Posted on 12/07/2009 7:30:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise. Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science. Young-age creationists offer to the current origins science establishment a competing rational viewpoint that will augment fruitful scientific investigation through increased accountability for scientists, introduction of original hypotheses and general epistemic improvement...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
“Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but I’ll be damned if they’re gonna ban Him or it from FR!”
—Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2203455/posts?page=78#78
Ping!
Or to put it another way, in the marketplace of ideas, competition is a good thing, and unfair barriers to the same leads to poorer products for the consumer, and laziness amongst the monopolists. I see plenty of evidence for those phenomena.
These threads deliver ^__^
IBTkeywordspammers
Are you sure? I immediately looked up at the keywords after your IBT and guess what I found???
Keep up the good work, GGG.
>>Or to put it another way, in the marketplace of ideas, competition is a good thing, and unfair barriers to the same leads to poorer products for the consumer, and laziness amongst the monopolists. I see plenty of evidence for those phenomena.<<
Creationism is NOT a “competing idea” any more than astrology is a “competing idea” to astronomy.
It meets exactly zero scientific criteria.
It may have some currency in a philosophical/theological arena, but that isn’t where the so-called “debate” is occurring.
Neither creationism nor ID are science. To suggest they are is to purposely misrepresent science and the scientific method.
This takes it our of the “arena of ideas” and into the “arena of fraud.”
YEC.... oooooo boy... one of these threads.
Precisely, if more debate was allowed to occur withing what should be the free market of scientific ideas, the origins/historical sciences would benefit just as much as as any other scientific enterprise...that is, so long as the debate is not declared “over” by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!
FWIIW, I have never (that I can recall) added any keywords to your threads and certainly haven’t done so in this one — you can check with mods.
oooooo boy... one of these looney psuedo-science groupies pushing evolution....
>>that is, so long as the debate is not declared “over” by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!<<
So you are cool with phrenology, astrology and alchemy participating in the “marketplace of scientific ideas,” right?
Thanks, that is about the nicest thing you have ever said to me, FD! No need to check with the mods, I will take your word for it :o)
“by those who have an agenda that has as its object something other than the truth!”
Its easier to use its screen handle: freedumb. :o)
So this is a marketplace of ideas? Very well, then: if this is a marketplace, then I ain’t buyin’ this “young-age Earth” nonsense, which completely ignores what we know about radioactive age-dating.
There are limits to how idiotic people can be, and still expect to be accepted by serious researchers.
In this “marketplace of ideas,” I subscribe to the view that “young Earth” nuts should go jump in a lake.
Wait... now this thread is about evolution?
So who has an agenda now?
>>oooooo boy... one of these looney psuedo-science groupies pushing evolution...<<
Quote the masochist, aren’t you? It is like “I DON’T UNDERSTAND SCIENCE SO I WILL KEEP EMPHASIZING THAT SO PEOPLE CAN PITY ME” in neon on your forehead.
If you have a SCIENTIFIC alternative to TToE that explains the BILLIONS of data, including MILLIONS of reproducible experiments and MILLIONS of observed examples — now is the time. Remember, if you can’t account for all of you have failed.
Meet the challenge or say goodnight Gracie.
Put them back in your toy box please!
How long do you think they would last if they threw their hat in the ring of the science? I should think that neither creationists or evolutionists have anything to fear from any of the long-since discredited disciplines you mentioned above.
You’ve OD’d again!
>>Thanks, that is about the nicest thing you have ever said to me, FD! No need to check with the mods, I will take your word for it :o)<<
Did we have a moment there?
Seriously, I’ll try to be as good as I can, but I can only be as good I can be.
Keyword tagging (I didn’t even know about until I was accused the other day), is just spamming. People may get mad at me, but at least they know it was me what said what I said.
>>You’ve OD’d again!<<
Just waiting for that alternate scientific explanation... any time now...
At your limited cognitive level, I guess that’s called debate.
I’m sure. I checked immediately after I posted it and they weren’t there.
Good point. Maybe we’re totally wrong, and the earth only 5,000-10,000 years old. The scientific community needs to listen to everyone: scientologists (who believe we descended from clams), Native Americans who believe many animals came from people, Hindus who think Lord Vishnu, protected by a giant cobra, created the world, philosophers in Hyde Park, and guys that hang out under bridges.
Have you read the creationist critiques of the non-empirical, long-age assumptions that are built into evo radiometric dating methods?
>>How long do you think they would last if they threw their hat in the ring of the science? I should think that neither creationists or evolutionists have anything to fear from any of the long-since discredited disciplines you mentioned above.<<
Those are analogies. Creationism meets the same number of scientific criteria as they do.
If you posit a scientific theory is wrong, you need a replacement that is 100% science and explains the extant data.
Depends on the methods/experients used in the process.
Scientific methods can be used to prove that a form of intelligence created computers (if anyone needed such proof). If scientific methods can also be used to prove that a form of intelligence created the cell let them proceed in the name of science.
The scientific community has no time for evolution, nor ‘debate’ that attempts to hang that nonsense on science like a tarbaby.
I didn't see anyone mention your name. Why so defensive?
One could be led to think that you have a guilty conscience that way.
You know, the old *Throw a rock over the fence* and all.
Yes, I think we did have a moment there. Who knows where this might lead!
That’s just it, no historical science can be 100% empirical, because we can’t go back and repeat what we are studying.
“That’s just it, no historical science can be 100% empirical, because we can’t go back and repeat what we are studying.”
Exactly.
.
Sure, why not, if you need to go through all of those first, be my guest. Once you have eliminated them all, you will find that two remain standing, creation vs. evolution, and creation science is winning the debate over origins hands-down IMHO.
Yeah, well, don't forget that phrenology, along with alchemy, was the accpeted science of the day.
It's kind of interesting that all the things that evos like to saddle creationists with have very little connection with creationism historically and don't in the present (except in the minds of those who wish to discredit religious belief and have no other weapons which they can use), but rather with the accepted science of the day.
You’re welcome to join us. Do you have any thoughts on the subject?
Hey, is that any worse than claiming that we came from pond scum?
>> Depends on the methods/experients used in the process.<<
You have experiments that test a creator? Wow — publish now and you will be rich beyond your dreams.
>>Scientific methods can be used to prove that a form of intelligence created computers (if anyone needed such proof). If scientific methods can also be used to prove that a form of intelligence created the cell let them proceed in the name of science.<<
AI can be interrogated (via source analysis, etc.) As of this moment, no creator has stepped forward (in Christianity nor AI) to allow one on one corporeal interrogation, nor said how He (or it) will ensure than the supernatural processes can be used and repeated.
Trust me, there is no ID nor creation rule that fits in science.
Thanks R4P, every little bit of encouragement counts, believe me! :o)
Creationism is NOT a “competing idea” any more than astrology is a “competing idea” to astronomy.
It meets exactly zero scientific criteria.
It may have some currency in a philosophical/theological arena, but that isn’t where the so-called “debate” is occurring.
Neither creationism nor ID are science. To suggest they are is to purposely misrepresent science and the scientific method.
This takes it our of the “arena of ideas” and into the “arena of fraud.”
************************************************************
Spoken like a true accountant, or pencil pusher, or some other non-scientist.
>> I didn’t see anyone mention your name. Why so defensive?
One could be led to think that you have a guilty conscience that way.
You know, the old *Throw a rock over the fence* and all.<<
No, I was accused of it the other night (once I parsed the accusation) and I was the first Scientist on the thread. More like preemptively defending against “guilt by association.”
:)
So scientists should adopt Madison Avenue advertising tactics to get their theories accepted?
Good point, Metmom. Indeed, given the nature of the scientific method, one wonders why anyone would both to redicule past scientific beliefs as, at least in most cases, said scientific beliefs reflected the state of the art science at that time.
>>Spoken like a true accountant, or pencil pusher, or some other non-scientist.<<
No, spoken like someone who understands science and the scientific method.
The fact you don’t like the proper and only logical conclusion of a thought doesn’t mean you can eliminate the analysis via ad hominem.
Laughable that the dumb one associates astrology with astronomy! There is no historical reason to believe that such an association was ever even contemplated before the dumb one cooked it up in his head.
And the Hardcore Evolutionist on Free Republic and other liars applauded in support of the leftist revisionists who used illegal judicial activism to do their dirty work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.