The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

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?

Only if your equating the quality of "science" from the ICR on the par of youtube.

From the NCSE:

The Institute for Creation Research suffered a significant legal defeat in its lawsuit over the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board's 2008 decision to deny the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer a master's degree in science education from its graduate school. A June 18, 2010, ruling in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas found (PDF, p. 38) that "ICRGS [the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School] has not put forth evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to any claim it brings. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on the totality of ICRGS's claims against them in this lawsuit."

As NCSE's Glenn Branch explained in Reports of the NCSE, "When the Institute for Creation Research moved its headquarters from Santee, California, to Dallas, Texas, in June 2007, it expected to be able to continue offering a master's degree in science education from its graduate school. ... But the state's scientific and educational leaders voiced their opposition, and at its April 24, 2008, meeting, the Texas Higher Education Coordination Board unanimously voted to deny the ICR's request for a state certificate of authority to offer the degree." Subsequently, the ICR appealed the decision, while also taking its case to the court of public opinion with a series of press releases and advertisements in Texas newspapers.

REF: http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/legal-defeat-icr-005583

How can we not make fun of a joke institution being struck down in ultra conservative Texas? I guess being dishonest will always hurt.

Attacking a source doesn't do anything to discredit the information at hand, and it's a pretty lame way of debating. That's why I want to move away from it, you guys can use your sources (youtube and wiki) and I can use mine (AIG, CMI, and ICR). Fair is fair.

I like to pretend we still live in a country that alwyers and judges do not decide what is and is not science, apparently you don't live in that country. The Evolutionists lost the Scopes Monkey Trials mind you, so can I use that to attack the validity of Evolutionary education? I would not stoop to this level and you should not either.

---

---

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.

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.

---

Sweet, well I will use my sources and you can use your's and we can both refute them on their pre-suppositions, conclusions or methodology and not on the source alone.

I love how you claim Creation is not Science and then in the same post you stand up for a fifth grader as a scientists because he "wants to learn". Creationists want to learn just as much as anyone else, so I guess that DOES make them Scientists according to your own definition. It's just an added bonus that they are highly educated in their respective fields.

You said earlier you could not find even a creation article on the an-isotropic propagation of light, I just googled it and found one on the very first page that came up. Maybe this will help you understand where they are coming from.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles...convention

---

---

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?

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.

---

Actually the pont was pretty clear I think. Despite her conducting good science and having good research she was denied entry on numerious occasions into journals just because they did not like the data. If you think this is good science then I don't think I want to be considered a good scientists in your eyes.

I was actually doing some post graduate work with one of the National Parks in my area. I was working with one of my old professors (My Evolutionary Biology Professor, an Atheist btw). We were talking about the current Scientific Community and Peer-review system and he actually gave me a warning. He said that some of the guys out there now are so tied into their view of Science that if someone were to find something that shook the very foundations of it, their life may be endangered. It really is sad the way it works today, it reminds me of the old Dr. Seuss story about the "Sneetches".

Actually creationists have a system identical to the secular system. Several evolutionists have tried to submit fraudulant articles for publishing in creation journals (posing as creationists dishonestly) but these journals were rejected every time based on bad methodology. Kind of funny actually.