should creationists be allowed in science?

Apparently all you're doing is claiming that there is.

Would that be because
A) you're already aware it's a nonsense? or
B) you're not interested in knowing whether or not the premise and foundation of this "theory" are valid and would rather plough on regardless?

Many?
Name five.

Source please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Isaac Newton. Madness in science. Good subjects for threads.
We are going well off topic here.
The subject in hand is too important.
Let's get back to it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And a fallacy is the worse type of method to call precise, isn't it?
But then again you'll agree to any fallacy as long as it shaped in the form of atheistic views, isn't that so?

Oh THEE who slaves for the popularity contest...
Fallacies are okee-dokey aslong as it's an atheist making them! So much for objectivity and precision.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Ghost not in the Machine…

All aspects of one’s amazing mental life, every thought pattern, every emotion rife, every memory and association made to be can be tied to brain physiological activity. Cognitive science has shown that feats that were formerly thought to be the feet spurred on by the mental stuff of the soul lone can be duplicated by machines alone, and that motives and goals can be understood in the terms entirely of feedback and cybernetic mechanisms, and that thinking can be understood as a kind of computational mechanism, a kind of fuzzy analog to parallel computation. So, intelligence, which formerly seemed miraculous—something that mere matter could not possibly accomplish or explain—can now be understood as a process.

 

Actually, for the purposes of - you know, reality and all that - no. No, it isn't. It's what we in the intellectual business call "a bloody quibble"; it's a masterful example of avoidance and mental masturbation, and ultimately pointless. You might have, for example, addressed any of the central points of his argument at all, but instead have decided to narrow your laserlike focus on the myopically unimportant.

You have expertly dissected the relevant talking points of Kremmen's discussion, then thrown them out the window and run screaming in the other direction, whilst hiding under a pair of motheaten blankets of your own devising in the hopes that you will not be recognized.

 

I don't know what a "bloody quibble is". More importantly I don't care what a "bloody quibble" is. I do care about the stating the facts properly with every argument. It's too bad you think social issues like "cowardice and masturbating" are more important to you than accuracy. Thankfully that's your problem not mine.

Sorry this rambling didn't have any meaning. Was this some sort of rant or "quibble" again?

 

John Nash , Issac Newton , Nicola Tesla , Michel Nostradamus, Mekigal
You can look it up your self lazy butt

 

it's a clock work world brother

 

Evidently, yes.

I'll redirect to the post again, since I can see this angle of discussion is not going to lead to improving your knowledge: do you agree or disagree with the premise of the "Young Earth" underlying Kremmen's post? If you agree with it, why?

 

No it isn't.
It's an organic world.
Blood guts and bile.

Plus Dust, lots of it.
Plus Space, ditto ditto ditto.

 

Just to show you how the Young Earth ideas have adapted, look at this from the Noah's Ark thread. They have gone from "Believe in the Bible or you are toast", to "The Bible is scientifically accurate, and much easier to understand than what the academic scientists say"
Laugh if you wish, but as I have said before, they are winning the information battle among non scientists.

 

Nobody cares what Pukipedia says.

Natural Selection is a process that is separate and apart from Evolution. They are mutually exclusive. Evolution does not cause Natural Selection, and Natural Selection does not cause Evolution.

The mechanism of Evolution is gene mutation caused by natural background radiation. Natural Selection determines if the mutated organism can survive in a given environment, habitat or ecosystem.

If I put a spoonbill in a forest with nothing but nuts to eat, it will not evolve, it will die. That's Natural Selection. The spoonbill can think all the happy thoughts it wants and say to itself, "I rather wish my spoonbill beak would mutate into a pointy beak so I can break open these nuts and eat the meat" and guess what?

It ain't gonna happen. The spoonbill will die. I can put 50 Million spoonbills in a forest and they can all think happy thoughts and fly in circles singing Kum-ba-ya and they're all gonna die.

If you put a variety of species in a uniform environment, and there were no predators and competition for food was not an issue, the process of Natural Selection would not take place, but Evolution would continue, because mutations would still occur.

Moral right? Morality is Truth. Creationism is neither moral nor true.

All the more reason to allow creationism to be taught in schools.

Here's the problem. You have no control over creationism, but once you allow it into a structured environment, like the education system, then you can control it. That means you can determine the manner in which it is taught and set it up for the ridicule it so richly deserves.

It would also allow you to very subtly co-opt the students and destroy creationism. There's also a great disconnect between thinking and doing. For example, you could have students construct a scale mode of the "ark" and then tell them to get an "A" they have to get all of the scale animal figurines inside arc, then see how frustrated they get when they can't get the 7 pairs of clean animals (that would be 14 sheep since sheep are "clean" and fit for sacrifice) and 2 pairs of pigs (4 pigs which are "unclean" and not fit for sacrifice. You'd have to consult with a rabbi, because I don't know if elephants are unclean or clean.

Well, that has to do in part with the fact that Evolution is not well taught in schools, even at the university level. I suspect that some of that has to do with the fact that creationists are "teaching" it in secondary schools, but the solution to that is to modify the SAT or ACT tests to include sciences.

Because we deal in facts, not fantasy.

Sorry, no one was able to predict that over-use of antibiotics would lead to strains of bacteria that were resistant to antibiotics until after it was observed that such bacteria already existed.

In any event, the over-use of antibiotics did not produce bacteria resistant to antibiotics, rather the bacteria mutated on their own and what you are witnessing is Natural Selection.

That's biology or maybe a controlled form of Natural Selection, not Evolution.

That isn't a prediction, that is merely a restatement of Evolutionary Theory.

 

No, that was a prediction.

And every prediction of antibiotic resistance from now on is also a prediction.

It is a prediction when some theorist does a bit of reasoning and tells a researcher what they will find if they look here or there, do thus and so, etc.

 

Definitely disagree.

 

NS is a key component of evolution. The selectionists among us - Myuu curse their beards - would argue that NS is the most important of all components, no matter what some trendy arses might say. (Because it fucking is, because that's what Descent with Modification is about, for fuck's sake.) Anyway: NS is not separate from evolution, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Evolution is not a process that happens to individuals. It is a process of populations, which I see Fraggle has already said. For an individual, you could describe processes of metamorphosis or heterocrony.

Yes, but this does not make the two things exclusive. They are semi-independent, depending on their circumstances.

Creationism is not true, as far as all evidence to date indicates, but that does not mean it is not moral. Not all truths are moral with respect to other people.

Good! Then we can at least move past YEC, whatever other differences of opinion we hold.

 

Thanks for defending my post Geoff, but I understood what Saquist was saying.
English. We use the same language, but we mean different things by it.

Australians and British people are very often ironic, Americans and possibly others less so.
You have to moderate your irony.
On here I do try to avoid it, but I didn't think anyone would take me literally.

Fraggle, for example, can't recognise irony unless you nail a notice to his head.

 

No no: I understood that you understood what Saquist was saying. I just wanted him to understand that I understood the main thrust of your understanding being a refutation of the understanding of YEC.

 

Nope that was my fault.
I didn't realise you were talking about Young Earth.
I don't mind pointing out the factual error but I understand the inference now, that Kremmen was making. Apologies to both of you.

 

No worries; misunderstandings are what the forum is for.