Hoaxes

[bhsmte]

Funny - creation scientists say more or less the same about evolution - it's [evolution] a belief system masquerading as science and leads to bad theology/atheism.

Of course creationists state that. Evolution is a threat to their personal theology, what other choice do they have, then to engage their defense mechanisms?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

That would make sense if live TV debates were a good way to settle scientific questions. They're not: they're a good way to determine who's a better TV debater. Instead, how about we have a debate in the scientific literature, where scientific questions actually are settled. The problem, of course, is that debate took place long ago, and was overwhelmingly decided against creationism.

But by doing it that way, only scientists get to debate the issues, with all the allegations of corruption/bias/selectivity of experimental data, etc, so in the end, no-one outside the relevant academic circles knows who is closer to the truth. Also, I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the blanket coverage of evolution in the popular media, creation science would be even more popular than it currently is (amongst non-scientists).

 

[bhsmte]

But by doing it that way, only scientists get to debate the issues, with all the allegations of corruption/bias/selectivity of experimental data, etc, so in the end, no-one outside the relevant academic circles knows who is closer to the truth. Also, I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the blanket coverage of evolution in the popular media, creation science would be even more popular than it currently is (amongst non-scientists).

No one is stopping creation scientists from displaying their science.

The problem is, they have no science, so they can not have scientific discussions.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Evolution is a threat to their personal theology, what other choice do they have, then to engage their defense mechanisms?

Once again, the creation scientists claim that the evolutionists do the same thing in defence of their world view.

 

[bhsmte]

Once again, the creation scientists claim that the evolutionists do the same thing in defence of their world view.

No one is stopping the creationists from displaying their science and showing evolution is false.

They tend to struggle with this though, I wonder why?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

The problem is, they have no science, so they can not have scientific discussions.

So why have they issued a challenge to debate with them and why do evolutionists keep turning them down? It appears to me that they are running scared.

 

[Willtor]

But by doing it that way, only scientists get to debate the issues, with all the allegations of corruption/bias/selectivity of experimental data, etc, so in the end, no-one outside the relevant academic circles knows who is closer to the truth. Also, I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the blanket coverage of evolution in the popular media, creation science would be even more popular than it currently is (amongst non-scientists).

Typically, when a field has problems with corruption, bias, and selectivity of experimental data, most of the scientists in that field are publicly complaining about it. Scientists typically get into a field because they love it for its own sake, so if it's corrupt, they don't like it. This has happened and is happening in pharmaceuticals. It isn't happening in genetics and evolution. Thus, either there is a conspiracy in these fields to hide the corruption, or it's a healthy science.

 

[bhsmte]

So why have they issued a challenge to debate with them and why do evolutionists keep turning them down? It appears to me that they are running scared.

Did you see the Nye/Hamm debate?

I believe 85% of Christians felt Nye wiped the floor with Hamm.

I will say again, if creation scientists have science to back their claims, please come forward and share it. They have none, while evolution is backed with boatloads of scientific evidence and this causes them to simply make claims against it, with zero evidence to support their claims - classic defense mechanisms.

Here is one reason though, why many scientists, don't waste their time with creationists. The ignorance and denial displayed by the creationist on this video, is off the charts:

 

[Not_By_Chance]

every single hypothesis in regards to this matter has an insurmountable problem associated with it.

Because God, creator of the universe and all life is way more clever than any human could ever hope to be. Even with all our knowledge and expertise, we cannot even come close to creating life from lifeless chemicals and yet we are supposed to beleive that some unknown process did it all by itself and then, without any guidance whatsoever, organised itself so that it could not only reproduce but also evolve into ever more complex life forms. To believe that, takes anothing but blind faith and a lot of it. Ann Christians are accused of believing in miracles??!

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Did you see the Nye/Hamm debate?

Yes, and I agree Mr Ham was not very effective in putting his position across. However, if the boot had been on the other foot, Mr Ham would have been accused of Gish gushing or whatever it's called, because that's certainly what it seemed to me that Mr Nye was doing.

 

[lasthero]

Because God, creator of the universe and all life is way more clever than any human could ever hope to be. Even with all our knowledge and expertise, we cannot even come close to creating life from lifeless chemicals and yet we are supposed to beleive that some unknown process did it all by itself

I never understood the 'humans can't do it, so it can't happen naturally' argument. We can't control the weather, generate earthquakes, or make volcanoes erupt, either, but that doesn't mean these things don't happen naturally.

 

[lasthero]

Yes, and I agree Mr Ham was not very effective in putting his position across. However, if the boot had been on the other foot, Mr Ham would have been accused of Gish gushing or whatever it's called, because that's certainly what it seemed to me that Mr Nye was doing.

Gish galluping. And how was Bill Nye gish-galloping?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Here is one reason though, why many scientists, don't waste their time with creationists. The ignorance and denial displayed by the creationist on this video, is off the charts:

I can't watch it in the UK.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, and I agree Mr Ham was not very effective in putting his position across. However, if the boot had been on the other foot, Mr Ham would have been accused of Gish gushing or whatever it's called, because that's certainly what it seemed to me that Mr Nye was doing.

Hamm had no scientific evidence.

In a scientific debate, that is a big problem.

 

[bhsmte]

I can't watch it in the UK.

Too bad, it is full of laughs.

 

[whois]

Typically, when a field has problems with corruption, bias, and selectivity of experimental data, most of the scientists in that field are publicly complaining about it.

this didn't happen in the case of barbara mcclintok.
her research was ridiculed by the establishment itself.
why?
because it went against the darwinist paradigm that existed at the time.
barbara and her research was ridiculed so badly that she quit publishing her research.
yes, let's talk about bias, corruption, and selectivity of experimental data.

 

[lasthero]

this didn't happen in the case of barbara mcclintok.
her research was ridiculed by the establishment itself.

The 'establishment'? Who, exactly, was that?

It's also important to note that Barbara's work was eventually recognized and accepted, and she would even go on to recieve as Nobel Prize.

 

[bhsmte]

The 'establishment'? Who, exactly, was that?

It's also important to note that Barbara's work was eventually recognized and accepted, and she would even go on to recieve as Nobel Prize.

Yes precisely. Quite convenient, the poster left this important fact out.

 

[whois]

The 'establishment'? Who, exactly, was that?

that's the 64 dollar question isn't it.
not only who, but how, this could have happened.
this doesn't bode well for "a self correcting" mechanism.

It's also important to note that Barbara's work was eventually recognized and accepted, and she would even go on to recieve as Nobel Prize.

most likely because so must data had become available they couldn't effectively squash it all.
eventually, as in 40 to 50 years later.

the fact still remains though, why would barbara be ridiculed like this, even to the point to where she quit publishing?

 

[bhsmte]

that's the 64 dollar question isn't it.
not only who, but how, this could have happened.
this doesn't bode well for "a self correcting" mechanism.

most likely because so must data had become available they couldn't effectively squash it all.
eventually, as in 40 to 50 years later.

the fact still remains though, why would barbara be ridiculed like this, even to the point to where she quit publishing?

Why wouldn't this establishment, keep her from getting the Nobel prize?