Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 07-13-2002, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
If it were up to me, I would fight more to get rational thought, scientific inquiry and skepticism back into the schools than to keep certain kooky religious beliefs out. Of course, I believe that if the first thing really happens, the second one will too!

scigirl

BRAVO SciGirl! Well said! Would that mean that more of us would have to get more involved with local politics? Get on school boards and so forth?

Starboy

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Starboy · 07-13-2002, 09:40 AM

GeoTheo,

Are you afraid to debate with me? Only want to talk with athiests who are willing to debate with you truth against truth? Are you scared to deal with the real issues regarding creationism vs science?

Answer my last post or crawl back under the cross you came from!

Starboy

Coragyps · 07-13-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Get on school boards and so forth?

Frighteningly enough, that's exactly what we need to do. I hate meetings worse than I hate turnips, but I'm considering running for the school board next time it comes up here. Goya said it well: "The sleep of reason brings forth monsters."

ex-robot · 07-13-2002, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:


What kind of tripe is that? And what sort of physical mechanism do they propose that had increased several radioactive-decay rates by a factor of a million or so -- and the same factor for all of them?

No tripe at all. YEC have a problem with radioactive decay rates and the age of the earth, rocks, etc. They wouldn't get rid of it. That is all I was saying.

xr

lpetrich · 07-13-2002, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ex-robot:

... YEC have a problem with radioactive decay rates and the age of the earth, rocks, etc. ...

Willingness to embrace implausible ad hoc hypotheses like that is good reason not to take creationism seriously.

I wonder if ex-robot would say if his best friend started telling everybody that ex-robot is now dead and has been replaced by some sort of fake who duplicates ex-robot's appearance and mannerisms and so forth.

That's what creationism is like to me.

lpetrich · 07-13-2002, 02:39 PM

Mainstream "creation science" is such trash that it would take a Lysenko-style coup to make it "the future".

JayAitch · 07-13-2002, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


... So merely by disbelieving in Darwinism The Ruskys ruined their agricultural technology? It wasn't that they held to some other odd belief in its favor (one rejected by both creationists and modern evolutionists) As soon as someoene questions Darwinism Poof ! Right back into the stone age? ...

The relevence of Lysenko to the OP is neither "disbelieving in Darwinism" nor adherence to odd beliefs. It is simply that the Soviet hierarchy suppressed normal scientific debate in the interrests of pleasing Stalin and ensuring conformity with communist dogma; it was not science but politics.

As far as I can see, young earth creationism is a scientific none-starter. If "the future belongs to Creationism" then it will only be when it too has been imposed politically.

And in that case I think that the effect on liberty and democracy in the US will be of more immediate concern than the effect on scientific enquiry.

John

DireStraits · 07-13-2002, 03:06 PM

Sorry Dire I'm not gonna just let this one slide by. So merely by disbelieving in Darwinism The Ruskys ruined their agricultural technology?

DS: Try focusing on what I actually did say. I said nothing about agricultural technology. I did say something about the effect on Russian genetics, which you did not respond to. I did not say that the only reason why Russian agriculture failed under Lysenko was Lysenkoism.

It wasn't that they held to some other odd belief in its favor (one rejected by both creationists and modern evolutionists) As soon as someoene questions Darwinism Poof ! Right back into the stone age? Sure you are not conveniently leaving out a signifigant detail?

DS: Please point out where I said that if anyone QUESTIONED Darwinism that a society immediately returns to the Stone Age.

Like Lamarkism perhaps.
Growing corn and not watering it enough so that the next generation could be grown in an arid climate from its aquired characteristics had nothing to do with it?

DS: What ARE you talking about? Are you saying that Lysenkoism was a form of Lamarckism? If so, then I suppose you are agreeing with me that adoption of a non-Darwinian notion will have adverse effects on a nation’s agriculture.

Belief in Lamarkism had nothing to do with itJust the mere doubt of Darwinism right?

DS: How long does it take you to construct these strawmen?

Their agriculture was like tinkerbell. Not enough kids believed so it just started to fade away......

DS: No, they took a very long time to accept that it was not putting pork and beans on the table. The evidence took such a long time to filter through because they were ideologically committed to the notion that Darwinism was incorrect.

Now, I don’t think creationists would be quite so idiotic as to abandon a Darwinian approach towards agriculture, the resulting hunger would surely cause a small revolution. But the effect of adopting what they really want to do, which is to get Genesis I back into public schools in the science classroom you surely have a detremental effect upon the ability of the kids to think scientifically, which was another one of my points that you ignored.

DireStraits · 07-13-2002, 03:22 PM

Are you of the opinion that massive evolution occurs everyday on a huge scale like chickens hatching mammals out of eggs and giving birth to people?

DS: Where has ANYONE on this board made this claim?

And that everybody can see it before their very eyes except creationists? That's how you make it sound.

DS: Only to people like you that seem to have a roaring in your head that clouds your reading comprehension to such an extent you come out with the sort of stuff you do.

Last time I checked evolutionists thought positive mutations were rare? Why do you think so much time is believed to be involved? Duh!

DS: Beneficial mutations are rare. The holders of such genotypes tend to propagate their progeny in a population. Called natural selection.

So a creationist geneticist and an evolutionary ganeticist could be in total agreement as to how these processes work in everyday life . The creationist just believes that mutations filtered by natural selection could not produce all life.

DS: Well, creationists used to deny all levels of evolution’s ability to produce new SPECIES. Now they don’t. Why is that, do you think?

When an error occurs and a kid is borm with hemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

DS: That’s a harmful mutation. In nature, the offspring would die before being able to reproduce. Really, this is very basic stuff.

The creationis says that all mutations end up like that

DS: What even beneficial mutations? Do creationists really say this? If so, what is their definition of “beneficial mutation”?

and the evolutionst says "No you cretin it's 9.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99. % How can you be capable of doing any scientific research?"

DS: I think you ought to switch to decaf. The above does not make any sense.

Mageth · 07-14-2002, 10:26 AM

Well, there you go. Scientists who believe in a literal creation do plenty of research in all those fields and more.

Only when they leave their supernatural beliefs in the cloakroom with their coats and hats and keep 'em out of the labs. Research with "goddidit" in the results is not going to find much, if any, acceptance in the scientific community, is it? And it shouldn't; scientific inquiry does not, should not deal with the supernatural. That's why it's important to keep supernatural indoctrination (e.g. creationism) completely out of scientific education.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-13-2002, 09:40 AM	#32
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	GeoTheo, Are you afraid to debate with me? Only want to talk with athiests who are willing to debate with you truth against truth? Are you scared to deal with the real issues regarding creationism vs science? Answer my last post or crawl back under the cross you came from! Starboy

07-13-2002, 02:39 PM	#36
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Mainstream "creation science" is such trash that it would take a Lysenko-style coup to make it "the future".

07-13-2002, 03:06 PM	#38
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	Sorry Dire I'm not gonna just let this one slide by. So merely by disbelieving in Darwinism The Ruskys ruined their agricultural technology? DS: Try focusing on what I actually did say. I said nothing about agricultural technology. I did say something about the effect on Russian genetics, which you did not respond to. I did not say that the only reason why Russian agriculture failed under Lysenko was Lysenkoism. It wasn't that they held to some other odd belief in its favor (one rejected by both creationists and modern evolutionists) As soon as someoene questions Darwinism Poof ! Right back into the stone age? Sure you are not conveniently leaving out a signifigant detail? DS: Please point out where I said that if anyone QUESTIONED Darwinism that a society immediately returns to the Stone Age. Like Lamarkism perhaps. Growing corn and not watering it enough so that the next generation could be grown in an arid climate from its aquired characteristics had nothing to do with it? DS: What ARE you talking about? Are you saying that Lysenkoism was a form of Lamarckism? If so, then I suppose you are agreeing with me that adoption of a non-Darwinian notion will have adverse effects on a nation’s agriculture. Belief in Lamarkism had nothing to do with itJust the mere doubt of Darwinism right? DS: How long does it take you to construct these strawmen? Their agriculture was like tinkerbell. Not enough kids believed so it just started to fade away...... DS: No, they took a very long time to accept that it was not putting pork and beans on the table. The evidence took such a long time to filter through because they were ideologically committed to the notion that Darwinism was incorrect. Now, I don’t think creationists would be quite so idiotic as to abandon a Darwinian approach towards agriculture, the resulting hunger would surely cause a small revolution. But the effect of adopting what they really want to do, which is to get Genesis I back into public schools in the science classroom you surely have a detremental effect upon the ability of the kids to think scientifically, which was another one of my points that you ignored.

07-13-2002, 03:22 PM	#39
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	Are you of the opinion that massive evolution occurs everyday on a huge scale like chickens hatching mammals out of eggs and giving birth to people? DS: Where has ANYONE on this board made this claim? And that everybody can see it before their very eyes except creationists? That's how you make it sound. DS: Only to people like you that seem to have a roaring in your head that clouds your reading comprehension to such an extent you come out with the sort of stuff you do. Last time I checked evolutionists thought positive mutations were rare? Why do you think so much time is believed to be involved? Duh! DS: Beneficial mutations are rare. The holders of such genotypes tend to propagate their progeny in a population. Called natural selection. So a creationist geneticist and an evolutionary ganeticist could be in total agreement as to how these processes work in everyday life . The creationist just believes that mutations filtered by natural selection could not produce all life. DS: Well, creationists used to deny all levels of evolution’s ability to produce new SPECIES. Now they don’t. Why is that, do you think? When an error occurs and a kid is borm with hemophilia or cystic fibrosis. DS: That’s a harmful mutation. In nature, the offspring would die before being able to reproduce. Really, this is very basic stuff. The creationis says that all mutations end up like that DS: What even beneficial mutations? Do creationists really say this? If so, what is their definition of “beneficial mutation”? and the evolutionst says "No you cretin it's 9.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 99. % How can you be capable of doing any scientific research?" DS: I think you ought to switch to decaf. The above does not make any sense.

07-14-2002, 10:26 AM	#40
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Well, there you go. Scientists who believe in a literal creation do plenty of research in all those fields and more. Only when they leave their supernatural beliefs in the cloakroom with their coats and hats and keep 'em out of the labs. Research with "goddidit" in the results is not going to find much, if any, acceptance in the scientific community, is it? And it shouldn't; scientific inquiry does not, should not deal with the supernatural. That's why it's important to keep supernatural indoctrination (e.g. creationism) completely out of scientific education.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.