Mr. Stein goes to Jefferson City

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you want to argue semantics based on your use of words that is in the popular, rather than scientific, usage, there's no reason to discuss anything, it's just an argument about who defines the words, the people who know what they need to mean, or the people who don't.

Don't need that.

I'm using the scientific usage and it's not a semantic argument. I'm arguing against the knee-jerk idea that just because it's in the Bible it can't be science or scientifically studied. As has been posted earlier, flood geologly has been formulated in a scientific, subject to evidence and testing, manner.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Huh, showing that creationists don't have a theory is by showing why their beliefs aren't theories makes me the one who doesn't understand theories? It seems you've misunderstood my explanations. Simply put, proving that santa doesn't live at the north pole doesn't make santa science. It proves santa is not science. Yeah, use science to prove that something is not scientific. Happens all the time.

Again, we don't need the bible to tell us there were floods. We can show with science that the bible is written by funny people who had no idea what the whole world was really like when the bible was written. We can use science to show that something is unscientific again, and understand that something is so very very unscientific that no theory can come of it. There is NO theory that will ever be formulated to show how the earth could have been completely covered by one 40 day flood because that is pure fantasy dreamed up by people who had no clue. These people still have no clue. Heck, they can't even differentiate between a hypothesis and a theory. Can you? And er, what jj said.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Thanks, EOS, I'm happy to be among the clueless by your standards.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is because their beliefs aren't theories, and can't be called theories because they are not theories, and are not scientific in any way. Argh. So there

Actually the theories were developed from the Genesis text, not from beliefs per se. But as I and others have noted, they were falsified shortly after they were formulated. It was gone from science by the early 1800s.

You're right though about modern Creationism being based more on belief than evidence or a viable (or even extant for that matter ) theory of Creationism.

 

[JoeEllison]

I'm using the scientific usage and it's not a semantic argument. I'm arguing against the knee-jerk idea that just because it's in the Bible it can't be science or scientifically studied. As has been posted earlier, flood geologly has been formulated in a scientific, subject to evidence and testing, manner.

And it failed... so what's your point? I don't automatically claim that religious claims cannot be tested. I like laughing at people for being ignorant, and don't buy into the cop-out that we can't go after religion because it is somehow apart from rational examination. In my view, it is just as useful to disprove the stupid claims of Jews, Muslims, and Christians as it is to go after Sylvia Browne or the homeopathic hoaxsters.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The noah story was made up to make a religous point, not a science one.

That is true and well known by scientifically literate Christians since the 1800s (and many theologians before then back to Aquinas), but that didn't stop them from trying to formulate a scientific theory based on the text which was, again, falsified in short order.

What the frac is phlogiston?

Something very germane to this discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston

 

[Eos of the Eons]

...but that didn't stop them from trying to formulate a scientific theory based on the text which was, again, falsified in short order.

Which just shows why it is soooooo stupid of them to try formulating something of a theory from pure fantasy, which is my main point. It's just plain ridiculous to see someone write the terms "creation theory" together. Such an oxymoron.


What the frac does yuppy mean by "my standards" anyways. It's clear I really have no standards, just a low threshold for what is obviously an oxymoron, no?

That is why I won't bother with things like phlogiston... it's irrelevant to the argument I've been going on about, and it's late, and I really don't want to bother. Interesting thoughts on what happens when you burn stuff before we really knew anything. Thing is, burning stuff not based on fantasy... you know... stuff DOES burn. You're not making that up, even the sun is out there.. burning away... constantly.

heh heh. night night.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Eos, you're hither and thither in your reply and reading it again this morning does help so here's all I got for you:

It's just plain ridiculous to see someone write the terms "creation theory" together. Such an oxymoron.

I've linked to the Theory of Creationism above. If you'd read up on it you'd see how it's a historical, but falsified scientific theory. You're adding emotion into what is purely an historical comment on my part.

And if you're suggesting that people in 1750 should have known better that the Theory of Creation would be falsified or that we can remain ignorant of Phlogiston Theory because it was falsified, well, I'll just have to disagree with you on both counts.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And it failed... so what's your point? I don't automatically claim that religious claims cannot be tested. I like laughing at people for being ignorant, and don't buy into the cop-out that we can't go after religion because it is somehow apart from rational examination. In my view, it is just as useful to disprove the stupid claims of Jews, Muslims, and Christians as it is to go after Sylvia Browne or the homeopathic hoaxsters.

Well, it sounds like you get my point perfectly. My point being that some religious claims can be formulated in a way that makes it possible to disprove them.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Which just shows why it is soooooo stupid of them to try formulating something of a theory from pure fantasy, which is my main point. It's just plain ridiculous to see someone write the terms "creation theory" together. Such an oxymoron. What the frac does yuppy mean by "my standards" anyways. It's clear I really have no standards, just a low threshold for what is obviously an oxymoron, no?

Well, it's not an oxymoron in at least one case.

I think I should point out that I find this frustrating because it appears to me you are making some of the most pernicious mistakes that creationists make: Not understanding what constitutes a theory (or hypothesis), rejecting things as nonscientific because you don't like the outcome.

And in the process you are weakening the argument that can be made against creationism.

That is why I won't bother with things like phlogiston... it's irrelevant to the argument I've been going on about, and it's late, and I really don't want to bother.

Well, it appears very relevant to me. And apparently URS gets it also. Phlogiston was taught in my science classes. Do you know why?

Flood geology should be taught in science classes for the same reason. The only reservation I have about that is whether it could be taught accurately.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

And it failed... so what's your point?

BTW I've been intentionally leaving out the fact that flood geology has been disproven. It appears to me that Eos is brining emotion and personal preference in to an area that where they'd be better left out. One should be able to decide if some proposition is scientific (falsifiable) without knowing whether or not you're going to like the conclusion that may lead to.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Well, it appears very relevant to me. And apparently URS gets it also. Phlogiston was taught in my science classes. Do you know why?

Flood geology should be taught in science classes for the same reason. The only reservation I have about that is whether it could be taught accurately.

It definately should be taught accurately in science class for the same reason that geocentrism and aether theory should be taught accurately - so that the falsifications of it (them) are understood by students within a scientific context.

And this gets back to the issue of "Scientific Creationism" vs. Intelligent Design for me (this thread is about Expelled folks, not about Creationism per se). Creationism as a scientific theory was formulated in the mid 1700s and falsified by the early 1800s and as such should be consigned to the historically contextual trash heap of scientific history with phlogiston and eather. Modern Creationism is little more than SDA theology draped in the sheer crepe of science. The Edwards and Aguillard decisions gave this fact the force of law so Creationism really is a non-issue in the scientific discussion... though sadly one germane in the social/educational/political reality of today. Whatever legislatures and school boards try, it simply won't pass Constitutional muster.

Then there's ID (which is basically Creationism in a third new suit but let's leave that aside for a moment). ID proponents themselves admit it's not a scientific theory, but more of an "inference" or a "hypothesis" and simply does not pass the muster of scientific rigor when it comes to including it in the classroom. Add to that the Wedge Document and the blatantly disguised "God of the Gaps" theology inherent in ID I really can't see any Supreme Court decision be it based on the separation clause (and Edwards/Aguillard) or partially based on the science (Darrow's wish for the Scopes' trial) like the Dover decision ever concluding that C/ID belongs in the biology classroom.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Eos, you're hither and thither in your reply and reading it again this morning does help so here's all I got for you:



I've linked to the Theory of Creationism above. If you'd read up on it you'd see how it's a historical, but falsified scientific theory. You're adding emotion into what is purely an historical comment on my part.

And if you're suggesting that people in 1750 should have known better that the Theory of Creation would be falsified or that we can remain ignorant of Phlogiston Theory because it was falsified, well, I'll just have to disagree with you on both counts.

Hm. I find it odd that my point is so missed. Nope, I'm not saying any of that.

I have drawn a line.

Burning stuff should lead to theories on what is going on when you are burning stuff. I find it fascinating to read up on what people used to theorize and hypothesize on that. You can see a cool road on the development of discoveries.

The line I'm drawing is making up hypotheses and theories based on PURE fantasy. Fantasy includes santa clauses, easter bunnies, and bible stories. Doing that confuses people about science. If it is NOT science, not real, not anything but fantasy, then leave science out of it.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Well, it's not an oxymoron in at least one case.

I think I should point out that I find this frustrating because it appears to me you are making some of the most pernicious mistakes that creationists make: Not understanding what constitutes a theory (or hypothesis), rejecting things as nonscientific because you don't like the outcome.

And in the process you are weakening the argument that can be made against creationism.

That is our disagreement. I feel you are doing that. I feel I'm trying to prevent that.

Well, it appears very relevant to me. And apparently URS gets it also. Phlogiston was taught in my science classes. Do you know why?

Flood geology should be taught in science classes for the same reason. The only reservation I have about that is whether it could be taught accurately.

I feel Phlogiston is relevant to science. Bible stories aren't. We don't need to mix science with bible flood stories. We COULD poo poo the bible and say why, but then we have this fantasy story where it is not welcome. Right now we have teachers poo pooing science with religion in the science classroom. It's all bass-ackwards.

Instead, we should look at the bible in philosophy class, invite science in for a second to demonstrate why it is a bunch of bull (show why an earth-wide flood in bible times was indeed impossible), and then leave it at that.

Separate religion from science. Divorce them entirely. They do not mix.

Yes, I'm becoming highly intolerant, but I blame the IDers for that.

 

[Mister Agenda]

AH, yes, the heartwarming story of a sociopathic bigot, who is forced by fate to choose between her hatred of homosexuals and her chosen career. She's willing to sue, in order to make sure she doesn't have to provide equal service to gays and "real" people.

Actually, she's suing because she feels she was bullied into signing a document supporting gay adoption. Being unwilling to testify to beliefs different from what she holds and being unwilling to provide equal service based on those beliefs are two different matters. The ethicality of not accepting her refusal to sign is very questionable. She will probably win her lawsuit, and rightly so if she is being truthful

Of course if she is successful it is hard to see why a new law is needed to cover cases like hers.

 

[Mister Agenda]

The existence and observation of living things are evidence that living things are created by other living things. I can't think of a single example of a living thing coming from something not living - but that is the claim of abiogenesis, upon with both atheism and evolution rely. Is this not evidence in favor of creationism?

More specifically, we only see biological life, and only find biological life coming from other biological life. Unless God is a biological organism (made of molecules, having self-replicating bits, and so forth) creationism is actually a subset of abiogenesis, that is the creation of life by ANYTHING non-biological is abiogenesis. Either hypothesis (I don't find that abiogenesis rises to the standard of theory yet) is consistent with evolution: whether the first cell lies at the end of a long sequence of chemical reaction or was 'poofed' into existence by an omnipotent entity, evolution explains the development and diversification of life since then better than any competing idea.

Short answer: life coming from life is not evidence of abiogenesis.

It is also not evidence of creationism, a concept which abiogenesis encompasses. The evidence for abiogenesis, including creationism which it encompasses, is that the world was once lifeless and now it is no longer so. Where creationism fails epically is its inability to adequately explain the fossil record or provide any math allowing any predictions about anything we find in biology. Creationism is a valuable illustration of the futility of starting with conclusions that cannot be given up and searching for evidence to support them, rather than searching for evidence and following to the conclusions to which it leads.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Instead, we should look at the bible in philosophy class, invite science in for a second to demonstrate why it is a bunch of bull (show why an earth-wide flood in bible times was indeed impossible), and then leave it at that.

If we accept your earlier statements, it should be impossible for science to prove that a worldwide flood is impossible. You said that "bible stories" can't be formulated as scientific theories.

 

[Leftus]

Um, right. You just made my case - we only observe living things making other living things. That's the creationism theory.

Which means that God is a living thing? And has a creator?

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If we accept your earlier statements, it should be impossible for science to prove that a worldwide flood is impossible. You said that "bible stories" can't be formulated as scientific theories.

mkayyyy. Now we're digging down to semantics. Kind of silly, don't you think?
I was saying that it's dumb to try to make bible stories into science, and that is why, we can prove how dumb anything would be that would come out of the attempt.

Can you take the above paragraph as a clarification of the point I'm trying to make, or shall we dance in a few more circles? My main point is that fantasy is not science, nor shall anyone try to dress it up as such. It can be slapped down as fantasy in two seconds flat. Attempting to dress it up as science to get it shoved down kids' throats in classrooms is the agenda of folks who do that. It's not enough to do it in church, they have to be dishonest and twist it all around and try to make it science by dressing up the stories as something that can be turned into a theory? Well, then let's start wasting time on figuring out how santa could deliver presents to all the children in the world in one night then too. I could come up with a bazillion useless useless "theories", but when it comes right down to it, we know it is never going to be a real science, because it so based on a fantasy. There are reindeer in real life, want to push one off a building in the name of "science" to see if it can fly? Makes a mockery out of science.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

mkayyyy. Now we're digging down to semantics. Kind of silly, don't you think?

Well it is one of the most frequently used creationist ploys for misrepresenting science (confusion over what constitutes a theory). Oh, well.