I'm very curious how Creationism is seen by the expert geologists, biologists, paleontologists. I'm sure that you definitely get annoyed by the pseudo-intellectual PRATTs and incredible misrepresentations of your fields of study. I am curious as to whether you have been confronted in your personal lives with pseudo-scientific nonsense (by family, friends, acquaintances) and how you have dealt with it.
Experts vs. Creationist Nonsense
- Thread starter RichardT
- Start date
An excellent question. Most of what I hear about the subject is from the 'net, where it's being pushed by people with a bone to pick on one side or the other. It's certainly not hard to find professional blogs about it. However, most of the everyday-occurance, what-do-I-do-with-this-guy-in-my-class type things you don't get to hear about very often. Would be some good info if anyone has some to offer.
Upvote
0
You mean before the theory of evolution? Evolution is the only known theory of biodiversity.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,192
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
All you guys can come up with is one?
You've got four major theories for the moon.
Evidently 'life' poses a problem?
Is this 'life' an exception to the rule(s) of nature?
And wouldn't panspermia and alien genetics be viable theories for biodiversity?
Upvote
0
You are confused about what a theory is. There are four hypothesis for the formation of the moon which may be sometimes referred to as theories but none of them has the status of a theory. We often use the word theory outside of the meaning it has in the context of sciene and confuse it with hypothesis.
However this discussion is off topic for this thread.
Abiogenesis research does have long way to go before it can provide more than a collection of hypotheses to explain the origin of life. Evolution explain the diversification of life from early common ancestors. This discussion is also off topic for this thread.
Not as far was we know. This discussion is also off topic for this thread.
Panspermia is a hypothesis to explain the origin of life on earth but it does not explain the biodiversity of life. Evolution does that. This discussion is also off topic for this thread.
It is probably more precise to say that evolution is the only explanation of biodiversity that is so well supported by evidence as to have the status of a scientific theory. This discussion is also off topic for this thread.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,192
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
While we're off-topic for this thread, which is experts nonsense vs creationist nonsense, I disagree that panspermia does not explain the 'biodiversity of life'.
Different seeds yield different crops.
Panspermia explains biodiversity quite well.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Do I get annoyed by people who have no idea what there are talking about confidently stating that nearly all of science is wrong because of their religious beliefs? To some extent but only with people who are totally unwilling to listen to reason. I have debated people on the internet who were creationists searching for knowledge and will to look into the science as they learned it and that is refreshing rather than annoying.
I have also debated some internet creationists who claim to have scientific credentials and should know better. I have found them very arrogant and more than a little annoying. The drive by PRATT posters are also a nuisance. It takes a lot more effort to refute a list of nonsense claims than it does to copy and paste them from some creationist website.
I am pharmaceutical scientist by vocation and my father's girlfriend used to run a health food store so yes I have been confronted with other pseudo-scientific nonsense. I normally just smile and listen and don't say much unless she says something that I think will put the other people listening to her in danger. Most of my family (except my father of course) do the same and know by now not to take her too seriously. A little bit of what she says actually makes sense from time to time but you can't cure cancer with nutritional suppliments. Also one of my aunts was a big believer in Uri Geller at one time but she now realizes he is a fraud so we do tease her about that occasionally.
However, none of the pseudo science I have run into in other areas comes within a country mile of the level of nonsense in so called creation science as promoted by people like CRS and AiG. Even allowing it to be considered scientific enough to be called pseudo science is an insult to pseudoscientists everywhere.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,192
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
But that doesn't deter you guys from asking for evidence, does it?
Upvote
0
No the topic is the experience of experts with knowledge dealing with creationist nonsense. Since you have a very limited knowledge of science and are purveyor of an extreme brand of creationist nonsense I guess the only way you think you can "contribute" is to drag the thread off topic.
Then open a thread to discuss it and explain exactly how panspermia explains biodiversity. It is off topic here.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,192
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
No, thank you -- I just did.
And no, it is not off-topic, since we're dealing with 'creationist nonsense', which you seem to agree panspermia is?
Upvote
0
These particular purveyors of nonsense claim there is evidence to support their nonsense and try to ignore the great mass of evidence that shows they are totally wrong. Sometime their "explanations" contradict reality and each other in such a way as to be very amusing so I suppose that is another motivation to ask for evidence.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,192
- 51,516
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
And I submit that asking for evidence is a function of science.
Upvote
0
I did not say panspermia is creationist nonsense. I said it a hypothesis for the origin of life on earth but that it does not really explain biodiversity.
Upvote
0
Mike Elphick
Not so new...
- Oct 7, 2009
- 826
- 40
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
Though I have done some biological research, I wouldn't call myself an expert in any of these fields, and though the pronouncements of YECists certainly do make me extremely angry, I wouldn't argue with a friend or acquaintance about it, on the basis they are probably victims of the movement and it's best to keep relationships sweet.
I wouldn't confront a 'professional' YECist during one of their 'debates' either. This is because they are very skilled at getting their claims across in simple terms and putting the opposition down, but very difficult for the other side to explain the reasons why they are wrong. It is much better to do that sort of thing with the written word.
If you're someone like PZ Myers, you might sometimes have success, but by and large it's something to avoid.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
