've watched it a number of times) however are we care about is whether it was a fraud or not.

-Pepper moths do rest on treetrunks (as well as other locations), based on a couple studies.

-The staged photos were used as visual aids and not as evidence in the paper.

Again, it wasn't the best of studies but wasn't fraudulent.

quote:Its important to remember that an entire branch of science was propagated by the very frauds that they now denounce only because they were refuted. Therefore, it bears much relevence to the subject.

I'm not sure I even understand this. Are you suggesting that because some of these frauds gained evolution public notoriety that we should blame scientists and evolutionists for the dishonesty most didn't support?

Remember DS claimed that each one of the things listed were frauds that evolutionists used and refused to retract. That is NOT true.

Of course not. ID is nothing more than pseudoscience.

[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Piltdown man

Again, not accepted by the majority of scientists.

That it was used in court is not evolutionists fault, take it up with the lawyer.

Thus it does not match the claims DS made about it.

Give me a break Beta. You could say, "What does that have to do with modern evolutionists?" And I would say, "Fine, your point is taken." But to say that its somehow the fault of some slick-haired laywer isn't credible when it was the scientific community that presented the evidence to begin with.

Archaeoraptor

Good that you agree.

Well, that's good.

Lucy

The site agrees, Lucy was and is a valid fossil.

Their argument about what that fossil means to science doesn't really matter in this conversation.

I know the bones are real. The bones are real on all of them. That's not my contention. Its the conclusion they came to on such a fragmented skeleton that concerns me. Or, that they've taken bones from different species and spliced them together. That's my issue with it.

Nebraska Man

And again the choices of a lawyer does not a whole scientific community make. If I remember right many scientists seriously criticized those drawings.[/b]

Again, it was the scientists who discovered it, the scientists who purported it, and the scientists who instructed the lawyer on what it allegedly was.

Java man

Again the article agrees, a valid fossil (remember DS claimed these were examples of fraudulent evidence).

Skimming the article about Java man I found two common errors, Dubois did not hide his Wadjak skull finds but published them in 1890. He also never claimed Java man was a giant Gibbon but that it was giant genus related to the Gibbon.[/b]

For the record, I was standing right next to Digi when she wrote the article, and she asked me to remind her of demonstrable frauds. She listed all of them, but I added Lucy and Java Man to the mix. I reminded her of Java Man, so if you are gonna flame anyone on it, flame me. The reason we listed it is because its based on erroneous and inconclusive (at best) findings. I know the bones are real. What the bones belonged to and what fascial tissue was attached to it is another matter altogether.

Henckel's embryonic chart

Embryo's don't retrace their evolutionary development but they do often contain remanents from ancestors that were turned off or adjusted instead of deleted. Take the Human tail we were talking about which develops in embryos then vanishes. Baleen whales grow and then reabsorb teeth. Whale also grow hair all over then loose it.

Many embryos of related species oddly look rather similar.[/b]

That an organism somehow retraces its evolutionary development is a ridiculous and wholly unfactual assertion. I couldn't find any article on the web that alluded to baleen whales growing calcified teeth, only for them to retract and disappear into thin air. The only thing remotely close was Ed Babinski's site, but it didn't go into any detail on that particular subject. Furthermore, if this is the case, then that is clearly encoded in the DNA. If its encoded in the DNA, then none of the information was ever deleted, which would mean that all less developed ancestors should have the same coding. If that's the case, then what prompted baleen whales to develop baleen to begin with? Unfortunately for both of us, I don't think that anyone has sequenced the genome of a megalithic-sized baleen whale as of yet. But that some atavistic feature shows up for some inexplicable reason only to disappear is misleading.

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i4/almostwhale.asp

pepper moths

This can be a complicated debate (trust me, I've watched it a number of times) however are we care about is whether it was a fraud or not.

-Pepper moths do rest on treetrunks (as well as other locations), based on a couple studies.

-The staged photos were used as visual aids and not as evidence in the paper.

Again, it wasn't the best of studies but wasn't fraudulent.[/b]

"And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree.4 University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’5,6"

That's a deliberate fraud.



I'm not sure I even understand this. Are you suggesting that because some of these frauds gained evolution public notoriety that we should blame scientists and evolutionists for the dishonesty most didn't support?

In essence, yes. Had none of these frauds been so popularized in the early stages if the theory, it likely would have come and gone as a vagabond. It took years for evolution to gain any credibility. It was until Piltdown and Nebraska Man came along that it started to shake peoples faith.

Remember DS claimed that each one of the things listed were frauds that evolutionists used and refused to retract. That is NOT true.

Most of them were frauds. Only Lucy and Java Man are even mentionable as being a possible genuine find, but not a genuine find that should propagate evolution IMO. But, again, if you want to flame anyone, flame me. All the other names she listed are frauds, or at least, tidbits of truth mixed in with a ton of conjecture.

Yep many are frauds and they weren't accepted by scientists.

but remember what she said, "all of these are prime examples of the evolution communities penchant for dishonesty. You will never hear an apology, a recant, or a regret about these completely fraudulent "scientific proofs." Ignoring the lies they have told won't erase them from our memories !"

Which is incorrect.

I don't want to flame anyone, I want creationists to understand the evidence they are using before they use it and to stop trotting out the same old false claims about "dishonest" evolutionists.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Yep many are frauds and they weren't accepted by scientists.

but remember what she said, "all of these are prime examples of the evolution communities penchant for dishonesty. You will never hear an apology, a recant, or a regret about these completely fraudulent "scientific proofs." Ignoring the lies they have told won't erase them from our memories !"

Which is incorrect.

I don't want to flame anyone, I want creationists to understand the evidence they are using before they use it and to stop trotting out the same old false claims about "dishonest" evolutionists.



But its so compelling...

Well, I'll stop bringing it up to you, but many kids don't know about this stuff because what evolutionist wants that kind of inforamtion known?

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Of course not. ID is nothing more than pseudoscience.

Proof ?

Just as evolutionists are tired of hearing about Piltdown Man, IDer's are tired of hearing about pseudo-science.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309064066/html/index.html

http://www.intelligent-forces.com/intelligent-design-criticism.htm

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/4/27/03541/2520

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

Screw TinyUrl.

Addition,

Didn't see your replies in the quote.

Piltdown Man

quote:But to say that its somehow the fault of some slick-haired laywer isn't credible when it was the scientific community that presented the evidence to begin with.

Irony. So you want to make a lawyer the voice of all the scientific community ignoring the actual reaction to piltdown man. The lawyer gets to pick the people who testify and two of them made a mention of piltdown man. That's about the biggest noteriety Piltdown got. Although accepted by some it was constantly questioned by others.

It certainly wasn't accepted by the scientific community nor pushed under the rug when discovered like many creationist groups claim.

Lucy

quote:I know the bones are real. The bones are real on all of them. That's not my contention. Its the conclusion they came to on such a fragmented skeleton that concerns me. Or, that they've taken bones from different species and spliced them together. That's my issue with it.

By real I mean not a fraud. We are not discussion the conclusions as DS's claim is that these are frauds, the bones weren't taken from separate species and spliced together.

Nebraska Man

quote:Again, it was the scientists who discovered it, the scientists who purported it, and the scientists who instructed the lawyer on what it allegedly was.

And again, a couple of scientists purporting something does not a community opinion make (would you like me to dig up all the crazy claims some creationists have made and connect them to every creationist around?)

Who instructed the Lawyer on which scientists to call? Again, the choices of one lawyer doesn't make a scientific community opinion either. Since you seem to be having trouble with this, let me give you a hint, being published in peer review journals is a step to becoming accepted by the scientific community, not published in a news piece or picked by a lawyer.

Doing a little bit of research it would appear Nebraska Man never even made it to the scopes trial. Although Osborn (the person who reported the find) was called he didn't join the trial.

Java Man

quote:The reason we listed it is because its based on erroneous and inconclusive (at best) findings.

What erroneous findings?

Henckel's embryonic chart

quote:That an organism somehow retraces its evolutionary development is a ridiculous and wholly unfactual assertion.

Isn't that what I said? Yes it is "Embryo's don't retrace their evolutionary development"

Whales, if you want I could find another source. I'm surprised you posted that whale site, I believe I have refuted that last time you posted it, but I bet you just ignored what I wrote. No matter.

The fact is the Charts are very old based on an incorrect theory and scientists speak out against their use, contradicting the original claim.

Pepper Moths

quote:That's a deliberate fraud.

Wow, you just ignored me.

It is not a deliberate fraud if they never claim the photos are field photos. Many were taken as examples and were not included in the actual paper (read that again please).

Whenever you see a NOVA program about a NASA spacecraft and it has an animation of it landing on another planet do you scream fraud at your TV? Because that is what you are doing here.

There are a number of different areas to question the moths study, such as releasing them during the day instead of night

quote:In essence, yes. Had none of these frauds been so popularized in the early stages if the theory, it likely would have come and gone as a vagabond. It took years for evolution to gain any credibility. It was until Piltdown and Nebraska Man came along that it started to shake peoples faith.

Ha, so you blame scientists for things they have no control over. Wow, that's just so stupid I think it needs to be mounted.

You need to research evolution more. In the scientific community evolution had come and stuck long before these ever came around. It would have stuck whether the public knew about it or not. The public also heard about many other finds. The idea that these two finds sparked the acceptance of evolution is BS.



Now to repeat myself, a bit sterner this time. Not ALL of these are frauds, NONE of those frauds were fully accepted by the scientific community*, ALL of the frauds were taken down by the scientific community. To use these as evidence against modern evolutions integrity after you know it is a false claim is dishonest and questionable and I would hope people who claim they are good christians wouldn't travel down the road of lying just to support their beliefs.

The reuse of this false information to attack the integrity of evolutionists would make me lose all respect for those that already know it's false.

*Piltdown man does come the closest IMO, but the constant skepticism and little to no peer review of the fossils puts it among things that weren't accepted by the scientific community.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Proof ?

Just as evolutionists are tired of hearing about Piltdown Man, IDer's are tired of hearing about pseudo-science.

pseu·do·sci·ence

n.

A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation. Example: Intelligent Design is nothing more than pseudoscience.

More on vestigial organs:

Top 10 Useless Limbs (and Other Vestigial Organs) (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs.html)

Vestigial organs not considered in the above website:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>

<LI>Why do some snakes carry the rudiments of tiny legs?

<LI>Why do certain species of flightless beetles have wings that never open?

</UL>

Intelligent Design does not seem so "intelligent" anymore. Surely they should simply rename it to "Creationism," which whould be a better fit for this nonsensical pseudoscience.

[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 04-28-2006).]

First of all, you're all wrong. Creationism isn't a science, this much is true. But before you get all excited, know that neither is evolution. Both theories employ scientific means to propel their theorems.

Biology is a science.

Cosmology is a science.

Anthropology is a science.

Botany is a science.

Geology is a science.

Creation and Evolutionary theorey employs science as a means to verify their claims, scientifically.

With having said that, what about creation scientists makes them any less valid than a secular scientist? Many of you act like they do nothing but sit around reading Genesis and rubbing twigs together.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)

Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)

Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)

Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)

Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)

Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)

Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)

David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)

Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)

Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)

Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)

Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)

Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)

Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)

Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)

Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)

Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)

Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]

John Grebe (chemist)

Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)

William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)

George F. Howe (botanist)

D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)

James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)

Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)

John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)

Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)

Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)

Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)

Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)

Frank L. Marsh (biologist)

Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)

James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)

Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)

Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)

Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)

John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)

Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)

Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)

James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)

Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)

George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)

Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)

William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)

Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)

Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)

A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]

A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)

John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=discover&action=index&page=discover_faculty

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

They all recieved legitimate degrees in the fields of science, actusl science, and not your convoluted definition of psuedo-science. To claim otherwise brings all scientists into disrepute. All of them are defectors of evolution based on the inferences of science. So, someone please explain to me in depth your version of psuedo-science?

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Cosmology is a science.

Incorrect. Cosmology is the study of the Universe in its totality, including humanity's place in it. While cosmology has a long history of science, it does include heavy philosophy, esotericism, and religion.

Maybe what you were looking for was physical cosmology. Which is the understanding of the Universe through scientific observation, experiments, and theorizing. This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins by arguing for the big bang, a sort of cosmic explosion from which the Universe itself is said to have erupted ~13.7 ± 0.2 billion (10^9) years ago.

quote:Anthropology is a science.

Yet again, anthropology is the study of humanity. It is holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity.

quote:Creation and Evolutionary theorey employs science as a means to verify their claims, scientifically.

I'm sorry. Can you proceed to provide evidence that 'Creation' theory employs science as a mean to verify its claims?

quote:With having said that, what about creation scientists makes them any less valid than a secular scientist? Many of you act like they do nothing but sit around reading Genesis and rubbing twigs together.

Who said that creation scientists are less valid than secular scientists? 'Creation' is their belief, this does not mean its correct.



[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 04-28-2006).]

By the way, isn't it funny how this whole thread is in the "My God Can Beat The Shit Out Of Your God" section. =]

We have seen lists like that before... what was the point again?

Is this another appeal to authority?

Yes some creationists have degrees, a few even have degrees in relevant fields. Doesn't make creationism right or actual science it just means they should have known better. The list also contains people that lived before evolution.

But if you want to compare lists of scientists as a way to prove a theory the NCSE created a tongue in cheek response to this called project Steve. It is signed by scientists who accept evolution and are named "Steve" (or a variation of). Currently the list of modern scientists named steve who accept evolution is at #733 and growing.

Edit: I would also seriously question that all of them (those that are modern) came to creationism based on science along. Matter of fact I KNOW that is false.

Edit again to add: Out of curiousity how many of those scientists you listed have had creationist papers published in valid peer review journals?



[This message has been edited by Beta69 (edited 04-28-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:



Edit again to add: Out of curiousity how many of those scientists you listed have had creationist papers published in valid peer review journals?



If you could post where they got their degree(s) from that would also help.

Incorrect. Cosmology is the study of the Universe in its totality, including humanity's place in it. While cosmology has a long history of science, it does include heavy philosophy, esotericism, and religion.

Maybe what you were looking for was physical cosmology. Which is the understanding of the Universe through scientific observation, experiments, and theorizing. This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins by arguing for the big bang, a sort of cosmic explosion from which the Universe itself is said to have erupted ~13.7 ± 0.2 billion (10^9) years ago.

Please insult Stephen Hawking and all of his hard won efforts some more. If you wanted to go that route, we could simply say that Hawking isn't a scientist at all, but rather, a mathematician. The fact is, Hawking is both because he uses them both to verify his claims.

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/cosmology.html

Why would I need to distinguish between cosmology and 'physical' cosmology?

Yet again, anthropology is the study of humanity. It is holistic in two senses: it is concerned with all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity.

Anthropology can study the social science aspects of human beings, but anthropology is a subdivision of biology. Next time I'll be sure to say 'physical' cosmology and 'forensic' anthropology so that's its clear. In any case, you glanced over my premise and scoured the internet to try to find some way to discredit me, if only to give us some hair-splitting, asinine answer.

I'm sorry. Can you proceed to provide evidence that 'Creation' theory employs science as a mean to verify its claims?]

Is that a joke? I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Who said that creation scientists are less valid than secular scientists? 'Creation' is their belief, this does not mean its correct.

You did with your aforementioned statement.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

We have seen lists like that before... what was the point again?

Is this another appeal to authority?

The point is, most of these individuals are defectors of evolution who have legitimate fields of study. After reviewing the facts, they felt that the current and former evolutionary model is simply inadequate to answer its own questions. The point is that only after their defection are they now being harangued.

Yes some creationists have degrees, a few even have degrees in relevant fields. Doesn't make creationism right or actual science it just means they should have known better. The list also contains people that lived before evolution.

No, that doesn't mean that anything is necessarily valid because someone is a scientist. I obviously disagree with evolutionary biology as a prime example.

But if you want to compare lists of scientists as a way to prove a theory the NCSE created a tongue in cheek response to this called project Steve. It is signed by scientists who accept evolution and are named "Steve" (or a variation of). Currently the list of modern scientists named steve who accept evolution is at #733 and growing.

Fascinating.

Edit: I would also seriously question that all of them (those that are modern) came to creationism based on science along. Matter of fact I KNOW that is false.

Edit again to add: Out of curiousity how many of those scientists you listed have had creationist papers published in valid peer review journals?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i4/nobel.asp

[/B]

NAY!!!!!

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Is that a joke? I'm not even going to dignify that with an answer.

Well, provide the science behind 'Creation' or admit that you cannot.



quote:You did with your aforementioned statement.

Like I said, Creationism is a belief, not a science.

Well, provide the science behind 'Creation' or admit that you cannot.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=319

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2603

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=47

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=462

All using legitimate scientific research taken from one just one website.

Like I said, Creationism is a belief, not a science.

Numerous times I have said that Creation theory isn't a 'science.' Its a theory that employs scientific means in order to confirm it. The exact same thing can be said about evolutionary theory. Do you understand the difference between theory and science?

Hyro:

quote:The point is, most of these individuals are defectors of evolution who have legitimate fields of study.

Sure, but how many stick to only those fields when discussing the debate? Some have degrees in engineering but they talk about biology and geology. Having a degree doesn't mean someone understands all science.

Just because someone knows how to fix a computer doesn't mean I trust them to do surgery, the reverse is true as well.

For some even their degrees are questionable. There have been creationists who went to diploma mills to get a Dr. infront of their name to appear more credible. I know of at least one creationist who was one before the degree, went to school and BSed the classes and admited the only reason he got a Biology degree was to appear more credible.

quote:After reviewing the facts, they felt that the current and former evolutionary model is simply inadequate to answer its own questions.

This is questionable and something you have not shown. How many truly* looked at only the facts and concluded creationism was the right answer? How many first accepted their conclusion as 100% correct and then looked at the "fact" ignoring what they didn't like? How many just didn't look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion?

*I say truly because there are some that claim they looked at only the scientific facts but when you really look at their history you see they came to fundamental christianity first, the belief the literal bible is accurate no matter what the evidence says second and then creationism third.

quote:The point is that only after their defection are they now being harangued.

Yes of course, in general people are only told they made a bad decision after they make it, that's the way cause and effect works. Same goes for many scientists who support theories contrary to the evidence or make a career in writing conspiracy theory books, not just creationists.

quote:No, that doesn't mean that anything is necessarily valid because someone is a scientist. I obviously disagree with evolutionary biology as a prime example.

In which case your list is meaningless. All it shows is that even people who are educated can make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions.

quote:AIG article

Again I asked for published creationist papers.



AIG article

quote:From the article:

"We even have to publish our own peer-reviewed journals; any paper which does not bow to materialistic axioms on origins has a snowball’s chance in a blast furnace of getting published in a secular journal.*"

Wow, priceless. Did you know that most of these creationist peer review journals require their members to say creationism is correct before they will publish their papers? These journals require their members to accept the conclusion as accurate before they will publish papers about it. That is NOT science.

So it would make sense any paper built on the idea that the conclusion is accurate and evidence should be thrown away* if it doesn't match really doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting published. There is nothing wrong with that.

Many creationist papers also use blatantly false or misleading information (I have shown you a number of these in other threads, you seemed to ignore some but that doesn't change the fact they are wrong). That is also something that shouldn't be published in a peer review journal, thus there is nothing wrong with that.

Now if creationism was actually valid science and they could make their point without throwing out evidence or using false information then I have no doubt they could get published. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief the science community is full of arguments between two competing theories and the groups that study them. Both groups get published and the issue is debated

*Remember I have already shown where AIG admits to ignoring evidence if it contradicts them.

quote:From the article:

"Then there was the well-publicized case of Forrest Mims, the highly-skilled science writer.* His employment by Scientific American was openly denied on the grounds of his creationist views—even though the subjects he was paid to write on were not remotely related to origins."

Sci-Am is a magazine, like National Geographic, and not a peer review journal. They can choose whoever they want to write their articles. This happened in 1988 when Mims wrote to Sci-Am asking for the position of amateur science editor. He was turned down, supposably for his creationist beliefs. Although there are even evolutionists who question this decision it seems reasonable, if Mims follows the AiG view of creationism which adjusts evidence to fit the conclusion, a non scientific practice, why should he write articles about amateur science?

How many Christian magazines would be willing to hire an atheist who believes Jesus is a myth to write for their "newcomers to the faith" section?

quote:From the article:

All of which makes the exclusion of Dr Damadian as the third co-recipient of the Nobel so pointed that even some of the secular media have talked of the possibility of a link between Dr Damadian’s exclusion and his creationism."

Finally the point of the article. By "secular media" they mean minor conjecture in one New york Times article and one scientist who thought it might have been possible. NO evidence suggests he actually was denied because of his possible creationist views.

The 2003 award went those who discovered MRIs could be used to image cancer. Although it built upon Damadian's idea of how to detect cancer Damadian himself never suggested a way to image that cancer. Maybe he should have been included and the winning discovery widened and some scientists argued for him, but the reality is it wasn't and he wasn't included because he was not a direct part in the winning discovery.

IMHO they did build off his work and he possibly should have been included but we need a draw a line as to were a new discovery starts, otherwise the prize will be constantly going to people such as the inventor of the microchip everytime a microchip is used in a new discovery.

Sorry but the article is empty and full of fluff, looking at the language used and the claims made I would say they are trying to play you for a fool.

After reading the very first sentence of the very first link: "The single most significant biological event since creation is undoubtedly the Curse on creation as a result of Adam's sin," I immediately exited out.

Once again, creationism does not belong in the science classroom. It belongs in a religion/theology/mythology class. Ample amounts of evidence have been given in this thread to refute creationism (see Rust's and Beta's posts), so it's rather useless to keep this thread going. If students feel they want to learn more about creationism and a so-called "intelligent designer" because they find it interesting, they are more than welcome to pursue a course in religion/theology/mythology. But to offer creationism as a replacement/alternative for evolution in a science class is absolutely absurd.



[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 04-29-2006).]

Sure, but how many stick to only those fields when discussing the debate? Some have degrees in engineering but they talk about biology and geology. Having a degree doesn't mean someone understands all science.

I'm the first to agree that having a degree in whatever doesn't turn on some 'on or off' switch in intelligence. I'm not the one who highly esteems, or overly-esteems degrees. Unfortunately, we live in a society that says, "If you don't have a piece of paper, then you can't speak with any amount of merit." That's just the way it is, because no one wants to even hear what you have to say without one.

Here's the issue: People in here keep questioning whether or not scientific creation has any merit within the scientific community. I'm merely pointing out that they do. It was asked of me to provide it, and that's what I've done.

Somebody who has a degree in, say biology, has no right to be answering questions about, say, geology. But what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I doubt Ed Babinski has several degrees, and yet he speaks about virtually every facet of science. I don't discredit him for that. I mean, we live in an age of unprecedented technological capacity where information can come to the layaman with the click of a mouse. Degrees don't necessarily make you smarter, or even more informed. It just helps you get listened to, to begin with.

Just because someone knows how to fix a computer doesn't mean I trust them to do surgery, the reverse is true as well.

For some even their degrees are questionable. There have been creationists who went to diploma mills to get a Dr. infront of their name to appear more credible. I know of at least one creationist who was one before the degree, went to school and BSed the classes and admited the only reason he got a Biology degree was to appear more credible.

I'd be inclined to agree with you to an extent, but it has to go both ways. Clearly that isn't the case, but I'd be hard pressed to see you flame an evolutionist for taking advantage of their doctorate for the exact same thing.

This is questionable and something you have not shown. How many truly* looked at only the facts and concluded creationism was the right answer? How many first accepted their conclusion as 100% correct and then looked at the "fact" ignoring what they didn't like? How many just didn't look at all the facts before coming to a conclusion?

How much of anyone's beliefs about science is actually based on their own presupposed ideals, secular and theistic alike? I'd venture to say that its a question of motivation on the part of the claimant. Furthermore, we have to remember that people are addicted to the theory of evolution. The little high school kid assumes, and rightly so, that the information being presented to him/her has been verified by the teachers teaching it, and scientists out in the field. Often, that is not the case. So we have a generation more confused today than in my day. Recapitulation can still be found in high school textbooks to this day. That's atrocious considering its been debunked for almost 100 years.

*I say truly because there are some that claim they looked at only the scientific facts but when you really look at their history you see they came to fundamental christianity first, the belief the literal bible is accurate no matter what the evidence says second and then creationism third.

Look, at this point in time, the sciences have been overrun by secular thought and it seems inconceivable to many that they should somehow revert back to an antiquated system of thought. But that really isn't the case. In many cultures back in the day, people attributed sickness with evil spirits instead of biological reasons. But it was a Christian, Louis Pasteur, who figured all of this out. It was a Christina, Lord Kelvin, who brought some of the most important principles of physics to life. There is this unfair and wholly untrue belief that Christians want to live in the Dark Ages. This simply isn't true. To me, science simply reveals how God does what He does, and nothing more. But too many people seem incapable of reconciling with this mindset.

Yes of course, in general people are only told they made a bad decision after they make it, that's the way cause and effect works. Same goes for many scientists who support theories contrary to the evidence or make a career in writing conspiracy theory books, not just creationists.

Couldn't you agree, you of all people because you've actually researched creationism more than the average Totsean, that you can't group creation theory with, say, Paranoraml research? Don't you think its a bit unfair and deceitful the way many creationists are treated? Granted, I agree that there are alot of them that are quite fanciful and they really don't know much about the theory they claim to support. Some of them claim support just because it goes along with their theological inclinations.

In which case your list is meaningless. All it shows is that even people who are educated can make mistakes and come to wrong conclusions.

We're all capable of mistakes. Even Darwin made some critical mistakes. What I liked about Darwin was that he was able to point out some of the things that didn't quite add up. He just hoped in time that they'd be proven. Many of them, we're still waiting for. Some creationists flame Darwin, but I don't. I honestly believe that Darwin was an intuitive man and that he acted on upon it. Of course, I don't agree with much of it, but some I do. Irregardless, it is his followers that I have the most problem with. I've heard similar notions about Jesus. Many have said, "I don't have a problem with Jesus, its His followers that irk me." I guess that's fair. Those are tough shoes to fill..... er, um, sandals to fill.

Again I asked for published creationist papers.

Yes, but there is a suppression of anything relating to God. This shouldn't surprise even you.

Wow, priceless. Did you know that most of these creationist peer review journals require their members to say creationism is correct before they will publish their papers? These journals require their members to accept the conclusion as accurate before they will publish papers about it. That is NOT science.

Anyone that takes the stance of figuring out the answer before the experiment has been conducted is suspect, and I in no way support that deduction. However, the same could be said of evolutionary biologists who in no way could ever pour their life's work down the drain by actually going against what the findings actually are comprised of.

So it would make sense any paper built on the idea that the conclusion is accurate and evidence should be thrown away* if it doesn't match really doesn't stand a snowball's chance in a blast furnace of getting published. There is nothing wrong with that.

Many creationist papers also use blatantly false or misleading information (I have shown you a number of these in other threads, you seemed to ignore some but that doesn't change the fact they are wrong). That is also something that shouldn't be published in a peer review journal, thus there is nothing wrong with that.

It really comes down to who is saying its wrong, now doesn't it? The fact remains that there are gaping wide holes in the theory of naturalistic evolution. I mean, there are some serious irreconcilable circumstances that hold it back. But this doesn't seem to sway you. Why? I suspect it has to do with a motivation. For as much as you say that creationists have a reason to lift God up, you have just as much personal reasons to dethrone Him. What are you left with if you take away random chance? You are left with special creation, and heaven forbid that be the answer.

Now if creationism was actually valid science and they could make their point without throwing out evidence or using false information then I have no doubt they could get published. Contrary to what appears to be popular belief the science community is full of arguments between two competing theories and the groups that study them. Both groups get published and the issue is debated

Don't you see what's going on? This is greater than the evolution/creation debate. The time is coming when major persecution is coming. Atheistic thought wants to bring this Marxist ideal into a reality. Its only going to get worse.

Sci-Am is a magazine, like National Geographic, and not a peer review journal. They can choose whoever they want to write their articles. This happened in 1988 when Mims wrote to Sci-Am asking for the position of amateur science editor. He was turned down, supposably for his creationist beliefs. Although there are even evolutionists who question this decision it seems reasonable, if Mims follows the AiG view of creationism which adjusts evidence to fit the conclusion, a non scientific practice, why should he write articles about amateur science?

How many Christian magazines would be willing to hire an atheist who believes Jesus is a myth to write for their "newcomers to the faith" section?

I understand what you're saying, but again, the same exact thing could be said about the majority of secular scientists. The only difference being, that its in reverse and that athiestic scientific community don't wear their beliefs, or lack of them, on their sleeve.

Finally the point of the article. By "secular media" they mean minor conjecture in one New york Times article and one scientist who thought it might have been possible. NO evidence suggests he actually was denied because of his possible creationist views.

What secularist would ever admit to that level of bias! That's the problem. And for a creationist, once you've admitted that you are a creationist, its as good as career suicide. That's a bunch of bull excrement, especially when so much of their study has nothing to do with creationist views.

The 2003 award went those who discovered MRIs could be used to image cancer. Although it built upon Damadian's idea of how to detect cancer Damadian himself never suggested a way to image that cancer. Maybe he should have been included and the winning discovery widened and some scientists argued for him, but the reality is it wasn't and he wasn't included because he was not a direct part in the winning discovery.

IMHO they did build off his work and he possibly should have been included but we need a draw a line as to were a new discovery starts, otherwise the prize will be constantly going to people such as the inventor of the microchip everytime a microchip is used in a new discovery.[/b]

Who can ever really know how important or unimportant his contribution really was? The fact that he was up for Nobel should speak highly enough for itself. But it hasn't because we have slanted and biased views in both arenas. Like I said, I agree that many creationists are giving themselves a black eye by mixing too much of the Bible in with a field of study that should have no immediate relevance to the actual study. But this case is a prime example. The fact that MRI is so critical to hospitals the world over, yet his creationist beliefs silently prohibit him, is an affront so egregios that I can't put it into words.

Sorry but the article is empty and full of fluff, looking at the language used and the claims made I would say they are trying to play you for a fool.

I wouldn't. I don't think you can sit there and honestly tell me that there isn't a massive propaganda campaign to silence creationists. Hell, TO is almost soley devoted to debunking creation. If creation wasn't valid then it wouldn't be a threat to the current, prevailing wisdom. As it is, its more than evident that it is solid enough to stand up to the evolutionary model with parity. Otherwise, why does it get so much attention, both positive and negative?

Its the same thing for these kids that come in here ranting and raving about God. If they honsetly didn't believe in the possibility of God, they wouldn't spend inordinate amounts of time hating Him. I know their heart better than they do. The fact that anyone would devote so much time to it indicates that it is a direct threat that they feel needs to be addressed.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

After reading the very first sentence of the very first link: "The single most significant biological event since creation is undoubtedly the Curse on creation as a result of Adam's sin," I immediately exited out.

I guess that isn't bias on your part, huh?

Once again, creationism does not belong in the science classroom. It belongs in a religion/theology/mythology class. Ample amounts of evidence have been given in this thread to refute creationism (see Rust's and Beta's posts), so it's rather useless to keep this thread going. If students feel they want to learn more about creationism and a so-called "intelligent designer" because they find it interesting, they are more than welcome to pursue a course in religion/theology/mythology. But to offer creationism as a replacement/alternative for evolution in a science class is absolutely absurd.

I seriously question how much about it you actually know of. Do yourself a favor and at least read some of it.

At any given point, if you'd like to have an actual debate and put your beliefs to the test, then post something worthy of more than just anti-creationist hissy fit.

[/B]

quote:I guess that isn't bias on your part, huh?

No, not bias. I'm referring to the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction and the story of Adam and Eve is exactly that, a story. Next time, try quoting resources that are nonfiction.

You have yet to provide indisputable evidence for creationism. And no, you can't quote the Bible as a resource. That's analogous to me quoting Aladdin and magic carpets.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a textbook. Leave the Bible for your own religious beliefs and/or leisure reading.

[This message has been edited by bonkers (edited 04-30-2006).]

quote:Here's the issue: People in here keep questioning whether or not scientific creation has any merit within the scientific community. I'm merely pointing out that they do. It was asked of me to provide it, and that's what I've done.

Um no, getting a degree doesn't mean your opinion is part of the science community. You have shown people with degrees can make mistakes too.

quote:Somebody who has a degree in, say biology, has no right to be answering questions about, say, geology. But what's good for the goose should be good for the gander. I doubt Ed Babinski has several degrees, and yet he speaks about virtually every facet of science.

It should be noted I don't think creationists who have degrees in engineering should be instantly discredited when they talk about biology, however if you want to bring up creationists and degrees it's best to bring up those that have degrees in what they speak of.

quote:I'd be inclined to agree with you to an extent, but it has to go both ways. Clearly that isn't the case, but I'd be hard pressed to see you flame an evolutionist for taking advantage of their doctorate for the exact same thing.

Show me an evolutionist who gets a fake degree just to sound more important in this debate and I will flame them.

quote:How much of anyone's beliefs about science is actually based on their own presupposed ideals, secular and theistic alike? I'd venture to say that its a question of motivation on the part of the claimant.

I agree. But there is a difference between being inthralled in a certain theory and blatantly ignoring evidence and falsifying data to keep your theory afloat. Just look at the recent issues of the Korean scientist who faked data.

That's actually one of the reasons for peer review, allowing other scientists to look at your data, repeat your experiments and go over your conclusions helps to remove interference by your beliefs or presupposed ideas. Although not perfect it has been used rather effectively.

quote:Recapitulation can still be found in high school textbooks to this day. That's atrocious considering its been debunked for almost 100 years.

I agree again. Many scientists do as well, there are a number of groups trying to correct publishers of school textbooks. Of course that is an issue with the publishers and not with peer review journals.

quote:Look, at this point in time, the sciences have been overrun by secular thought and it seems inconceivable to many that they should somehow revert back to an antiquated system of thought. But that really isn't the case. In many cultures back in the day, people attributed sickness with evil spirits instead of biological reasons. But it was a Christian, Louis Pasteur, who figured all of this out. It was a Christina, Lord Kelvin, who brought some of the most important principles of physics to life. There is this unfair and wholly untrue belief that Christians want to live in the Dark Ages. This simply isn't true. To me, science simply reveals how God does what He does, and nothing more. But too many people seem incapable of reconciling with this mindset.

Tell me, where in the bible does it say germs exist? What passage did Pasture use and how did it prove germs exist?

Creationist groups like to make "secular" out to be some sort of evil demonic religion that tries to destroy christianity but in reality christian scientists have used secular reasoning in their main discoveries.

I agree with you again, if God exists science does reveal how God does what he does.

So who is it that ignores science? Creationist groups.

They put their reading of a book above Gods own work.

Who is it that claims you can't accept modern science (evolution) and be a christian? Creationist groups and militant atheists.

Who lies about evolution and says it claims christianity isn't true? Creationist groups and militant atheists.

quote:Couldn't you agree, you of all people because you've actually researched creationism more than the average Totsean, that you can't group creation theory with, say, Paranoraml research?

Some creationism yes, others no. Some creationism is built on actual science, incomplete and poorly researched science but it still falls within the realm of science. Others, including Intelligent design, no it's beyond the realm of paranormal research. The main principle of ID is that the paranormal shouldn't be out of bounds for science.

quote:Don't you think its a bit unfair and deceitful the way many creationists are treated?

Yes and no.

Many people do treat creationists harshly, in the general public.

In science however I don't think so. You need to realize you are walking into a 30 year old modern debate and a 160+ historical debate. Years ago in the modern debate creationist were treated well enough (for people who chose to publish their claims through standard media such as standard books and not through peer review journals like most other scientists who have a beef with a current theory). However since then their constant misuse of science, false information and alienation of many evolutionists by misquoting them and twisting their words have gained them little respect in the scientific community (one which is very harsh on things like false information).

It's like walking into a prison. An inmate might be nice to you and say he didn't do it, but you don't have the perspective of those that suffered because of him.

Creationist groups try to ignore or hide their indiscretions from their members, which makes them look like the picked on underdogs but in reality they have earned the way scientists treat them. That's not to say a well documented accurate creationist paper wouldn't get published in peer review journals.

quote:Yes, but there is a suppression of anything relating to God. This shouldn't surprise even you.

If a creationist paper requires God to be accurate then it isn't science.

Take the age of the earth and geology. God isn't required for the earth to be X years old. In creationism and their arguments were valid a paper could be written showing the earth as 6000 years old without a single reference to God.

The claim that papers don't get published because scientists dislike or hate anything remotely related to God is a smokescreen and a crutch. There are a number of mainstream christian science groups that disprove that (matter of fact I learned a lot about evolution and biology from christian scientists).

quote:However, the same could be said of evolutionary biologists who in no way could ever pour their life's work down the drain by actually going against what the findings actually are comprised of.

One scientist, maybe not but the scientific community, I disagree. There have been a number of drastic theory changes in science and although there was debate and they required serious support they were accepted (evolution is one of those theories).

Matter of fact I remember watching a program over competing astronomy theories and one scientist said it would suck to be shown wrong, but that's life.

quote:It really comes down to who is saying its wrong, now doesn't it? The fact remains that there are gaping wide holes in the theory of naturalistic evolution.

It really doesn't come down to who is saying it's wrong. If X is wrong, it's wrong no matter who is attacking it.

Could it be that the gaping wide holes don't exist when you fully research evolution and don't just follow along with groups who refuse to accept anything but their conclusion?

Lets say there are gaping wide holes, and lets say for a second that creationism hasn't been disproven (it has). If creationism had holes in it much bigger than evolution then shouldn't we go with the theory with the smaller holes?

Just look at the theory of relativity vs newtonian mechanics. The theory of relativity might have some holes in it* but newtonian mechanics has much bigger holes, thus we go with relativity as the valid theory.

*based on the inability to connect it with quantum mechanics.

quote:I suspect it has to do with a motivation. For as much as you say that creationists have a reason to lift God up, you have just as much personal reasons to dethrone Him.

Absofuckinglutly not. I have no reason to dethrone God and neither does science. If God sits on a throne, good for him, I don't see any evidence he does, but maybe he just doesn't like me. The people that have a reason to dethrone God are militant atheists and they often lie about science and evolution just as much as creationist groups and there have been harsh words said about them by many scientists as well (I personally dislike Dawkins because he throws around his personal views of atheism too much and they get into his scientific work).

quote:What are you left with if you take away random chance? You are left with special creation, and heaven forbid that be the answer.

If you take away random chance you are still left with natural selection. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Actually you are left with nothing as all current theories of creationism have either been disproven or rely on an unprovable and unfalsifiable magical helper being to do whatever they ask of him. Disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

quote:Don't you see what's going on? This is greater than the evolution/creation debate. The time is coming when major persecution is coming. Atheistic thought wants to bring this Marxist ideal into a reality. Its only going to get worse.

Well what one group wants to do politically or socially shouldn't have control over how we treat science.

However I would disagree, it's another myth that evil atheists (and this evil evolutionists since all evolutionists are atheists even the theistic ones) want to turn things into a survival of the fittest society or a Marxist one. Again those that do are often outcasts in their own right.

quote:I understand what you're saying, but again, the same exact thing could be said about the majority of secular scientists. The only difference being, that its in reverse and that athiestic scientific community don't wear their beliefs, or lack of them, on their sleeve.

I don't think the majority of scientists ignore evidence because they have already come to the supposed correct conclusion.

quote:What secularist would ever admit to that level of bias! That's the problem. And for a creationist, once you've admitted that you are a creationist, its as good as career suicide.

Another example of damned if you do damned if you don't thinking. So there is no evidence that he was denied because of his creationism so you assume it's just because no one would admit it. Maybe you should check and see if you yourself have come to a conclusion and then are distorting evidence to fit it.

Again, there is no evidence his possible belief in creationism played any role. You might as well suggest his like for spinach made him lose the prize. What no evidence of it? Well it's obvious no scientist would come out and admit they are biased against people who eat spinach.

It is only possible career suicide because creationism uses bogus science and never bother to publish their theory. In this case the acceptance of the misuse of science was career suicide when you need to deal with proper science. Again, would you be complaining if a christian magazine denied a militant atheist an editors job?

quote:That's a bunch of bull excrement, especially when so much of their study has nothing to do with creationist views.

So we should ignore the claims of creationists who work in the scientific field doing non creationist related research? Last I read a number of creationists have cited their continued work in certain fields as reason we should trust them, I believe some where on your list. You can't have it both ways here.

quote:Who can ever really know how important or unimportant his contribution really was?

That's pretty simple, we can look at his research in the field and then what they added onto it. Apparently the Nobel committee thought they added enough to be considered by themselves. Others disagreed. None of it had to do with creationism as far as I can tell. The man himself has been awarded a number of other prizes for his contributions to MRI, so it can't be said he was constantly looked over.

Matter of fact I don't think many people would even know of this controversy outside the scientific community if Damadian didn't take out full page adds questioning the decision and follow it up with attacks towards to prize committee.

quote:I wouldn't. I don't think you can sit there and honestly tell me that there isn't a massive propaganda campaign to silence creationists.

why not?

If these are your examples then there is no way I can say there is a massive propaganda campaign to silence creationists. To claim such might suggest you have fallen for a propaganda campaign yourself.

quote:Hell, TO is almost soley devoted to debunking creation.

I know I've said this before but that's because it started as a Usenet group devoted to debunking creationism. Go figure the webversion would be the same.

quote:If creation wasn't valid then it wouldn't be a threat to the current, prevailing wisdom.

Extremely faulty logic. Do you seriously believe that people only accept things that are truthful and ignore anything that isn't valid? Creationist groups have bypassed standard science and have gone directly to the uneducated people with appeals to emotion and religion. Right or wrong given no other view people will believe them. The fact that people are trying to set the record straight doesn't mean creationism is valid.

quote:As it is, its more than evident that it is solid enough to stand up to the evolutionary model with parity

Yes extremely evident, with all those solid peer review papers they have published. Or lets look at this forum, how many creationist claims have been seriously shot down over time (just because you ignore them doesn't mean they aren't true) Matter of fact the majority of false claims in your book haven't even been tackled yet. To think that they have solid evidence is to completely ignore the information out there.

quote:Otherwise, why does it get so much attention, both positive and negative?

Plenty of false things get attention. Do you really think that just because the BS book "Natural cures they don't want you to know about" gets bought by millions of people it makes the information inside accurate?

quote:Its the same thing for these kids that come in here ranting and raving about God. If they honsetly didn't believe in the possibility of God, they wouldn't spend inordinate amounts of time hating Him.

In a way you might be right there, but for the none kids that rant and rave about God, it's often because someone has used God to attack them. Just look at the many people who would like to be able to visit their dying partner in the hospital but they currently can't because others are throwing their beliefs at them.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

No, not bias. I'm referring to the fact that the Bible is a work of fiction and the story of Adam and Eve is exactly that, a story. Next time, try quoting resources that are nonfiction.

You have yet to provide indisputable evidence for creationism. And no, you can't quote the Bible as a resource. That's analogous to me quoting Aladdin and magic carpets.

Do yourself a favor and pick up a textbook. Leave the Bible for your own religious beliefs and/or leisure reading.



You've already expressed that nothing you'll hear will convince of creationism. So, please show us all 'indisputable' evidence of sustained macroevolutionary progress.

Um no, getting a degree doesn't mean your opinion is part of the science community. You have shown people with degrees can make mistakes too.

That seems to be the basic criteria for being heard, but as I pointed out, no matter how legitimate a creationists field of study is, they are automatically discontinued by virtue of association.

It should be noted I don't think creationists who have degrees in engineering should be instantly discredited when they talk about biology, however if you want to bring up creationists and degrees it's best to bring up those that have degrees in what they speak of.

The assumption made by a number of people in here, that I was addresing, was that the creationists employed at ICR or AiG have degrees in the fields they are studying. So, I'm pointing out the fact that they are discredited on unfounded scrutiny, but their atheistic counterparts are rarely questioned on the same grounds. That's hypocrtical, and I'm merely pointing that out.

Show me an evolutionist who gets a fake degree just to sound more important in this debate and I will flame them.

I didn't say anything a 'fake' degree (whatever that is). I'm referring to someone like Ed Babinski doesn't have degrees in all facets of science, yet he speaks about all facets of science to propel evolution. So, your initial premise is moot if we are going to be fair.

I agree. But there is a difference between being inthralled in a certain theory and blatantly ignoring evidence and falsifying data to keep your theory afloat. Just look at the recent issues of the Korean scientist who faked data.

That's actually one of the reasons for peer review, allowing other scientists to look at your data, repeat your experiments and go over your conclusions helps to remove interference by your beliefs or presupposed ideas. Although not perfect it has been used rather effectively.

I agree with peer reviews. The problem is, the majority of the scientific community is comprised by secular professors who aren't wiling to publish a peer review because they are biased, not the other way around. And if National Geographic, for instance, was merely enthralled in science with no motivation to poise anti-religious sentiments, then why have they all of a sudden taken great interest in the gospel of Judas? Its more than evident that they have a serious aversion towards Judeo-Christian beliefs. This whole thing, from evolution, to the gospel of Judas, is simply a way to eradicate these Judeo beliefs. Therefore, their points extend past a mere interest in science, and enter into little more than a pissing contest.

I agree again. Many scientists do as well, there are a number of groups trying to correct publishers of school textbooks. Of course that is an issue with the publishers and not with peer review journals.

I hope so.

Tell me, where in the bible does it say germs exist? What passage did Pasture use and how did it prove germs exist?

Moses gave us the book of Leviticus, and most of its contents speak about cleanliness. They understood the concept of breathing in contaminated air, and Moses instructed the people to cover their mouths and noses. Did they understand what germs were? Not exactly. But they did understand that disease is spread by host to host. In fact, in the middle ages, Jews were being persecuted because many of them seemed immune to the Bubonic Plague that raged through Europe. All that was actually going on was that they were following the dietary laws.

Creationist groups like to make "secular" out to be some sort of evil demonic religion that tries to destroy christianity but in reality christian scientists have used secular reasoning in their main discoveries.

I agree with you again, if God exists science does reveal how God does what he does.

My take on it is that secular science is simply an inquisitive affinity that shouldn't be stiffled. Where they go astray IMO, is that they automatically rule out anything that might extend further than what is right in front of their face. If we made a Creator a priori to automatically be ruled out of bounds, then that shows a level of bias. The two can co-exist, but we'd be hard pressed to see that in the secular scientific community. I just want somebody to examine the possibility. I mean, seriously Beta, doesn't the level of order ever make you wonder how chance could get it right so often? Don't you ever consider that maybe their something beyond the immediate; something cognizant? It doesn't have to be Judeo-Christian God. In fact, most scientists back in the day were Theists. They believed that there was a Creator of sorts, but that IT had no personal relationship with anything.

So who is it that ignores science? Creationist groups.

They put their reading of a book above Gods own work.

I disagree with that, but I would say that ruling out any contrary evidence is something that should be avoided.

Who is it that claims you can't accept modern science (evolution) and be a christian? Creationist groups and militant atheists.

There are still many theistic evolutionists out there. The Catholic church is a prime example. But I find myself siding more atheists then I do with Catholics. I think that's saying alot.

Who lies about evolution and says it claims christianity isn't true? Creationist groups and militant atheists.

Like I said, however tacit it might be, its there. Its everywhere. There are special interest groups embedded in the government, in the public school system, on university campuses all over the world, etc. There is a campaign that seeks to rid the world of the Judeo-Christian God. And I'm going to make a prediction, not because I can prophesy, but because I see a trend, that Christians will imprisoned on the grounds of "hate speech." We're right at the door of this coming to pass. Its already happening in very progressive countries.

Some creationism yes, others no. Some creationism is built on actual science, incomplete and poorly researched science but it still falls within the realm of science. Others, including Intelligent design, no it's beyond the realm of paranormal research. The main principle of ID is that the paranormal shouldn't be out of bounds for science.

But what if there is a Creator? That would mean that He/She/It operates outside of the immediate realm of physics, but institutes the policies set forth.

Creationist groups try to ignore or hide their indiscretions from their members, which makes them look like the picked on underdogs but in reality they have earned the way scientists treat them. That's not to say a well documented accurate creationist paper wouldn't get published in peer review journals.

If they submitted a paper on why the Flood caused the Grand Canyon, I would say that some hesitance would be expected. But that is only the underlying implication set forth. The submitted paper would be about striations in the sedimetn layer and so on. Since smoe evolutionsts know that they believe in the Bible, they don't want to publish anything from them so as to not allow any notariety.

If a creationist paper requires God to be accurate then it isn't science.

Take the age of the earth and geology. God isn't required for the earth to be X years old. In creationism and their arguments were valid a paper could be written showing the earth as 6000 years old without a single reference to God.

The claim that papers don't get published because scientists dislike or hate anything remotely related to God is a smokescreen and a crutch. There are a number of mainstream christian science groups that disprove that (matter of fact I learned a lot about evolution and biology from christian scientists).

But they do submit papers that say nothing about God at all, and they are still turned down to even be looked at. Isn't that what a peer review is all about? But they often don't even get the chance to be heard.

One scientist, maybe not but the scientific community, I disagree. There have been a number of drastic theory changes in science and although there was debate and they required serious support they were accepted (evolution is one of those theories).

Matter of fact I remember watching a program over competing astronomy theories and one scientist said it would suck to be shown wrong, but that's life.

That's where that motivation comes around, which i pointed out in my previous post. Why would that suck? Take for example, Sir Arthur Eddington:

“philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me… I should like to find a general loophole.”

Why? Who cares if that's how things really are? The problem comes down to personal accountability. 'If there is a Creator, does that mean that I'm accountable for my life? I don't like the thought of that.'

Alduos Huxley summarizes bueatifully:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed that it had none and was without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption… The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to provide no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do… For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation I desired was simultaneously liberation from certain political and economic system and liberation from sexual morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

This is what it all boils down to... This whole thing. All the conflict in the world boils down to people who don't want to follow a God. So, they cleverly invent reasons why there shouldn't be One at all.

It really doesn't come down to who is saying it's wrong. If X is wrong, it's wrong no matter who is attacking it.

Could it be that the gaping wide holes don't exist when you fully research evolution and don't just follow along with groups who refuse to accept anything but their conclusion?

Lets say there are gaping wide holes, and lets say for a second that creationism hasn't been disproven (it has). If creationism had holes in it much bigger than evolution then shouldn't we go with the theory with the smaller holes?

Just look at the theory of relativity vs newtonian mechanics. The theory of relativity might have some holes in it* but newtonian mechanics has much bigger holes, thus we go with relativity as the valid theory.

*based on the inability to connect it with quantum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics are still in the phase of being on the drawing board only, so to speak. But Newtonian principles have stood the test of time. The irreconcilable problems with evolution is the lack of hard, tangible evidence. You extrapolate a million theories and show us a million abstract reasons why evolution SHOULD be real. But the sheer lack of transitional forms presents a serious problem. If evolution takes place in the life of every organism, out of necessity, then where is the supporting evidence. It would overwhelmingly obvious.... But it isn't. That's the problem. There are a handful of submissions that may or may not be a transitional form. The problem is, it shouldn't even be questionable if it were true. Why do you find each kind of organism from ever taxonomy appearing abruptly in the fosil record as well as walking around today?

Absofuckinglutly not. I have no reason to dethrone God and neither does science. If God sits on a throne, good for him, I don't see any evidence he does, but maybe he just doesn't like me. The people that have a reason to dethrone God are militant atheists and they often lie about science and evolution just as much as creationist groups and there have been harsh words said about them by many scientists as well (I personally dislike Dawkins because he throws around his personal views of atheism too much and they get into his scientific work).

Well then, I appreciate your objectivity. I can't say the same for much of your contemporaries.

If you take away random chance you are still left with natural selection.

Actually you are left with nothing as all current theories of creationism have either been disproven or rely on an unprovable and unfalsifiable magical helper being to do whatever they ask of him. Disproving evolution doesn't prove creationism.

What has been disproven or unprovable?

Well what one group wants to do politically or socially shouldn't have control over how we treat science.

However I would disagree, it's another myth that evil atheists (and this evil evolutionists since all evolutionists are atheists even the theistic ones) want to turn things into a survival of the fittest society or a Marxist one. Again those that do are often outcasts in their own right.

But that's natural selection, isn't it? Marxist beliefs derive directly from Darwins book. In fact, Marx was enrolled in seminary until he read Darwins book. All of his atheistic thoughts stem directly from evolution. So, are we progressing or not?

Another example of damned if you do damned if you don't thinking. So there is no evidence that he was denied because of his creationism so you assume it's just because no one would admit it. Maybe you should check and see if you yourself have come to a conclusion and then are distorting evidence to fit it.

Again, there is no evidence his possible belief in creationism played any role. You might as well suggest his like for spinach made him lose the prize. What no evidence of it? Well it's obvious no scientist would come out and admit they are biased against people who eat spinach.

It is only possible career suicide because creationism uses bogus science and never bother to publish their theory. In this case the acceptance of the misuse of science was career suicide when you need to deal with proper science. Again, would you be complaining if a christian magazine denied a militant atheist an editors job?

But you're proving the overall motivation to me all the more. Its that they don't want to even consider a God.

Its like they've reconciled that 1 + 1 = something, but they've removed the number 2 of ever being an option.

So we should ignore the claims of creationists who work in the scientific field doing non creationist related research? Last I read a number of creationists have cited their continued work in certain fields as reason we should trust them, I believe some where on your list. You can't have it both ways here.

If someone submitted a paper, entitled, "God made the Grand Canyon," and the abstract was, "God did some really cool stuff during the Flood cuz He rox!" then I'd say that trash is ripe for the trash bin. But that isn't what its about. And a constant investigation into science should always be welcomed.

That's pretty simple, we can look at his research in the field and then what they added onto it. Apparently the Nobel committee thought they added enough to be considered by themselves. Others disagreed. None of it had to do with creationism as far as I can tell. The man himself has been awarded a number of other prizes for his contributions to MRI, so it can't be said he was constantly looked over.

Matter of fact I don't think many people would even know of this controversy outside the scientific community if Damadian didn't take out full page adds questioning the decision and follow it up with attacks towards to prize committee.

Its really going to boil down to he-said-she-said. Reason being, Damdian can't really prove that it was for these reasons. But one wonders what the motivation was being that all those in his own field agree that he should not have been overlooked. Its kind of like having a boss that doesn't like you. He's always giving you crap jobs that undermine your ability. Its almost as if he looks for legitimate reasons to fire you. You can't prove it, but you know its there. I doubt that Damadian is suffering from paranoia.

why not?

If these are your examples then there is no way I can say there is a massive propaganda campaign to silence creationists. To claim such might suggest you have fallen for a propaganda campaign yourself.

You could question my own motivations. I'd have no objection to that. But to say that there isn't a campaign against creationism is to blindly look in the opposite direction.

I know I've said this before but that's because it started as a Usenet group devoted to debunking creationism. Go figure the webversion would be the same.

Whatever their motivation is, its suspect.

Extremely faulty logic. Do you seriously believe that people only accept things that are truthful and ignore anything that isn't valid? Creationist groups have bypassed standard science and have gone directly to the uneducated people with appeals to emotion and religion. Right or wrong given no other view people will believe them. The fact that people are trying to set the record straight doesn't mean creationism is valid.

Isn't that what we've been talking about the whole time? Creationists are legitimate, minus the occasional hack website. I thought we were in agreement on that point.

Yes extremely evident, with all those solid peer review papers they have published. Or lets look at this forum, how many creationist claims have been seriously shot down over time (just because you ignore them doesn't mean they aren't true) Matter of fact the majority of false claims in your book haven't even been tackled yet. To think that they have solid evidence is to completely ignore the information out there.

The only false argument I made was the moon dust argument, and I've retracted that. In fact, I appreciate your criticism because it forces me to look even further into it. Despite what you might think, I'm only intersted in the truth, whatever it may be. I believe more wholeheartedly in creationst ideals because I believe the evolutionary model doesn't explain anything and so much of it has been falsified.

Plenty of false things get attention.

I agree. *see macroevolution for more detail into that*

Do you really think that just because the BS book "Natural cures they don't want you to know about" gets bought by millions of people it makes the information inside accurate?

Is that the infomercial? If it is, yeah, I agree with his premise that the pharmecuetical industry is a bunch of sharks, but that I can take Vitamin C to cure cancer is a little too much for anyone to swallow. (Not that he said that, I'm just using it as an example).

In a way you might be right there, but for the none kids that rant and rave about God, it's often because someone has used God to attack them. Just look at the many people who would like to be able to visit their dying partner in the hospital but they currently can't because others are throwing their beliefs at them.

You know, I've never met anyone that some of the atheists in here describe. Have I seen then on tv? Oh yeah! And it pisses me off!!! But this is where the perception gets hazy. These wolves are the ones who gets attention. And for a cover story, the media intentionally finds the looniest 'Christians' they can find who are either crying every two seconds, or they are preaching fire and brimstone. I almost can't fault some of the atheists on here because this misperception has been so widely propagated. Kind of like blaming 'me' for the Crusades. That's why I try to go out of my way to speak kindly, yet assertively to the kids on here. If I don't do it, then some jackass will ruin for the all of the good ones.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

You've already expressed that nothing you'll hear will convince of creationism. So, please show us all 'indisputable' evidence of sustained macroevolutionary progress.





Likewise. You've already expressed that nothing you'll hear will convince you of evolution, even though there's a surplus of evidence backing evolution, as opposed to zero evidence backing creationism.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html)

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof)

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)

quote:I didn't say anything a 'fake' degree (whatever that is). I'm referring to someone like Ed Babinski doesn't have degrees in all facets of science, yet he speaks about all facets of science to propel evolution. So, your initial premise is moot if we are going to be fair.

I have already said that it's valid for them to speak about different topics but the point is if you are going to make a serious list, one with people who have degrees in the field you are talking about is best.

quote:The problem is, the majority of the scientific community is comprised by secular professors who aren't wiling to publish a peer review because they are biased, not the other way around.

Prove It. Support or retract. Show me a case where a creationist was refused peer review for the single reason they are a creationist (not because the paper was bad).

Otherwise you are making a big assumption and it might even be considered slandering "secular" professors.

quote:And if National Geographic, for instance, was merely enthralled in science with no motivation to poise anti-religious sentiments, then why have they all of a sudden taken great interest in the gospel of Judas?

Why are we talking about National Geographic? They are not a peer review journal. They do plenty of stories about new discoveries, stop seeing vipers everywhere you turn.

quote:This whole thing, from evolution, to the gospel of Judas, is simply a way to eradicate these Judeo beliefs.

Have you gone off the deep-end?

quote:Moses gave us the book of Leviticus, and most of its contents speak about cleanliness. They understood the concept of breathing in contaminated air, and Moses instructed the people to cover their mouths and noses. Did they understand what germs were? Not exactly.

Demons enter through the mouth and nose. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Exactly the bible provided Pasteur no evidence for germs. He may have been a christian but his science was secular.

If you want to support christians doing secular science but not atheists or agnostics doing secular science, fine, but you can't go running around screaming prosecution by "secularists" when you yourself are biased based on a persons belief.

quote:If we made a Creator a priori to automatically be ruled out of bounds, then that shows a level of bias. The two can co-exist, but we'd be hard pressed to see that in the secular scientific community

I don't think it shows any biased, it shows honesty (even though the public wants it to be true even if people lie to them). Scientists admit science can't say a thing about God, science just isn't that encompassing. Tell me, how can you disprove God, how can you prove him? Should we also allow any other supernatural explanation into science? What about demons as a cause for disease? What about last tuesdayism (the belief the world was created last tuesday and was designed to look old). Science has boundaries and can't tell us everything.

quote:I just want somebody to examine the possibility. I mean, seriously Beta, doesn't the level of order ever make you wonder how chance could get it right so often?

It doesn't surprise me too much when there is a force or other mechanism that creates the order. How many times are you surprised when you put water in your freezer and the molecules order themselves into crystals?

There is a famous quote by Adams that wonders if a puddle were to wake up one day and find itself in a hole, might it think because the hole was a perfect fit it was designed for the puddle?

I think it might be possible, but I don't think we should jump to the conclusion of supernatural designer just because we may not understand some parts of the universe.

quote:Like I said, however tacit it might be, its there. Its everywhere. There are special interest groups embedded in the government, in the public school system, on university campuses all over the world, etc. There is a campaign that seeks to rid the world of the Judeo-Christian God.

Welcome to the deep-end, care for a life raft?

Whatever possible enemies lurk around every corner to be fought off you shouldn't view evolution as one of them. (I've ran into a creationist who was driving down the road one day and almost crashed, he concluded demons were trying to stop him from exposing the truth of evolution).

quote:But what if there is a Creator? That would mean that He/She/It operates outside of the immediate realm of physics, but institutes the policies set forth.

It's possible. In which case science would show us how his policies work and interact within the natural realm. If he decides to go Alice in Wonderland on us then science would end up in shambles. But it will never show us the supernatural entity because science is only about the natural. Luckily we can understand that science isn't everything and there are other areas that deal with the supernatural.

quote:If they submitted a paper on why the Flood caused the Grand Canyon, I would say that some hesitance would be expected. But that is only the underlying implication set forth. The submitted paper would be about striations in the sedimetn layer and so on. Since smoe evolutionsts know that they believe in the Bible, they don't want to publish anything from them so as to not allow any notariety.

Again, support it or retract. This is all conjecture based on what you want to be true.

If they submitted a paper on why a large flood caused the grand canyon and backed it up with solid evidence, good methodology and research I have no doubt it would get looked at and maybe accepted.

However don't confuse an attack on poor evidence and methodology as an attack on their individual religion.

quote:But they do submit papers that say nothing about God at all, and they are still turned down to even be looked at. Isn't that what a peer review is all about? But they often don't even get the chance to be heard.

Support or retract.

quote:This is what it all boils down to... This whole thing. All the conflict in the world boils down to people who don't want to follow a God. So, they cleverly invent reasons why there shouldn't be One at all.

Wow nice revisionism. So you mean things like the Crusades and the conflict between Israel and Palestine are because people don't want to follow a God?

quote:Quantum mechanics are still in the phase of being on the drawing board only, so to speak. But Newtonian principles have stood the test of time.

You are almost 100 years too late, most Newtonian principles fell with relativity. Quantum mechanics is actually a pretty solid field and only aspects of it are still on the drawing board.

quote:the irreconcilable problems with evolution is the lack of hard, tangible evidence.

I disagree, there is tons of evidence, but the problem is it isn't simple. General people want easy stuff like "Entropy says everything is decaying, evolution isn't decay, thus evolution is false" but it isn't that simple.

The ironic part is that when it is simplified and only a few examples of transitional fossils it is treated as if that is all the evidence that exists and people think there are only "handfuls" of them.

quote:What has been disproven or unprovable?

Creationism has been disproven. It started 150+ years ago before evolution was published when flood geology was seriously put into question and has continued since then. There is a reason creationist groups must ignore any evidence that contradicts their views because the evidence says they are wrong.

quote:But that's natural selection, isn't it? Marxist beliefs derive directly from Darwins book. In fact, Marx was enrolled in seminary until he read Darwins book. All of his atheistic thoughts stem directly from evolution. So, are we progressing or not?

First of all, just because science says so, doesn't mean we should follow it. Just because gravity says we should stick to the earth doesn't mean I should start downing airplanes.

How evolution plays on societies is a very complicated issue, and in a society structure getting along can often make you much fitter than throwing out everyone you see unfit, just look at Hitler, he is still around right?

Look at all the damage the bible has done, christianity must be false and we should try to prevent anyone from converting to it... or not.

quote:But you're proving the overall motivation to me all the more. Its that they don't want to even consider a God.

Is it possible you don't want to even consider christians could accept evolution and that evolutionists are not against God?

To repeat myself there are christian groups that support evolution and christian scientists get published all the time.

quote:Its really going to boil down to he-said-she-said. Reason being, Damdian can't really prove that it was for these reasons.

I don't believe Damdian ever suggested it was for his creationist beliefs, it was two other writers who based their writings on hypothetical conjecture (which is what AiG based their article on as well).

quote:You could question my own motivations. I'd have no objection to that. But to say that there isn't a campaign against creationism is to blindly look in the opposite direction.

Against creationism-yes

Against bad science-yes

against creationism being taught in school as science when it hasn't gone through the same tests as other science or has failed them-yes

To silence creationism in general-no

Don't confuse people wanting to keep this debate in the proper area as silencing.

quote:Whatever their [talk origins] motivation is, its suspect.

really? How so?

Have they been caught lying? Mischaracterizing creationists? Misquoting creationists? Using false data? Being anti-christian?

What makes their motivations suspect beyond the fact they disagree with you?

quote:The only false argument I made was the moon dust argument, and I've retracted that.

Oh how amazingly wrong you are. Do you need me to go over the list again? And it's only the list of addressed arguments I didn't even get to the majority of the bad arguments.

Ignoring my corrections doesn't make them go away.

quote:Is that the infomercial? If it is, yeah, I agree with his premise that the pharmecuetical industry is a bunch of sharks, but that I can take Vitamin C to cure cancer is a little too much for anyone to swallow.

Yep it's the guy in the infomercial who has been nailed and jailed by the FDA for making false claims about products, thus he is stuck selling a book instead of the actual products. Sadly tons of people buy it.

quote:You know, I've never met anyone that some of the atheists in here describe. Have I seen then on tv?

You should get out more. The reference to people not being able to see dying loved ones happens all the time to Gay couples who aren't recognized as married. One of the perks when you are married is being considered family at a hospital. Because many gay couples can't get married many aren't always allowed to see the person they love in a hospital emergency.

quote:And for a cover story, the media intentionally finds the looniest 'Christians' they can find who are either crying every two seconds, or they are preaching fire and brimstone.

Ha, ya, it's always the wackos that get the coverage and stick in peoples minds. Same goes for most beliefs. The vast majority of christians are good people, same with atheists.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bonkers:



[b]Likewise. You've already expressed that nothing you'll hear will convince you of evolution, even though there's a surplus of evidence backing evolution, as opposed to zero evidence backing creationism.

I've never made any such expression. I've already been an evolutionist. I simply disagree with it for a number of reasons. In most classrooms across the globe, evolution, at least by implication, is subtly presented as an unassailable fact. To question this paradigm has often proved to be career suicide for many university professors, as well as any students who might aspire to lofty goals in the fields of science. In times present, the theory has been under a major assault by a lesser-known scientific community. This revived community is forcing those who would still blindly follow evolution to face some of the many obvious flaws within the theory.

The existing Darwinian account of evolution does not adequately explain sustained macroevolutionary progress, let alone the origin of life. This inadequacy must be continually discussed until a satisfactory relationship between evidence and theory is established. The theory of evolution is finally being exposed as the pernicious theory it has always been. Despite this, most biologists are so committed to Darwinism that they treat any alternative as unscientific. In this way, Neo-Darwinism behaves very much like the most pious of religions. This extreme bias offers nothing to the scientific community, consequently, the very community they swore to uphold through objectivity. Evolution needs to adhere to three distinct criteria in order to sustain itself. (Spntaneous generation, random mutation, and aeons and epochs of time). Here's the problem: In evolution, there are answers to two very different questions. First, evolutionary theory tells us how a certain amount of diversity can develop in already extant, complex life forms. I agree with that. For example, if a small contingent of birds migrate to an isolated island, a combination of inbreeding, mutation, and natural selection may cause these birds to develop distinct features, not seen in the ancestral population. When viewing the theory in this limited sense, evolution is uncontroversial. Furthermore, this is completely true and factual. Evolutionary biologists are not content, however, on merely explaining how variations occur, but aspire to answer a much broader question. They seek to explain how all of life began in the first place. In this endeavor, they took small pieces of a puzzle and attempted to configure and fashion their own version of events. However, the theory of transspecific evolution, or macroevolution, is simlpy not supported by much of anything at all. (Amoeba to man). On paper, macroevolution is a very appealing theory. However, placed under scrutiny in the field, it leaves me undesired. Much of the current theory is now based upon theoretical mathematics because the hard sciences of failed to provide us with any conspicuously concrete evidence. There isn't any current data that would lead me to believe in macroevolution. Simply because you've never examined any alternative is a lack of credibility on your part. I've been closely following the case for years. I doubt you can say the same for yourself.

quote:Originally posted by hyroglyphx:

Well, provide the science behind 'Creation' or admit that you cannot.

h ttp://www. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=319 (http: //www.icr. org/index. php?module =articles& action=vie w&ID=319)

http://www .icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2603 (http: //www.icr. org/index. php?module =articles& action=vie w&ID=2603)

http://www .icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467 (http: //www.icr. org/index. php?module =articles& action=vie w&ID=2467)

ht tp://www.i cr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=47 (http: //www.icr. org/index. php?module =articles& action=vie w&ID=47)

h ttp://www. icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=462 (http: //www.icr. org/index. php?module =articles& action=vie w&ID=462)

All using legitimate scientific research taken from one just one website.

Like I said, Creationism is a belief, not a science.

Numerous times I have said that Creation theory isn't a 'science.' Its a theory that employs scientific means in order to confirm it. The exact same thing can be said about evolutionary theory. Do you understand the difference between theory and science?



Do you understand the meaning of 'scientific theory'?

To refutation!

http://www .icr.org/i ndex.php?m odule=arti cles&actio n=view&ID= 462]http:/ /www.icr.o rg/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=462

Doesn't say one word on creationism, it's simply an attempted attack on mineral dating.

to tell you the truth I'm somewhat confused by their crazy technospeak.

http://www .icr.org/i ndex.php?m odule=arti cles&actio n=view&ID= 47]http:// www.icr.or (http://www.icr.or) g/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=47

Attempts to use the properties of various elements to prove the existence of God. Not exactly a scientific study.

http://www .icr.org/i ndex.php?m odule=arti cles&actio n=view&ID= 2467]http: //www.icr. org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2467

Sends me on a wild goose chase to other creationist literature when I tried to follow the source for their claims that "uranium (238U) and polonium (Po) radiohalos frequently found in granitic rocks had to have formed simultaneously"

I need the study, not the thing referencing me to the study.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=2603

I need the study, not the thing referencing me to the study.

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=319

Not really sure on this one but I think it's commiting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28fallacy%29

Oh and in response to Digi's 'where's religious creationism on the scientific parts?' check this out

'The single most significant biological event since creation is undoubtedly the Curse on creation as a result of Adam's sin.'

Last time I checked, curses aren't an accepted idea in any form of science.

Well, I think Beta has done a nice job refuting your rhetoric nonsense. You can't just keep making baseless assumptions like "To question this paradigm has often proved to be career suicide for many university professors, as well as any students who might aspire to lofty goals in the fields of science" and using the Bible as a source, it is a fictitious piece of literature. No need to keep this thread going, I guess.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Well, I think Beta has done a nice job refuting your rhetoric nonsense. You can't just keep making baseless assumptions like "To question this paradigm has often proved to be career suicide for many university professors, as well as any students who might aspire to lofty goals in the fields of science" and using the Bible as a source, it is a fictitious piece of literature. No need to keep this thread going, I guess.

Look, if you want to come in here and debate, then do so. But if you ever have hopes for anyone taking you seriously, then try not to make it so obvious that you have no idea what you're talking about. As well, allow me to offer a small piece of advice: Don't attack your opponent simply because you don't like what he/she said. Lastly, give some sort of factual basis for your arguments, especially when you claim that someone else is making 'baseless assumptions.'

Ahem...

...prehaps God created a life which could evolve. Millions of years ago, 5,000 years ago, whatever. Maybe to you God is an enlightend being, an alien race, an energy force which holds the universe together....any of those could work.

But you should both recognize that arguing and fighting about what you belive is pointless and dosnt lead to good things. If you're religeous...what would God, jesus, whomever think about you're actions. Or if its good karma. Or, if you belive in nothing, what is it accomplishing? There are more important things for you to do with your lifes.

No matter what you belive, Life is a gift not ment to be wasted away trying to change someones mind who will never change their minds, over what they belive, what they do not belive. Be at peace.

religion is all just thery and while people could be learning FACTS there learning bullshit about wine and fish

Religion is not a theory.

Religion is dogma.

There's a fundamental Difference. Theories are tentative.

Hyro, Can you provide some sort of study?