Can science go forward...

[Isaiah 6:8]

Since this is sort of the thread for off-topic posts in the last thread, I hope you don't mind, I also think it is relevant to the discussion of this thread as well.

Knowing that creationists tend to not accept modern astronomy

Sorry I do not have the energy to retype the huge reply earlier, but I would be in staunch disagreement on this last comment. If you mean Cosmology, creation of the universe stuff, then yes, however regular astronomy, such and such object is at such and such place and behaves in such and such manner, is not under debate, at least that I know of.

Well, basically the entirety of modern astronomy debunks YEC, no matter what field of astronomy you go into. Not to mention cosmology and the big bang are large parts of modern astronomy. You essentially don't have modern astronomy without them. They explain things like the distribution of population I and II stars, which in tandem with a constant speed of light (which I talk about below) suggests that our Sun is at least a second generation star - modern astronomy puts it as a third generation star.

If you accept that astronomers can determine the position of objects and how they behave, than you would have to conclude that the speed of light has been more or less constant in the last 13 billion years - as indicated by looking at the spectra (light) of near and far objects and the proportions of spectral lines. This is in hot contention among Christians as readily observed on Worthy and sites you yourself have recommended to me.

I myself have run across many Christians that reject Relativity, a major part of astronomy since about 1919 with the successful prediction of gravity wells bending light.

There is a lot in modern astronomy that is in opposition to what creationists believe. "Stellar evolution" is perhaps another one of these modern astronomy fields that is rejected.

You were not mentioning different fields of astronomy that would be under contention. You said it almost indicating we were so backwards as to belive in a geocentric solar system.

as for the light measurement. I have thoughts on that but its almost 5 in the morning and my brain abruptly gave in on me and I can not make a coherent reply.

[Exaeus]

Actually if it were not for Christian creationists such as Robert Boyle, we would not have what we have now. The point is this, you can have science with out evolution. You can be smart with out evolution.You can make scientific progress... without evolution.

Isaiah, I'll quote your own reply in response to this, since in fact you hit the nail on the head but apparently haven't realized it yet:

I have inserted in red some of the people who helped start or were extremely important to what we know of those fields. You can not take away from what they learned, as it is the foundation on which we have been building.

Which is exactly how science operates. It builds upon itself with each successive discovery, where previous advancements in biology all built the groundwork for the unifying theory of evolution, and where a sound understanding in evolution forms the basis for future progress in biology. Just because there has been progress made before evolution doesn't mean that evolution is unneeded for future discoveries. To give you an example, how far do you think astronomy would have progressed if we ignored the heliocentric theory? How far do you think we'd have gotten with chemistry if we threw out atomic theory?

To further illustrate how ridiculous your argument is, it can essentially be extrapolated to claim that every single scientific theory is not needed for progress, as long as there were prior discoveries that predated it. Do you see how absurd your logic is now?

Edited December 7, 2011 by Exaeus

[Isaiah 6:8]

Hmm, I think I must've had several tabs open in Firefox and posted the wrong link by mistake. Thanks for pointing it out, here's the one I meant to post instead: http://www.prb.org/A...gnbornstem.aspx

Hmm again, you must have missed somethings in the new article...

First was it because creationism was being taught a young universe? Nope

What caused this shift? Were fewer U.S.-born students going into the sciences and mathematics? Did the recent wave of immigrants include more scientists than previous waves? Did U.S. immigration policy change to attract more scientists and engineers? None of these factors had a major role in boosting the proportion of foreign-born workers in these occupations, according to Sana's research. The heavy volume of immigrants, driven by ample job opportunities in science and engineering, explained about three-fourths of the increase.

Also where did they get there education

U.S. Universities an Important Conduit

Many foreign-born scientists and engineers arrive with advanced degrees in their field, but the majority are products of U.S. graduate programs. The NSF reports that about two-thirds of foreign doctoral students stay in the United States at least five years after earning a degree from a U.S. university.

Foreign-born students are earning an increasing percentage of U.S. graduate science and engineering degrees. They earned 40 percent of U.S. doctoral degrees in science and engineering in 2003, and they were responsible for most of the growth in doctoral degrees in these fields between 1985 and 2005.4 Just four countries—China, India, South Korea, and Taiwan—accounted for one-half of the doctorates awarded to foreign-born students during that period.

So again nothing wrong with the schooling in the US as presented. It was another article on immigration not on the quality of our schools. Really not a good way to make a point about evolution being the cause of our failings as a science powerhouse.

So do you have any proof outside of you hating the thought of Creationism/I.D. being taught?

Given how you're stooping to such antagonistic ad hominems, Isaiah, I think it's safe to say that you resent the claim that religion makes people unscientific. You want to be seen as scientific and progressive, yet you also want at the same time to cast aside science when it doesn't fit in with your preconceived beliefs. Well, I guess I'd be frustrated too if I ever found myself in in the same Catch-22 as you.

First of all, that was not an attack. It was an observation.

Second of all, You have not yet really argued ever from fact on any subject here, and it is getting old. You can attack the person again and again but you can not bring facts to the table. I have.

[Isaiah 6:8]

Isaiah, I think it's safe to say that you resent t

Actually Just realized you seem to be just fine with "Making observations" but are offended when I make some of my own, Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle Pot.

[Exaeus]

Actually Just realized you seem to be just fine with "Making observations" but are offended when I make some of my own, Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle Pot.

Well, I'm not offended, to be honest. As I said, I can understand where your frustration is coming from, and also stated that I'd probably be frustrated too if I were in your shoes.

But feel free to continue dragging this thread down to the level of personal insinuations if it floats your boat. I'll just have to decline to play your little games with you any further, as it's becoming more and more obvious that it's part of a deliberate strategy.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Exaeus

[Isaiah 6:8]

To paraphrase what scientists have said, biology without evolution is just a bunch of random facts that aren't connected; without evolution it is reduced to stamp collecting. Evolution is the glue of biology that connects those facts into a coherent model of how life is so unified and so diverse at the same time. This isn't an emotional response, it is the standard view of evolution from working biologists.

And yet I have heard Creationist say the same about Creation...

So no its not the glue here is the thing. Creation and evolution basically say two things about the same facts (I keep pointing this out) and here it is in a nutshell.

Evolution " We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common ancestor"

Creation "We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common creator"

Slight change in viewpoints but both work when it comes to biology.

[Exaeus]

And yet I have heard Creationist say the same about Creation...

So no its not the glue here is the thing. Creation and evolution basically say two things about the same facts (I keep pointing this out) and here it is in a nutshell.

Evolution " We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common ancestor"

Creation "We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common creator"

Slight change in viewpoints but both work when it comes to biology.

If creationism is really trying to address the same facts, it'd be saying that God created life as simple, unicellular organisms, changed it ever-so-slightly baby steps at a time to adapt them to the environment, and made older species die out and go extinct. Rinse and repeat that process over hundreds of millions of years, slowly branching out into other genuses and families instead of creating them all at once. No such thing as Adam and Eve, because the data tells us that at no point in time were there only two humans. And that this God-trigged process can actually be replicated in a laboratory and under controlled conditions, because God is aware of the experiments scientists are carrying out and made his will known in them upon demand, as well.

Are you really sure that's what creationism says, Isaiah? Because if that's indeed the case, then I'll state for the record that I have no problems whatsoever with that version of creationism. Or is creationism only cherry-picking the facts that fit in with the preconceived ideology while rejecting the rest, and trying to pretend that it's a viable competing theory?

Edited December 7, 2011 by Exaeus

[Isaiah 6:8]

Which is exactly how science operates. It builds upon itself with each successive discovery, where previous advancements in biology all built the groundwork for the unifying theory of evolution, and where a sound understanding in evolution forms the basis for future progress in biology. Just because there has been progress made before evolution doesn't mean that evolution is unneeded for future discoveries. To give you an example, how far do you think astronomy would have progressed if we ignored the heliocentric theory? How far do you think we'd have gotten with chemistry if we threw out atomic theory?

To further illustrate how ridiculous your argument is, it can essentially be extrapolated to claim that every single scientific theory is not needed for progress, as long as there were prior discoveries that predated it. Do you see how absurd your logic is now?

Again, the point was this. We had science progress with out evolution, we still have science progress with out evolution and we will have science progress with out evolution. Evolution ties nothing together even Biology

Please provide proof how it does with links please.

[Exaeus]

Again, the point was this. We had science progress with out evolution, we still have science progress with out evolution and we will have science progress with out evolution. Evolution ties nothing together even Biology

Please provide proof how it does with links please.

Tell you what, why don't you provide proof of your claims with links, and I will?

[Isaiah 6:8]

If creationism is really trying to address the same facts, it'd be saying that God created life as simple, unicellular organisms, changed it ever-so-slightly baby steps at a time to adapt them to the environment, and made older species die out and go extinct. Rinse and repeat that process over hundreds of millions of years, slowly branching out into other genuses and families instead of creating them all at once.

Boy your really did not understand that whole line of reasoning. Let me clarify

Take two books. Say "The Hobbit" and "Lord Of The Rings"

Evolutionist look at both of them and say wow, look two books. They have similar wording, and the way the are put together is the same. Therefore the must have evolved from a common book ancestor some time back, for that is the only way the similarities can be explained.

A Creationist looks at same two books and says. Hmm. must be the same author.

No such thing as Adam and Eve, because the data tells us that at no point in time were there only two humans.

You keep saying this but have yet to provide data.

And that this God-trigged process can actually be replicated in a laboratory and under controlled conditions, because God is aware of the experiments scientists are carrying out and made his will known in them upon demand, as well.

What are you talking about? If you mean that creationism is reproducible in the lab, no its not. Neither is evolution.

Are you really sure that's what creationism says, Isaiah? Because if that's indeed the case, then I'll state for the record that I have no problems whatsoever with that version of creationism. Or is creationism only cherry-picking the facts that fit in with the preconceived ideology while rejecting the rest, and trying to pretend that it's a viable competing theory?

I am fully aware of what creationism and evolution state, you do not seem to have understood my point.