|
|
Silver Dragon Breath dragon forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Celtore
Dragonstar
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 264
Location: Arkansas
|
 Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:14 Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="Cyborg Dragon"]
| Quote: |
| Intelligent design and Creationism constantly gets tossed out by the courts, colleges, and science institutions so no wonder, the colleges would never want to public a paper challenging evolution nor would they want any exploration on creationism in places like the classroom because they believe it doesn't belong in the world of science and only in the world of faith in which they wish to not have any resources to explore creationism, as so how the accusation from the ICR and other creationist groups go. |
You seem to forget the studies of Anthropology and Theology in colleges. While Creationism is absent from science classes, it is discussed as a belief of numerous cultures in anthropology, and discussed thoroughly in theology.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cyborg Dragon
Dragonstar
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 336
Location: Wichita Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:17 Post subject: |
|
|
But it should, and needs to be thoroughly explored in science courses, theology is fine, but that alone won't decide whether or not it would debunk evolution, look at the part I put in bold on the last page.
Ragnarok did invite me to step up to the plate, so I'm giving this discussion my best shot without breaking any bounderies.
_________________
Iseathielos Adismal, the green, blue, and yellow Dragon. This Dragon is me and what I believe myself to be, it is reality for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyraxylos
Shining Dragonstar
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Posts: 805
Location: Atlanta, GA
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:24 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, scientists DO explore it thoroughly. It's just that since it has an unscientific central theme (namely, a deity), then it can't be put into scientific curriculum. I see what you're saying, that it's totally unfair, but... well... 
_________________
The statement below this one is false.
The statement above this one is true.
This statement is false. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:26 Post subject: |
|
|
| Cyborg Dragon wrote: |
| When you say, doesn't exist, do you mean God himself? |
The evidence for creationism.
| Quote: |
| Now tell me, do you not believe in the spiritual concept of the soul either, if so then how can you possibly believe you're a Dragon? |
Belief in that doesn't necessitate a belief in a god.
| Quote: |
| I've heard arguments before that mutation is not evolution, mutations are very rarely beneficial to the animal, for evolution to occur you would need to have thousands of such changes that are beneficial, nonetheless carried on to the next generation. |
Selection based on mutation lies at the heart of evolutionary theory. Any single example of such, or a neutral mutation which experiences no selective pressure, is an example of evolution at work.
| Quote: |
| About fossils the ICR argues that the great flood of Noah was responsible for the fossilization and layering of sediment. |
Fossils can form quickly, that much, at least, is true. However, fossils are not layered in such a way that a flood could be even a remote cause. Secondly, the flood most certainly did not deposit the geologic column.
| Quote: |
| I've heard it must've occured in part because there's huge flood stories in many world cultures. |
Bad explanation.
| Quote: |
| About replication, how does that test evolution? It's simply the same copy of the same animal with the same complexity, Creationism is not debunked by that. |
Procreation isn't cloning, and I didn't say it debunked creationism. It's just a test of evolution. You've also already said why. Animals produce offspring that are very similar to themselves. If they did not, evolutionary theory would be in real trouble.
| Quote: |
| Also about the fossils, the ICR has pointed that with massive volumes of water big changes could occur in a short period of time. Read the Mt. St. Helens story on that site in the Back to Genesis section, they talk of how fossils that formed since 1980 were found from quick burial and tons of water and that 20 year old lava rocks had carbon dates of millions of years. |
Because of modern contamination, objects <150 years old cannot be carbon-dated.
| Quote: |
| Look, my parents believe that if Evolution is true, then God doesn't exist, and when we die, we're gone, that view makes it seem like life on Earth is worthless because we'll cease to exist on dying instead of going to some eternal home. |
And is that supposed to be an argument against evolution?
ETA (since it wasn't there when I hit "quote"):
| Quote: |
| For Dr. Scott, and no doubt most of the nearly 1,000 signatories to her “Statement of Concern”4 over the recent opening of the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY, open inquiry cannot be tolerated when it comes to the teaching of origins. Yet true science can only take place when avenues of exploration are kept open, not slammed shut due to an arbitrary decision that certain theories must be "kept out" at all costs. In light of the recent poll results cited above, the majority of Americans believe some form of creationism. This would be a good time for the science education establishment to follow its own recommendations and actually take a crack at "opposing points of view and the free examination of ideas." |
True. Now, find the way to test the validity of creationism. Find a way to test, scientifically, the truth of whether or not the Christian god (which sect, though?) did everything in exactly seven days. If they can't do that, their position has no legs, and thus has no other path than the one to the wastebasket.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyborg Dragon
Dragonstar
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 336
Location: Wichita Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:31 Post subject: |
|
|
Well Creationism tends to tie in with central Christian teaching, it's tied in with God and Christianity.
| Quote: |
| Find a way to test, scientifically, the truth of whether or not the Christian god (which sect, though?) did everything in exactly seven days |
The seven literal days mainly came from fundementalist Christian teachings, other groups would say the seven days are metaphorical and not literal. You have to note the Biblical story of the flood supposedly changed the world radically and permanently.
_________________
Iseathielos Adismal, the green, blue, and yellow Dragon. This Dragon is me and what I believe myself to be, it is reality for me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 17:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Cyborg Dragon wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Have any articles there been published in peer-reviewed journals? |
I don't think so, and the site again seems to explain why as I've gathered.
Intelligent design and Creationism constantly gets tossed out by the courts, colleges, and science institutions so no wonder, the colleges would never want to public a paper challenging evolution nor would they want any exploration on creationism in places like the classroom because they believe it doesn't belong in the world of science and only in the world of faith in which they wish to not have any resources to explore creationism, as so how the accusation from the ICR and other creationist groups go. |
Cut back on the persecution complex. If there were any real scientific evidence (i.e. evidence that couldn't be shredded by an expert in that field), there would be thing published. One of the things about science is that people are always out to prove each other wrong. Thus far, creationism has a grand total of NO scientific evidence, which is why it is thoroughly rejected by almost everyone in biology.
| Quote: |
| We can't know what is true without all the possibilities of the origion of life thoroughly explored by science. |
What does abiogenesis have to do with evolution? They're different fields.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ragnarok
Global Moderator
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 1091
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA.
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 18:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| Hyraxylos wrote: |
There is no way to disprove the existence of the gods. None. None whatsoever at all. There's no way to prove they exist scientifically, but that's only because they are themselves unscientific. I'm not saying that the gods DON'T exist, but I'm just saying there's no way to PROVE they don't.  |
Which is why science works in the positive. You get evidence to support your case. For the god hypothesis to be shown to be true, there has to be some sort of evidence that at least one god exists.
You can't disprove anyone's idea of god any more than you can disprove the celestial teapot. But without any positive evidence, they're both supported the same amount.
| Quote: |
As for CD's recent comments... the point is that someone can be so attached to their faith that they can simply choose not to acknowledge whatever science tosses at them. My take on that is... OK!  Just as long as they're not trying to cover up my eyes, then there's no problem! |
To which I agree. Provided that other people's religious beliefs don't interfere with my life, and aren't presented as science, I've nothing against it. It's only when they do that I take issue.
_________________
To win against an opponent stronger than yourself, you must not be weaker than that opponent. - Takamachi Nanoha |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZucaTreangeli
Dragonstar
Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed 20 Jun 2007 21:40 Post subject: |
|
|
I think its maybe handy that I explain how science works, when scientific papers are published in peer reviewed journals and why peer reviewed journals are so important and strong.
It starts with a hypothesis, this can be anything as long as its testable, for instance, you say that you take a look at the fossil record because you doubt that the way it has been displayed actually represents the true value of the fossil record.
You collect evidence, you look at fossil details, you compare them, create diagrams, compare those, you go out of your way to compare as many details and form these in a coherent report stating that indeed, many details of the fossil record seem to be out of place in their current standing.
You present this to a peer reviewed journal publisher, what does this publisher do ?
It sends it to anonymous reviewers (scientists) that work in the field you are publishing your paper, they look up the details, they cross examine it, they look at why you made the conclusions you did and look at those conclusions and examine the evidence you built up to support it.
And when they say, there is no problem with what is written here, it will be published in the peer reviewed journal... But if too many say it isnt correct, they will state this, they will give reasons as to why.
So that doesnt mean its a dead end, if you made some logical errors they will tell you where you went wrong, the research is not for nothing, it just means you are poked to go even further, because your conclusions dont fit yet.
They can say you are going in the right direction but arent there yet, the details are not satisfactory yet
Or they can say its a piece of crap and hand it back.
If creationists have something valid to say, it "will" be listened too, thats a promise, I come directly from the scientific world, I've worked in a research laboratory where I've seen a presentation on "new discoveries" in the field of fungi being totally blasted because it was full of holes. Then after the presentation the person who got blasted still smiled and drank a beer with the people doing the blasting, you know why ?
Because science appreciates criticism, when good criticism and questions come, it means you improve your research, you fill in the holes.
It means you grow and learn more, and that helps a lot.
When creationists make a valid point, and really research it instead of just stating things, then the scientific community will really look at it.
To prove that the points are invalid so far, I would love it if you gave me the best three points you can give on that website and I will explain in as much details as I can why those points are false.
_________________
Avatar by Vanodalv. Wooh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
