Issues in Scienceville.

[Nathan Poe]

I wonder...

Well, that's a start -- now go and find out!

 

[VehementiDominus]

Well, that's a start -- now go and find out!

Inan: "Ok... conservapedia.com, answersingenesis.com....

Nope, no advancements!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Christianity is like Baskin Robbins, different flavors for different folks

LOL -- Steve -- you're a card!

 

[Inan3]

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.

I figure if a respected scientist wondered than it probably is okay for me to wonder, also. After all he was in the thick and thin of the whole science community.

 

[AV1611VET]

I figure if a respected scientist wondered than it probably is okay for me to wonder, also. After all he was in the thick and thin of the whole science community.

Good answer --

 

[Inan3]

Well, that's a start -- now go and find out!

I did and I am and I will!! Seeings you guys don't have anything.

 

[Inan3]

Peer Review

So, what does all this mean for me?

Basically, you shouldn't canonize everything a peer-reviewed journal article says just because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. But, at the same time, being peer reviewed is a sign that the paper's author has done some level of due diligence in their work. Peer review is flawed, but it has value. There are improvements that could be made. But, like the old joke about democracy, peer review is the worst possible system except for every other system we've ever come up with.

Read more here:

Meet Science: What is "peer review"? - Boing Boing

 

[Jro]

I figure if a respected scientist wondered than it probably is okay for me to wonder, also. After all he was in the thick and thin of the whole science community.

It seems like you're more interested in criticizing the institution of science than you are in finding out what the criticisms consist of and whether or not they are valid. For example, do you know what Sargent's critiques of Kettlewell's experiments were? Have you looked at the research that was done in response to Sargent's critiques? The information is available, especially if you have access to an academic library. Privately, I think that is actually one of the great critiques you could make of science- in an ideal world journals would be free and available to everyone, but paper and review boards cost money.

 

[Inan3]

Good answer --

Thanks AV.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I figure if a respected scientist wondered than it probably is okay for me to wonder, also. After all he was in the thick and thin of the whole science community.

Is this "respected scientist" doing anything besides wonder? Perhaps, for example, trying to find out?

 

[Inan3]

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

This is a contradiction of terms which ever way you look at it I make out okay.

If everything you expect in a Christian is good (then you are saying "I" am good) but then I fall short of it (because I'm less), so that means I'm not so good but you think Christians are and you said at first that I was too.

On the other hand if you are saying everything you expect in a Christian is bad then you are saying "I" am bad but then I fall short of it (because I'm less) so that means I am not so bad.

Either way, I come out not so bad and even good. Thanks NP.

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is a contradiction of terms which ever way you look at it I make out okay.

If everything you expect in a Christian is good (then you are saying "I" am good) but then I fall short of it (because I'm less), so that means I'm not so good but you think Christians are and you said at first that I was too.

On the other hand if you are saying everything you expect in a Christian is bad then you are saying "I" am bad but then I fall short of it (because I'm less) so that means I am not so bad.

Either way, I come out not so bad and even good. Thanks NP.

So, you've managed to engage in the one skill a creationist has in abundance -- self-glorifying semantics.

Haven't you ever wanted to do something useful with your life?

 

[Inan3]

So, you've managed to engage in the one skill a creationist has in abundance -- self-glorifying semantics.

Haven't you ever wanted to do somethign useful with your life?

You sound like you understand what that is all about ... I mean WANTING to do something useful?

 

[Nathan Poe]

You sound like you understand what that is all about ... I mean WANTING to do something useful?

Sounds like you get the idea in theory -- trust me, it's a very satisfying thing to actually put into practice.

You know, if a Creationist was nothing more than an intellectual parasite, they wouldn't bother me so much -- the world's full of people mooching off others' achievements; what's a few more?

Even that smug sense of entitlement doesn't annoy me as much as it probably should -- they want respect without the bother of actually earning it. But there are plenty of shallow narcissists floating around; we're nowhere near critical mass yet.

I guess my real pet peeve about them is how, in addition to the above two personality traits, many of them have recently -- out of bitterness, jealousy, or just blind panic; I can't quite tell which -- felt the need to lash out at those people: scientists, inventors, educators, et cetera, who actually have earned respect for actions which have produced real and tangible results, who have made the world a better place, who have had the courage to try what others said couldn't be done.

It's as though they've given up trying to keep up with the Joneses, and are now hellbent on trying to drag them down to their own level. And that just makes me sad. Organized religions tend to do this in cycles -- sometimes they cultivate and encourge great thinkers, other times, they repress, surpress, oppress, and (when all else fails) have them burned.

Every religous institution goes through these cycles, but never in sync -- for example, while Christian Europe was floundering in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was exploding with knowledge and ideas we use to this day -- indeed, it can be argued that without them, the Renaissance never would've happened.

Of course, look at the Middle East now -- depressing, isn't it? And now I start seeing what might be the first signs of Christian Institutions (starting on the individual level) sinking back into the mire of dogma, ignorance, and superstition.

Arguably, Christianity and Islam are two of the most powerful cultural influences in the world today -- so here's a question: What happens for those of us who think for fun and profit when these two cultural behemoths go stagnant at the same time?

Answer: nothing good.

I see folks like you, Inan, and I want to see some sign of breaking the trend. Alas, it's not happening.

 

[Inan3]

Sounds like you get the idea in theory -- trust me, it's a very satisfying thing to actually put into practice.

You know, if a Creationist was nothing more than an intellectual parasite, they wouldn't bother me so much -- the world's full of people mooching off others' achievements; what's a few more?

Even that smug sense of entitlement doesn't annoy me as much as it probably should -- they want respect without the bother of actually earning it. But there are plenty of shallow narcissists floating around; we're nowhere near critical mass yet.

I guess my real pet peeve about them is how, in addition to the above two personality traits, many of them have recently -- out of bitterness, jealousy, or just blind panic; I can't quite tell which -- felt the need to lash out at those people: scientists, inventors, educators, et cetera, who actually have earned respect for actions which have produced real and tangible results, who have made the world a better place, who have had the courage to try what others said couldn't be done.

It's as though they've given up trying to keep up with the Joneses, and are now hellbent on trying to drag them down to their own level. And that just makes me sad. Organized religions tend to do this in cycles -- sometimes they cultivate and encourge great thinkers, other times, they repress, surpress, oppress, and (when all else fails) have them burned.

Every religous institution goes through these cycles, but never in sync -- for example, while Christian Europe was floundering in the Dark Ages, the Islamic world was exploding with knowledge and ideas we use to this day -- indeed, it can be argued that without them, the Renaissance never would've happened.

Of course, look at the Middle East now -- depressing, isn't it? And now I start seeing what might be the first signs of Christian Institutions (starting on the individual level) sinking back into the mire of dogma, ignorance, and superstition.

Arguably, Christianity and Islam are two of the most powerful cultural influences in the world today -- so here's a question: What happens for those of us who think for fun and profit when these two cultural behemoths go stagnant at the same time?

Answer: nothing good.

I see folks like you, Inan, and I want to see some sign of breaking the trend. Alas, it's not happening.

Look a little deeper NP. You are only seeing what you "think" is on the surface. You don't hear or see what is really being said. You think you know what it is all about but you don't. You really don't want to. The world is NOT going to get better. Things are winding down. Things aren't going to get better they are going to get worse. You don't like me and the things I tell you? You don't like what you perceive christianity is? Okay, but don't let that keep you from Jesus and what He has done for you. He is the way out of what is coming. Don't let it keep your family and friends from His help. None of these foolish forum duels is worth losing it all.

 

[Split Rock]

Peer Review

So, what does all this mean for me?

Basically, you shouldn't canonize everything a peer-reviewed journal article says just because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. But, at the same time, being peer reviewed is a sign that the paper's author has done some level of due diligence in their work. Peer review is flawed, but it has value. There are improvements that could be made. But, like the old joke about democracy, peer review is the worst possible system except for every other system we've ever come up with.

Read more here:

Meet Science: What is "peer review"? - Boing Boing

OK. I actually agree with this. Now, tell us....Where is the huge anti-heresy conspiracy?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Look a little deeper NP. You are only seeing what you "think" is on the surface. You don't hear or see what is really being said. You think you know what it is all about but you don't. You really don't want to. The world is NOT going to get better. Things are winding down. Things aren't going to get better they are going to get worse.

And all this time I thought "Gospel" meant "good news."

You don't like me and the things I tell you? You don't like what you perceive christianity is? Okay, but don't let that keep you from Jesus and what He has done for you. He is the way out of what is coming. Don't let it keep your family and friends from His help. None of these foolish forum duels is worth losing it all.

And that, Inan, is why you and far too many Christians like you are part of the problem -- you're so in love with this "End Times" nonsense because it's just what you've been looking for to give up.

Think about it -- you really don't have to do anything anymore, do you? All that's left is for Jesus to swoop down and rescue you, right on cue.

Are you familiar with the fable of the ant and the grasshopper? One plans for the future, the other doesn't -- guess which one comes out ahead?

Why do you bother talking to me about Jesus? He's nothing to you but an excuse -- you don't have to plan for tomorrow because you've convinced yourselves there won't be a tomorrow.

Of course, if it turns out that there is a tomorrow, you're kind of left holding the bag, aren't you?

And if you need an example of what's wrong with that kind of thinking, look no further than Harold Camping and his suckers. Some of them were so convinced that May 21 was going to be the end that they sold their posessions, emptied their bank accounts (some to buy billboards for Camping) and even (in one case, anyway) killed their pets in preparation for the May 21 rapture.

And what happened? May 21 came and went, and on the morning of May 22, a lot of good honest folk who had given up on their and their children's future were left scratching their heads.

But fear not! Camping has already announced that the real Rapture will be October 21 -- and you know what? They'll believe him, for no other reason than they want to. They're sick of living, just like you are, and have given up, just like you have.

Only difference is, you haven't set a date -- but other than that, you're no better than Camping and no smarter than his followers.

So really -- why should I listen to you? You've already given up.

 

[Psudopod]

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.

No problem. Do you see what I mean though - what seems like a perfectly plausable explanation, seashells in mountains are there because of the flood, is actually completely inadequate when you keep asking questions? If you keep going, you'll find there are lots of similar issues. Why for example, if there was a global flood that wiped out everyone except Noah and his family do several cultures on earth continue unbroken?

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.

Okay, and I can see where you are coming from. Part of the reason is it's been done so many times before. It gets old hat to keep dragging up the same refutations. And to people who work in the fields of biology, geology, they are really stupid. It's the equivalent of people coming up to you and saying "Christianity promotes canibalism! It does! I found a website that says so!" Anyone with any understanding of Christianity would know this was false.

How's this for an example. Go to the Answers in Genesis site, and look at their list of arguments creationists shouldn't use. Then go and read some of Kent Hovinds stuff and see how many things he claims as fact that even other creationists say he shouldn't use. Hovind's an extreme case, but if you genuinely want to know what is wrong with the arguments proffessional creationists use start a thread and ask "what's wrong with this?" I don't really want to clutter up this thread as it's off topic.

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!!

They might be challenging the point, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be willing to accept evidence. That's an important distinction to make. It doesn't matter if no one believe the evidence exists. If it is produced and cannot be countered, then it has to be accepted. And I think it is important that it is good quality. It has to stand up and be convincing. Think about what you asking people to accept - that everything we understand and everything we have gained results from is based on a misconception. Occationaly in the history of science, this does happen. Look at quantum mechanics for example. It makes no sense to me that energy should be a set of discrete values, rather than continuous. But the evidence kept piling up so it couldn't be ignored. Science doesn't get things massively wrong often because it is a good methodolgy but when it does happen, and when the evidence can be shown, we don't ignore the findings.

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

No offence, but I think it more shows that you don't understand why publishing is important. It gets the science out in the public domain, so not only can people see your results, they can see what you did to get to them. And that's important. Massively, massively important. If you come up with a strange result that doesn't tie in with our understanding it could mean you've discovered something new. Or it could mean you've got a contamination, or didn't measure something acurately enough. Without knowing what you did, we've got know way of checking ourselves.

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)

Can I ask who you think these "big guys" are? Who do you think does peer review?

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.

This is why I said if I was a creationist scienctist I would put the paper all over the internet showing what was said. Sort of creationist wikileaks type thing.

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.

So why don't we see this? There are several prominent creationists still working in other scientific fields (I believe, haven't checked up lately, maybe they have retired?) There are people who believe crackpot things that aren't creationist based and they don't get fired either. People only do when they commit fraud or similar. You can claim there is this big consiracy, but I'm just not seeing any reason to believe you yet.

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."

So who is this Unmentioned Church and where is the evidence that they are sweeping things under the rug. There have been several cases of fraud in the papers I can think of over the years and they have all been uncovered by other scientists.

 

[Cabal]

Peer Review

So, what does all this mean for me?

Basically, you shouldn't canonize everything a peer-reviewed journal article says just because it is a peer-reviewed journal article. But, at the same time, being peer reviewed is a sign that the paper's author has done some level of due diligence in their work. Peer review is flawed, but it has value. There are improvements that could be made. But, like the old joke about democracy, peer review is the worst possible system except for every other system we've ever come up with.

Read more here:

Meet Science: What is "peer review"? - Boing Boing

And no-one here is canonising it - if it were, then there wouldn't be papers published that contradict the previous ones - but neither does it mean that showing one or two papers to be bad means you can arbitrarily discard others that haven't been explicitly proven to be as bad.

 

[mzungu]

OHHHH! Look what at all these evil scientists have done to this poor man!:

BBC News - Double hand transplant patient has bandages removed