Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[SkyWriting]

My point was that non-scientists should not assume they are qualified to tell scientists what is "legitimate" science and what is not. ...

Exactly what I was not agreeing with. Non-Scientists have the freedom and I say, an obligation to do just that.

Where you got the idea I was referring to Christians specifically is beyond me.

I weren't.

The vast majority of Christian scientists have no issue with the theory of evolution.

I don't' see why majority has anything to do with it. But I don't see your data any-who.

 

[sfs]

Ignorance is the hallmark of evolution.

I beg to differ. How many scientific journal papers have you read about evolution? If you don't actually know the field (and I'd bet a large sum of money that you don't), you really shouldn't be dismissing things you're ignorant of.

 

[sfs]

We only assume he was a Christian because of when he lived, people either were or said they were to avoid confrontation.

Well, we could just assume that Newton was a Christian or we could, you know, learn something about him and find that he wrote voluminously on various aspects of Christianity, and that he had to keep his beliefs secret since they were considered heretical.

 

[sfs]

Exactly what I was not agreeing with. Non-Scientists have the freedom and I say, an obligation to do just that.

Obligation? Why an obligation? They certainly have the right to make themselves look foolish by saying silly things, but why should they have an obligation to do so?

 

[Timothew]

My point was that non-scientists should not assume they are qualified to tell scientists what is "legitimate" science and what is not. (see my thread: "I'm not an expert, BUT....") Where you got the idea I was referring to Christians specifically is beyond me. The vast majority of Christian sceintists have no issue with the theory of evolution.

From your post "leave the science to us". Your faith icon is agnostic.
Therefore I infer that your post meant leave the science to us agnostics. If you meant "Leave the science to us christians", I'm sorry. Of course I would also take issue with that statement.

I believe science is for everyone, not just you and your elite buddies.

 

[Timothew]

Well, we could just assume that Newton was a Christian or we could, you know, learn something about him and find that he wrote voluminously on various aspects of Christianity, and that he had to keep his beliefs secret since they were considered heretical.

You know, you can be a Christian and be considered heretical. I know this first hand. We even have a little club here on CF.
http://www.christianforums.com/groups/351/

Though he is better known for his love of science, the Bible was Sir Isaac Newton's greatest passion. He devoted more time to the study of Scripture than to science, and he said, "I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by those who were inspired. I study the Bible daily

Isaac Newton's religious views - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sfs]

From your post "leave the science to us". Your faith icon is agnostic.
Therefore I infer that your post meant leave the science to us agnostics. If you meant "Leave the science to us christians", I'm sorry. Of course I would also take issue with that statement.

I assume he meant the obvious: leave the science to scientists.

I believe science is for everyone, not just you and your elite buddies.

Science is for everyone who is willing and able to put in the very large amount of work needed to master its techniques and data.

 

[SkyWriting]

Obligation? Why an obligation? They certainly have the right to make themselves look foolish by saying silly things, but why should they have an obligation to do so?

The PUBLIC has an obligation to define what Science is and to dispute any findings presented. That what Science is based on. That's why. It's our obligation to dispute the "peer review" system with the public as it's peers review. Why else would you think that PUBLIC publication is an integral part? Else they could just publish in private and get away with so much more shenanigans.

 

[Split Rock]

"We all" don't agree with you. There is evidence in the writings of the Great founders of Modern and ancient Science that their faith was the strongest factor in their research.

Show us specifically how their faith, or better yet creationism, was used in their research.

 

[sfs]

You know, you can be a Christian and be considered heretical. I know this first hand. We even have a little club here on CF.
http://www.christianforums.com/groups/351/

Yes, I know that, since that was the point of my post. What did you think I was saying? We shouldn't assume Newton pretended to be a Christian to avoid controversy, since he devoted a great deal of time and effort to Christian pursuits, and that effort was obviously not for show since he had to keep it secret.

 

[Timothew]

I beg to differ. How many scientific journal papers have you read about evolution? If you don't actually know the field (and I'd bet a large sum of money that you don't), you really shouldn't be dismissing things you're ignorant of.

If you have any evidence of my ignorance, you are welcome to present it.
If you have no evidence, you should stop trying to assert that I am ignorant about evolution.

I have a degree in a science field. I've studied the theory of evolution.
If you wish to prove that I did not study biology at the University of Wisconsin, please go ahead. Perhaps you have proof that I only dreamed I graduated from UW.

You shouldn't bet about things that you are ignorant of. You are ignorant about my educational background. You lose the large sum of money that you bet.

You know, just because I disagree with you does not make me ignorant.
You are so arrogant.

 

[Split Rock]

Exactly what I was not agreeing with. Non-Scientists have the freedom and I say, an obligation to do just that.

And I suppose they should also tell brain surgeons how do do brain surgery and airplane designers how to design planes.

I weren't.

I "weren't" responding to you, "were" I?

I don't' see why majority has anything to do with it. But I don't see your data any-who.

I know my own profession. If you disagree, show me the data.

The PUBLIC has an obligation to define what Science is and to dispute any findings presented. That what Science is based on. That's why.

Not at all. In Science, not all opinions or all theories are treated as equal. It is not a democracy.

 

[sfs]

The PUBLIC has an obligation to define what Science is and to dispute any findings presented. That what Science is based on. That's why.

That's not a reason; that's a restatement of your previous claim. Sure, the public has a right to decide what science, if any, to fund, but why do they have an obligation to decide what science is? Do they also have an obligation to decide what philology is, or literary criticism? Do they have an obligation to decide what time period a medieval historian can legitimately study? Why? Why should people who don't know what scientists do decide whether some activity counts as science?

 

[Timothew]

Yes, I know that, since that was the point of my post. What did you think I was saying? We shouldn't assume Newton pretended to be a Christian to avoid controversy, since he devoted a great deal of time and effort to Christian pursuits, and that effort was obviously not for show since he had to keep it secret.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is for everyone who is willing and able to put in the very large amount of work needed to master its techniques and data.

You ARE joking. I've prepared samples for an SEM. I've worked in a lab with the most sophisticated equipment made and the lab was run by a HS graduate. Granted, he was sharp, but less than 35yo. ANYONE can use the Scientific method and get the same reults as a "professional".

 

[Timothew]

I assume he meant the obvious: leave the science to scientists.

Science is for everyone who is willing and able to put in the very large amount of work needed to master its techniques and data.

It should be the scientists who are ridiculing the evolutionists for not using the scientific method.

It should be scientists who insist that Haeckel's Law stay out of textbooks.

But I won't hold my breath.

Since they agree with it, they are unwilling to question it.
Is that scientific? It seems more like faith. As I said before, it's a belief system.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by lanie_0913 always made people think... hahaha
Here's what I think...
If God DOES have belly button, maybe Adam & Eve have too...

I just had this image of standing before God with a long list of questions. Kinda like this:

I bumped up this thread just for you

http://www.christianforums.com/t1330863/#post58516218
Did Adam and Eve have a belly button?

 

[Split Rock]

From your post "leave the science to us". Your faith icon is agnostic.
Therefore I infer that your post meant leave the science to us agnostics. If you meant "Leave the science to us christians", I'm sorry. Of course I would also take issue with that statement.

I meant leave science to scientists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I believe science is for everyone, not just you and your elite buddies.

What we do is public knowledge. In that sense, sure, science if for everyone. However, just as the public has no business telling brain surgeons how they should do brain surgery based on their religious beliefs, the public has no right to tell scientists what is and is not science based on their religious beliefs. Me and my "elite buddies" actually know what we are talking about. What we say on our own professional subjects should not be given equal weight to the armchair musings, misconceptions and speculations of self-professed experts on scripture.

 

[sfs]

If you have any evidence of my ignorance, you are welcome to present it.
If you have no evidence, you should stop trying to assert that I am ignorant about evolution.

My evidence is that you are the one who wrote the following:"Science is about forming hypotheses, and then testing those hypotheses. Since the origin of species already happened, by whatever mechanism you accept, the hypothesis can't be tested. So evolutionism is not science. It is a belief system."? No one who understands evolutionary biology could have written that. First, because many branches of science test hypotheses about the past all the time. Second, because we can and do observe the origin of species in real time.

I also note that you didn't answer my question: How many journal articles have you read about evolution?

I have a degree in a science field.

Which one? Have you ever done any science? Ever published a paper?

I've studied the theory of evolution.
If you wish to prove that I did not study biology at the University of Wisconsin, please go ahead. Perhaps you have proof that I only dreamed I graduated from UW.

I didn't say you'd never taken a course in biology; I don't care about your educational background. I said you were ignorant of evolution. The two statement are far from incompatible.

You know, just because I disagree with you does not make me ignorant.
You are so arrogant.

You're the one dismissing what I do for a living as rubbish because you took an undergraduate course in bio -- and you think I'm the arrogant one? Wow.

 

[Timothew]

I meant leave science to scientists. Sorry if that wasn't clear.


What we do is public knowledge. In that sense, sure, science if for everyone. However, just as the public has no business telling brain surgeons how they should do brain surgery based on their religious beliefs, the public has no right to tell scientists what is and is not science based on their religious beliefs. Me and my "elite buddies" actually know what we are talking about. What we say on our own professional subjects should not be given equal weight to the armchair musings, misconceptions and speculations of self-professed experts on scripture.

What we say on our own professional subjects should not be given equal weight to the armchair musings, misconceptions and speculations of self-professed experts on scripture.

They are on this forum!

By the way, in between arguing with you, I am conducting a scientific experiment. I am determining the oxygen demand of 2 water samples.

So in that sense, I am one of the elites that you wish to leave science to.
Just because I disagree with you, it doesn't automatically mean I'm wrong.
Scientists should be able to support their conclusions scientifically.

I object to evolution more as a scientist than as a person with religious beliefs. If you would prove evolution, you wouldn't disprove the resurrection. However unproven science mascarading as proven science? That's offensive!