Dinosaurs: Genesis and the Gospel

[46AND2]

Be my guest ... but I have a feeling they won't.

As I have said before, in my opinion scientists calibrate their own machines and program their own software to get the results they need to keep science operating in a positive light.

If they have to filter out undesirable statistics, or pass the buck, or whatever, they can do so.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.

Got any evidence of these accusations?

 

[juvenissun]

One more time. Please explain which of the "correct" answers were derived from scientific investigation. These answers were taught to the students, they were not derived by the students. It is also not "pre-science" education. It is a "science quiz." What is "pre-science" anyway??

Pre-science is a psychological preparation for students to study science so students will not be lost in scientific details. This quiz is a completely correct way to do it. Students who are educated this way WILL have higher scientific achievement than those who are not.

 

[juvenissun]

IOW, they need to indoctrinate students into creationism before they are allowed to see the science.

For student's benefit, yes. Such students are able to ask better questions.

 

[juvenissun]

Everything is wrong with it.

You are blind.

 

[StormanNorman]

For student's benefit, yes. Such students are able to ask better questions.

Yeah, right. Based on my experience on this board, the creationist types have far less adventure and curiousity when it comes to science.

 

[Split Rock]

Be my guest ... but I have a feeling they won't.

As I have said before, in my opinion scientists calibrate their own machines and program their own software to get the results they need to keep science operating in a positive light.

If they have to filter out undesirable statistics, or pass the buck, or whatever, they can do so.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.

How does one keep "science operating in a positive light?" This doesn't even make sense. I get the feeling that your "opinion" is nothing more than what you want to believe so you feel good about your own beliefs. Reality can "take a hike."

 

[Split Rock]

Pre-science is a psychological preparation for students to study science so students will not be lost in scientific details. This quiz is a completely correct way to do it. Students who are educated this way WILL have higher scientific achievement than those who are not.

Again.... which part of the information they were quizzed on is based on scientific investigation?

 

[Tomk80]

Got any evidence of these accusations?

And AV goes complete conspiracy-nut. He basically is as sane as your average 9-11 truther.

Just ignore him.

 

[Tomk80]

Pre-science is a psychological preparation for students to study science so students will not be lost in scientific details. This quiz is a completely correct way to do it. Students who are educated this way WILL have higher scientific achievement than those who are not.

How does learning all the wrong answers help them in any way, rather than hinder them? You do realize that all the answers that were given are wrong, do you?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Pre-science is a psychological preparation for students to study science so students will not be lost in scientific details. This quiz is a completely correct way to do it. Students who are educated this way WILL have higher scientific achievement than those who are not.

So it is your contention that what you call a 'psychological preparation' or what we might call an indoctrination at an early age with unhelpful erroneous information that will have to be unlearnt and will hinder the student's initial steps in science will actually help the students achieve higher things in the sciences. That's a remarkable claim and one for which it is hard to think of a justification. It's rather like claiming that breaking young athlete's legs will actually make them better athletes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Got any evidence of these accusations?

Well, let's see ... for starters ... who's to blame for Thalidomide?

(Please answer this.)

Note: I'm not asking what happened. I've heard that 1K times. I'm asking who's to blame.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, let's see ... for starters ... who's to blame for Thalidomide?

For starters, why do you want to blame thalidomide for anything?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well, let's see ... for starters ... who's to blame for Thalidomide?

(Please answer this.)

Note: I'm not asking what happened. I've heard that 1K times. I'm asking who's to blame.

As the manufacturers of the drug issued an apology many years later, they are the ones who accepted the blame.

 

[Tomk80]

For starters, why do you want to blame thalidomide for anything?

More specifically, how is that an example of the accusation AV makes. If anything, it is a contradiction to his claim. Given that we know about Thalidomide through scientific investigations. If scientists would have wanted to hush Thalidomide up, they would not have put any work into finding out how it caused birth defects. Rather, they would have manipulated the data to point to some other source, and we still would have Thalidomide babies being born.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

As I have said before, in my opinion scientists calibrate their own machines and program their own software to get the results they need to keep science operating in a positive light.

You are so incredibly wrong you would not even begin to understand how far out in left field you are.

This is an example of nearly fractal wrongness. It is wrong on all levels no matter how one parses it it is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You clearly know NOTHING about this topic. NOT A THING.

So why do you speak about it?

You do realize that when you DON'T KNOW SOMETHING it is actually bad to broadcast misinformation because you don't know what you are talking about!

When I see something that immensely ignorant of a topic I wonder why on earth I should care what you say about, just, anything!

If they have to filter out undesirable statistics, or pass the buck, or whatever, they can do so.

While there are bad people who will manipulate data, this is not how science is done. In fact it is SO LOOKED DOWN UPON that if one example of it is found in a scientists work it will likely destroy their career. PERMANENTLY.

I assume you have little to no idea about statistics either but I bet dollars to donuts that if someone quotes a statistic that you don't "like" you will assume (in ignorance) that the statistic is made up.

Science runs on the No True Scotsman Principle.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Not a single idea expressed in this post was even marginally accurate.

Not. Even. Close.

 

[46AND2]

Well, let's see ... for starters ... who's to blame for Thalidomide?

(Please answer this.)

Note: I'm not asking what happened. I've heard that 1K times. I'm asking who's to blame.

Plenty of other people have answered your questions about Thalidomide. The only reason you claim they haven't is because they haven't given you the answer you want to hear.

It's a wonder scientists get anything at all to work; what, with all that dishonest doctoring of data, lying and cheating, and all.

But hey, whatever makes it easier for you to ignore their evidence, right? Instead of accepting the fact that YOU might be wrong or can't explain something science has discovered, you can play your wild card, academic dishonesty, and your faith remains intact.

How convenient.

 

[Split Rock]

You are so incredibly wrong you would not even begin to understand how far out in left field you are.

This is an example of nearly fractal wrongness. It is wrong on all levels no matter how one parses it it is wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

You clearly know NOTHING about this topic. NOT A THING.

So why do you speak about it?

You do realize that when you DON'T KNOW SOMETHING it is actually bad to broadcast misinformation because you don't know what you are talking about!

When I see something that immensely ignorant of a topic I wonder why on earth I should care what you say about, just, anything!



While there are bad people who will manipulate data, this is not how science is done. In fact it is SO LOOKED DOWN UPON that if one example of it is found in a scientists work it will likely destroy their career. PERMANENTLY.

I assume you have little to no idea about statistics either but I bet dollars to donuts that if someone quotes a statistic that you don't "like" you will assume (in ignorance) that the statistic is made up.



You have no idea what you are talking about. Not a single idea expressed in this post was even marginally accurate.

Not. Even. Close.

AVET doesn't care if he is wrong, it is what he wants desperately to believe. One thing I have discovered communicating with creationists is that most of the time they don't care about what is true or correct. The fantasy they have in their head that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside is what counts. Remember "reality" can take a hike.

 

[Split Rock]

Well, let's see ... for starters ... who's to blame for Thalidomide?

(Please answer this.)

Note: I'm not asking what happened. I've heard that 1K times. I'm asking who's to blame.

More specifically, how is that an example of the accusation AV makes. If anything, it is a contradiction to his claim. Given that we know about Thalidomide through scientific investigations. If scientists would have wanted to hush Thalidomide up, they would not have put any work into finding out how it caused birth defects. Rather, they would have manipulated the data to point to some other source, and we still would have Thalidomide babies being born.

AVET wants to assign BLAME. If scientists were wrong about something, then they can be wrong about anything. If they can be wrong about anything, then they can be wrong about common descent, deep time, etc. If they can be wrong about these, then his beliefs are just as good, and he shouldn't have to listen to evolutionary explanations for where the Bengal Tiger came from on Animal Planet.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

AVET doesn't care if he is wrong, it is what he wants desperately to believe. One thing I have discovered communicating with creationists is that most of the time they don't care about what is true or correct. The fantasy they have in their head that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside is what counts. Remember "reality" can take a hike.

What you are describing sounds remarkably like a security blanket. Depending on how badly the security blanket is needed, it will be clung on to with various degrees of desperation.

 

[juvenissun]

Again.... which part of the information they were quizzed on is based on scientific investigation?

The terminology.