Creationism Curiosity

[Dojima]

Actually, I revised, cut, added and edited quite a bit of that.
It was not a copy paste.

If you still consider what I just posted "unscientific", I can't help you.
If you don't want to bother seeing videos or reading posts, I'd suggest you just believe what you want to believe and that will never change. Then it would note that it is hypocritical to criticize others for expressing faith, when you hold your beliefs for faith.

Do you even know what science means? It is certainly not a list of what we accept as explanations and what not, that's how it worked back in 1500.

So...
1) A scientific explanation is somehow not "good enough" for science.
2) But that needs somehow no explaining or justification.
3) It's scientific questions, I raise, somehow do not qualify. So you do not need to respond to them.
4) The Darwinist establishment would make a big deal out of an idea that it tries to prevent from surfacing. Hence it is safe to assume that it is not a valid explanation.

Now are you going to respond to my post or are you just going to keep repeating the same catchphrase?

 

[Split Rock]

Creationism is an explanation of phenomenons. Any explanation is as valid as the other one. It is science that should determine what is true.

And some ideas are not just ignores, they are actively suppressed, with repercussions for scientists.

You should watch this. (I just spammed 20 posts to be able to post links, just for you dear.)


Scientific Dogma

There are two sides to every story, and "Expelled" only tells one. This is from Wikipedia:
Caroline Crocker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

George Mason University
Crocker had a position as a part-time faculty member of George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia. She alleges that, in April 2005, her department barred her from teaching evolution and intelligent design after she mentioned intelligent design while teaching her second-year cell biology course. The dean of the College of Arts and Sciences stated that the university did not have a policy or a rule on whether certain topics should be discussed, but questioned whether a concept with theological underpinnings belonged in a science course. He added "I'm a Buddhist, but I don't think we should teach reincarnation in biology classes."[5]

Her lecture which raised concerns included statements that macroevolution was not established as "No one has ever seen a dog turn into a cat in a laboratory", that many scientists believe that complex life reveals the hand of an intelligent designer, that experiments that she said were supposed to prove evolution, including the Miller-Urey experiment and peppered moth evolution, had been found to be false. She said that "The problem with evolution is that it is all supposition – this evolved into this – but there is no evidence", and that anti-Semitism, eugenics and death camps in Nazi Germany had been based on Darwin's ideas and on science.[7] The biologist and critic of creationism PZ Myers described this as educational malpractice and a lack of basic scientific competence.[8] If a dog turned into a cat, that would contradict evolution theory,[9] and her erroneous claims about experiments appeared to come from a list by intelligent design proponent Jonathan Wells, based on his book Icons of Evolution, which had been refuted by the National Center for Science Education in 2001.[10] Myers described her claims about anti-semitism and Nazis as contemptible, noting that Hitler claimed to have been motivated by religious views such as those of Martin Luther and not scientific ideas; indeed, racist ideas long predated Darwin.[8][11]

Later in 2005, her contract as a part-time faculty member at the university was not renewed. A university spokesman said this was for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design, and that though they wholeheartedly supported academic freedom, "teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology."[7]


[edit] Northern Virginia Community College
At the same time Crocker taught at GMU, she was also an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College(NVCC).[12] On November 2, 2005, repeated the lecture she claims got her fired from the university. She said "I lost my job at George Mason University for teaching the problems with evolution. Lots of scientists question evolution, but they would lose their jobs if they spoke out." Crocker had described the lecture beforehand as teaching "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution", and when asked afterwards if she would be discussing the evidence for evolution in another class, said that she would not as "There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution" and she was trying to balance other pro-evolution accounts. National Center for Science Education research affiliate Alan Gishlick has described Crocker's arguments as part of a familiar litany of half-truths and errors.[7]

Subsequently, her contract at NVCC was not renewed.[12] She currently no longer teaches, but works for a research firm.[13]

 

[suzmot]

Alright. That video was about scientists being fired and losing grant money for proposing scientifically valid ideas. If you don't believe that this happens, you should back that up with facts.

Well, that one has already been debunked above. Like the rest of the lies in Expelled, you shouldn't take it on face value.

Creationism has a lot of data. It is often the logical explanation.

You still haven't presented a single piece. Most of the things you post are PRATT against evolution. That's not data for creationism.

....Rip section about irreducible complexity and the bacteral flagellum...

Irreducible complexity is another PRATT. The bacterial flagellum the most commonly cut and pasted by your type, so here's a cut and paste explanation for its evolution: Evolution of the bacterial flagellum

Got any ideas of your own?

 

[Dojima]

There are two sides to every story, and "Expelled" only tells one. This is from Wikipedia:
Caroline Crocker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok, I stand corrected.

Isn't it funny that wikipedia has now become the voice of the "one side"? What ever happened to that being neutral aspiration?
I for one trust the first random google hit on any subject more than wikipedia.

But I'm not saying that your source is false. I had a feeling that she might have been fired for some other reason.

So you are saying that there is no suppression of creationism going on?

 

[Dojima]

You still haven't presented a single piece. Most of the things you post are PRATT against evolution. That's not data for creationism.

So you are saying that certain ideas should be forbidden until there is enough data for them?

 

[Hespera]

Actually, I revised, cut, added and edited quite a bit of that.
It was not a copy paste.

If you still consider what I just posted "unscientific", I can't help you.
If you don't want to bother seeing videos or reading posts, I'd suggest you just believe what you want to believe and that will never change. Then it would note that it is hypocritical to criticize others for expressing faith, when you hold your beliefs for faith.

Do you even know what science means? It is certainly not a list of what we accept as explanations and what not, that's how it worked back in 1500.

So...
1) A scientific explanation is somehow not "good enough" for science.
2) But that needs somehow no explaining or justification.
3) It's scientific questions, I raise, somehow do not qualify. So you do not need to respond to them.
4) The Darwinist establishment would make a big deal out of an idea that it tries to prevent from surfacing. Hence it is safe to assume that it is not a valid explanation.

Now are you going to respond to my post or are you just going to keep repeating the same catchphrase?

If you delete some stuff etc it is still cut and paste, sorry.

Do you think you could avoid making personal remarks? They say something about your imagination but nothing about me, so they arent intersting or relevant.


You points 1 and 2 make no sense,

3. you posted a shopping list, I am not going to spend two hours on it.

4 "Darwinist establishment" is a figment of your imagination. "they" have no power to suppress information. This conspiracy stuff is just too ridiculous.

Work in many many other fields could totally falsify evolution if they made a suitable discovery. They should be doing it all the time, if there was any reality to the "creationist" ideas. Dont try to tell me the evil Darwinists reach out to Beijing and control the astrophysicists and geologists there, because that and more is what it would take to suppress info.

I have read all the same stuff you posted, read it again when you posted it, and I have seen the video before. I dont care to see the same cut and paste catchphrases. I compose my own words, based on years of study and knowing what I am talking about.

I said there is NO evidence for creationism.

You say there is lots, and put down what I called a shopping list.

That is too much to deal with, so I made a counter proposal:

You pick the one you think is the best one, and put that forward.

If you cant, dont want to do that, fine.

Oh one more thing. Dont give me that cra[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]mo about what I think being "faith" based. What I think is based on verifiable data, which is an entirely different thing. Soon as there is verifiable data that shows I should see things in a new light, I will. No new light ever changes the faith of the committed eligious. So dont try to put me in the same boat with you.


So anyhow... your one best factoid that you think would discredit evolution?

 

[Hespera]

So you are saying that certain ideas should be forbidden until there is enough data for them?

You really should not keep putting words in other people's mouths!

The churches of course HAVE forbidden ideas, and still do.

Ideas are welcome in science. Say anything you like at the lunch table. Just dont expect to get a whole lot of attention unless you can back up your speculation with some data. And, see, the theocreos have yet to produce item one, data wise. Just recycling the same trash. So, you can expect groans at the table if yet another fresh young face shows up to spout the same moldy nonsense.

 

[Dojima]

Do you think you could avoid making personal remarks?

You really should not keep putting words in other people's mouths!

Um... personal remarks?

If you seriously dont know, it is simple.

You probably mean "logical" not "logic" but bad logic alone doesnt cut it. Bring in some data.

Are you one of the tinfoil hatters who thinks there is a world wide conspiracy including people who dont even know of the christian cult of creationism.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ideas are welcome in science. Say anything you like at the lunch table. Just dont expect to get a whole lot of attention unless you can back up your speculation with some data.

Ya --- I once wore my E=MC[sup]2[/sup] shirt when I visited a planetarium, and you should have seen the looks I got.

Finally one scientist came over to me and said:

• Scientist: That's an interesting shirt.
• Me: Thank you --- what's so interesting about it?
• Scientist: What's that formula on it?
• Me: I believe it's the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy.
• Scientist: Are you kidding me?
• Me: No, I'm not kidding you. In fact, that's standard textb...
• Scientist: Let's see some evidence.
• Me: I don't have any.
• Scientist: What data do you use to back up this assertion, or formula, or whatever you call it?
• Me: Again, it's standard...
• Scientist: You mean you take it on faith what the textbooks tell you?
• Me: Yes --- don't you?
• Scientist: Don't get cute, I make my own observations.
• Me: And what do your observations tell you about mass and energy interchanging?
• Scientist: Dunno --- I'm a biologist.

 

[Hespera]

Um... personal remarks?

Well yes, personal remarks, like this one:

"I'd suggest you just believe what you want to believe and that will never change. Then it would note that it is hypocritical to criticize others for expressing faith, when you hold your beliefs for faith."


This is not a personal remark:

"You probably mean "logical" not "logic" but bad logic alone doesnt cut it. Bring in some data."


The inclusion of the word "you" does not make for a personal remark. Talking about hypocrisy and how I do or dont think is.

But never mind. None of us are perfect. Do you have a verifiable piece of data that would support creationism / falsify evolution, or not?

 

[Dojima]

But never mind. None of us are perfect. Do you have a verifiable piece of data that would support creationism / falsify evolution, or not?

From what I heard that bacteria can't really be explained by random mutations, the alternative is creation.
I'm actually a pretty hardcore neo-Darwinist, I just dislike "science" excluding certain ideas.
You say that is not happening, but I do think the lefties and atheists are very entrenched in the education system.
You name a teacher of yours that was not a lefty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have a verifiable piece of data that would support creationism...

QV please: 1.

I can't believe you guys are still asking for evidence for the Creation.

 

[Hespera]

QV please: 1.

I can't believe you guys are still asking for evidence for the Creation.

I am not asking for "evidence of the creation" I am not asking you, and I cant believe you think posting your qvlinks over and over is worth doing.

 

[Hespera]

From what I heard that bacteria can't really be explained by random mutations, the alternative is creation.
I'm actually a pretty hardcore neo-Darwinist, I just dislike "science" excluding certain ideas.
You say that is not happening, but I do think the lefties and atheists are very entrenched in the education system.
You name a teacher of yours that was not a lefty.

I am unaware of what a Neo-Darwinist is.

It would not be good if "science: were excluding certain ideas. I say that no such thing is going on.

Ideas are fine, intelligent people love to talk about ideas. I hear some pretty far out stuff getting discussed. Ideas with no data to back them thought, are not going to get much attention. It isnt politics. Im no "lefty".
Ideas end up being worthless in science if they have no data.

What is there more to say than that?

As for mutations, you could stop specifiying "random". Its like saying wet water.

The whole thing about the flagellum and "irreducible complexity" has been gone over many times, so I may not want to go into it here.

You said that you heard it hasnt really been explained by mutation.

Lets say that what you heard is so, and that it "hasnt really" been explained. That does not mean it cant be...not so long ago, we didnt even know there were bacteria.

Is the irreducibly comples flagellum your one best example to support crationism? If so, I will go over it with you. If not, please provide a good one. Polystrate fossils, or human footprings in the cambrian, for example?

 

[Dojima]

I am unaware of what a Neo-Darwinist is.

It would not be good if "science: were excluding certain ideas. I say that no such thing is going on.

Ideas are fine, intelligent people love to talk about ideas. I hear some pretty far out stuff getting discussed. Ideas with no data to back them thought, are not going to get much attention. It isnt politics. Im no "lefty".
Ideas end up being worthless in science if they have no data.

What is there more to say than that?

As for mutations, you could stop specifiying "random". Its like saying wet water.

The whole thing about the flagellum and "irreducible complexity" has been gone over many times, so I may not want to go into it here.

You said that you heard it hasnt really been explained by mutation.

Lets say that what you heard is so, and that it "hasnt really" been explained. That does not mean it cant be...not so long ago, we didnt even know there were bacteria.

Is the irreducibly comples flagellum your one best example to support crationism? If so, I will go over it with you. If not, please provide a good one. Polystrate fossils, or human footprings in the cambrian, for example?

Neo-Darwinism is just "new" Darwinism. It basically means that we and all beings are who we are because that mutation resulted in an attribute that made us more likely to survive and give that attribute on.
I'm just mentioning that so you know that I'm not advocating creationism as such, I am more advocating scientific freedom. (Including religion.)
I think that every theory should be free to be explored without repercussions, and if there is no evidence it should go away. There is no real danger these days that science could be taken over by religious zealots. But the liberal entrenchment seems pretty strong in science and education.
How many of your teachers were right-wingers?
The "rejecting evolution is ignorant" police annoys me. If these people have a problem with faith dressed up as science, why don't they combat the global warming "consensus"? Consensus-science is inherently unscientific.
Intelligent design researchers are intelligent adult scientists, I dislike people who scream "ignorant" at every mention of intelligent design.
The flagellum is the best example I have heard of in biology. Obviously creationism is not too far out in other fields. You assume that those dots on your screen were created by an intelligence, right? You don't explain them as being random. And you don't havee to believe in god to use that explanation.
All I can find on the web on the bacteria is "intelligent design proponents are ignorant".
So yes, that example would be enough as representative for the whole debate.

 

[Hespera]

Neo-Darwinism is just "new" Darwinism. It basically means that we and all beings are who we are because that mutation resulted in an attribute that made us more likely to survive and give that attribute on.
I'm just mentioning that so you know that I'm not advocating creationism as such, I am more advocating scientific freedom. (Including religion.)
I think that every theory should be free to be explored without repercussions, and if there is no evidence it should go away. There is no real danger these days that science could be taken over by religious zealots. But the liberal entrenchment seems pretty strong in science and education.
How many of your teachers were right-wingers?
The "rejecting evolution is ignorant" police annoys me. If these people have a problem with faith dressed up as science, why don't they combat the global warming "consensus"? Consensus-science is inherently unscientific.
Intelligent design researchers are intelligent adult scientists, I dislike people who scream "ignorant" at every mention of intelligent design.
The flagellum is the best example I have heard of in biology. Obviously creationism is not too far out in other fields. You assume that those dots on your screen were created by an intelligence, right? You don't explain them as being random. And you don't havee to believe in god to use that explanation.
All I can find on the web on the bacteria is "intelligent design proponents are ignorant".
So yes, that example would be enough as representative for the whole debate.

Ok we both favor freedom of science and religion.

We wont bring science lectures to the church, and it can keep theism out of the science cases.

I think the "repercussions" thing is at best vastly exaggerated, I dont believe it exists at all. But never mind; good ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas.


Evolution wise, I have seen no good data, and no good competing theory.

The only attempts to falsify evolution that I have seen do in fact qualify as ignorant. if they dont like it, raise the discussion to a higher level than the usual "how come there are still monkeys" stuff.

I already said that there is plenty of liberalism in academia. I reject the idea that being 'lib" or "con" determines whether a person can do good work. And the more so, outside the USA.


As for computer screens etc, some things require intelligent design and construction and some things dont. A river canyon doesnt; a pencil does.
Evolution doesnt; a bowl of noodles does. I dont think any structure of any living thing required a designer.


As for bacterium and the flagellum ok, tho i never had much interest in micro.

First tho maybe express just what your idea about it is?

 

[keith99]

Please keep in mind that this isn't a claim offered by materialists--it is one that is still being offered by many creationists. Maybe I'm just bitter, but I got a little upset when I heard that the shiny new Creation Museum 25 minutes away from me was bringing in more visitors than my beloved Cincinnati Museum of Natural History across the river--And you can bet the average Creation Museum visitor buys their claims to speak with the authority of science. If this challenge cannot be met, then so be it. It'll serve as some consciousness raising as to what science actually is, and more importantly, what popular appeals to established scientific views haven't earned the right to be considered a contender.

Until you go and carefully observe just what is going on at the Creation Museum I'd be careful about being too concerned.

The freak show at the circus often draws a crowd. Things that may not exist for long often draw a crowd (people want to see it before it is gone). Oh and remember lot's of people watch pro wrasslin and even act like it is real when in fact they find it just an amusing show.

 

[Dojima]

Ok we both favor freedom of science and religion.

We wont bring science lectures to the church, and it can keep theism out of the science cases.

I think the "repercussions" thing is at best vastly exaggerated, I dont believe it exists at all. But never mind; good ideas will win out in the marketplace of ideas.


Evolution wise, I have seen no good data, and no good competing theory.

The only attempts to falsify evolution that I have seen do in fact qualify as ignorant. if they dont like it, raise the discussion to a higher level than the usual "how come there are still monkeys" stuff.

I already said that there is plenty of liberalism in academia. I reject the idea that being 'lib" or "con" determines whether a person can do good work. And the more so, outside the USA.


As for computer screens etc, some things require intelligent design and construction and some things dont. A river canyon doesnt; a pencil does.
Evolution doesnt; a bowl of noodles does. I dont think any structure of any living thing required a designer.


As for bacterium and the flagellum ok, tho i never had much interest in micro.

First tho maybe express just what your idea about it is?

My idea was in that long post, basically that the flagellum is unlikely to have come into being by mutations.
Let's agree that there is no good evidence that it is designed, at least I don't understand.

The larger topic at hand is the "scientific" establishment being one-sided. The examples I brought up were probably exaggerated.
Well, I guess the "God created the universe" stuff is not really science and should stay out of public schools, but science is not inherently unscientific. Science is the most correct explanation of reality, and that includes God or any other explanation.
Faith does not prevent anything from being scientific. For example string theory did require quite a lot of faith in the early years, and still does.
And I think the atheists have a easy time branding Christianity as "unscientific", but it is not.
I think my main point is that science and Christianity are compatible.

 

[Hespera]

My idea was in that long post, basically that the flagellum is unlikely to have come into being by mutations.
Let's agree that there is no good evidence that it is designed, at least I don't understand.

The larger topic at hand is the "scientific" establishment being one-sided. The examples I brought up were probably exaggerated.
Well, I guess the "God created the universe" stuff is not really science and should stay out of public schools, but science is not inherently unscientific. Science is the most correct explanation of reality, and that includes God or any other explanation.
Faith does not prevent anything from being scientific. For example string theory did require quite a lot of faith in the early years, and still does.
And I think the atheists have a easy time branding Christianity as "unscientific", but it is not.
I think my main point is that science and Christianity are compatible.

Depending on what is meant by "Christianbity' I dont see a reason for a conflict.

I dont think there is anything unlikely let alone impossible about the flagellum as an evolutionary accomplishment. Remarkable, yes. I. D. no; certainly no evidence that it has to be ID. Ther is plenty that can be found on those, and not just on a theo vs the evo site. Not the best place to look for bacteriology or any other subject.

I think you mix the ideas of theory and faith in a way I would never imagine mixing them. I dont have "faith"...to me, faith is just believing, despite evidence as much as because. Faith, is never to doubt, is it not?

Theory is the best explanation for the data at hand. If more data comes along to build on it or falsify it, then so be it. If faith were to be falsified it would cause a crisis (of fiath!) and maybe a persons whole concept of the world would crumble.

Well , not to dispute you on everything even if I dont agree.

Your main point is about "science" being one sided?

First off, it is only from the perspective of religion that religion is even a topic. I could say your church, if you go, is one sided because you only talk religion and not basketball.

I have been around universities and scientists all my life, for better or for worse! I know they are an eccentric bunch! I am aware tat there can kind of be fads, trends, etc. I mean, people are human and all.

But see, science is carried on all around the world, by people of all religious and non religious persuasions. If there was something to an ID or creationist theory, and it had data to back it, then someone somewhere would realize they were really on to something of vast importance. And believe me, no "scientific establishment" real or imagined, could suppress it. Nor would they want to.

That is how I see it, and I think that is accurate.

ID / creationism has this problem and it isnt the others. It is in their subject matter. They cant extract any data. So they have no place at the table. Its up to them to produce, put up or shut up, not for others to make a place for them.

 

[Dojima]

Depending on what is meant by "Christianbity' I dont see a reason for a conflict.

What was that for? The 'b' is right besides the 'n', so are you really making a comment over me hitting a wrong button?

I think you mix the ideas of theory and faith in a way I would never imagine mixing them. I dont have "faith"...to me, faith is just believing, despite evidence as much as because. Faith, is never to doubt, is it not?

Theory is the best explanation for the data at hand. If more data comes along to build on it or falsify it, then so be it. If faith were to be falsified it would cause a crisis (of fiath!) and maybe a persons whole concept of the world would crumble.

The weird thin is that this seems to only apply to the theories hold by the right.
Global warming is a perfectly fine theory without evidence.

Your main point is about "science" being one sided?

First off, it is only from the perspective of religion that religion is even a topic. I could say your church, if you go, is one sided because you only talk religion and not basketball.

The church is a private organization, science is not supposed to be one-sided.
Religion is an ambiguous term. I don't see a reason to exclude certain explanations from "science", if there are such reasons, please name them.

I have been around universities and scientists all my life, for better or for worse! I know they are an eccentric bunch! I am aware tat there can kind of be fads, trends, etc. I mean, people are human and all.

I hope so. But it rather seems like a political ideology has hijacked "science" to represent it's interest.

But see, science is carried on all around the world, by people of all religious and non religious persuasions. If there was something to an ID or creationist theory, and it had data to back it, then someone somewhere would realize they were really on to something of vast importance. And believe me, no "scientific establishment" real or imagined, could suppress it. Nor would they want to.

On your example of Beijing, China is a totalitarian communist state (=atheists). Are you really saying they wouldn't suppress creationism? So what's left is the western world. And it is liberal enough to keep down any opposition. I don't think the old "if it were true, we'd be hearing about it" works.