Why doesnt creationism need any data?

[sfs]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

No problem.

 

[Split Rock]

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

That makes no sense. That is like saying "it is the soldiers who should be ridiculing the Army Rangers for not using military strategy and tactics."

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

Haeckel's Law isn't in any modern textbooks.. unless as an historical topic.

But I won't hold my breath.

I think you are confused... or maybe your thinking is "muddled."

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.

Here is a PubMed search for "evolution." The vast majority of hits represent research papers questioning various aspects of evolutionary theory.

Results: 1 to 20 of 298423
evolution - PubMed - NCBI

Is over 200,000 authors questioning evolution enough?

 

[Timothew]

If I have studied evolution, then I am not ignorant about evolution am I?

So, again, If you have proof that I haven't studied evolution, then you may make that assertion. If you have no proof that I am ignorant about evolution then you shouldn't make ungrounded accusations.

 

[sfs]

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

Nonsense. Real scientists -- real physicists, geologists, chemists, etc, who do science for a living -- recognize that evolutionary biology is perfectly good science. That's why their professional organizations have explicitly stated their support for evolutionary biology.

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

Lots of crap gets into textbooks, and I'm happy to see anyone work at getting some of it out. But since Haekel's Law is not part of modern evolutionary biology, I don't see the relevance of the textbooks to the real science of evolution.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If I have studied evolution, then I am not ignorant about evolution am I?

So, again, If you have proof that I haven't studied evolution, then you may make that assertion. If you have no proof that I am ignorant about evolution then you shouldn't make ungrounded accusations.

Have you studied on it?

 

[Timothew]

Have you studied on it?

Yes

 

[Split Rock]

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!

Sorry, but if you are a scientist, then you would know that in science we do not "prove" anything. Thus, I remain very sceptical of your ability to determine if evolution is good science or not.

 

[sfs]

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.

I'm sorry, but I don't see what point you're trying to make. We've sometimes got HS students working in our labs too. What does the ability to act as a lab tech (or lab manager) have to do with anything?

 

[sfs]

If I have studied evolution, then I am not ignorant about evolution am I?

Lots of people study things and still manage to remain ignorant of them. I studied German for a couple of semesters, and my German is terrible. More to the point, I took a course in linguistics in college, and I wouldn't dream of telling a linguist what is or is not part of her field of study, or that what she studied was belief system rather than academic study.

So, again, If you have proof that I haven't studied evolution, then you may make that assertion. If you have no proof that I am ignorant about evolution then you shouldn't make ungrounded accusations.

I already gave you my proof: you made assertions about evolution that reveal ignorance of it.

And I note that you now have failed to answer three questions: 1) How many journal articles about evolution have you read? 2) Have you ever published a scientific paper? 3) What field of science is your degree in?

 

[Timothew]

Sorry, but if you are a scientist, then you would know that in science we do not "prove" anything. Thus, I remain very sceptical of your ability to determine if evolution is good science or not.

Good!


I am sceptical too.

 

[Timothew]

Lots of people study things and still manage to remain ignorant of them. I studied German for a couple of semesters, and my German is terrible. More to the point, I took a course in linguistics in college, and I wouldn't dream of telling a linguist what is or is not part of her field of study, or that what she studied was belief system rather than academic study.

I already gave you my proof: you made assertions about evolution that reveal ignorance of it.

And I note that you now have failed to answer three questions: 1) How many journal articles about evolution have you read? 2) Have you ever published a scientific paper? 3) What field of science is your degree in?

You haven't proven your assertion that I am ignorant about evolution.
You just wish to discredit me. I've studied the theory in college, I was tested on it, I passed the tests. ergo, I am not ignorant about it.
My degree in in Water Resources, BTW. Heavy science required.

How many journal articles does it take to be unignorant? I don't know how many I've read, Reading was 'encouraged' in college.

How many papers must I publish to be unignorant? I've studied evolution in college so that means I am not ignorant about evolution.

If you wish to continue calling me ignorant, please supply the proof.
We can all see it as it is. Namecalling. It makes you look ignorant.

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Why would someone not know? It's taught in Grade school.
But if you have some higher authority, please provide it.
Science belongs to everybody. As do the other areas you mentioned.
Now I've got to check and see what country your from.
Perhaps your background is different from mine.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm sorry, but I don't see what point you're trying to make. We've sometimes got HS students working in our labs too. What does the ability to act as a lab tech (or lab manager) have to do with anything?

The field of Science belongs to everyday people. Nobody else. We rule it. Not the other way around.

 

[Timothew]

I already gave you my proof: you made assertions about evolution that reveal ignorance of it.

Let me try this:
You are ignorant about evolution!

How do you like my unfounded accusation?

 

[SkyWriting]

And I note that you now have failed to answer three questions: 1) How many journal articles about evolution have you read?

If you are referring to general papers supporting Darwin's theory of Origins, there are almost none.
For "Darwin" and "origins" in the title- 2.
For "darwin and "origin" in the title -18

As to observations regarding change of species happening quickly, there are many.

2) Have you ever published a scientific paper?
3) What field of science is your degree in?

Only mildly relevant questions intended to support the false idea of appeal to authority.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You haven't proven your assertion that I am ignorant about evolution.
You just wish to discredit me. I've studied the theory in college, I was tested on it, I passed the tests. ergo, I am not ignorant about it.
My degree in in Water Resources, BTW. Heavy science required.

How many journal articles does it take to be unignorant? I don't know how many I've read, Reading was 'encouraged' in college.

How many papers must I publish to be unignorant? I've studied evolution in college so that means I am not ignorant about evolution.

If you wish to continue calling me ignorant, please supply the proof.
We can all see it as it is. Namecalling. It makes you look ignorant.

Very interesting
Anyone remember the Nazis during WWII that were developing heavy water to be used in nuclear weapons?
There was a pretty kewl movie made from the event of Norwegian commandos sent to destroy the production facility.

Norwegian heavy water sabotage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Norwegian heavy water sabotage was a series of actions undertaken by Norwegian saboteurs during World War II to prevent the German nuclear energy project from acquiring heavy water (deuterium oxide), which could be used to produce nuclear weapons. In 1934, at Vemork, Norsk Hydro built the first commercial plant capable of producing heavy water as a byproduct of fertilizer production. It had a capacity of 12 t (13 short tons) per year.

In 1943, a team of SOE-trained Norwegian commandos succeeded in destroying the production facility with a second attempt, Operation Gunnerside.
Operation Gunnerside was later evaluated by SOE as the most successful act of sabotage in all of World War II.

The Heroes Of Telemark (1965) - YouTube

 

[sfs]

You haven't proven your assertion that I am ignorant about evolution.
You just wish to discredit me.

I wish to discredit your claim to speak knowledgeably about what is and what is not science, and about evolution, certainly.

I've studied the theory in college, I was tested on it, I passed the tests. ergo, I am not ignorant about it.

I studied German in college, and passed my tests, and yet I am ignorant of German, beyond the barest basics. Your logic is faulty.

My degree in in Water Resources, BTW. Heavy science required.

Looks like an engineering degree, rather than a science one. I asked because many creationists who describe themselves as having a background in science are actually skilled in engineering. Engineering of whatever sort is a great thing, and by no means trivial to master -- but it's not science. It uses science, of course, but it's not science.

How many journal articles does it take to be unignorant? I don't know how many I've read, Reading was 'encouraged' in college.

More than zero.

How many papers must I publish to be unignorant?

More than zero.

I've studied evolution in college so that means I am not ignorant about evolution.

Then why did you suggest that science can't form and test hypotheses about the past, or that we cant' observe speciation occurring today?

 

[brinny]

None has ever been presented to support it.

im curious why the believers dont need any.

They'd surely need some before investing in a get rich scheme.

Or if they are told their kid committed a crime.

Or that the roof needs replacing.

Why not for creationism?

How would one get the data?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How would one get the data?

Data is unavailable for comment at the moment

 

[brinny]

Data is unavailable for comment at the moment

ROFLOLOLOL!!!!!!