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 ...
Markets have winners and losers. Propping up an obvious loser is not profitable. And there isn't a TARP big enough to prop up this loser.
We've already seen creationists trampling all over biology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, geology, and history. Now you guys are going after economics, too? Geez. Whoops, I meant "Chaz." The lack of buggywhips on the market is not due to barriers to entry. It's due to everyone else seeing the utility of the automobile.
>>Creationist Scientists make some very rational arguments on these lines. So please save me your sarcastic comments comparing Creation Science and Intelligent Design to Astrology. Your elitist dismissal of your opponents is worthy of a Climate Chance Elitist not a true scientist.<<
Your not understanding science doesn’t somehow change its classifications. Unless and until you can put a deity into the scientific method then creationism is the same as astrology from a scientific perspective.
All else is theology and philosophy. Loads of fun but not much use (except perhaps as jumping off imagining for other scientific pursuits, which if course would need to be based in the scientific method).
Your little climate change rim shot is cute but inapplicable. Unless you want to apply it to chemistry, physics, astronomy and geology then it is inapplicable. TToE is shoulder to shoulder (and a step AHEAD of TToG) with all of them in real world science.
Understanding science doesn’t make me an elitist. It makes me someone who understands science. I leave the definition of people who do NOT understand science to the observer.
>>This is published in which peer reviewed scientific publications? Science? Nature? Annual Review of Nuclear Science? Physics Today? I thought we were talking about science as in peer reviewed and published data?<<
That was my take — peer review. If my peers don’t do science and have a specific result in mind and alter the analysis to meet that endpoint (think Climate Change), and someone posts a blog, I guess that is “peer review.”
I think that when I close my eyes the Universe goes away. I am sure I can get a “peer” to “review” and confirm it.
In other words, you are going to rule out the possibility of a God by definition without considering the evidence. The evidence that I am offering in favor of there being a God is the vast amount of ordered information contained within the DNA code. Evolution has no workable explanation for how this vast amount of information came into being.
>>Science is science. If it leads to the conclusion that there may have been a Creator involved in the genesis of the earth, then so be it.<<
You make your Creator and our God, Q writ large. He created a Universe of complex yet discoverable and definable rules and then gave His Children the ability to discover and document those rules.
It is an insult to His work to make it seem like science will say “oh look! here a miracle occurred!” Unless and until God comes and tells us how said miracle occurred and how it can be harnessed in a lab and applied across all data, then it is of no use to us in the physical realm.
And thus it is de-facto proven that it was lord Vishnu and his servant Brahma that created all. Finally we get to the truth!
But no one 'must' believe. I believe because the facts lead only to belief. The evidence says it happened as God says it did.
Evolutionists 'believe' because they want to believe in spite of the overwhelming evidence against it.
>>In other words, you are going to rule out the possibility of a God by definition without considering the evidence. <<
No. I am saying that the contemplation of God doesn’t make sense in a scientific milieu. Trying to define miracles as part of science doesn’t make any sense.
>>The evidence that I am offering in favor of there being a God is the vast amount of ordered information contained within the DNA code. Evolution has no workable explanation for how this vast amount of information came into being.<<
That is an old wives’ tale that creationists tell each other when they are losing arguments badly. It merely translates into a Barbie like “math is hard” argument. The stochastic nature of TToE more than explains DNA, even so-called “junk” DNA. The more we look at DNA, the more we see how the entirety of the genome plays into successful life. The fact we haven’t discovered all the millions of facets of DNA doesn’t mean anything other than we are still researching. It does not, by any possible argument, mean that it was POOFED into existence by a deity.
You’ll have to pardon the Dumb one; he has no idea what science is but the fairy tales that his illiterate screwel teechers telld to him.
I present to you the classic The Endochronic Properties Of Resublimated Thiotimoline
It is like Polonium 218, but without the odor...
:)
Yes, that is real geology. Trying to make 100 t0 200 year old oil into umpteen million year old oil is fantasy.
>>You’ll have to pardon the Dumb one; he has no idea what science is but the fairy tales that his illiterate screwel teechers telld to him.<<
You will have to pardon idiot-server. He was never the same after his daddy (or his daddy that week — there were so many) whupped him in the head.
His complete misunderstanding of science and yet constant knocks on me (and without pinging but he is a boor as much as a retard) speaks for itself.
You’ll note he hasn’t said WHAT he thinks is wrong — that is because he only has insults. And, lets face it, if you were born as stupid as him, that’s all anyone would have.
Some of Gentry’s work has been published for over 35 years in Science Journals regarding this subject. Still nothing to refute it scientifically. Just ‘replies’. I thought this thread was about science. Goodnight.
Very weak on the fundamentals though, but good on evangelizing for the adversary's psuedo-science. Class on praying to darwin next week - be there!
Must hurt to lose every argument!
Our sympathy is with you.
>>Must hurt to lose every argument!<<
Since I have lost none (your limited ability to insult is not “winning” by anyone’s definition) and you have yet to defend any of your ad hominem and dim-witted responses, I can only assume you are kvetching at your sad luck.
My sympathy is with your family and anyone who has to deal with you in RL.
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
Please, I am one of the most vocal opponents of YEC, but do not condone calling anyone a Cretin. FYI - Cretinism is a birth defect that results in physical and mental impairment. There is not excuse for insulting the handicapped to make a point.
for the way you come across, the only place you are a scientist is in your head
on a more global view, in your head = the way you come across
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.