“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 ^__^
Keep up the good work, GGG.
YEC.... oooooo boy... one of these threads.
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.
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.
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.
One thing is clear:
The level of global warming duplicity at the highest levels will encourage skepticism of “the science world” at every level, and the longer the scientific community takes to respond to the AGW fraud, the lower their status will sink in the eyes of the public.
Which means, in relative terms, the position of the YECcers, OE creationists and IDers will rise.
That’s because the Biblical account of creation is true; it is the only logical conclusion when one honestly looks at the evidence, and after the lies of darwin are sorted out!
There, fixed it for you. YOu forgot to complete the post.....
"I love science. Just like evolution, it’s one of God’s greatest creations. It’s the gift that keeps on giving." - Jim Robinson
It gives it something to snicker at?
YEC will NEVER be "good" for "science." It will remain outside the science world where it belongs....wouldn't want to invalidate many fields of real science on a religious whim.
The current treatment of young-age creationists in the scientific community and society at large is unfair and unwise.
Oh no!!!! Science ignores YEC nonsense and (sniff)...it's...(sniff) unfaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiir!!!! Call a freakin' wahmbulance!! "Science" should ignore YEC as, being nothing more than a theology, it is incompatible WITH science.
Scientists and philosophers of science, including old-age creationists and naturalists, should respect youngage creationists as legitimate contributors to science.
SOrry, I don't even lump "philosophers of science" in with "scientsists"......and the notion that scientists should respect YECers as "legitimate contributors to science" is laughably ludicrous. Yeah..."wiping many fields of science away" is "contributing"...
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.
The current "origins" "science" is based in theory....there is no way a YECer can offer a viable SCIENTIFIC viewpoint to alter the scientific theories of origins science......a misnomer, if you ask me. That's EXACTLY what the science world needs, more YECers involved in peer-review.
It is no secret; young-age creationists (hereafter YACs) have a poor reputation in the scientific community at large.
Ya don't say....but "YACs" is a good one to remember.
It may be worth asking why most scientists criticize young-age creationists, but such is not the goal of this article.
MAYBE....just going out on a limb here.....because YACs believe that which is incompatible with many fields of science, and they pervert what they don't wholly discount to fit their "Man lived with dinosaurs" story.
The goal is rather to state positively why all scientists and philosophers of science.....should see young-age creationism (hereafter YAC) as a good thing for science.
Gee....DO tell...
The basic idea is that YACs 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.
...and why should scientists accept YAC claims when they know theology and science don't mix.....and stop trying to raise YAC claims to the level of "science", where they do not belong.
BTTT