Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
==The agenda of most Scientists is Science, and most Scientists in the USA are people of faith.
Yeah, the Darwinist faith.
How exactly does evolution help scientists find oil deposits or build storage facilities for nuclear waste. Inquiring minds want to know.
==I think we’ve got finding oil down pretty well, I think the larger issue is getting godless liberals to drill for it.
LOL!
For the simple reason that anyone here can check what I write. If you have the expertise to contradict tens of thousands of biologists, you certainly have the education and intellect to find errors in what I say.
The results of any debate is in the transcript, not in the credentials. I have asked you to point out where on this thread I base my argument on mine or anyone's credentials. I have repeatedly asked for an alternative to evolution that explains the data found in the fossil record and in DNA. I haven't mentioned credentials. I simply ask for a clear statement of how the accumulated evidence should be interpreted, and what Louisiana should be teaching, now that they have legal authorization.
==No Scientific theory is either pro God or anti God.
What about Richard Dawkin’s theory that God is a delusion?
The self-improvement aspect of Lamarkian evolution was precisely what appealed to stalin.
Darwinian reasoning was used in plant and animal breeding for thousands of years before anyone thought of common descent. Breeders looked for desirable variations, but did not attempt to produce them by altering the environment.
Stalin and the Soviet Union conducted the first large scale attempts to induce heritable variation. The result was famine, starvation, and the deaths of millions of people.
The question of whether environmentally induced variation accounts for the bulk of heritable variation can be studied independently from the underlying mechanism. Lack of genetic theory did not prevent the success of plant and animal breeding. What prevented the Soviets from succeeding was a bad theory.
Are you arguing the they should get those jobs and opportunities because they've earned them - that they've done the lab and field work, and they have better science - better ideas, theories, and methodologies, and can produce better results?
Or are you arguing that we have a moral obligation to give them those jobs and opportunities because of their religious beliefs?
Inquiring minds had that figured out a long time ago.
==Inquiring minds had that figured out a long time ago.
Then this should be easy for you. Please show us how oil exploration and nuclear waste storage would be impossible without Darwin’s ToE.
Thought you might be interested in a little history re: Lysenko, seeing how the evos love bringing him up, comparing creationists to him, and misconstruing the reason behind his shoddy work.
http://webpages.dcu.ie/~sheehanh/hsheehan/lysenko.htm
“I asked you to cite a high school texbook which treats string theory as anything other than a conjecture. That was the topic on which you posted to me.
I read quite a bit about the subject in pop science media and have never seen it treated as anything but controversial. Not just as to whether it is “true,” but as to whether it qualifies as science.”
Seems like the folks at MIT consider string theory to be science. Leastways, it’s listed in the Physics heading.
http://ctp.lns.mit.edu/research-strings.html
Likewise the University of Texas at Austin.
http://registrar.utexas.edu/catalogs/grad07-09/ch04/ns/phy.crs.html
It seems that your uncredentialed opinion is wrong.
PS I consider both theories (Darwin/Lamarck) to be in error because they are both godless, materialistic explanations re: human origins. Still, Lamarck is infinitely superior to Darwin, as the field of epigenetics attests. And it is only a matter of time before the Darwinists are forced to realize this and scrap Darwin in favor of some form of neo-Lamarckianism. In other words, the evos will scrap one theory of evolution for another (their key interest being godless evolution at all cost, no matter which name goes in front of it!) So the sooner Creationists learn all this stuff, the better IMHO.
Your link calls string theory a “candidate for a unified theory of physics...” That’s pretty much the definition of a conjecture.
Fascinating. A YEC apologist who accepts random mutation & natural selection. He even accepts that there are beneficial mutations!?!
Awesome!
What Sean D. Pittman neglected to mention is that Michael Nachman and Susan Crowell stated that the deleterious mutation rate in humans, Ud, has a minimum value of 1.5 and a maximum value of 4.
But he further undercuts his argument by quoting them:
The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox. If mutations interact multiplicatively, the genetic load associated with such a high U [detrimental mutation rate] would be intolerable in species with a low rate of reproduction [like humans and apes etc.] . . .Read that part carefully. With Ud=3, every female has to produce over 40 babies and have 38 die to keep current population constant.
The reduction in fitness (i.e., the genetic load) due to deleterious mutations with multiplicative effects is given by 1 - e-U (Kimura and Moruyama 1966). For U = 3, the average fitness is reduced to 0.05, or put differently, each female would need to produce 40 offspring for 2 to survive and maintain the population at constant size. This assumes that all mortality is due to selection and so the actual number of offspring required to maintain a constant population size is probably higher. ...
Another thing Sean Pittman didn't mention was Nachman and Crowell acknowledged that their calculated value of U=3 was nearly twice as high as the commonly accepted value of U=1.6.
Now, Sean Pittman needs a lot of deleterious mutations (higher Ud values) to make his 6,000 yo humankind fit. And if he believes in the "Noah's Ark", the rate can only go higher.
He flirts with Drosophila studies that suggest Ud > 5 is possible, but backs off on this as unrealistic: "However, the number of required offspring needed to compensate for such a high detrimental mutation rate would soar to 148 per female per generation!" No kidding, he really wrote that.
Yet undeterred by things like numbers and facts, Dr. Pittman bravely marches onward.
To get to his 300 generations of mankind (6,000 / 20 = 300 generations), Pittman proposes his "Three mutations and you're out." hypothesis.
Basically his idea is the woman can inherit zero, one, or two harmful mutations, but when she gets the magical mutation number three, she dies (or at least won't reproduce).
Of course, there's no study that supports such a thing as a "Three mutations and you're out." rule.
Perhaps Dr. Pittman could take his own advice and go back into the lab and find evidence for such a rule instead of his gedankenexperiments with numbers pulled out of his ass.
Thanks for pointing out another site to laugh at.
That’s on them, their concern and I wish them well.
Clearly there’s a concerted effort with lawsuits to silence Christians and control government. This is dangerous and hurts the nation’s culture. Christians have consistently demonstrated they’ve been an asset to this country and there’s NO evidence we’ll sonehow become a Theocracy if for instance the word Christmas shows up on a school calendar, as I suspect it’s been on that very calendar since the day the school opened!
That’s bad enough, but to assert separation of church and state lies, hijack the govt with activist judges and brainwash children to remove God from society is dispicable.
I have an entire set of issues and that is, who do godless liberals think put them in charge of science (or ANYTHING for that matter):
it’s definition insofar as theory, principles, etc.
who put them in charge of determining what will be taught in school?
If science were a business and a group of scientists were excluded because one group shut them out and produced the results we see now, they’d be fired out of hand, and perhaps even in some cases indicted.
AND liberals would be demanding some kind of affirmative action plan to improve ‘results’.
But since this doesn’t exactly jive with their world view...it’s all good!
Godless liberals are happy with the way things are because the country is being destroyed, morals are decaying, homosexuality is normalized and so on.
Science is hijacked by junk-science cultists like algore to further socialize the masses and control assets.
And the kind of results I’m speaking of is results based scientific teaching in our schools as well as global warming, conception of life, among others.
From global warming to homosexuality, the people teaching now have clearly fallen flat on their faces. Abject failures.
Students have so many misconceptions about science today that they can’t distinguish between junk science and science.
And here people are wringing their hands about God and their angry-at-God fantasies about a theocracy?
Btw, how is it you propose scientists present their lab and field work ideas, theories, mehtodolgies etc. if their atmosphere is controlled in such a cult-like manner?
But that’s it, their purpose, control. Talk opponents down, argue in circles, project, and of course file lawsuits, often under the radar like the hat-God ACLU did in our county with the calendar issue.
Science is the last thing on their minds.
And it’s proof lies everywhere from journalism to history to government to law and so on.
ANd of course in science itself: the free pass and normalization the global warming hot air algoreacle cultists receive.
The godless have proven they’re completely incapable of objectivity and dangerous time and time again.
Checking everything you write has been very enlightening. Here's a summary of what you've written...
Post 168: Science accumulates knowledge, not truth.
So you agree that science is not about truth.
Post 243: No actual question has been asked. I was asked if coyote's list was scientific, and my response is that the list was not presented as scientific.
So the any of the theories concerning abiogenesis are not scientific theories and yet science offers not explanation of its own about how life started and yet is more than willing to tell others who propose a designer that they're wrong, with nothing better to offer. That violates the evo rule of theory disagreement. That is, that you can't say that a theory is wrong without out something better to offer in it's place.
Post 414: My "expertise" comes from reading what the opposition says.
Translation: This is just a hobby for me.
Post 522 : As to why anyone should take me seriously, I suppose that depends on whether they find my reasoning adequate or interesting. as I have pointed out, I don't stand on credentials.
Translation: You don't have any.
So, in summary, you do this as a hobby, have no credentials (which puts you in no position to determine what is and is not science), claim that it is not about truth, offer no scientific alternatives to either abiogenesis or string theory, and then go on to tell people who offer alternatives that they've wrong, based on ....what?
Unitarians?
Your opinion. And since you seem to believe that the universe is an accident, why should we take anything you have to say seriously?
I don’t have a beef with scientists, mine lies with the godless liberals that have hijacked it from them, from the ACLU to the algoreacle and others.
I guess if it jives with your worldview though, you just can’t see it!
“In fact many of us think that an intellectual exploration of creation does glory to God.”
WHAT? SO LONG AS HE’S NEVER MENTIONED?
Wow you really DO remind me of the hypocrats and their “support” of our troops!
If this were true, there’d be no effort to silence scientists through courts and allow science to weed out bad ideas like it does everything else, but this is CLEARLY not the case!
“Why the need to sue? The parents at Dover didn’t want their kids to be taught shoddy theology in the name of Science, preferring that their children be taught actual Science as it is understood by Scientists.”
Let me finish that for you....”as it is understood by scientists EXCLUDING Pro-ID/Christian scientists.”
There, now at least you have an accurate statement to work with.
RIIIIGHT, like Michael Newdow said his kid was offended by God in the pledge, (found to be a lie) or maybe like the Georgia ACLU snuck in and threatened legal action over Christmas on the calendar with ZERO parent notification!?
And I thought the argument was: opinion shouldn’t control science or votes or majorities or minorities...
Essentially what you’re saying is people that misunderstand both science and religion are in control of the curriculum and they just get to find a judge in agreement and poof we have science everyone has to agree upon?
OK...so long as they’re not in favor of ID it’s science. Got it! I think.
So pleeeeeease.... spare us already, “it’s for the children and science” dog is beginning to stink and needs burial already!
How is acknowledging ID, not even teaching it mind you, but just telling kids there’s a book in the library in science class, establishment of religion btw?
Good grief, forget burial, your argument smells so bad I think incineration is in order, hundreds of feet underground won’t hide that stench!
That's what I said. Science is comparable in that regard to law, and the consensus of science is comparable to the decision of a jury. If you find that inadequate, what do you think about the death penalty?
So the any of the theories concerning abiogenesis are not scientific theories and yet science offers not explanation of its own about how life started and yet is more than willing to tell others who propose a designer that they're wrong...
Actually ID is not wrong. How can it be wrong when it asserts that an unspecified entity having unspecified capabilitues and limitations, did some unspecified something at unspecified times and places using unspecified methods for unspecified reasons. To be wrong you need some content to your assertions.
So, in summary, you do this as a hobby, have no credentials
At least you can read. But the people who do science have credentials, either through academic training or through making discoveries and publishing them. It doesn't require a science degree to read the words of Philip Johnson, founder of the Discovery Institute, when he laments that Intelligent Design has no theory of design, no ongoing research,and no research proposals.
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.