Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Burning organic matter while it is being held in one's hands is anti-nature? You can certainly think of a better example than that, such as perhaps strip mining of coal seams in Appalachia?
Humans devising ways to profit from their environment is very natural.
Nature itself has little to do with environmentalism.
Nikk: You may want to actually read the post you just quoted.
He didn't ask for something invented by a Creationist. Regardless of who made it, the MRI and the principles it utilizes have absolutely nothing to do with Creationism itself.
He asked for actual Creationist literature being put into practice. In short, we are looking for evidence of Creationism being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.
Why Don't Kent Hovind or AiG count? Because you are claiming them to be non-scientific, or because the arguments are too hard to over come? It doesn't seem logical to say prove it, but don't use this or that? Please explain why they can't be used????
This isn't to say that other YEC groups are any better as far as scientific accuracy go of course. Still Hovind and AiG are spectacularly bad.
In any case, unless it operates by scientific standards, namely answering to peer review and the standards of the scientific method, it isn't science, regardless of what people may claim.
The #1 problem with a literal interpretation of Genesis is that it locks world history into 6,000 years, which goes totally against all scientific evidence we have. I mean, even if you discount scientific methods of dating, we have direct evidence of civilizations that date back to longer than 6,000 years ago. Fast forward 2,000 years to a global flood, and you have only 4,000 years to populate the earth, form all the variations within species you see today, somehow populate far away continents with animal life and humans such as the Americas, Australia, and Antarctica. What about stars that are more than 6,000 light years away? The math just doesn't work.
The world is only 6000 years old. If we use Usshers date of 4004 for creation then it would be 6012. Scientific dating methods are not scientific. They are always out even in the evolutionary context. The scientist doesn't just get a print out after scanning a bone saying 10 millioin years. He is given data on the content of the bone. He then interprets the data. The problem is that the data is always interpreted in terms of a Unitarian time scale. If the lab comes up with an incorrect date, the scientist will re-submit the sample to that or another lab. The results will again be judged and may end up in the file 13. Only if the data somehow supports a find is it used. So there is no science in Scientific dating.
4000 year to the present and having the population double every 150 years would give a number close to the current population of the earth (aprox. 6.5 billion). So the numbers support creation. If we compare that to the supposed millions of years by evolution we end up with numbers that are astonomical and unrealistic to what we observe in nature.
Who ever said that God was limited by our understanding of the Universe? It says that God stretched out the Heavens. So God could have formed the stars close to earth and pushed them out to the desired distance causing the light of the stars to be enjoyed by Adam and Eve only a few days after the Stars were created.
I think that math does work. And it is in favor of Creation.
Nikk: You may want to actually read the post you just quoted.
He didn't ask for something invented by a Creationist. Regardless of who made it, the MRI and the principles it utilizes have absolutely nothing to do with Creationism itself.
He asked for actual Creationist literature being put into practice. In short, we are looking for evidence of Creationism being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.
The MRI was created based off the work of Raymond Damadian. He is a creationist. His work is therefore creation science. So, the MRI is a piece of technology that was Made based on Creation science.
Creation and Science are not separate things. Creation is scientific. Modern science is based on the work of Many creationist who believed that if they studied nature they would understand more of God. Science requires God becaues at the core of it, science relies on the fact that the laws of nature are unchanging. A logical and Understanding God created the Universe and all of the laws that apply to it. So we can understand him even through this general revelation of himself.
We are also waiting for Evolution to contribute to science. It has done nothing to further our understanding of science. A belief in Evolution has been rather desasterous from the faked embryonic drawings by Hackel to the staged pepper moths and fudge numbers. The mass killing of people by hitler and the demise of many Irisish who would not be helped by the English because they were thought to be inferior and not fit to servive during the potatoe famines. And what about the killing of the Aborigines in Austrailia as if they were some kind of prize to be stuffed and placed above the mantle becasue they were considered some throwback. Today evolutioin has no place in the lab and is only a tack-on when papers go for peer review to sound academic. A belief in evolution does not affect applied or operational science.
Nikk: You may want to actually read the post you just quoted.
He didn't ask for something invented by a Creationist. Regardless of who made it, the MRI and the principles it utilizes have absolutely nothing to do with Creationism itself.
He asked for actual Creationist literature being put into practice. In short, we are looking for evidence of Creationism being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.
This isn't to say that other YEC groups are any better as far as scientific accuracy go of course. Still Hovind and AiG are spectacularly bad.
In any case, unless it operates by scientific standards, namely answering to peer review and the standards of the scientific method, it isn't science, regardless of what people may claim.
Care to cite any specific studies that were performed by any of the groups that aren't scientific? Please give an example for the benefit of the viewers of this thread. Also, please give us some scientific evidence that proves evolution. I don't mean to ask you to recreate mountains of debates on the subject, but to just simply explain 1 or 2 examples of each.
With a blanket statement like everything ever done by "modern science" is accurate, and anything done by Creationist groups is unscientific and false is pretty bold, but with a few examples we can at least see what you base your comments on.
Nikk: You may want to actually read the post you just quoted.
He didn't ask for something invented by a Creationist. Regardless of who made it, the MRI and the principles it utilizes have absolutely nothing to do with Creationism itself.
He asked for actual Creationist literature being put into practice. In short, we are looking for evidence of Creationism being used to produce technology, show predictive power, or otherwise benefit science.
"Isn't this a type of peer review? I can say that disagreement occurs is any peer review process. This does not imply that they are being unscientific."- -Nikk
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRiedl
This isn't to say that other YEC groups are any better as far as scientific accuracy go of course. Still Hovind and AiG are spectacularly bad.
In any case, unless it operates by scientific standards, namely answering to peer review and the standards of the scientific method, it isn't science, regardless of what people may claim.
This is incorrect. Science is science. So long as the process is reccorded and is repeatable then it is science. You do not need a doctored nor do you need a million dollar test lab. So anyone can examine nature, perform tests and come to conclusions. This work can then be considered part of the body of science if it brings something new to the table. You are backwards if you think that a flying car would be useless if it were invented by a creationist or outside of the peer review process.
Last edited by Nikk; 01-15-2008 at 12:50 PM..
Reason: Imbedded text in quote
The MRI was created based off the work of Raymond Damadian. He is a creationist. His work is therefore creation science. So, the MRI is a piece of technology that was Made based on Creation science.
Your logic is woefully inadequate. It is like my saying the following:
I am an atheist, and I have fathered a child, so the birth of that child is merely an accident of blind nature and is in no way a result of any part of God's handiwork.
You might also be interested in Bertrand Russell's 'atheistic' mathematical discoveries.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 01-15-2008 at 02:31 PM..
Care to cite any specific studies that were performed by any of the groups that aren't scientific?
Please give an example for the benefit of the viewers of this thread.
I think if you actually try reading the material I linked to, you'll find numerous examples.
This site in particular is full of documented examples of Hovind being caught contradicting himself, making false claims, etc.
But you asked for a specific one, so I will oblige:
Quote:
Saltier Oceans
You know when it rains, 30% of the water runs into the oceans bringing with it mineral salts. The oceans are getting saltier everyday because the water washes salts in and evaporation takes pure water out leaves the salts behind. The oceans today are 3.6% salt, well, they could have done that in less than 5,000 years. ..... They are becoming saltier everyday, plus not to mention the huge salt domes which occasionally erode into the ocean which add bunch of tons of salt in a few minutes, as salt domes. ..... See, the oceans indicate the earth is not billions of years old. .....
And the response:
Quote:
Young-earth "proof" #24: Given the rate of salt influx to the oceans, they should be much saltier than they are if the earth were billions of years old.
24. Wrong! Dr. Hovind is assuming that salt cannot be removed from the oceans. The more sophisticated creationists, such as Melvin Cook, know better than to use such an argument. Here's what Cook had to say:
The validity of the application of total salt in the ocean in the determination of age turned out to have a very simple answer in the fact shown by Goldschmidt (1954) that it is in steady state and therefore useless as a means of determining the age of the oceans. [Cook, 1966, p.73] (Dalrymple, 1984, pp.115-116)
Quote:
Also, please give us some scientific evidence that proves evolution. I don't mean to ask you to recreate mountains of debates on the subject, but to just simply explain 1 or 2 examples of each.
Again, you might want to actually look at the links I cited as examples. But I suppose I can point you to one of the clearer ones:
Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection. The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation. Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
It's a pretty clear example I think of evolution in practice. Antibiotic resistance is something that researchers deal with on a day to day basis. Further, you may have even experienced it personally, I have.
I recently had a post operative infection from a wisdom tooth extraction surgery. The standard penicillin they gave me to start with didn't do the job, as I had a resistant strain of bacteria, so they had to use a broad spectrum antibiotic called Clindamycin.
Quote:
With a blanket statement like everything ever done by "modern science" is accurate
First off, don't put words in my mouth. Modern science is simply our most effective method of determining accuracy. It isn't infallable though. Our scientific knowledge is always changing because we are always learning more. Sometimes that new knowledge will invalidate a previous hypothesis or theory.
The great thing about science is that it is self correcting. When the data no longer supports a theory, that theory has to be changed. It is a system designed to ensure that the evidence determines the conclusions, not vice versa.
Quote:
and anything done by Creationist groups is unscientific and false is pretty bold, but with a few examples we can at least see what you base your comments on.
When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.
Nikk: Pretty much every statement you've made in those last couple posts are demonstrably wrong, and given that you quoted evidence that I posted and dismissed without even addressing it all in the same post, I have serious doubts that you have any intention of actually examining the presented evidence. When presented with evidence you can not counter, you respond by bringing forth a new set of claims and ignoring the previous arguments. This, to me reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
I would recommend you learn a little about what science is and how it works before you start making claims about it.
Here are a few links to start with, which I am sure you will ignore:
The MRI was created based off the work of Raymond Damadian. He is a creationist. His work is therefore creation science.
The Windows operating system was created by an atheist. Therefore, your use of a computer proves God doesn't exist.
*smacks head*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
