Issues in Scienceville.

[Inan3]

Inan, you never really responded when I showed you that there were 1300 articles on the criticism of Kettlewell. Doesn't that invalidate this claim from your source: "Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment was "sacred"; critics were "demonised", their views were dismissed as 'heresy'"?

I'm sorry but I've been answering other posts also.

I personally don't believe it invalidates the claim because within the same article it explains that in "1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished" (other than Ted Sargent) took note and THEN people were willing to listen. The purpose of the article was not so much with Kettlewell as with Sargent.

It's not Kettlewell's issue that I find fault with it is the Ted Sargent issue, where when he tried to bring it to their attention HE was demonised and his concern was dismissed as "heresy" and why?? As soon as someone who was "higher up" in Scienceville... someone who carried some weight... was listened to.

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either. There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence. To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville. Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous. Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm sorry but I've been answering other posts also.

I personally don't believe it invalidates the claim because within the same article it explains that in "1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished" (other than Ted Sargent) took note and THEN people were willing to listen. The purpose of the article was not so much with Kettlewell as with Sargent.

It's not Kettlewell's issue that I find fault with it is the Ted Sargent issue, where when he tried to bring it to their attention HE was demonised and his concern was dismissed as "heresy" and why?? As soon as someone who was "higher up" in Scienceville... someone who carried some weight... was listened to.

You mean it took someone who had actually established himself with a reputation for actually knowing what he was talking about before people would listen? Shocking.

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either.

It means there is no evidence for creationism. It's not really that hard to understand.

At least AV gets it, and spends most of his substantial free time demolishing the very notion of evidence, trying to make its existence or lack thereof completely meaningless.

So seriously -- what's the problem?

There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Your opinion is noted. Not to be rude, but so what?

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence.

Vice versa, actually -- there is no evidence, so there are no papers published to give support where there is none.

What you tend to see instead are a whole slew of crackpot conspiracy theories about the Big Bad scientists persecuting the poor creationists -- I'd offer an example...

To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville.

...but you seem to know all about it already.

Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous.

You have been spreading quite a few whoppers, and have dogmatically resisted any attempt at correction -- what would you call yourself?

Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

And most of the people here have responded in kind -- in exchange, we get what we always get -- a whole lot of bluster, not much substance.

 

[Split Rock]

It's not Kettlewell's issue that I find fault with it is the Ted Sargent issue, where when he tried to bring it to their attention HE was demonised and his concern was dismissed as "heresy" and why?? As soon as someone who was "higher up" in Scienceville... someone who carried some weight... was listened to.

Nothing was dismissed for "heresy." Your reference is filled with rhetoric and heresay.

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either. There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Well, if there is evidence (physical evidence) then show it to us. The reason we say there isn't is because there isn't. According to some creationists here, that is to be expected, even. As far as most professional creationists are concerned, yeah.. they are liars (with a few exceptions). The reason for that, as I explained previously, is that you in the rank-in-file, don't care.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence. To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville. Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous. Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

Go ahead and present an example of a manuscript that was submitted to a professional journal, but was rejected because it supported creationism against "Scienceville." Don't just continue to make up allegations and make assertions without evidence. This is why some here have called you a liar.

 

[Psudopod]

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either.

It means there is no evidence that is better explained by any creation hypothesis than by established scientific theories. Take the presence of sea shells in mountains. Some creationists might take this as evidence of the flood. However, the flood does not explain why the sea-shells are buried within the mountain, nor the fact that we do not find the skeletons of modern creatures. The evidence is better explained by plate techtonics pushing what used to be part of the ocean floor millions of years ago up and out to become mountains.

There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence. To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville. Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous. Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Can you show where anyone has labeled a creationist scientist a liar for something demonstratably true? There are plenty of creationist scientist who do still produce valid science and no one critises them for that, only for things that we can show are incorrect. They get called liars when mistakes are pointed out to them, but they carry on using them. If you have been shown something you've said is false, but you carry on saying it, what does that make you?

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none.

If people are requesting evidence, then they are not domgatically suggesting there is none, are they? People are willing to listen to valid evidence, but none tends to get presented, or it's things that have been refuted a hundred times over.

To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville.

Who's in power in "scienceville"? And where is the evidence that things are being suppressed? Can you produce any papers that were rejected simply because of bias, rather than because they were wrong? Surely, if this was as much of a problem as you are making out, creationist scientists should be doing as much as possible to get this out in the open? If it were me, I'd be scanning my rejected papers and showing people where the review's bias was demonstrated.

Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

But what you have done so far is the equivalent of saying "Christianity is false because that priest molested children." No one is saying people don't make mistakes. No one is denying fraud happens. No one is saying there aren't some big personalities who aren't open to new ideas. But a systematic supression of evidence across all fields? A conspiracy of shadowy figures pulling strings across the whole of science? Given the number of people around here who work in science, and more importantly, given the obvious visible effects of scientific study across all walks of life, you're going to need to back that idea up with some pretty strong evidence.

 

[Cabal]

Oh that... I wasn't wrong.

Wrong! But I'm sure it helps your persecution complex.

I'm not asking you to search for me. I did my search. I'm telling you if you don't like what I present search it out for yourself.

And if we find something that shows you were wrong, are you actually going to listen, or are you going to claim that we're biased or whatever?

So you don't think standards of telling the truth, and not trying to manipulate and hide evidence are not particularly high? Oh!! No wonder you get so upset when someone tries to uncover the actual facts.

Except they're not verifiable based on what you posted, as they're poor sources who don't back up their statements. It was a poor start to the argument, was that your best foot forward? That's not something I'd choose as a line-one item, which is why I asked you for more. If you have a page detailing the same allegations but with sources that can be used to cross-check the claims, then by all means post it.

Detail how it does not. Once again it is obvious you don't know what I think because what you just said is NOT true.

The claims are coming from Cremo and Thompson, who display an obvious bias towards their point of view (talkorigins link), making their take on the Steen-Macintyre et al. affair suspect, though it does not stop them being right but for the wrong reasons.

Again though, ok, say we grant that this is a case of anomalous data being given an unnecessarily hard time. So....what? Yes, it shouldn't have happened, but this is one piece of research. I know you said you've got others, but I think this is going to be a very long thread if you want to adequately prove that every field is this corrupt.

Me and at least 80% of the public. You want to come out into the public and talk with us, then start using out language.

To a point, but false logic and argumentation needs correcting, and nothing else.

Nope. Innocent until proven guilty. I am not a liar.

This isn't a court, Inan. You may not have shown yourself to not be a liar, but you are quite biased against science and blind to your own hypocrisies.

How about evidence in this whole forum. Your the one who calls yourself a scientist. You'd think you might be able to muster up some science. All I ever see or hear is put downs not just of me but of anyone.

You need to look harder. Or how about you start your own thread requesting evidence for specific scientific claims (and avoid using the term "Scienceville" or any other conspiracy guff) and the evidence is discussed purely on its merits. I'd bet my bottom dollar you get less obfuscation from your opponents here than you've cooked up on this thread for defending your claims.

It's so bad you would think it was another field in Scienceville. You guys don't know how to argue a point you only know how to argue. Even when someone tries to be civil you think that is an opportunity to beat your chests and cry conquest.

Someone baselessly accusing an entire field they have shown time and time again they know nothing about is civil, is it now?

| You think someone being civil is saying they are submitting to your argument or even more ridiculous... to you. It's as if you can't comprehend what the rest of us take for granted... A civil conversation where one can disagree without the other trying to outdo or smash to bits what the other says almost before they get it out of their mouths.

Well, in case you hadn't noticed, this isn't a verbal form of communication, it's textual, and one can edit it. So as far as I'm concerned, people have had plenty of time to think about what they communicated. And to be quite honest, I did disagree civilly with you to begin with, it's you that started the escalation.

I have copypasted parts of an article that "I" also, commented on. I highlighted the particular parts I was speaking to and about. You didn't even do that.

Because I figured you'd read them if this were an honest discussion, but ok, I'll spoon-feed it to you next time.

Oh, I'm sure you've got better things to do, like going to find someone else that you can speak down to or argue with. That brings up another point. Where does a 25 year old young man like yourself, who is supposedly engaged, and works as a scientist get the time that you spend on this forum to argue so much and "why" would you do it? Sounds awfully suspect to me. You need to get a life!!

This coming from someone who just made an even lower personal attack? Hypocrite

Back and forth?? this is back and forth?? If this is what you consider a debate, I'm not interested. "I" have better things to do.

Well, not just between you and me, I meant in general - there have been plenty of civil responses from the other side, myself included. But as you admitted at the start of this thread, you think (incorrectly) our querying of your sources is automatic dismissal. It's not - it's quite standard when trying to argue a point. Exploding the way you have in response to it is not going to get you very far.

My purpose was to just add a little at a time what I have found. I'm still going to do it that way. I find it of no value to just bring in lots of things which you probably will not read at one time. I can see it all now. If I did that you would then argue something like this... "we don't want you to just give us all that information we want you to copypaste only what you are speaking to and break it down for us one by one and highlight your points." As you said earlier..."we just can't win with you people!"

Oh, and you gave me a hard time for that, and there you are using it. Way to rise above it all, Inan.

Ok, fine, one at a time is better, but if you put your strongest foot forward, then frankly, it's only going to go downhill from here.

There you go again speaking to my capabilities.

And I will do so as long as your incapability is leading you to misconstrue and smear.

So let me get this right.. when I don't get it, "it's beyond my capability" and when YOU don't get it that's my fault, too? Do you hear yourself?

Well, let's see....in the other thread you said you weren't against the whole system, then I quoted you saying the problem was the whole system (which you failed to respond to), then here it's some conspiracy of higher-ups, but no names have been presented, and we're still looking at it on a field-by-field basis...so yes, you have been unclear. Might want to work on that.

"Ergo, so what?" That's why Scienceville and the world is so askew people with that very attitude.

Not an answer to the question. How does one piece of research being shady confirm that the ENTIRE system of research is biased?

I suspect that to be true here and in any of my other points so that means this is as good a place as any to end this discussion with you.

Incorrect again, Inan - quite happy to discuss things, but you need to get less emotional and resorting to posts like these full of personal attacks while criticising me for the same.

 

[Cabal]

I'm sorry but I've been answering other posts also.

I personally don't believe it invalidates the claim because within the same article it explains that in "1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished" (other than Ted Sargent) took note and THEN people were willing to listen. The purpose of the article was not so much with Kettlewell as with Sargent.

It doesn't actually compare the arguments, the article is insinuating that the prominent biologist wasn't rubbished because he was prominent, not because he made a better case or whatever. Ideally, the cases should be compared. It's possible Sargent made the right conclusion based on the wrong reasons, and if the reasoning looks shoddy then there's no reason it should be taken up.

It's not Kettlewell's issue that I find fault with it is the Ted Sargent issue, where when he tried to bring it to their attention HE was demonised and his concern was dismissed as "heresy" and why??

Only according to the referenceless article you posted.

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either.

If you think that so much, post the evidence. Just because you think we don't post evidence is not justification for you to avoid posting evidence for your claim.

There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence.

I don't expect there to be any, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility. But it will require a much better standard of proof than some referenceless articles pulled off a website.

To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville. Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous. Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

It was because you said it without proof....and still are. Again, I'll give it to you that you're going to post more articles, but given the standard of the two so far, and the fact that you're accusing an entire subject, I'm not convinced that you're going to be posting adequate evidence.

 

[Hespera]

I'm sorry but I've been answering other posts also.

I personally don't believe it invalidates the claim because within the same article it explains that in "1998 a prominent biologist, whose weighty judgments could not be rubbished" (other than Ted Sargent) took note and THEN people were willing to listen. The purpose of the article was not so much with Kettlewell as with Sargent.

It's not Kettlewell's issue that I find fault with it is the Ted Sargent issue, where when he tried to bring it to their attention HE was demonised and his concern was dismissed as "heresy" and why?? As soon as someone who was "higher up" in Scienceville... someone who carried some weight... was listened to.

The point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either. There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none. Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence. To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville. Because I have said this, now "I" also, have been dubbed a liar and deceiver and incapable, etc. etc. all accusations which are totally ludicrous. Starting this thread was mostly for my own benefit and understanding and to address and demonstrate my claims.

there

he point of this whole thread is basically this: Over and over it is stated that there is NO evidence for creationism. I am not sure exactly what is meant by that in each and every case but I don't think anyone else does either

there isnt any. its like saying there is no evidence for the physical existence of atlantis. How simple is that? No evidence.

There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers.

I dont think that is quite right. Not all "creation scientists' (Im not sure there even exactly is such a thing) are liars. or all the time.

BUT, we do see a lot of falsehood, lies distortions nonsense misrepresentations from the creo sites. You want examples? You can find fraud here and there in science but its the whole enchilada for creo science.

Posters here, continue to demand that we give evidence, evidence, evidence, suggesting dogmatically that there is none.

Suggesting doggmatically? honestly Inan. I will sure keep on asking and saying, not just suggesting, until someone produces at least one data point. Do it if you dont like being told there isnt any.

Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence

.

Now that is plain insulting and dumb. There isnt any coz there isnt any, not because it isnt published.

To that I respond that the reason for this is that evidence is accepted or rejected and even suppressed on a biased and controlled basis by those in power in Scienceville.

I didnt say that, and we all get accused of things. However, this statement deserves little respect. You are saying in effect the entire earths scientific community is involved in vast conspiracy to suppress certain facts. THAT is just too ridiculous and surely you are better and smarter than that.

Your really really think that researchers at the U of Beijing, Berlin, south Africa,, Korea, New York city etc etc are all in on this? Shades of the Illuminati!

Imagine how it would be. Some geologist from France is looking at formations in Africa, and publishes some very narrow focus study (that is how they all are) on one aspect of that one formation. BUT-like the tape on the door at the watergate hotel, it has vast implications, including the, yes, flood.

Scienceville police are alerted swing into action and block publication, or well its already been published so the kill the geologist and burn the papers.

How do you think it would go?

 

[Cabal]

Your really really think that researchers at the U of Beijing, Berlin, south Africa,, Korea, New York city etc etc are all in on this? Shades of the Illuminati

I'm not entirely convinced Inan isn't also a wholesale subscriber to the whole NWO guff - the standards of thinking and providing evidence for sweeping claims (or rather, not providing evidence) is pretty much the same as it is for her "Scienceville" argument.

 

[Inan3]

No evidence.

Untrue.


"There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers. "

I dont think that is quite right. Not all "creation scientists' (Im not sure there even exactly is such a thing) are liars. or all the time.

BUT, we do see a lot of falsehood, lies distortions nonsense misrepresentations from the creo sites. You want examples? You can find fraud here and there in science but its the whole enchilada for creo science.

Right here is my point. YOU make this statement and yet YOU give no evidence to back it up and yet you require it of me. Sorry Hespera not acceptable. You need to live up to the rules you set for everyone else. You guys can't live by a different set of rules then you have imposed upon the rest of us. This would not be acceptable if it was me making a statement about "your side."


Suggesting doggmatically? honestly Inan. I will sure keep on asking and saying, not just suggesting, until someone produces at least one data point. Do it if you dont like being told there isnt any.

I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Listen to W.R. Thompson puts it.
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. Science and Common Sense (1937) p.229"

Now that is plain insulting and dumb. There isnt any coz there isnt any, not because it isnt published.

Don't call me or my suggestions dumb and don't patronize me, Hespera.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Listen to W.R. Thompson puts it.

Congratulations, that's two people with the same opinion.

Repeating an opinion twice is not proof that it is correct.

Edit: It's also irrelevant as it's talking about evolution, Hespera's remark was in reference to your original remark about evidence for creationism.

 

[Split Rock]

This thread reminds me of an old SNL sketch, which portrayed a fake television talk show. The show was called "Women's Problems." However, instead of women talking about their problems, it was men talking about problems they preceived with women! (For example: "When they get old, they get ugly." LOL). Same principle, but not as funny... mainly because this thread is supposed to be serious.

 

[Split Rock]

I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Listen to W.R. Thompson puts it.
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. Science and Common Sense (1937) p.229"

Oh good.... a 1937 reference. Even if he had a legitimate point, don't you think that there may have been some advancement in evolutionary biology in the last seventy four years??

 

[Hespera]

Don't call me or my suggestions dumb and don't patronize me, Hespera.

Originally Posted by Hespera

No evidence.

Untrue.

No evidence. Show me some. You cant.


"There are continued and repeated suggestions and accusations that creationist scientists are liars and deceivers and quite frankly, I have had enough of that. In my opinion those who propagate that are the liars and deceivers. "

I dont think that is quite right. Not all "creation scientists' (Im not sure there even exactly is such a thing) are liars. or all the time.

BUT, we do see a lot of falsehood, lies distortions nonsense misrepresentations from the creo sites. You want examples? You can find fraud here and there in science but its the whole enchilada for creo science.

Right here is my point. YOU make this statement and yet YOU give no evidence to back it up and yet you require it of me. Sorry Hespera not acceptable. You need to live up to the rules you set for everyone else. You guys can't live by a different set of rules then you have imposed upon the rest of us. This would not be acceptable if it was me making a statement about "your side."

I offered to give examples, and i sure can. you cant.


Suggesting doggmatically? honestly Inan. I will sure keep on asking and saying, not just suggesting, until someone produces at least one data point. Do it if you dont like being told there isnt any.

I'm not the only one who saw it that way. Listen to W.R. Thompson puts it.
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation. Science and Common Sense (1937) p.229"


ok so someone else offered an opinion and not av ery good one so what.


Now that is plain insulting and dumb. There isnt any coz there isnt any, not because it isnt published.
​

Don't call me or my suggestions dumb and don't patronize me, Hespera.

here is what you asserted,its not a suggestion its a a statement of facts not in evidence, and i did not call you dumb. zero for zero there.

Their premise is that there are no supporting papers published or crediblity given by the scientific community, therefore there IS no evidence
​

And it is both insulting and dumb. Your 'premise" and "therefore" would require a level of intellectual dishonesty unreason and plain stupidity that is just not remotely realistic as a description of how science works.

if you dont like having that pointed out, dont set yourself up.

And when it comes to patronizing....honestly, that is one of your specialties. Goes around comes around, tho in fact i was not being patronizing.

Please use the quote function properly you make it really ahrd to respond.

 

[Inan3]

Oh good.... a 1937 reference. Even if he had a legitimate point, don't you think that there may have been some advancement in evolutionary biology in the last seventy four years??

I wonder...

 

[Split Rock]

I wonder...

That's the problem... isn't it? All you do is wonder and try to find others who also wonder (even if you have to go back to 1937), rather than actually look at the science.

 

[Cabal]

(even if you have to go back to 1937)

It's an improvement on some creationists - at we're not having Darwin thrown at us.

So I wonder if we can decide that Christianity is all about segregating black people from white people seeing as that was pretty much its gig back in 1937? (or at least, it was for some churches, ergo CONSPIRACY AT ALL LEVELS!!!!!!11one)

 

[Inan3]

[/color]

It means there is no evidence that is better explained by any creation hypothesis than by established scientific theories. Take the presence of sea shells in mountains. Some creationists might take this as evidence of the flood. However, the flood does not explain why the sea-shells are buried within the mountain, nor the fact that we do not find the skeletons of modern creatures. The evidence is better explained by plate techtonics pushing what used to be part of the ocean floor millions of years ago up and out to become mountains.

Well, thank you Psudopod, (and I mean that). You have suggested evidence in your response to me. Although, I have read about this and it seems reasonable to me. I just recently saw a documentary about Mount Saint Helen's and they showed how the earth actually pushed up making these uprisings (you could actually see the difference in the size of the hills or mountain) and it helped me to visualize what I had read about concerning the plate techntonics pushing up as a possible answer to why there were sea shells on the mountains. I still appreciate that you have given it,though, rather than, for example, to just say "that was dumb, Inan... your premise is dumb." Enough said about that.

Can you show where anyone has labeled a creationist scientist a liar for something demonstratably true? There are plenty of creationist scientist who do still produce valid science and no one critises them for that, only for things that we can show are incorrect. They get called liars when mistakes are pointed out to them, but they carry on using them. If you have been shown something you've said is false, but you carry on saying it, what does that make you?

No, but I can't show where they have called a creationist scientist a liar for something demonstratably false either. That's just it, that is not how it is presented here. If it were I would not be complaining. It is demanded of me and other creationists, that I/we do not generalize (nor be specific.. go figure) but those that I am accusing of calling creationist scientists liars do so in a general manner. They do not give proof of their accusations, and yet, they expect me to. That is my complaint and therefore, I have addressed it. I really do not want to go on about this but you asked. It seems I am always having to explain myself for just expecting them to follow their own rules. I think that is the purpose. Certain few do not want to debate or discuss, they just want to argue and vent and have the last word.

If people are requesting evidence, then they are not domgatically suggesting there is none, are they? People are willing to listen to valid evidence, but none tends to get presented, or it's things that have been refuted a hundred times over.

That's just the point, Psudo. When they ask for evidence, they are challenging the point. I do not believe they really WANT evidence. Anything I give them they are going to shoot it down. They insist it must be credible (acceptible by their own bias) and/or published. They will deny this but if I was willing to go back through all their posts (which I am not) then I could produce them saying just that. Even if I did, I would receive a response, like, "ergo, so what?", or "what if we did say that... so? The responses can all be "proven and predicted". It is almost as if they were copied and pasted from some ridiculous atheist bible. Dogmatic? You bet!!! Enough said about that!!

Who's in power in "scienceville"? And where is the evidence that things are being suppressed? Can you produce any papers that were rejected simply because of bias, rather than because they were wrong? Surely, if this was as much of a problem as you are making out, creationist scientists should be doing as much as possible to get this out in the open? If it were me, I'd be scanning my rejected papers and showing people where the review's bias was demonstrated.

"produce any papers" did you just say that? ... straight from the book? No offense, but you just proved one of my points.

First of all, do your really think that ANYONE in Scienceville (and by this I don't mean any Joe Schmoe there. I'm talking about the big guys... those that HAVE a say) would ADMIT to the bias? That wouldn't be productive so they wouldn't use that for the rejection or suppression decision and you nor I would ever know the difference. No, they would be much smarter than to admit that. Secondly, even IF the christian scientists did produce the papers (and I'm not sure they haven't) they would be accused of lying and their credibility would be attacked and their careers in peril. No, that is the nature of the beast .. to use that very intimidation to keep it all under "scientific control." (this is a pun but if you will take the definition into account and apply it to what I am saying perhaps you will see my point) And "who" would know better than Scienceville how to put "scientific control" into play in ANY situation they wanted.

But what you have done so far is the equivalent of saying "Christianity is false because that priest molested children." No one is saying people don't make mistakes. No one is denying fraud happens. No one is saying there aren't some big personalities who aren't open to new ideas. But a systematic supression of evidence across all fields? A conspiracy of shadowy figures pulling strings across the whole of science? Given the number of people around here who work in science, and more importantly, given the obvious visible effects of scientific study across all walks of life, you're going to need to back that idea up with some pretty strong evidence.

No, what I have said, is the equivalent of saying, The "Unmentioned" Church and the powers that be behind it are false Christianity. They stand behind their "priests" who molest children and do not deal with them or punish them and they let them go on with their parishes or put them in other parishes because they are a very powerful group who control people and governments and who knows whatever else they have their hands in. Their followers just say, "No one is saying people don't make mistakes. No one is denying sin happens. No one is saying there aren't some big personalities who aren't open to new ideas..." and then they ask.... "But a systematic supression of evidence across all fields? A conspiracy of shadowy figures pulling strings across the whole of churchdom?" "Given the number of people around here who work in the church, and more importantly, given the obvious visible effects of the good we do across all walks of life, you're going to need to back that idea up with some pretty strong evidence." "No, no, we would rather just sweep it under the rug."

 

[Nostromo]

"produce any papers" did you just say that? ... straight from the book? No offense, but you just proved one of my points.

What's the alternative that you'd prefer? That we should listen uncritically to the creationists, just because they are creationists? Spending decades researching a subject counts for nothing?

First of all, do your really think that ANYONE in Scienceville (and by this I don't mean any Joe Schmoe there. I'm talking about the big guys... those that HAVE a say) would ADMIT to the bias?

Well of course they wouldn't, but all that leaves you with is a choice between people who are biased and won't say, and people who aren't biased. Since you won't allow scientific evidence to determine which is which because it might be subject to this bias, you have to rely on the opinions of people with less relevant training and experience and quite possibly a religious bias. How is that any better?

Is it totally inconceivable that you and others like you are the ones who are wrong and have a bias based on your beliefs? It's not as if you can claim that religion has a clear conscience on the matter of punishing apostates or threatening eternal suffering for not toeing the party line.

 

[Inan3]

What's the alternative that you'd prefer? That we should listen uncritically to the creationists, just because they are creationists? Spending decades researching a subject counts for nothing?.

Of course, it means something. I don't disregard that. What I disregard is that rather than some admitting what I am saying and giving me a little respect, they choose to ridicule and make sport of Christians and those who believe in God.

Did you happen to read Psudopod's response to me, excepting the "paper's" part, which actually was okay too. (that didn't bother me...I was just making a point to him on something I had said above.) He wasn't always agreeing with me and yet, he was able to disagree without insult or injury. That is the way I would like to be responded to. I don't think that is too much to ask. I don't mind when what I say is disagreed with. I expect that, but I do not like to be dissed.

Well of course they wouldn't, but all that leaves you with is a choice between people who are biased and won't say, and people who aren't biased. Since you won't allow scientific evidence to determine which is which because it might be subject to this bias, you have to rely on the opinions of people with less relevant training and experience and quite possibly a religious bias. How is that any better?

I do allow for scientific evidence. Bring it on. I've asked for it but all I get is arguments devoid of evidence.

Is it totally inconceivable that you and others like you are the ones who are wrong and have a bias based on your beliefs? It's not as if you can claim that religion has a clear conscience on the matter of punishing apostates or threatening eternal suffering for not toeing the party line

It is not inconceivable, I've even see errors in the way I have believed and others. I've changed when I see them. But there is no way anyone can convince me that God is not real or that it is all a fairy tale. To me that is just ludicrous. I KNOW it's not true. It would be like trying to convince someone there is no such thing as love. How do you know??? Can you produce evidence? Can they see that love? No, but you know. That's the best way I can explain it to you. God is real. I am more convinced of that than I am of talking with you right now. That's not going to change. Ever!!!

I'm not afraid of God. I'm not pressured to believe in God. I'm not afraid of losing my friends, I would rather lose them then to lose God. I'm not following aimlessly. He is with me and I know Him. That's all I can tell you. I expect to grow and learn more and more about God and life. I expect to learn more about science. I already have. I don't expect to believe there is no such thing as science and I don't expect to believe there is no such thing as God but if it came down to a choice, I would choose God for sure.


I am more convinced today that there is a God then at the first. So if you guys can accept that, okay. If not, that's your problem not mine. Not trying to be rude but I know no other way of saying it to emphasize the importance that it has to me. God comes first in EVERYTHING.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET 1

Curly, Larry and Moe?

So, no answers, just insults and vain attempts to be clever -- you're everything I've come to expect from a "Christian," and less.

Christianity is like Baskin Robbins, different flavors for different folks