Products of Creation Science

Originally Posted by LordsSword

You can pound the table and say "fact" but it takes more than that to get me to listen.
I purposfully frustrate because I search for the mature among you to converse with.

Awesome, now we're the immature ones. This guy is brilliant.

Quote:

Humor us, by just answering my questions. I only want to learn.

We are, you fucking cunt-puncher (sorry knk, I love that one). You AREN'T LISTENING TO US, which is what you constant do here. We give you our reasons, and then you sit there with your bible and say "it's not enough." How the fuck can you be serious? One book of stories somehow commands more power than all the time, money, and effort that has gone into scientific theories? Open your eyes, you moron.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

You can pound the table and say "fact" but it takes more than that to get me to listen.

Holy crapsicles. You gotta see the irony there, LordsSword. Please tell me you see the irony. You have to.

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

And, you do realize that it was, uh, other scientists who discovered the forgery, right?

Yes and many more after the one I pointed out.
My point was that the poeple who crank out "facts" need to be checked on.
The folks here have yet to tell me if they personally have seen or checked anything for themselves. Well there is one but I am waiting to see more of their view...

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

You're simply assuming that all people have agendas, and all institutions are manipulating emotions in the same naked, ham-fisted way the Creation Museum is doing. You don't seem to understand the simple difference between emotional manipulation and persuasive argument based on evidence. That is either sheer ignorance or sheer cynicism, and good science doesn't have either.

Manipulation is what it is. Just because somebody does not do it YOUR way doesnt mean they are wrong. Lawyers do this all the time. Give me a break.

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

Tell me this, then - why is it, then, for a institution that purports to promote Biblical philosophy, why do they spend all that effort slandering the people who disagree with them? Yessirre, that's a real paragon of Christian values there, golly-gumdrops!

Hmmm, this is a point I agree with. I like the fact that you demonstrate a knowlege of and respect for the virtue of Christian values and the proper adherance to such values.
This ladys & gents is a person after my own heart.

Originally Posted by Stop Sign

Again, this shows your ignorance. Scientists in academia have to work their asses off to win money for their research through government, institutional and corporate grants. Anyone's who in the sciences knows this. You really need to get yourself educated in this before mouthing off like that.

The Spock avatar of Arainach reminds me of the cloaking device of the Romulans.
Its a useful tool the cloaking device. Assumptions are what makes it work so well.

Your post is by far the best. I get what you are saying thanks.

I CREATED SOME HUMANS AT THE SAME TIME AS DINOSAURS, BUT UH IT DIDN'T LAST LONG...

Spoiler:

Dinosaur AIDS.

Lordsword your mother is still living, why is this?

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I like the fact that you demonstrate a knowlege of and respect for the virtue of Christian values and the proper adherance to such values.
This ladys & gents is a person after my own heart.

So, evidently, you'll only listen to statements you already agree with.

You didn't come here looking for education. You came here looking for validation, and you're not going to find it. Not here. Clearly.

Originally Posted by LordsSword

I like the fact that you demonstrate a knowlege of and respect for the virtue of Christian values and the proper adherance to such values.

"The belief in the existence of God is the belief in a special existence, separate from the existence of man and Nature. A special existence can only be proved in a special manner. This faith is therefore only then a true and living one when special effects, immediate appearances of God, miracles, are believed in. Where, on the other hand, the belief in God is identified with the belief in the world, where the belief in God is no longer a special faith, where the general being, of the world takes possession of the whole man, there also vanishes the belief in special effects and appearances of God. Belief in God is wrecked, is stranded on the belief in the world, in natural effects as the only true ones. As here the belief in miracles is no longer anything more than the belief in historical, past miracles, so the existence of God is also only an historical, in itself atheistic conception."

LordSword, your arguments are tired and boring. Science catches a mistake, and science fixes it. Your conclusion? Science must be checked up on! Well, yeah. That's how we caught the mistake in the first place. By checking up on it, you dolt.

And you're right, if someone doesn't do it your way, it doesn't mean they're wrong. But when they're basing their argument on circumstantial "evidence" and storybooks, then chances are, THEY'RE FUCKING WRONG. Especially when they're arguing with documented proof. I assume you don't need us to explain evolution, or the concept of carbon dating. I trust you're not enough of an idiot to need that done. Your ability to write the English language would dictate otherwise, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt anyway.

You don't like anyone who tells you you're flat out wrong. Which is a pity, because you are. You're little more than a religious troll, and I for one can't wait for the day Styphon strings you up by your neck for being the idiot that you are.

Creation science is the laughing stock of the scientific community. The fact that Americans even consider it (read: the religious right thrusts it on community schools) for elementary education makes most of us snicker. And I'm sure that feeds your pathetic little martyr complex, but there you have it. The evidence is on the table, mate. You're choosing not to acknowledge it because of your personal agenda. YOUR bible states otherwise. Too fucking bad. Your book lied to you. Get over it.

When did creationism take the retarded leap and name itself "Creation Science?" I think henceforth we go back to calling it the -ism, otherwise we're just repeating an awful oxymoron.

Actually, devo, I was watching a thing on Nova last night where they found the leap from Creationism to Intelligent Design. Apparently there was some court case back in the 80s where creationism was ruled to not be allowed to be taught in science classes, and there was a textbook that was supposed to be a "Christian Science" book. It was found that the edition prior to the judgement used the term Creationism and the one afterwards had used find and replace with the term Intelligent Design (and apparently at some points they screwed up and wound up with the term Creintelligent Designism or something like that).

Originally Posted by LordsSword

Yes and many more after the one I pointed out.
My point was that the poeple who crank out "facts" need to be checked on.
The folks here have yet to tell me if they personally have seen or checked anything for themselves. Well there is one but I am waiting to see more of their view...

This is actually what the peer review process in academic journals is all about. I was part of a group that was responsible for peer reviewing a paper (well, part of it was delegated to me, but whatever), and we had to figure out if their experiments were valid, new, and interpreted their results in a consistent manner.

As someone with a published paper, I've also had my own work go through the peer review process.

I really fucking hate myself for playing Devil's Advocate, but could you possibly link to the paper that you reviewed and the one you had published RR, and give any details you remember about the peer review process for both?

Sigh... I should stay out of this shit but I just want this fucking thread to die already.

Quick bio: Devout conservative Christian, life-science teacher, political liberal

I often find it difficult to be an old fashioned practicing Christian that knows so dang much about evolution. My solution (albeit a total cop-out) is to just trust that God is the creator, and while the process of evolution seems to be at odds with a literal interpretation of the events chronicled in the book of Genesis, I have faith that in next world everything will make sense. And that goes for all the other crazy stuff in the world that doesn't seem to make sense.

Knowing what I know I can't help but believe that evolution has shaped the biosphere and continues to influence life on earth. But I also understand that entropy is a governing principle of thermodynamics and organized life forms capable of conscious thought seems (to me at least) to be the exact opposite of that. Is it all chance and physics? Was the first living cell a random event? Can some ingenious mathematical equation predict every choice an organism will make throughout its life? How bout the choices I make?

Science has been wrong in the past. Before Darwin there was an assortment of crazy theories that made sense to people back then. Atomic theory went through multiple erroneous incarnations before we got to the contemporary model, which I hope is finally correct. And even now there is uncertainty about how much farther we can break down sub-atomic particles.

Blah blah blah. I don't think Christians should use, or try to use, science to explain ALL the events in the Bible. Stick with the stuff for which there is little or no debate. If you believe and have faith, then you should be comfortable with the idea of a Creator that is supernatural. The same science that landed men on the moon, created television, nuclear reactors, etc. also came up with evolution. And while some may disagree, we can't help but go along with it.

Additional Spam:
...and on a totally separate note...

Please don't judge all Christians by the ones you see and read about in the media. Most practicing Christians I know, most of them here, and most of the ones everyone else knows personally tend to be quiet humble people.

The Christians that make the news are almost always of the loud, obtrusive, and delusional variety. Oftentimes very un-Christian like in nature.

Originally Posted by The_Griffin

I really fucking hate myself for playing Devil's Advocate, but could you possibly link to the paper that you reviewed and the one you had published RR, and give any details you remember about the peer review process for both?

Sigh... I should stay out of this shit but I just want this fucking thread to die already.

Uh, I don't think he means scientific review of intelligent design specifically, but I think rather he is explaining the process of scientific peer review of the findings that is published in various science related periodicals.

Look guys, I'll be down with creation science when it can produce predictive models that we can use to create medical treatments.

Let me know how that goes, guys. Seriously, I support any method to cure cancer and shit.

Originally Posted by The_Griffin

I really fucking hate myself for playing Devil's Advocate, but could you possibly link to the paper that you reviewed and the one you had published RR, and give any details you remember about the peer review process for both?

As magi said, I don't have anything to do with the evolution/ID debate in my professional work, but here's a link to some work I was part of a few years ago: ISIJ International I doubt it'll be interesting to anyone around here.

The paper I helped look at I can't link you to since it was rejected because it didn't get accepted. The research group I was part of got to review it since they used some of our data in the interpretation of our data, but they completely misinterpreted our research, and didn't actually add anything new to the scientific body of knowledge (actually would have made it worse by putting out bad info!).

Creationism is pretty funny, since it requires one to assume that people who have trained for their lives in the principles of science are all abject failures, while Christian pundits are able to point out "obvious" flaws in evolution.

Originally Posted by killerpineapple

But I also understand that entropy is a governing principle of thermodynamics and organized life forms capable of conscious thought seems (to me at least) to be the exact opposite of that.

Entropy is simply the increasing lack of energy that can be used to do work. It doesn't prohibit what we define as order (or whatever bullshit term or phrase Creationists are using).

Entropy on Earth can be reduced, since it isn't a closed system. We receive energy from the sun and radiate energy out into space.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

As magi said, I don't have anything to do with the evolution/ID debate in my professional work, but here's a link to some work I was part of a few years ago: ISIJ International I doubt it'll be interesting to anyone around here.

The paper I helped look at I can't link you to since it was rejected because it didn't get accepted. The research group I was part of got to review it since they used some of our data in the interpretation of our data, but they completely misinterpreted our research, and didn't actually add anything new to the scientific body of knowledge (actually would have made it worse by putting out bad info!).

I get that, but the reason I asked was less its relevance to the original topic and more along the lines of showing the peer review process in action to debunk the argument from LordSword concerning it.

Quote:

Please don't judge all Christians by the ones you see and read about in the media. Most practicing Christians I know, most of them here, and most of the ones everyone else knows personally tend to be quiet humble people.

See, I tried that. But then I ran into a little problem. Because all those quiet nice Christians? They still vote for the morons you see in the media and as such get stupid laws passed and generally make my life hell. So that didn't work out so hot.

Originally Posted by Arainach

See, I tried that. But then I ran into a little problem. Because all those quiet nice Christians? They still vote for the morons you see in the media and as such get stupid laws passed and generally make my life hell. So that didn't work out so hot.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. Sure, there is strong (and embarrassingly loud) support for the religious right...but that group is part of an extreme. To lump the MILLIONS of Christians who do NOT vote along those lines together in the same group is a completely irresponsible stereotype.