Who?
Posted on 06/21/2006 8:33:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
You're right, of course. On the other hand, those who are in a position to question convention in the sciences are the scientists who understand enough of their particular discipline to ask the questions.
In the evolution/creation discussion, we have a group of people who, generally, do not understand even the definition of the theory of evolution trying to question convention.
It is difficult to question convention when you do not understand the very convention you are questioning.
On the most fundamental level, evolutionary theory and individualistic creation beliefs are mutually exclusive. They share no common ground, so do not really compete with each other at all.
There are some compromise positions, but I don't see them represented here in these threads very often.
Just as a non-physicist will be unable to credibly suggest non-conventional theories of physics, the typical creationist believer is unable to make any reasonable suggestion regarding the theory of evolution. The two are incompatible on their face.
Who?
Fundamentalist Christians insist on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, in which God made the world in seven days, culminating in the creation of the first two humans, Adam and Eve.A variation of this is called "intelligent design" which acknowledges evolution but claims that genetic mutations are guided by God's hand rather than by Charles Darwin's process of natural selection.
If these morons can't (or won't) even report accurately what Genesis says, or what intelligent design is, why should anyone take anyone take any of their other metaphysical sanctimony seriously?
Cordially,
Yes. Apples and oranges. I would rather see Einstein's theory of relativity get this much bandwidth, and it should, IMHO, especially since Minkowski succeeded in getting a geometrical interpretation (a convention) put on relativity and ignored the physics altogether. Relativity isn't even physics anymore, but mathematics. Instead of a C/E debate we should have a M/P debate.
The skull came from a 500 year old human and a decades-old orangutan. I don't understand what you're trying to say with all the "based on evolution as a fact" stuff. Creationists can't tell the difference between a skull from a man who lived in the 1400s and an orangutan who lived in the 1800s?
Creationist scientists did not debunk the Piltdown man because the creationist movement didn't gather much steam until the 1990s, based on the work of Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, and Dr. David Berlinski.
There were creationists in the scientific field from 1912 to 1953, but they were not in the field of archaeology, nor were they really a scientific movement at that time (at the very least, not like those who subscribe to the theory of evolution). And besides, Piltdown Man's skull was locked up in a museum for those 40 years. Would evolutionists allow it to go into the hands of someone actively looking to discredit their theories?
It was discredited because an evolutionist endeavored to discover just how old the skull was. Some evolutionists theorized that it was 500,000 years old, maybe this was just so jolly ol' England could tout itself as the birthplace of civilization. When the evolutionist used fluorine testing and discovered that the human portion was 500 years old and the orangutan portion was less than 100 years old, the jig was up. Hide the Piltdown man! We never believed in Piltdown man! Eurasia! Eastasia!
Creationists prior to the 1990s were simply uninvolved in the
The "with a little bit of luck and long periods of time" crew are at it again trying to force people to accept theory as fact and luck as a scientific pathway.
Still waiting on those human transistional fossils...
I don't know if it is or not. There's still a whole lot of people still working on that, and they frequently disagree with each other. I'm calmly waiting to see if any proofs occur during my lifetime, just as I'm calmly waiting to see if any proofs of creationism occur during my lifetime. In the meantime, there will be a *whole lot* of conjecture and theorizing on one side, and a *whole lot* of The Standard Smug Pat Robertson Smile on the other side. Neither side can be proven to be right or proven to be wrong at this time on issues on the scale of the universe and all of time.
What I object to is *anyone* who claims to have the definitive answer to immense issues that physically encompass the entire universe and all of time. The human species only started looking into all this a few seconds ago, based on the best approximation of the age of the universe. We just got here, we just started looking around, and we just acquired the ability to think and reason a very short time ago, compared to the best approximation of "all of time". We've got a very long way to go yet. Or, maybe not - maybe tomorrow (insert deity of choice) will drop down out of the sky and kick our miserable butts for us. It remains to be seen. No one knows. We're still trying to find out. I'm watching and listening and thinking. Right now I'm trying to figure out just why in the HECK those 17-year cicadas lie around for 17 years underground and what in the HECK signals them to come up. I would like to know just how in the HECK they got that way. I don't just shrug it off as (insert your deity)'s will and forget about it.
Actually, it empowers people to "fill the earth and subdue it." Sounds like this bunch of scientists is a shade green.
"If you can not see the point of creeds which defend traditional values and morals. I'd say that you are somehow protected from the harsh realities of this world.
"
Hmm..what traditional values and morals do you suppose I don't believe in? I'll wager I share all the same ones you do.
Yet I do not believe that any supernatural entities exist. I was raised with the same moral and ethical values you were. I follow the law. I follow the Constitution of the United States.
I just don't believe in any deities.
So, you tell me where our values differ.
It is interesting that one of the persons present at the Piltdown "finds," Teilhard de Chardin, never mentioned Piltdown in his writings. That would be equivalent to a member of the Leakey team writing for decades about anthropology and never mentioning Lucy.
Teilhard was old earth ID proponent, but not known to be dishonest. His presence makes me think it started as a joke.
Then I trust such statements as "Knowledge of the natural world in which they live empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet" have no business coming from the mouths who purport to be wholly engaged in scientific pursuits. Which is it?
"Yes. Apples and oranges. I would rather see Einstein's theory of relativity get this much bandwidth, and it should, IMHO, especially since Minkowski succeeded in getting a geometrical interpretation (a convention) put on relativity and ignored the physics altogether. Relativity isn't even physics anymore, but mathematics. Instead of a C/E debate we should have a M/P debate."
How does a creationist know that a skull is 500 years old?
What is human transistional fossil?
You must think that creationists have no brains at all. How can you even engage in a debate when you have no respect whatsoever with those whom you are debating.
How does a creationist know a skull is 500 years old?
Why is it that certain evolutionists think science will be doomed, and mankind with it, if we do not all subscribe to their pet philosophy of history?
"What is human transistional fossil?"
Those came out in the late 1950s. Eventually, they replaced the human vacuumtubional fossil.
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.