Should scientists debate creationists?

[PixyMisa]

Also, claiming one has nothing to hide so he has nothing to prove is about as exposing of the confidence (or lack thereof) that secularists have in their positions of "the magic of unseen evolution".

What are you talking about? What "magic of unseen evolution"?

The fear of being exposed as a con artists is what has secularists so emotionally outrage at the idea of an objective view of their self-proclaimed "established facts".

Nylonase, my friend. Look it up.

The most common word used by evolutionists in describing their "claims" is the word creation.

Uh, you mean creationists, not evolutionists, surely?

They refer to nature as creation and to complexity as design. But yet, if you are not an atheist, your claims to point this hypocrisy out are met not with intellectual confidence but vociferous angst at the thought of showing both sides.

There's a problem here, a fundamental dichotomy: There is overwhelming objective evidence for evolution. The process of evolution has been observed. It happened. It is still happening.

There is no such evidence for creationism or intelligent design; rather, the claims made by their proponents are false in terms both of known fact and established theory.

I can't believe Atheist evolutionists are so blind to their own transparency. Or then again, that is the point. Maybe they are not.

What are you talking about?

If a man is confident in something he is willing to have it scrutinized.

Evolution has been scrutinized for over 150 years. The scrutiny continues ever second of every day.

Scientists welcome scrutiny. What scientists do not welcome is blatant dishonesty.

No court anywhere would accept a verdict where only one side of the trial is presented. So why should the public give any credence whatsoever to "claims" of evolution?

Because the theory of evolution is supported by mountains of evidence, and contradicted by none at all. That's why.

Or better said present both arguments in schools and let the individuals decide for themselves rather than indoctrinating them with one or the other.

In a science class? Why? ID is not science, it's religion.

You wouldn't accept it if the shoe was on the other foot.

If ID was being taught in science classes, no, of course we would not accept it.

Why should an IDer or creationist?

Because they are not doing science, and they have no place in a science class. Read Judge Jones' decision from the Dover trial: here. (PDF file.) Read the whole thing. It addresses all your points, thoroughly and conclusively, and establishes why ID and creationism should not be taught in science classes.

 

[rittjc]

Scientist should debate creationists.

You cannot ask people to take up an evidence based world view and expect them to believe in evolution without providing evidence.

You are correct. Evolution IS based on a world view. It is a religion. It is not supported by observable fact and by definition is therefore not a true science.

Even evolutionist corroborate their own lack of evidence as Gould did claiming the lack of visible evolution is proof that it must be punctuated (happen only at spurious intervals). This he called Punctuated equilibrium.

This means evolution is the only theory willing to be based solely on the absence of conclusive data.

But, I propose a third alternative to explaining the absence of evolutionary observation. It simply didn't happen. I guess you could say that one fits the model more so than the other two.

There seems to be a lack of introspect of the Atheist Evolutionist. The IDer and the Creationist both view the evolutionist as injecting its unprovable world view and making up a story to try to corroborate it.

The Creationist is stuck with a set of established "truths" an cannot change them as the evolutionist can, just to avoid scrutiny of the previous position. Funny that the Creationist hasn't had to change them though more and more is revealed about Creation.

Modern discovery has not sent us further from design, but rather drawn us in to it at the speed of information. Those that seek the truth are not afraid of new discovery. Those that are must browbeat the opposition to avoid the exposure to the weakness of their entire position.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, there should be debate as long as the creationists don't bring up anything I can't refute.

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying that debate is pointless while the creationists bring up the same idiocies that have been shown to be wrong ten thousand times.

Evolution has "kinds", the simply rename them "orders" so they can't be correlated to Genesis.

That's nonsense. Unless you're saying that biblical kinds represent a one-to-one mapping to modern Orders, which would also be nonsense, but of a different sort.

Biology has, in order of increasing compass, species, genera, families, orders, classes, phylums (divisions for plants and fungi), and kingdoms. And sometimes sub- and super- categories. That's what you need when you are categorising 1.8 million distinct species. The simple view of the writers of Genesis doesn't compare.

Evolution, a belief of convenience. I believe it so therefore it is true.

It has been observed. It happened. It continues to happen. We see it. Evolution is as real and as obvious as the weather.

Nylonase. Look it up.

 

[joobz]

Then why doesn't Behe submit a paper on the subject to a peer reviewed publication? He publishes popular books for the consumption of an ignorant general public.



You are evidence of what happens when the public is allowed to judge the facts. If you want to hear another point of view, that is fine but you automatically assume that both have equal standing.

Scientists come down on the side of evolution because the evidence is completely overwhelming. You come down on the side of creationism because you are too lazy to sort through Behe's BS.



No but they throw BS evidence out and once it is established to be BS it isn't allowed back in. Creationism was BS when it came out many, many years ago and it is still BS,even when a scientist is willing to shipwreck his career on it.

To extend your point further..

We also don't present in science class
1.) Flat earth hypothesis
2.) hollow earth Hypothesis
3.) The Music of the Spheres
4.) static continents
5.) The Luminiferous ether
6.) Earth centered universe
7.) sun centered Universe
8.) The world Ice theory
9.) Astrology
10.) Phlogiston
11.) Caloric
12.) The Humors
13.) Focal Sepsis
14.) Homeopathy
15.) Biorhythms
16.) Phrenology
17.) Physiognomy


It would take too long to teach all the wrong hypotheses. ID is a failed hypothesis. It isn't science.

 

[PixyMisa]

You are correct. Evolution IS based on a world view. It is a religion. It is not supported by observable fact and by definition is therefore not a true science.

No evidence? You mean, except for the fossil record, the molecular record, and direct observation of evolutionary processes. Except for that, right?

Even evolutionist corroborate their own lack of evidence as Gould did claiming the lack of visible evolution is proof that it must be punctuated (happen only at spurious intervals). This he called Punctuated equilibrium.

Gould never said anything of the sort. This is a lie.

This means evolution is the only theory willing to be based solely on the absence of conclusive data.

You mean, except for the overwhelming body of data I mentioned above, which is increasing in leaps and bounds every day? Except for the hundreds of thousands of scientific papers detailing studies confirming or based on Evolutionary Theory? Except for all of that, right?

But, I propose a third alternative to explaining the absence of evolutionary observation. It simply didn't happen. I guess you could say that one fits the model more so than the other two.

You mean except for all the observed instances of evolution actually happening. Except for that, right?

The Creationist is stuck with a set of established "truths" an cannot change them as the evolutionist can, just to avoid scrutiny of the previous position. Funny that the Creationist hasn't had to change them though more and more is revealed about Creation.

What truths might those be? And with such truths to hand, why do creationists tell so many lies?

 

[rittjc]

yes, this has proven.

You walked into that one. If irreducable complexity is reduced it was not "irreducable complexity". Better think before posting.

absolute statements, eh? Ok, provide a testable hypothesis for intelligent design. One testable hypothesis. Just one. That is all I ask.

Not until you do the same with Evolution. I am tired of you trying to burden all the creationists and IDers with the burden of proof. You prove life evolved or shut up. It's time for your lazy butts to get up an show some of this "established fact" you falsely claim to have that is so established that it does not have to lower itself to objectivity and scrutiny.

You evolutionists are doing nothing but pulling the old "fastest gun in the west" routine. Pulled it and reholstered it so fast you didn't see it.

No dice. It time for you evolutionist to put up or shut up. Don't give me your philosophies because I am no more interested in them then you are of mine. Just the facts maam. Just the facts.

 

[PixyMisa]

To extend your point further..

We also don't present in science class
1.) Flat earth hypothesis
2.) hollow earth Hypothesis
3.) The Music of the Spheres
4.) static continents
5.) The Luminiferous ether
6.) Earth centered universe
7.) sun centered Universe
8.) The world Ice theory
9.) Astrology
10.) Phlogiston
11.) Caloric
12.) The Humors
13.) Focal Sepsis
14.) Homeopathy
15.) Biorhythms
16.) Phrenology
17.) Physiognomy


It would take too long to teach all the wrong hypotheses. ID is a failed hypothesis. It isn't science.

18) Platonian mechanics
19) Scientology
20) The demon theory of disease
21) Spontaneous generation
22) Pyramid power
23) Numerology
24) Therapeutic touch
25) The Secret(TM)

 

[rittjc]

Then why doesn't Behe submit a paper on the subject to a peer reviewed publication? He publishes popular books for the consumption of an ignorant general public.



You are evidence of what happens when the public is allowed to judge the facts. If you want to hear another point of view, that is fine but you automatically assume that both have equal standing.

Scientists come down on the side of evolution because the evidence is completely overwhelming. You come down on the side of creationism because you are too lazy to sort through Behe's BS.


No but they throw BS evidence out and once it is established to be BS it isn't allowed back in. Creationism was BS when it came out many, many years ago and it is still BS,even when a scientist is willing to shipwreck his career on it.

Behe has published two books One of which I have read cover to cover. He has an intense deposition on design from the Dover trial that covers in great detail, the unspeakable complexities of life and how we don't correlate complexity with chance.

Science hasn't come down on the side of evolution. Evolutionists have come down on the side of evolution. Therein lies the problem. You show a scam by synonomizing the two without any evidentiary authority to do so. You simply state your opinion as fact. First sign of lack of knowledge.

Also you arrogantly call the public ignorant. You believe a fairy tale and have the audacity to say they can't conclude things as well as you and need your predigested conclusions to accept, simply because you are a nice guy? Please...You are the poster boy of why creation/ID needs to be debated to the public.

 

[PixyMisa]

You walked into that one. If irreducable complexity is reduced it was not "irreducable complexity".

Precisely.

That's (one reason) why ID is not science.

Not until you do the same with Evolution. I am tired of you trying to burden all the creationists and IDers with the burden of proof. You prove life evolved or shut up. It's time for your lazy butts to get up an show some of this "established fact" you falsely claim to have that is so established that it does not have to lower itself to objectivity and scrutiny.

Already established.

Check out the fossil record. Check out the morphological evidence. Check out the molecular evidence, both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Tell us exactly what it is that you think is in dispute.

No dice. It time for you evolutionist to put up or shut up. Don't give me your philosophies because I am no more interested in them then you are of mine. Just the facts maam. Just the facts.

The facts are out there. If you dispute something, tell us what it is. Don't think mutations can generate new information? We can point out specific examples where exactly this has happened. Don't think mutations can produce new species? Observed many times.

What, exactly, is it that you disagree with?

 

[joobz]

You walked into that one. If irreducable complexity is reduced it was not "irreducable complexity". Better think before posting.

First, what is irreducable?

Second, the hypothesis (or at best the conjecture) of irreducible complexity was found to be false. The flagellum, the eye,... all are composed of structures that have functions outside of the whole.

Are you really trying to win by playing semantic games?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Try using evidence next time.

Not until you do the same with Evolution.

start here
www.talkorigin.org Seems reality doesn't like you very much.

 

[rittjc]

18) Platonian mechanics
19) Scientology
20) The demon theory of disease
21) Spontaneous generation
22) Pyramid power
23) Numerology
24) Therapeutic touch
25) The Secret(TM)

26) Evolution
27) Atheism (or is this already covered by Scientology? we don't want redundancy)

 

[PixyMisa]

Behe has published two books One of which I have read cover to cover. He has an intense deposition on design from the Dover trial that covers in great detail, the unspeakable complexities of life and how we don't correlate complexity with chance.

Yes, he did. And he was shown in court to be at best disingenuous on that topic.

Science hasn't come down on the side of evolution.

Wrong. Science has come down overwhelmingly on the side of evolution. It is the unifying theory of biology. It is supported by evidence from geology and chemistry, and by research techniques developed by physicists. It is used in medical research. Evolution is pervasive in science.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

The physical realm created the physical realm. Or as the "noted" scientist Dr Steven Hawking so "eloquently" said "The existence of matter is the result of a random fluctuation of 'nothingness'". For this he is lauded. First there was nothing. Then this thing that did not exist managed to "fluctuate". I am pretty sure that there is no aspect of science that allows the introduction of nothingness into an equation and then postulate that nothing takes actions in a spontaneous manner.

And you'd be wrong. First, define "nothing" without reference to spacetime or matter/energy. Then contemplate my avatar.

There is no amount of makeup that make that ugly girl look pretty. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

No, it's still lipstick. And no matter how many feathers you intelligently stick to the pig, she still won't fly.

Last I heard, Newton's Laws are still valid. Did you miss the last two centuries?

No, they aren't and never were. They have always been approximate models of reality. Very, very good ones when applied to our normal range of experiences, but approximations none the less.

Atheist Evolutionists are very Stalinist in their beliefs.

That is because of their "extensive use of propaganda to establish a personality cult around an absolute dictator, as well as extensive use of the secret police to maintain social submission and silence … dissent." C.f. the unimpeachable character of, say, Kent Hovind.

That's plain intellectual dishonesty. Such ignorance should not be the rule amongst man.

At least we can agree on this.

'Luthon64

 

[rittjc]

Never really realized until posting here just how much of religious zealots Atheists and Evolutionists are. The pedantic responses and the simplistic claims "we disproved that" is quite eye opening. No wonder you are lost in a hell hole of emotions defending your world view outside the arena of intellectual discourse and honesty.

The fact you don't even see yourself being as transparent as you are is proof of how self-deluded someone can get.

Anybody want to discuss science? Or is all the Atheists and evolutionists have to offer is drivel ranging from childish insults to outright sophistry?

 

[PixyMisa]

26) Evolution
27) Atheism (or is this already covered by Scientology? we don't want redundancy)

You lose.

Evolution doesn't belong on the list because it is established by a vast body of evidence (of which you are willfully ignorant, but that's not my problem).

Atheism doesn't belong because it is merely a null hypothesis on a non-scientific subject.

 

[PixyMisa]

Never really realized until posting here just how much of religious zealots Atheists and Evolutionists are. The pedantic responses and the simplistic claims "we disproved that" is quite eye opening.

Behe's claims of irreducible complexity have indeed been falsified. The eye, the flagellum, blood clotting, all of them. It's not our problem that Behe is wrong.

Anybody want to discuss science?

We are trying to do just that. You refuse to participate.

What is it about evolution with which you disagree? Specifically.

Speciation? The efficacy of natural selection? The frequency of mutations?

Go on. Tell us.

 

[JoeEllison]

Never really realized until posting here just how much of religious zealots Atheists and Evolutionists are. The pedantic responses and the simplistic claims "we disproved that" is quite eye opening. No wonder you are lost in a hell hole of emotions defending your world view outside the arena of intellectual discourse and honesty.

The fact you don't even see yourself being as transparent as you are is proof of how self-deluded someone can get.

Anybody want to discuss science? Or is all the Atheists and evolutionists have to offer is drivel ranging from childish insults to outright sophistry?

Wow, the Bible and two books by Behe versus 99.999% of every scientist, living or dead, from the past 150 years.

It hardly seems fair for us to pile up on you, when the weight of reality is already smashing you down. No wonder you seem so angry and overwrought. Why don't you have a lay-down, and come back when you're feeling a little less cranky?

 

[fishbob]

That's not fair. Behe may be wrong about something big but he is still a qualified science and has done good science.

Any good science the Behe may have done had absolutely nothing to do with creationism / ID. In that field, he has not done good science. In that field, nobody has done good science.

 

[rittjc]

Evolution is pervasive in science.

You mean "evasive".

Evolutionary thinking has held the advance of mankind back for almost two centuries now. Every idiot theory from embryonic recapitulation to using fossils to define virtually the same things we see today has wasted the time of many a critical thinker. All in the name of a religion of Atheism and evolution.

Conceptually, evolution as an origin is as irrational as looking at my calculator and then my computer, seeing similarities and concluding that the computer was once a calculator that evolved spontaneously and randomly with energy applied without guiding intelligence. If I did this in something so relatively simplistic as electronics, I would be put in a straight jacket and hauled away.

But, if I did this with something inordinately complex as lifeforms, I am lauded as a free thinker and the evolutionists sing my praises and carrying me on their shoulders. Go figure.

My, my, the wild concepts an evolutionist will accept as fact. There are some things a goat won't eat but nothing an evolutionists won't accept just to maintain his/her religion. Astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. I feel like I am looking at a new species of mankind that does not possess simple discernment. I think I will call this new evolutionary creature "homo-sapien-nondiscernus." Shouldn't I get some credit for the discovery of this new creature? Don't I deserve to be on the cover of Nature magazine? My self-proclaimed brilliance in evolution is unspeakable. From now on, my new species will be spoken up in forums like this as one of the "established facts" that support evolution.

How about that. Super-fame for just posting on a web site. You can't beat that for a day's work.

 

[joobz]

26) Evolution
27) Atheism (or is this already covered by Scientology? we don't want redundancy)

You are correct. Atheism shouldn't be taught in science either, Neither should any theism.

However, you have yet to prove that evolution isn't a valid scientific theory.