Brain Washed

[LewisWildermuth]

Yesterday at 10:38 PM seebs said this in Post #20

Creationists do just fine at getting science published, it's just when they have something that isn't science that they have a hard time. Of course, there aren't many examples...

Awwww you beat me to it Seebs...

Yes, there are a handful of actual working scientists in the creationist movement. They still get published and they have not lost their jobs...

Then why don't they publish a creationist theory?

Well, none that have not already been falsified hundreds of years ago really exist.

They might also be afraid to have a theory falsified because it would make the creationist movement look like a sham and bring even more disgrace to Christianity then creationism already has.

So much for the evil atheist conspiracy...

 

[Freodin]

It´s really amazing:

A scientist comes along and says something positive about Evolution.

Creationists reaction: "Fraud, lies, biased, followes his own agenda, denies God, promotes satanistic atheism!!!!"

Then a scientist comes along and says something critical about Evolution.

Creationist reaction: "He´s a scientist, scientists are always right!"

Really funny.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 01:05 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #16

Secondly, just because YOU dont like the possibility I present doesnt mean its invalid.

No, but just because you made it up and don't have a shred of proof to support it, that doesn't make it valid.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 01:19 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18




If a 6 day creationist EVER gets something against evolution published in a ''Scientific Journal'' of any kind it would probably cause me to have cardiac failure.

Agreed.

No wonder they turn to the Internet and private publishers.

Of course. Who else would want to touch it?

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:31 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #10

Whats REALLY funny is that if any REAL scientist tried to show any evidence that falsified evolution, he would be immediatley dismissed anyway.
AND probably would never be put in any real position again. 

Sorry, FoC, but not true.  Remember the flap in the evolutionary community over PE? That was because Gould got carried away and claimed (erroneously) that PE falsified Darwinism.  He wasn't dismissed.  People engaged him.

Or look at Michael Behe. Even tho Behe never published in peer-reviewed journal his ideas about IC, scientists still didn't "dismiss" him but looked at the problem and falsified Behe.  See the paper A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution
Richard H. Thornhill and Daviud W. Uussery J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116
available online at http://www.idealibrary.com or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/JTB.html

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:05 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #16


''Buried Alive'' Jack Cuosso.

He is an orothodontist who is also a Forensic anthropologists.

Obviously his findings in the Neanderthal exhibit has little to do with evolution, BUT I found it amusing that there was an attempt to discredit him by one Colin Groves. 

FoC, the research was done, as you requested. I just want to add that every scientific paper comes in for criticism from someone in the scientific community.  That's the way science is done.  Your idea is critiqued from the moment you make it public to forever.

Now, Groves disagreed with Cuosso's conclusions.  Big deal. Happens all the time.  Happens with my work all the time.  The critics don't get a free ride, either.  You or Cuosso is free to criticize Groves in turn and show, if you can, where his logic, reasoning, and data are faulty.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:19 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18

If a 6 day creationist EVER gets something against evolution published in a ''Scientific Journal'' of any kind it would probably cause me to have cardiac failure. 

Robert Gentry had several articles published in Science and Nature on his polonium halos, which he said falsified an old earth.

Now, if you go back to the 1700s, 6 day creationists dominated the scientific societies. In fact, for a while no old earth articles were published.

So, you can't have it both ways.  If scientists are so hide-bound that they will exclude new ideas, then they never would have given up creationism to begin with.  OTOH, if they were open enough to reject their primary theory -- YEC -- when new data became available, then they are open enough to reject evolution if new data becomes available.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 07:48 AM Nathan Poe said this in Post #24



Agreed.



Of course. Who else would want to touch it?

Well, your honesty has gotten you my respect once agian

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 09:00 AM lucaspa said this in Post #26



FoC, the research was done, as you requested. I just want to add that every scientific paper comes in for criticism from someone in the scientific community.  That's the way science is done.  Your idea is critiqued from the moment you make it public to forever.

Now, Groves disagreed with Cuosso's conclusions.  Big deal. Happens all the time.  Happens with my work all the time.  The critics don't get a free ride, either.  You or Cuosso is free to criticize Groves in turn and show, if you can, where his logic, reasoning, and data are faulty.

Okay, so was there fraud in your eyes or not?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Today at 07:11 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #28


Well, your honesty has gotten you my respect once agian

I honestly believe that science belongs in science journals and dogma belongs in the doghouse. And that's why creationists don't get much publication in science journals.

 

[SplitRock]

Today at 12:05 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #16



First of all, please do not tell me how to conduct myself unless you are a moderator and I am out of line.
Secondly, just because YOU dont like the possibility I present doesnt mean its invalid.
AND in the future I will expect that you will conduct yourself and YOUR presentations in the same maner that you would have me.
I have my eye on you.


''Buried Alive'' Jack Cuosso.

He is an orothodontist who is also a Forensic anthropologists.

Obviously his findings in the Neanderthal exhibit has little to do with evolution, BUT I found it amusing that there was an attempt to discredit him by one Colin Groves.


Now, lets see if I am correct and you dismiss him OR if you are as objective as you probably claim to be and ACTUALLY LOOK into it
I am betting on the former.

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">It is not that I do not like the possibility you present, it is that I found the way you presented it to be rather insulting.&nbsp; Perhaps that was not your intent.&nbsp; However, scientists take their professional integrity very seriously.&nbsp; If you are going to attack someone's integrity, you should have some solid evidence to back it up.&nbsp; Furthermore, I have been a biologist for many years now, and I can tell you that I have never seen any indication that any research concerning evolution was being discouraged.&nbsp; I would ask&nbsp;in the &nbsp;future that you in turn conduct yourself in the same manner that you would have me.&nbsp; We should then get along fine, regardless of any difference of opinion.
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">&nbsp;
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">As far as Jack Cuosso is concerned, I noted that Dr. Groves had criticisms of Cuosso's conclusions, but that he had many positive things to say about his research methods ("uniformly excellent").&nbsp; As others stated, criticism is a part of science and isn't an attempt to discredit anyone.&nbsp; Also, i noted that Dr. Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London invited Cuosso to study the evidence in&nbsp;the museum for himself.&nbsp; I can't say anything more specific about his conclusions, as I am not an anthropologist.&nbsp; I'm sorry if this means you lost your bet &nbsp;.&nbsp;