The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[orogenicman]

---

"I love how you claim Creation is not Science"

That is only because it isn't science. It is a religious belief held by a very small minority of conservative fundamentalist Christians. THE END.

---

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.

What a load of crap. Her work was ininitally refused because it was suspected that her samples were contaminated. After more analysis was done, it was acepted.

Creationists have nothing like the scientific method, or scientic peer review. Nothing at all like it, so please stop misrepresenting the facts.

Now you are just being dishonest, it's really sad you would go that far. If you had read the article I posted you would have seen that her article was rejected by one reviewer on the grounds that it couldn't be right. When asked what amount of evidence could ever persuade him he replied "none". Yes that sound rather objective to me (sarcasm). Even her boss Jack Horner admitted that despite doing good work she was having a tough time being published because people didn't like her findings. Read the article.

Oh really? Like you have any idea what goes into being published in a Creation Peer-reviewed journal. I challenge you to write and article and try to be published. If they are really as bad as you make them out to be, then it should be pretty easy for you to get published right? You'd get rejected.

Creationists don't follow the Scientific Method? That's a funny statement since they came up with it. (Bacon was a young Earth Creationist).

I didn't have to read the article. I've seen her lecture on her findings. She said that the initial problem was that reviewers thought that her samples had been contaminated. So she repeated the analysis and got the same results. Tyhat is when her findings were accepted. Whether one reviewer said what is claimed is irrelevant. Her findings have been accepted. End of story. Oh, and by the way, I wouldn't waste my time trying to get anything published in a creationism journal because they are not recognized publications for communicating real science.

---

Hmm, well you may be happy with people with law degrees deciding what is and is not Science, but I am not. Besides, one of your buddies on here defined Science as "wanting to learn", seems like you guys don't even agree what is science and is not science. Creation Science falls under the dictionary definition of science so I like to define it as so- I don't care what some Judge thinks. You are right about one thing though, ID and Creation Science should not be in public schools, but neither should kids.[quote]

No I have no problem at all with the courts protecting the American people from people like you. That is what they are supposed to do. That you don't believe that our children have a right to public education is yet another reason why the courts are involved.

[quote]P.S. ID is not Creationism, stop trying to tell Creationists what they believe and what they don't believe.

P.S., yes it is. The scientific community knows it, the courts know it, the people at ID have had to admit in court that it is, and any rational, thinking person should know it as well.

The ID movement are just a bunch of Old-Earth Scientists who recognize the weaknesses of Neo-Darwinian Theory and Abiogenesis and want something more intellectually satisfying. Some of them believe in panspermia, which is not Creationism. I am not surprised that the legal professionals in Dover could not see this clear distinction, considering their area of focus is the legal system and not science. However, I am a bit surprised you cannot see this clear distinction.

Whether or not they are old Earth creationists is irrelevant. Old Earth-creationism, youg Earth creationism - makes no difference. It is all creationism, and is not science.

---

Oh, anbd Statler, I'm still waiting for a response from you regarding my post #12.

---

EDIT: I just realized that I posted something and then I accidently deleted it in an edit. I'll attempt a response again tomorrow unless i can find a record of the enormous post I lost.
What happened was that I copy-pasted an add-on over the rest of the post, which happened to be the bulk of my statements. I don't have the time or energy to go back and completely make a new post yet today, so it'll be something I get to tomorrow.

That happened to me earlier today. I feel your pain.