Jump to content


Photo

A Science Class On The Halibut Fish.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#41 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 29 May 2008 - 02:34 PM

I am all for alternative thinking however as far as science goes primary education should teach watered down versions of what the experts are publishing about in journals.  Should we allow alternative ideas to be taught in history even if historians do not agree with these alternative ideas? 

You and I have different ideas of what tyranny is.  Lets take a look at what tyrannical governments do.  In North Korea, a country we can all agree is tyrannical, children are taught that when Kim-Ill Sung died that 100 swans landed in a field and bowed towards his body.  Now experts in North Korea knew that this was impossible however it didn't matter what they thought because it was taught in schools to children.  So many of these children believe it.  Also in North Korea it is taught that US military would torture babies by pulling them apart until they were limbless even though North Korean historians know this is not what mainstream historians believe.  In Nazi germany it was believed that the germanic people were superior to all other races even though scientists knew that this was not true - again it didn't matter what they thought because it was taught to children in school and so they believed it.  This is why all ideas in science and history must make multiple runs through the gauntlet of experts.  The TOE has done this.  Now for it to be replaced by ID, ID must make its run over and over until scientists are swayed.  Until then it can't be taught in school.  This is protection from tyranny.

View Post


Your analogies are not correct.All the examples you gave is similar to what you want to do.The problem in the Nazi germany was not the fact that children was taught that the germanic people were superior to all other races, the problem was that they didnt let the persons who were against that, to expose their opinions to germany childrens.If it was allowed I´m sure the majority of the children would not believe that the germany persons were superior.

What are evolutionists afraid of ? If their theory is so correct , everyone will agree with it.

#42 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 06:25 PM

Your analogies are not correct.All the examples you gave is similar to what you want to do.The problem in the Nazi germany was not the fact that children was taught that the germanic people were superior to all other races, the problem was that they didnt let the persons who were against that, to expose their opinions to germany childrens.If it was allowed I´m sure the majority of the children would not believe that the germany persons were superior.

What are evolutionists afraid of ? If their theory is so correct , everyone will agree with it.

View Post


No the analogy is correct. Mainstream scientists knew that the german people were not superior but instead of trying to convince them the Nazis knew it would be easier to go into schools and teach children. The TOE has already been accepted by mainstream scientists. Creationists, instead of trying to convince the scientists that ID is better, want to go into schools and teach it to children. Unless you first convince the folks working in the field before it becomes standardized and taught to children the analogy is the same. The TOE is already established because it has already convinced most scientists in the field therefore it is standardized and taught in biology class. ID is not established. This is true even if the TOE is wrong and ID is correct.

The only way the analogy could be wrong is if the TOE was not accepted by mainstream science and taught to children anyway (this is not the case obviously). Democracy is wonderful but its not relavant in science except in what one chooses to present at conferences and what one chooses to publish in journals - whether or not it is accepted and standardized depends only on its ability to sway the experts.

#43 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 29 May 2008 - 06:53 PM

It never takes long for an evolutionist to reveal his true colors.  Trust.  Faith.

I have trust too...  It's called religion....  I trust the scriptures written by men ....I trust those men were inspired by God.....It's God's book, and I trust Him.

You have trust and faith too.  In men writing books and papers.  That's religion.


Hate to break it to you but if you want to play semantics and equivicate trust to faith it only extends as far as faith that I would have in my mechanic, doctor, lawyer (well maybe not lawyer :) ), dentist, ect...

It is clearly different than faith in something that can not be shown.


Science is not about trusting.  It is mostly about distrusting.  It is about skepticism.  When scientific people begin to trust each other.....That is faith, and that is religious. 


You are confusing the issue. I am a physicist and therefore I do not trust other physicists because I have the ability to understand in harsh detail what they are explaining. I can go into my lab (for the most part) and repeat their experiments (if I can't others can and usually do). I can get ahold of their data and understand what went right or what went wrong - I can do the research. Because I am not a biologist I have trust in the way science works itself out because I cannot do the above things in the field of biology. If I have a cavity I have trust in my dentist because I am not a dentist. So science is about skepticism among those working in the field - if one isn't in the field its a bit hard for one to be skeptical in the scientific sense because one doesn't have the lab or the training to do the research.


Science is about logically agreeing with evidence data and the conclusions within.  It is not about trusting those conclusions.  Science always distrusts conclusions.  That's why we have many new discoveries from people who challenge the establishment.  The establishment is the church of the faithful.  Science doesn't allow an establishment.  It always challenges and always changes.  No "facts" in science last very long.  It's a process of learning.


Again it is up to scientists in the field considered to criticize the conclusions for it to be meaningful in any scientifically skeptical sense. Science does have establishments however it leaves room for the established to be overthrown or modified as often happens. Einstein's special and general theories are well established and used to incredible precision but that doesn't mean that they are ultimately correct.



Do you always trust the highly trained car mechanic who says you need x,y, an z.  And the cost is $1000?  According to your logic presented, you would.


False analogy. By my logic I would trust that the mechanic knows how to properly fix and diagnose my car however I would not trust him to give me a fair price (he is selling something - ideally science is not).

However, trust implies that truth has been determined.  That is certainly how I approach the scriptures.  Trust in science also implies that the truth has been determined.  But science never claims truth.  It only claims the search for it.


Not true. Science does not deal in truths only degrees of certainty. I have trust that if I drop a ball it will fall because I have done it before and I have enough certainty in Newtons laws to describe it.

At least you were honest in your comments.  Your trust is evident in your posts.


And you are obviously blurring trust by a layman in the opinions of the experts and trust by experts toward other experts. It is either a mistake or a strawman.

In regards to Dawkins, I believe that he knows the difference.  However, the evolutionary explanation is unreasonable....You see children one day a hallibut recieved a behavioral mutation that caused it to lay on the ocean floor rather than swimming freely along like most other fish.  Now this specific hallibut which lay on the ocean which could only see it's predators with one eye and had one fin not being used somehow had a reproductive advantage over all the other hallibuts.  And after 1000's of years most of the hallibut's started laying on the ocean floor this way.  Then one day another hallibut recieved a random mutation, and the fin that wasn't being used any more dissapeared.  Now children, please understand that this mutation caused this hallibut to be much more reproductive that all the other hallibut's that had the fin.  So nature selected it.  Then one day thousands of years later another hallibut received a mutation that caused the eye that hadn't been used for thousands of years to migrate about half way around its head.  And this mutation really made the hallibut reproductively more advantageous than all the others. And the story goes on and on for millions of years until you get the hallibut that we have today.  Children, do you get it?  Teachers, do you understand? :)  :)  :)


There are many problems with your portrayel of how the TOE describes metamorphosis but because I do not really know anything about fish I can only go into general detail about what is wrong about it. Perhaps someone can go into detail using this particular situation so that we can avoid generalities. I will actaully ask someone to come participate.

And God told Noah to build and ark, because He was sending a flood......at least that part makes sense.

And yet the experts in the fields of geology see that this story falls apart at the most basic forms of skepticism.

#44 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 30 May 2008 - 01:43 AM

No the analogy is correct.  Mainstream scientists knew that the german people were not superior but instead of trying to convince them the Nazis knew it would be easier to go into schools and teach children.  The TOE has already been accepted by mainstream scientists.  Creationists, instead of trying to convince the scientists that ID is better, want to go into schools and teach it to children.  Unless you first convince the folks working in the field before it becomes standardized and taught to children the analogy is the same.  The TOE is already established because it has already convinced most scientists in the field therefore it is standardized and taught in biology class.  ID is not established.  This is true even if the TOE is wrong and ID is correct.

The only way the analogy could be wrong is if the TOE was not accepted by mainstream science and taught to children anyway (this is not the case obviously).  Democracy is wonderful but its not relavant in science except in what one chooses to present at conferences and what one chooses to publish in journals - whether or not it is accepted and standardized depends only on its ability to sway the experts.

View Post


No, you are wrong.Why must it be accepted by a biased mainstream scientists first ? Evolution is only an unproved theory, and everyone has the right of knowing all alternative explanations and use his own brain to choose one.What evolutionists want to do is censorship.Their fear of competition is the greatest evidence of the weakness of their theory.

#45 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:30 AM

And yet the experts in the fields of geology see that this story falls apart at the most basic forms of skepticism.


Why are you constantly drawing these straw men ?

Experts in the field, fails basic skepticism !?!?

You also keep saying that the mainstream scientists agree with the ToE,

What about these folks ?

Quite a few scientists support creation theory. This places them out of step with the mainstream scientists who believe in autobiogenesis, or a spontaneous origin of life, coupled with evolution. As Richard Dawkins put it "It is a monumental disagreement. One side or the other has got to be wrong, and not just slightly wrong but catastrophically, ignominiously, disastrously wrong."

Not all of the scientists who support creation theory are willing to admit it for fear of critcism - or worse. Some qualified contemporary scientists who support it are listed below.

Note: Much of the following list is taken from Creation Ministries International.



Contemporary Scientists who accept the Biblical account of creation
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.


Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don, Batten, B.Sc.Agr. (Hons 1), Ph.D.,--Plant Physiology, Expert in environmental adaptation of tropical fruit
Dr. Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK)
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis, III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S. Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V., M.D. Damadian, Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Dudley Eirich, Ph.D. molecular biologist, industrial genetic research
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Dr. Dennis Flentge, Ph.D. Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
Dr. Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer
Dr. Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Raúl E López, meteorologist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry
Dr. Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry
Dr. John McEwan, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry
Dr. Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist
Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist
Dr. Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist
Dr. Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology
Dr. Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics
Prof. Richard Porter--World authority on the human spine
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Ron Samec, Astronomy
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven, Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University
Charles Taylor, MA., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL., Cert. Theol., Linguist & Theologian
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.S. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, MD
Dr. Lara Wieland, MD
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith--Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Alexander Williams, Botanist
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
* Some of the people on this list are recently deceased.

Note that a great many of the above listed scientists are specialists in Biology, Molecular Biology, Microbiology, Bio-chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Genetics, Archaelogy and Palaeontology, or Reproductive Physiology.



This is a Tiny Lists at best. Are these folks Dumb ? Are they just not intelligent enough to know better ? What do they see that you don't ? That's the question you must ask yourself. Although I doubt you will. You seem to be pretty set in your ways even though at the same time you declare that you are all for alternative thinking.

I'm not arguing from authority, I'm just saying there are tons of Scientists Who disagree with the ToE completely.

What's your answer for that ?

#46 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:55 AM

Why are you constantly drawing these straw men ?

Experts in the field, fails basic skepticism !?!?

You also keep saying that the mainstream scientists agree with the ToE,

What about these folks ?
This is a Tiny Lists at best. Are these folks Dumb ? Are they just not intelligent enough to know better ? What do they see that you don't ? That's the question you must ask yourself. Although I doubt you will. You seem to be pretty set in your ways even though at the same time you declare that you are all for alternative thinking.

I'm not arguing from authority, I'm just saying there are tons of Scientists Who disagree with the ToE completely.

What's your answer for that ?

View Post


:)

Most of these folks are not even biologists. A psychologist is not an expert in the field of biology. There is only a handful of people on that list that are biologists or geologists. If you take that handful and divide it by the number of folks that are biologists who accept evolution the ratio is very nearly zero.

#47 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:34 AM

Why are you constantly drawing these straw men ?

Experts in the field, fails basic skepticism !?!?

You also keep saying that the mainstream scientists agree with the ToE,

What about these folks ?
This is a Tiny Lists at best. Are these folks Dumb ? Are they just not intelligent enough to know better ? What do they see that you don't ? That's the question you must ask yourself. Although I doubt you will. You seem to be pretty set in your ways even though at the same time you declare that you are all for alternative thinking.

I'm not arguing from authority, I'm just saying there are tons of Scientists Who disagree with the ToE completely.

What's your answer for that ?

View Post


I looked up some of the biologists from your list and here is what I found:

Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology - MIA
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology - hasn't published since 1968
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist - last publication was his dissertation in 1991 (currently a preacher)
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet - director of cancer research center (medical biology)
Edward A. Boudreaux - Professor Emeritus New Orleans University (first satisfactory person)
Dr. Robert W. Carter - Published once since his dissertation - I can't find any publications in the journals by this guy.
Dr. Chris Darnbrough -MIA
Dr. André Eggen - Cattle Genetics - this is your best one so far.
Dr. Dudley Eirich - Industrial Genetics - this one is good.
Carl B. Fliermans - researches contamination of ground water.
Robert H. Franks - MIA
Maciej Giertych - Light filtering in plants - this one is good.

I'll stop here but even the ones that seemed satisfactory are involved in fields remotely related to the development of life on Earth. By the way MIA means I couldn't find their papers - they might be out there but I just couldn't find them. So out of these 12 folks that have been trained in biological science only 4 would be considered experts even though remotely. So far 1/3 of the biologists, geneticists, and chemist from your list are doing active research while the rest do not seem to be active scientists.

#48 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:44 AM

No, you are wrong.Why must it be accepted by a biased mainstream scientists first ? Evolution is only an unproved theory, and everyone has the right of knowing all alternative explanations and use his own brain to choose one.What evolutionists want to do is censorship.Their fear of competition is the greatest evidence of the weakness of their theory.

View Post


So we should teach our children that the holocaust never happened, that we never landed on the moon, that astrology works, that aliens created life on Earth, ect...as alternatives? And then let them decide?

Or is it you just trust mainstream science and history to weed these crazy ideas out but just not your idea?

Even if mainstream science is biased it can still be toppled albeit it takes longer. Look how long it took the scientific community of physicists to accept the special and general theories of relativity.

I mean how else can we protect ourselves from crazy ideas and the influences of special interest groups that are pushing unsupported ideas in an attempt to influence politics?

#49 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:05 AM

:)

Most of these folks are not even biologists. A psychologist is not an expert in the field of biology.  There is only a handful of people on that list that are biologists or geologists.  If you take that handful and divide it by the number of folks that are biologists who accept evolution the ratio is very nearly zero.

View Post


I'm beginning to wonder about your claims about being in the scientific community. I would think that a trained professional in this field of science would recognize that a Geneticist is an expert in Biology. A Biochemist is an expert in Biology. A Genetic Engineer is an expert in Biology. A Zoologist is an expert in Biology. A Micro Biologist is an expert in Biology. An Immunologist is an expert in Biology. A Marine Biologist is an expert in Biology. A Plant Physiologist is an expert in Biology. An Organic Chemist is an expert in Biology....

Are you getting my point. I can't imagine an honest professional scientist declaring that these people aren't Biologists. Especially the use of the smiley face in doing so. But maybe that is because I don't "trust" all scientists.

IMHO A.Sphere's post above is evidence (scientists like evidence) that either he is not one of such professionals as he claims or he is in the scientific community, and he is representative of the true fascism within. But who knows, it is just evidence.

I certainly hope that this is not viewed as an ad hominem attack. It is meant as an objective analysis to his comments.

#50 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 30 May 2008 - 07:19 AM

I looked up some of the biologists from your list and here is what I found:

Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology  - MIA
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology - hasn't published since 1968
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist  - last publication was his dissertation in 1991 (currently a preacher)
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet - director of cancer research center (medical biology)
Edward A. Boudreaux - Professor Emeritus New Orleans University (first satisfactory person)
Dr. Robert W. Carter - Published once since his dissertation - I can't find any publications in the journals by this guy.
Dr. Chris Darnbrough -MIA
Dr. André Eggen - Cattle Genetics - this is your best one so far.
Dr. Dudley Eirich - Industrial Genetics - this one is good.
Carl B. Fliermans - researches contamination of ground water.
Robert H. Franks - MIA
Maciej Giertych - Light filtering in plants - this one is good.

I'll stop here but even the ones that seemed satisfactory are involved in fields remotely related to the development of life on Earth.  By the way MIA means I couldn't find their papers - they might be out there but I just couldn't find them.  So out of these 12 folks that have been trained in biological science only 4 would be considered experts even though remotely.  So far 1/3 of the biologists, geneticists, and chemist from your list are doing active research while the rest do not seem to be active scientists.

View Post


And can you cite any of your papers? Your whole argument is a fallicious composition category error.

#51 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 09:19 AM

I'm beginning to wonder about your claims about being in the scientific community.  I would think that a trained professional in this field of science would recognize that a Geneticist is an expert in Biology.  A Biochemist is an expert in Biology.  A Genetic Engineer is an expert in Biology.  A Zoologist is an expert in Biology.  A Micro Biologist is an expert in Biology.  An Immunologist is an expert in Biology.  A Marine Biologist is an expert in Biology.  A Plant Physiologist is an expert in Biology.  An Organic Chemist is an expert in Biology....


Right but an engineer is not, a physicist is not, a mathematician is not, and a psychologist is not...ect...why even put them on the list except to bulk it up.

Are you getting my point.  I can't imagine an honest professional scientist declaring that these people aren't Biologists.  Especially the use of the smiley face in doing so.  But maybe that is because I don't "trust" all scientists.


Hmmm...I think you need to reread my post. I didn't say that all of these people are not honest researching scientist but I said that most of them are not. I even went through the list and found some that were definately tried and true publishing scientists. You don't like smiley faces?...how sad :) .

IMHO A.Sphere's post above is evidence (scientists like evidence) that either he is not one of such professionals as he claims or he is in the scientific community, and he is representative of the true fascism within.  But who knows, it is just evidence.


Errr...what? How so? I am a lowly physics graduate student actively researching but my research is in theoretical gravity specifically in gravitational wave astrophysics - therefore I am not even in a position to represent true fascism within the biology community (the one that matters). Two physicists that I know and respect are old earth creationists and yet I know they are excellent scientists in their respective fields - however what they have to say about evolution wouldn't recieve that same respect because they aren't biologists. Now it would recieve a form of respect in the sense that when we discuss it we are really just two blokes who don't know what we are talking about when it comes to evolution but we have a good conversation anyway.

I certainly hope that this is not viewed as an ad hominem attack.  It is meant as an objective analysis to his comments.


It wouldn't bother me if it was...I am not sensitive. However, I didn't take it as such.

#52 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 09:48 AM

And can you cite any of your papers?  Your whole argument is a fallicious composition category error.

View Post


I only have a three and I am working on a fourth however I will not cite them because that would give my name and location and I have had one really creepy case arguing online - creepy as in phone harassment and threats to my life. The particular individual had obvious problems that I am sure none of you have but you can never tell - I have a family so it is not a risk I would like to take again.

However, my papers are in physics not biology so I am not sure why I would cite them unless you want to argue about gravity. I am by no means an expert in biology and I really wouldn't put stock in myself because I am not an expert in biology - in fact I don't know that much about biology beyone a college biology course. I just like to argue. If I saw my name on a list of scientists who support the TOE I would ask for it to be removed because who cares what a physicist has to say about a bio theory.

Wow, "fallacious composition category error"? I don't even know what that means. Maybe its the same as just a composition error in that case I disagree. My argument is that non-experts should trust experts to determine what is standard science - if a non-expert has doubts they can go to school get a degree and challange it in a meaningful scientific way - publish, attend conferences, give presentations (if they are really smart they can skip the schooling but their research has to be pretty strong). If they are correct they should eventually gain steam (even against a biased community) until there are enough scientists and evidence to support their theory and it can then be taught as an alternative or topple the pre-existing theory. Then we can teach it to children. All ideas in science must go through this before they become standard science. If 20% of honest researching published biologists that are doing research in explaining how life is so varied on Earth decided that Intelligent Design is more correct than evolution I would be okay with it being taught in school.

What you need is an "ID Biologist" that is also an "Evolutionary Biologist". I know it sounds funny but as a General Relativist I would be quite happy to topple general relativity - my career would be set. When I started grad school I had a problem with what is called dark energy . It always seemed to me that physicists reached a barrier in cosmology and there were two possible explanations: GR fails for large scale structures or there is a mystery entity that we are missing. I almost went into a research project in Dark Energy just to see if I could help bring it down. Eventually I was partially convinced by wmap and supernovae data that I previously did not understand that dark energy is a valid theory but I think ID needs someone that will try and do the same for evolution.

#53 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 09:52 AM

I will be out of town for two weeks so I probably can't respone until I get back. The hotel that was booked for me claims to have wireless internet but its on the beach (so I will probably be enjoying the ocean) and usually wireless internet never works well at hotels (has anyone else had this experience? It happens to me repeadetly - the signal is always too weak). Anyway, I will respond when I get back.

#54 OriginMan

OriginMan

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Louisiana

Posted 30 May 2008 - 10:43 AM

I am a physicist and therefore I do not trust other physicists because I have the ability to understand in harsh detail what they are explaining.  I can go into my lab (for the most part) and repeat their experiments (if I can't others can and usually do).  I can get ahold of their data and understand what went right or what went wrong - I can do the research. 


Above surely didn't sound like:

I am a lowly physics graduate student actively researching



Eitherway I'll give you one example. I would like to know your explanation for why someone in his position would change.

Here is his BIO:

Dr. Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation (available as a booklet and DVD), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department, defending the Bible, debated the Bible department, which was defending evolution!

En route to his B.A. in Biology/Chemistry, M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and Ed.D. in Biology/Geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation.

He has published five programmed textbooks in biology and six books in creation science (the latter translated into a total of eight languages), has appeared in numerous films and television programs, and has lectured worldwide on creation.



In this powerful testimony, a respected biology professor explains his gradual conversion from dogmatic belief in evolution to biblical creation. Warm, humble, and humorous, Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts.

The first two parts are up and running. I think it's one part a week will be available.

http://www.answersin.../video/ondemand

Watch the short Videos and let me know how something like that could happen in the face of these FACTS of Evolution.

Thanks

#55 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 11:36 AM

Above surely didn't sound like:

What do you mean? I have a BS in mathematics and a BS in physics and a Masters in Physics. I am working on my dissertation now for my PhD - that is research - that makes me a scientist albeit a newbie.

I will watch the movies tonight after I pack.

#56 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 30 May 2008 - 12:40 PM

Above surely didn't sound like:
Eitherway I'll give you one example. I would like to know your explanation for why someone in his position would change.

Here is his BIO:
In this powerful testimony, a respected biology professor explains his gradual conversion from dogmatic belief in evolution to biblical creation. Warm, humble, and humorous, Dr. Gary Parker shows how, step by step, the Lord helped him to see the false assumptions behind modern evolutionary belief, and how the Bible’s account of origins fits the facts.

The first two parts are up and running. I think it's one part a week will be available.

http://www.answersin.../video/ondemand

Watch the short Videos and let me know how something like that could happen in the face of these FACTS of Evolution.

Thanks

View Post


C'mon Originman,

Dr. Gary Parker is just one Biologist who believes in creation. So what. You listed according to my count at least 77 professionals from the Biology field. That's only a handfull according to A.Sphere. He must have big hands! :lol: :lol:

First he's a physicist, then he's a lowly graduate student, and now he has two BS's and a Master's in Physics. But all the PHD's that you listed just don't count. :unsure: :unsure:

He wants to defend TOE until he is pinned down, and then he can't comment because he is not an expert in the field of Biology.

I think he has lost just about all his credibility, and I think we should stop arguing his strawmen arguments. He jumped in to defend Dawkin's representation for hallibut evolution. This is one of the many fairytales that he beleives in. Let him defend it. You and I aren't Biologists, and we can see the logical inconsistencies in TOE. A.Sphere's fallacy is that it takes a doctorate in Biology to be an expert in TOE. What would poor Darwin have done?

#57 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 04:38 PM

C'mon Originman,

Dr. Gary Parker is just one Biologist who believes in creation.  So what.  You listed according to my count at least 77 professionals from the Biology field.  That's only a handfull according to A.Sphere.  He must have big hands! :lol:  :lol:


I do have big hands - they contain thousands of folks directly involved in researching biological evolution - and way out on the tip of my pinky under my finger nail is your 77.


First he's a physicist, then he's a lowly graduate student, and now he has two BS's and a Master's in Physics.  But all the PHD's that you listed just don't count. :unsure:  :unsure:


This makes zero sense. I have a Master's but I am working on my PhD therefore I am a graduate student. I do scientific research and publish and go to conferences and present which makes me a scientist. If I were to quit after my PhD and then 10 years from now start criticising GR people would laugh at me. Those are the PhD's that don't count from your list - ones who haven't kept up with modern research by being actively involved in it.

He wants to defend TOE until he is pinned down, and then he can't comment because he is not an expert in the field of Biology.


Pins? What pins? :lol: I didn't say that you couldn't comment or talk about it or protest about it or write songs and poems about it or name your budgie Kent, I said that you can't just insert ID into public schools until it has convinced a sizeable population of folks working directly in the field - not in a field that studies the breeding cycles of tadpoles or something though interesting not really related. I can talk about it until I am blue in the face and so can you and we should because we learn. However I didn't say that you couldn't comment - where did you get that?

I think he has lost just about all his credibility, and I think we should stop arguing his strawmen arguments.


Strawmen? Lets recap - I said that in order for science to be taught in public schools it needs to become standardized - in order for it to be standardized it needs to be accepted by a significant portion of scientists working in the field considered. How is that a strawman? A strawman is when you rephrase your opponents argument in a silly or simple way so that it is easy to rebuttle. When did I do that? You on the other hand took my argument and claimed that it meant that you can't comment on it unless you are a PhD biologist which is not what I said at all - thats a strawman.

He jumped in to defend Dawkin's representation  for hallibut evolution.  This is one of the many fairytales that he beleives in.  Let him defend it.  You and I aren't Biologists, and we can see the logical inconsistencies in TOE.  A.Sphere's fallacy is that it takes a doctorate in Biology to be an expert in TOE.  What would poor Darwin have done?


I only said that I am sure that Dawkin's does not have to revert to Lamarkian evolution to describe Halibut evolution and it only sounds like it because he is explaining it to children.

It typically does take a doctorate in Biology to be an expert in the TOE plus years and years of research, however I did mention in one of my post that some people (like Darwin) could get around this if they are really smart.

#58 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:03 PM

So we should teach our children  that the holocaust never happened, that we never landed on the moon, that astrology works, that aliens created life on Earth, ect...as alternatives?  And then let them decide? 

Or is it you just trust mainstream science and history to weed these crazy ideas out but just not your idea?

Even if mainstream science is biased it can still be toppled albeit it takes longer.  Look how long it took the scientific community of physicists to accept the special and general theories of relativity. 

View Post


The difference is that all scientists dont believe in those things, not only a group of scientists that are proclaimed as mainstream by I dont know who.How is a scientist proclaimed belonging to mainstream ? Evolution is not much different from astrology, where is the proof of convergent evolution ? All evolution´s proofs are based in the previous assumption that evolution is true. Homology only means that different living beings have similarities, but the evolutionists assume that the only cause for similarities is evolution.The list is long, but there isn´t a supposed evolution proof which is not based on the assumption that evolution is true.

I mean how else can we protect ourselves from crazy ideas and the influences of special interest groups that are pushing unsupported ideas in an attempt to influence politics?


The problem already exists, we already have a crazy idea ( evolution ) being taught in schools.

#59 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:33 PM

The difference is that all scientists dont believe in those things, not only a group of scientists that are proclaimed as mainstream by I dont know who.How is a scientist proclaimed belonging to mainstream ? Evolution is not much different from astrology, where is the proof of convergent evolution ? All evolution´s proofs are based in the previous assumption that evolution is true. Homology only means that different living beings have similarities, but the evolutionists assume that the only cause for similarities is evolution.The list is long, but there isn´t a supposed  evolution proof which is not based on the assumption that evolution is true.
The problem already exists, we already have a crazy idea ( evolution ) being taught in schools.

View Post


Mainstream science simply is what is being published in the journals. If you have lots and lots of publications on the TOE then it is in the mainstream.

You are missing the point. Even if the TOE was a crazy idea that has somehow leaked in to the mainstream it is wrong to try and bring it down by teaching it first to children (even if they are already learning the idea that you think is crazy) so that you are essentially manufacturing your future scientists pre-programmed with your own idea. The ends do not justify the means - two wrongs do not make a right - yada yada yada. If we make an exception for ID why not make an exception for holocaust deniers after all there are a handful of historians that have university positions that believe this.

No one is stopping you from becoming a scientist and doing the research to promote your idea - they are just telling you that all ideas have to be processed in the same manner so that we can protect ourselves from fascist like systems.

#60 deadlock

deadlock

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,196 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Rio de Janeiro

Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:09 PM

Mainstream science simply is what is being published in the journals.  If you have lots and lots of publications on the TOE then it is in the mainstream.

You are missing the point.  Even if the TOE was a crazy idea that has somehow leaked in to the mainstream it is wrong to try and bring it down by teaching it first to children (even if they are already learning the idea that you think is crazy) so that you are essentially manufacturing your future scientists pre-programmed with your own idea.  The ends do not justify the means - two wrongs do not make a right - yada yada yada.  If we make an exception for ID why not make an exception for holocaust deniers after all there are a handful of historians that have university positions that believe this.  

No one is stopping you from becoming a scientist and doing the research to promote your idea - they are just telling you that all ideas have to be processed in the same manner so that we can protect ourselves from fascist like systems.

View Post


Then why is TOE being taught to children ? are not the future scientists being pre-programmed with TOE ideas ? The worse thing is not ID not being taught in schools, the worse thing is evolutionists hiding the weakness points of TOE.Evolution is taught not as a theory but as a proved truth, and that´s a lie.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users