should creationists be allowed in science?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by steeven91, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. Saquist Banned Banned

    That's the description of a behavior of body of people.

    I think some compatibility is required but not in all things. The bible is a book written for a pastoral people to understand. It certainly has a high level of truth in it for being 3500 years old. I find it hard to ignore. It's a true time traveler. Few things have come so far forward in time and remain in our common view. I respect the creationist theory and I add no ridicule to it or to the standard geologic estimates of time.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vronsurd Registered Member

    Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the dot on a page. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it.

    That is the big bang THEORY that is taught as law within schools.

    THis is why it is false:

    in an environment without friction you would have this spinning dot going so fast it would then explode. If this happened, then all of the particles and matter being expelled from this "spinning dot" would all have to spin in the same direction as the dot they exploded from.

    This is a known law of science, which those who believe in Evolution cannot do away with. It is known as the Conservation of angular momentum.

    This matter which is said to have created the planets would all need to spin in the same direction as the object it came from.

    So therefore, all of the planets should be spinning in the same direction.

    However two of them are not. Venus and Uranus spin backwards.

    Some planets even have moons that not only spin backwards, but travel backward around their planets.

    The Big Bang theory also ignores the First law of Thermodynamics, which says:
    "matter cannot be created or destroyed"
    If the dot that became our universe had contained all the matter that is currently our universe it would've collapsed into itself and the opposite of a big bang would've happened.

    Those who believe in the Big Bang theory are also either unaware of, or ignore the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" which says:
    "Everything tends towards disorder"

    So rather than the chaos (big bang) becoming ordered (our universe), just the opposite would be true.. And it is. Our complex universe is wearing down, and becoming more chaotic... THis is true because as the overall temperature of our universe draws towards absolute zero everything will stop and there will be no more order, no more movement really.

    Yes but in reality that is the meaning of absolute zero, no energy expendeture, alll potential energy, if something is only potential energy and no kinetic, there is absolutely no way for it to create a big bang, no matter how wonderfuln it may seem to the common atheist.

    Science often reveals thingsd that are counter intuitive
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Every planet in our solar system except for Venus and Uranus rotates counter-clockwise as seen from above the North Pole; that is to say, from west to east. This is the same direction in which all the planets orbit the sun. Uranus was likely hit by a very large planetoid early in its history, causing it to rotate "on its side," 90 degrees away from its orbital motion. Venus rotates backwards compared to the other planets, also likely due to an early asteroid hit which disturbed its original rotation.

    Are you saying that God created the planets so as to make them look as if they had been hit by other objects?
    Why would God do that?

    What about the moon's craters?
    Would you say that the moon had been hit by any large objects?
    What if one of them had been large enough to reverse the moon's spin?
    What do you think would have happened?
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    There are a lot of errors in what you just said.
    The Big Bang was not a spinning dot. It occurred approximately 13.75 billion years ago, not 18-20 billion. It did not spin faster until it exploded. It began as a singularity and expanded.

    Conservation of angular momentum covers an entire system, not individual parts of a system. There is no requirement that every part of the system have the same average conservation of momentum. Some may have positive spin, some negative - it is only the _average_ that cannot change.

    The First Law of Thermo says ENERGY cannot be destroyed or created, but can be transformed.

    Yet supernovas still explode. Sounds like there is a flaw in your reasoning.

    That's proof OF a big bang. The original highly ordered structure (singularity) is breaking down. Entropy is increasing, as predicted.

    Potential energy is energy that can be turned into kinetic energy.
  8. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    A more pertinent question than the one raised in the OP is; why don't creationists do any science?

    why is it that, despite levels of funding that any respectible sized biology department at a good university would be happy to receive, organisations like ICR, or the Discovery Institute failed to produce and publish one single piece of recognised science since these organisations were founded? - seriously not one - nothing, nada, zip, zilch.

    the answer is simple of course - the science works
  9. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    And of course, since creationism is not science, it should not be taught as science. My biggest hangup on creationism is when those idiots try to get it into schools as part of the science curriculum. I get even more annoyed when politicians actually start pushing this barrow. Of course, we all know how smart the average politician is!
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Politicians would eat dog dirt if they thought it would get them elected.
  11. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    No replies by the poster.
    Must be one of these trolls I keep hearing about.
  12. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Indeed. People present possible evidence and scientists test it. It generally fails the initial test but when it does not, they go on to more rigorous testing and it fails that. The most typical flaws in the evidence are fraud (not always on the part of the person presenting the evidence, to be fair), poorly designed experiments, and a tenuous grasp of the principles of science.
    If it were merely a new portion of the natural universe that we had never observed, then of course we could study it. But if it were truly the domain of powerful creatures who deliberately deceive us for their own amusement, then I'm not sure what we would call it or how we would react. Americans claim to love freedom, so it would be interesting to see how my people would react to the discovery that there really is someone who controls them. We could find out how they feel about the famous divine misfortunes that befell the characters in the Bible if they realized that their own children could suffer the same fate for merely rebelling against a newer, crueler and more unforgiving parental authority.
    We can (and do) test for the particular kind of supernatural universe that the majority of religionists assert exists: one whose denizens and forces whimsically interfere with the behavior of the natural universe. So far there is no evidence for this existence. But if the supernatural universe is invisible to us and there is no interaction between it and the natural universe, then, at least as of this writing, there is probably no way to test for it. If, by definition, there is no evidence for something, then science cannot test for it. But of course if there is no evidence then the possibility of its existence is a rather moot point, more suitable for philosophers and daydreamers than scientists, who are already plenty busy.

    If there are gods and all they can do is observe us using their fantastically superior powers and/or instruments, then I suppose I might be peevish about the invasion of my privacy, but other than that they would have no effect. And since I have no way to know that they are out there because there is no evidence for their existence, I'm not going to worry about the invasion of privacy either. The odds are enormous that they are a fantasy, so I'll spend more of my energy worrying about being hit by a meteorite, which is at least slightly more probable.
    "Truth" is not a scientific word. A theory is in fact the closest that science comes to the truth, and the word does not mean the same thing in science that it does in mathematics, detective work, or ordinary vernacular. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and peer-reviewed exhaustively, and found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In mathematics a theory is absolutely true, in detective work it is merely a very promising hunch, and in ordinary vernacular its meaning ranges wildly from speculation to hypothesis. I have often railed at scientists for using language that seems almost deliberately crafted to thwart understanding by laymen.
    There are plenty of creationists who are well educated, articulate, and good writers. They practice intellectual dishonesty in order to fool the more gullible members of the public. My wife and I went to a debate between a so-called creation "scientist" and a real scientist as members of CSICOP 35 years ago. The scientist, as is typical of the profession, was only a moderately good communicator and not very persuasive. The creationist was a practiced con man who was hard not to admire. He had carefully combed through the fossil record for specimens that supported his hypothesis, and presented them as though they were representative samples. And he presented as "peer-reviewed research" student papers from third-rate universities, generally church-affiliated like Ambassador College.

    These people carefully stay away from places like SciForums. We would make hash out of them.
    There is such a thing as rational faith, based on evidence like any other rational belief. My wife has been loyal, honest and supportive for 33 years, so I have a rational faith that she will continue to be so. But belief in fables told by one's parents because one loves them is irrational faith.
    Your choice of metaphor is more than a little inscrutable.
    You seem to be of the opinion that science has discovered all of the answers that it will ever discover, so none of the remaining mysteries will ever be solved. What makes you think that? It is an illogical opinion, since science has been solving increasingly difficult mysteries for half a millennium. Hypotheses about the Big Bang keep getting more detailed and complex, and explain more of our observations of the universe. Perhaps you young people will live to see it finally unraveled.
    The creationist who was sent to the CSICOP forum to argue with the real scientist was chosen by the creationist community for that purpose and therefore was presumably one of the best they've got. He did nothing but lie and cheat; he was one of the most dishonorable people I've ever encountered. With people like that in charge of the movement, they will never answer any questions, at least not honestly.
  13. dbnp48 Q.E.D. Registered Senior Member

    For those that may not know, "CSICOP" is The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry.

    "The mission of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry is to promote scientific inquiry, critical investigation, and the use of reason in examining controversial and extraordinary claims."
  14. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    lt stands for "Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal." The Skeptical Inquirer is their monthly magazine. James Randi founded it and was its chairman for a decade or two. Then one of the well-funded woo-woo outfits sued him and in order to avoid bankrupting the organization in event of losing the case he gave up his membership and his office. I have no idea how that turned out, we haven't been active in CSICOP or read the magazine for more than ten years.

    Randi is a stage magician. When he saw that much of what "psychics," "astrologers," "mediums," "faith healers," "water dowsers," "palm readers," "fortune tellers," "past life regressionists," etc. do is simply elaborate stage magic, he realized that he was the perfect person to debunk it.

    He put Peter Popoff, a very prosperous TV faith healer, out of business. He had a radio receiver in his ear disguised as a hearing aid, and his wife was backstage reading information off of the cards that the attendees at his revivals so cooperatively filled out and turned in. Randi tuned a small radio to the right frequency and recorded what she was reading to him.

    The sad thing is that about a year and a half later he simply moved to another city and started over, and was just as successful.
  15. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    James Randi was so succesful as a stage magician that he is now rather wealthy. In his retirement, he set up a special prize for anyone who can demonstrate any psychic ability, under controlled scientific conditions, with professional magicians watching for trickery. This prize now stands at $ 1 million. After many years, it remains unclaimed, in spite of various attempts by both those who are self deluded and those who are frauds. This is excellent evidence that psychic abilities simply do not exist.
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    DBNP pointed out that CSICOP changed their name a few years ago. It is now the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, or CSI.

    However, when we were members it was CSICOP.
  17. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Creationists have made many contributions to all kinds of scientific inquiry and related fields. Physics and math, related disciplines such as engineering and materials science generally, medicine and aerodynamics and weapons research, all feature significant and valuable contributions from creationists continuing to this day.
  18. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Me and my new friends that think like Me found it and we are going to prove it beyond a shadow of doubt. Yeah Skink on this mo fo's and naysayers . It is going to blow your minds. Yeah buddy rock on!
  19. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Now that is what I call a truth
  20. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Answer to original thread title: NO.

    However, if creationists were to be allowed into the science curricula, as a practicing pantheist, and an advocate of multi-culturalism I would demand that ALL creation myths of all known cultures be taught as true SIMULTANEOUSLY.

    *folds arms*

    Now stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you bible-thumpers.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  21. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    If we manage to survive until the year 2500, I wonder if Randi will be honoured as a key figure of Twentieth Century thought.
    I think perhaps he will, and rightly.
    Bunkum is Bunkum.
  22. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    And people will say "Great Randi!" when caught unawares in social situations.

    Or, probably not.
  23. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Government have not the right or business in telling us what we should or shouldn't teach our children.

Share This Page