(October 21, 2010 at 6:02 am)Sam Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Those words are not too big for me, but thanks for offering!!! An infinite number of scientists conducing an infinite number of tests all using the same erroneous pre-suppositions does not amount to a hill of beans. This is why your appeals to popular belief and consensus are no less illogical today than they have ever been. I will give you credit though, you are good at masking your logical fallacies with Scientific jargon.

For your argument to have weight to it Statler you would first have to provide some proof that the pre-suppositions used are erroneous. This might include a number of articles in the published, primary literature casting doubt on the viability of the methods. As of yet, this has not been forthcoming so it seems a little hasty.

Put simply, if this infinite number of scientists were working under the scinetificaly accepted theories, consistantly adding conciliatory evidence to them it would ammount to a lot of evidence.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, I am saying that they used the same definition of time as every other person did in the history of the World before the development of calculated time in the 20th century! Pretty simple. Do you seriously think people didn't keep track of time before the 20th century? Well if they did (which they did) they did it in observed time.

I don't remeber reading a post as yet that contained this assertion. I would say that in general we accept that before the rise of calculated time people monitored the passage of time based on the rise and fall of the sun & moon and the procession of the starts above them.

Using the observed time v. calculated time argument in defence of the biblical account of creation is an untenable position because the Bible dictates when things were created NOT when they became apparent to, as yet non-existent observers on earth.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: We already discussed what he meant when he used that quote, it's not his fault he understands the nature of evidence relative to absolute truth better than you do. I love your circular reason and someone contradictory statements.

"There are no Creationists who have real degrees and work in the field, and the ones that do should have them take away!" hahaha. I am glad your bigoted and pro-cencorship views don't dominate a country like America. Freedom of ideas is important to me, even if I disagree with those ideas.

As to your claims about my "mystery" professor, he has a name and is a real person I assure you. However, considering your obviouis bigotry I do not give out personal information like that for fear you may mail a pipe bomb to his office or something like that (in the name of Science of course).

In fairness Statler, could you concede that gaining a degree in a subject you hope (because of your faith) is completely wrong would seem slightly intelectually dishonest? I am willing to concede that if these people are on the other hand trying to prove their views through good science then this is to be applauded. However, the problem is that these scientists often admit that even in the face of evidence they would choose their beliefs. This is not good science and is a hinderance to the scientific method.

In the opoposite; If a an evolutionary scientists or a conventional geologist claimed to be Young Earth then began systamaticaly trying to uproot these claims within a 'Creationist' school it is highly likely he would loose his position.

(October 20, 2010 at 9:13 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

Quote:So your degrees are not science degrees but "arts' degrees. That makes sense. Why not get a MS in geoscience? Is the math too difficult, or is it really an ethical problem for you to answer geology questions correctly on the tests when you believe in your heart that they are the wrong answers?

I have a B.S. from the University of Louisville with a major in Geology and a minor in mathematics and psychology. I was previously an an anthropology student at EKU and was one semester from completing a B.A. when I switched schools and changed majors. I have a M.S. from the University Of Kentucky. Although my specialty was originally invertebtrate paleontology (I am published in the Journal of Paleontology), the economy being what it was at the time, I became an environmental consultant (and am a registered professional geologist in Kentucky, Indiana, and Tennessee), specializing in groundwater hydrology, and site remediation methodology. Nevertheless, I have remained active in paleontology and mineralogy for the past 21 years. I have also been an avid amateur astronomer since childhood, and am an active member of the Louisville Astronomical Society, and a member of the GSA. I am currently disabled.

Well last time I checked the degree B.S. stood for Bachelor of Science, so I am pretty sure that still counts as a Science degree, not an arts degree. As for the M.A.- the universty was originally going to make it an M.S. but they realized that GeoScience is better served by final research projects not a research thesis. So that is the only difference. Nice try at belittling my education, but fail.

Maybe in terms of this discussion we could accept that both parties have gained relevant qualifications to have some say on the issues raised. This bickering about degrees makes this thread difficult and pointless to read. I don't mean to offend anyone here but it just seems that on the internet there is always some level of assumption that what people say is true and enough time has been expended arguing this point.

Cheers

Sam

(October 21, 2010 at 9:23 am)rjh4 Wrote:

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: First off, in my defense, asking for names is ridiculous.

I don't disagree and I know it was not you that asked.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Second, I noted that Kurt Wise has made a statement equating to placing ideology over science, thus showing him to be a poor scientist.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Here I disagree. Just because one holds to a certain ideology does not mean that they cannot practice science well. I think Kurt Wise was a Christian and a Creationist when he studied under Gould. If that is the case, then clearly Gould (and whoever else was on Wise's PhD defense board at Harvard) thought Wise could practice good science and have such an ideology.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Thirdly, I note that the people involved hold questionable motives, thus placing them under scrutiny.

And certainly no evolutionary scientist has questionable motives, right?

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Saying that you'll deny facts and evidence because your magic man said so is plainly ridiculous - especially ridiculous to hear from a scientist.

I don't think Wise said he would "deny facts and evidence". I think he said exactly the opposite. I think he said that he would be able to practice science based on the facts and evidence even if it goes against his ideology and even if he still holds that ideology.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Also, I gave out examples to combat the "He has a PhD and that makes him worth listening too" with actual examples of wing nuts who also happen to be educate.

No problem here. That argument is ridiculous on either side. It is much more productive to discuss the actual issues.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: To conclude, yes, the objective facts matter in the YEC debate. But one must keep in mind that those who clearly state they will ignore science, and thus the objectivity, to match their beliefs, will clearly contribute misleading information if need be. Thus the science is poisoned. It's called "poisoning the well"

As I said above, I think you are misconstruing Wise's statement.

(October 20, 2010 at 6:50 pm)Synackaon Wrote: Go suck an egg, you troll.

Brilliant, Syn. (Yes, you can read "sarcasm" here.)

Do you not have the capability of discussing issues with someone who disagrees with you without attempts at belittling them personally?

(October 21, 2010 at 3:05 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

Your sources are rediculous beyond the most lax standard of credibility, and failure to give them their due redicule would give them a completely false air of some minimum of respectability. If your concept of discussing validity is based on using one piece of shit from your few favority "creation scientists" to justify another, then I must decline to refrain from making fun of each link in your circular chain of shit.

You can say the something valguely similar sounding about ours, but that only reflects fundamental issue, which is you consider a myth from a rather repulsive band of desert nomades to be infallible absolute truths around which all must to made to conform, we found the myth to to be a piece of junk that is an insult to the word garbage because we found it doesn't naturally conform to what we've found to be true. There is no need to waste time trying to bridge the unbridgeable. So long as you deem bible for some fundamental reason to be a better source than any other, we need not talk.

(October 21, 2010 at 3:28 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 2:55 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Ok, let's make an agreement, since I am kind of getting tired of this. How about we agree to both use our own sources and we will discuss their validity based on the material given? So I won't make fun of your youtube videos and you won't make fun of things just because they are from ICR or CMI? Deal? I think this will be much more productive and we will get more accomplished. Fair?

ICR? CMI?
Seriously?
No, seriously?

You don't need my permission to use whatever resources you think are valid but don't think for a second that I won't attack resources like the Creation Ministries International or the Institute for Creation Research over their complete lack of any actual scientific research or data or whatever over at those "institutions."

While I occasionally use youtube for easy and formatted arguements against your positions, they've all used science that is as well established and understood from every other resource I can find consistently. If you're dissatisfied with some youtube video I happen to use, just point out the issues you have with a pratiuclar topic, and not only can I expound on a particular topic with further data from completely unaffilated sources, but professional ones as well.

The problem with this entire discussion is entirely because I can and have provided everything I need to refute the claims of creationism as you've presented them in any manner of my choosing. Although I've taken a rather lazy route by linking youtube videos where other individuals have already done all the work for me, that doens't detract over the fact that I can and can continue to refute your claims with evidence to support my claims.

The fact of the matter is that all the evidence I need is already so well established and engrained in modern science that much of the research to, say, prove evolution that evolution happens is already the foundation of several forms of modern sciences that are much more ground breaking, like phylogenetics and many research programs for medicine and medical technology.
The big bang theory has been confirmed dozens of times over the past century and was clenched with the discovery of the microwave background radiation and confirmed by independant sources from around the planet, as has relativty, dendrochronology, and numerous other sciences that have been brought up over the course of the discussions concerning creationism.

With all that in mind, that is the reason why evolution is a science and creation science is not. It has proven nothing and made no evidence-based claims that science has not already proven or disproven. This isn't to say there aren't christian scientists as much as there are muslim, jewish, or other scientists who hold their own religion, but creationism and the beliefs contained wherein are a special brand of madness that immediately assumes that science and scientists are wrong and is largely inconsistent with what observation and evidence-gather methods that have already been so consistently correct that our entire modern 7-billion population planet literally depends on science for survival and continued long life. It even has the power to prevent the next major disaster that science has evidence for that wiped out >50% of the entire planet's population of life forms 5+ more times in ancient history.
As such, there can not be creation scientists and statistics have proven that scientists are largely either atheist or agnostic for this very reason. The many scientists who are religious in their outlook are not because they've rejected science, but because they've allowed their views to not interfere on their objectivity and the results of their research and knowledge to co-exist with their religious belief by rejecting the notion of things such as a literal creationist account of life on earth. That's why when you meet a reputable christian evolutionary biologist, it's always because they've chosen to believe that god created life through the natural processes that they observe and there's nothing wrong with that view.

What's wrong with creatoinism is that it exists *despite* evidence and I can and will continue to prove this to be the case, as will everyone else literate in science will tell you despite your abject desire to not listen to anyone or anything who doesn't agree with your worldview.

(October 21, 2010 at 3:22 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: So a student in a fifth grade class learning about Newton's views on gravity would be a Physicist in your eyes? This person could then make claims using their authority in the subject of Physics? Give me a break. You earn the title of Physicist when you earn a degree in the field of Physics.

People don't become scientists with advanced learning degrees - they become scientists when they have the desire to learn.
The kind of scientists who write professional papers and have contributed works to scientific fields are curious children who grew up and got degrees.
We listen to the latter more than the former because of what they've learned and can prove. We listen to the former to show them what has been learned.

After all, anyone can prove a science and many foundations of modern science was done well before science and mathmatics was even a concept.

(October 21, 2010 at 4:04 pm)TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:

(October 21, 2010 at 3:50 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: A lot of guys on here are hard one Dr. Wise for speaking of how his ideology relates to his Science, but they make the mistake of assuming that those who review articles for peer reviewed sources are not biased themselves. Here is an article out of Discover that talks of this very thing.

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

When Dr. Mary Schweitzer found the reminants of red blood cells in Dinosaur fossils she found out just how difficult it is to get good science published when it appears to "buck" the current system. Unlike Dr. Wise though, this particular reviewer wouldn't let any amount of evidence change his Science, not his ideaology but his Scientific views themselves. How is that good science?

Quote: That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines. Horner and others regarded Schweitzer's research as carefully performed and credible. Nonetheless, says Horner, "most people were very skeptical. Frequently in our field people come up with new ideas, and opponents say, 'I just don't believe it.' She was having a hard time publishing in journals."


"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.' "

I'm not sure what you're attempting to prove about the scientific method or peer review with this, but yes, many scientists can often have their own suppositions about the scientific field but the process of evaluation of data and evidence by peer review by the scientific community clearly vindicated her despite whatever bias against her findings had.

That is, in fact, one of the greatings things about science and now, we can know and understand through further investigation just how and why her evidence came to be and what it proves through the same process.
This is because her evidence was examined and the same results consistently showed up in examinations and tests of the evidence she discsovered and the data she gathered and submitted.

This goes into my statement regarding the difference between the kind of bias creation science has in contrast to the bias a scientist may have - the scientist can and will examine counterevidence and accept that he's wrong.
Stephan Hawking is an excellent example of this because for thirty years, he postulated that black holes could could make information that became trapped by their gravitational pull disappear forever, but some years down the line he was proven wrong by a scientific community that was biased in favor of the work he does. Despite being rather stubborn, he continued to try and try again to disprove or falsify their methods, but he ultimately failed.
Yet, instead of proclaiming his correctitude despite their findings, he eventually accepted their findings and formed a new theory.

To my knowledge, "creation science" does not have a process that works anything like this, at the very least, without also going through a biblical interpretation of evidence they gather specifically to be interpreted by biblical passage. It doesn't work. It can't work. It's been proven to fail to have any success when subjected to the same methods that have been proven to work.

If anything, your article is abject proof of why the scientifc method is perhaps the greatest of all human achievements and forms the basis of every human achievment.