Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Exaeus, are you going to reply to this comment? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exaeus Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 39 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/30/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) 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. Unfortunately, Isaiah, it's you who doesn't understand the whole line of reasoning. Your argument would be valid only if similarity was the only data available to be considered. As it is, evolution takes into account all the empirical data, while creationism cherry-picks the facts it wants to address, ignores the rest, and tries to pass itself off as a viable theory. I've already told you what creationism would need to say if it really took into account all available facts instead of selectively exhorting only the ones that fit in with the preconceived conclusion. Does creationism actually say that? As I've said, I'm willing to accept creationism as a viable theory if you can prove that it indeed does. 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. "Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been ~10^4 for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans: a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geo-graphically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected." - Takahata 1993, "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/1/2.long What are you talking about? If you mean that creationism is reproducible in the lab, no its not. Neither is evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment I am fully aware of what creationism and evolution state, you do not seem to have understood my point. Well Isaiah, please help us take that claim more seriously then by not being so ignorant in your arguments, and by providing evidence for your arguments - which you never seem to do despite demanding it at every opportunity from others. Edited December 7, 2011 by Exaeus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Unfortunately, Isaiah, it's you who doesn't understand the whole line of reasoning. Your argument would be valid only if similarity was the only data available to be considered. As it is, evolution takes into account all the empirical data, while creationism cherry-picks the facts it wants to address, ignores the rest, and tries to pass itself off as a viable theory. I've already told you what creationism would need to say if it really took into account all available facts instead of selectively exhorting only the ones that fit in with the preconceived conclusion. Does creationism actually say that? As I've said, I'm willing to accept creationism as a viable theory if you can prove that it indeed does. I see evolution doing the exact same thing. Like not being able to prove where reproductive organs come from, and yet they are vitally important to life as we know it. For instance all the missing links... http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/apemen-missing-links "Genetic variation at most loci examined in human populations indicates that the (effective) population size has been ~10^4 for the past 1 Myr and that individuals have been genetically united rather tightly. Also suggested is that the population size has never dropped to a few individuals, even in a single generation. These impose important requirements for the hypotheses for the origin of modem humans: a relatively large population size and frequent migration if populations were geo-graphically subdivided. Any hypothesis that assumes a small number of founding individuals throughout the late Pleistocene can be rejected." - Takahata 1993, "Allelic genealogy and human evolution", http://mbe.oxfordjou...ent/10/1/2.long Okay still not proof. Proof of a large population, well then, how did that large population start. What are the odds of literally thousands of humans suddenly all evolving at the same time all the exact same features so they could interbreed? http://en.wikipedia....tion_experiment A speciation change in the lab. Nope that is not evolution, I do not see any lizards into birds in the lab. Only an E-Coli bacteria becoming a slightly different "E-Coli" bacteria. Creationist agree that sort of change does happen. However this is part of a bait and switch, and I will not bite. Here try this out. In scientific terms, evolution generally means the change in genetic material between generations, which is also referred to as “descent with modification.” These changes are attributed to mutations, gene flow and drift, and natural selection, which are examples of observational science and can be shown to occur. However, the other aspect of evolution is the belief that all animals descended from one original ancestor. Evolutionists sometimes claim this “fact” is established in the fossil record, homology (similar structures), and genetic evidence. However, any evidence involving historical science (one-time events that cannot be retested) is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist. Mutations and genetic drift are often cited as the source of heritable traits from one generation to the next. While mutations do cause changes in the genome and genetic drift changes the frequency of those traits, neither process is capable of changing one kind of animal into another. More often, mutations have either no noticeable impact or cause degeneration. When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature.http://www.answersin...topic/evolution Well Isaiah, please help us take that claim more seriously then by not being so ignorant in your arguments, and by providing evidence for your arguments - which you never seem to do despite demanding it at every opportunity from others. Himm. Ignorant seems to be your favorite word. I have provided links and evidence which you did not like but did not bring counter evidence, D-9 has in the past you have not until just now. Also you refused to even look at my article that I posted on the scientific method, and then call me ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Also but is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution? Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all. In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3 Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/creationists-real-scientists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all. I am not sure whether medical research does not benefit from acceptance of evolution, but the rest of the sentence is a non-sequitur. Just to make an example, cosmology is not necessary to understand how computers work or plants and animal function. how planes fly, etc. Is that enough to say that we can get rid of cosmology? Maybe we should, since it predicts that the big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago and has zero energy (thereby not requiring ex-nihilo creation of net energy). Computer science is not necessary to understand how the planets orbit the sun, how telescope operates, how plants and animal function, therefore we do need that either. Actually, computer science is dangerous, since it might be able in the future to produce a conscious computer showing that our so called soul is also a computational process. Many fields of science are not necessary for the majority of the other fields, obviously. Should we reject them all? If not, why cherry picking evolution (which explains neatly biology) if not because of a-priori religious bias? What about neurosciences? The vast majority of neuro-scientists believe that what we are is reducible to the functions of our brains. No soul whatsoever and no free will, really. Actually, I consider this discipline even more corrosive against religion than evolution. Let me guess, we can have science also without neuroscience. Physics shows clearly that atoms decay at a fixed rate and the speed of light in vacuum is constant, thereby setting the age of many things in the universe and on earth in the billion years range. Physics makes also predictions concerning matter sprouting spontaneously from nothing and the possibility of parallel universes which nullify the cosmological and fine tuning arguments. Should we get rid of physics, too? The same with geology, which is not really necessary to explain how planes fly or telescopes operate, either, so it should not be a problem to get rid of that too, since it shows clearly that no world wide flood ever took place. I am afraid, there will be nothing left at the end. Ciao - viole Now now Viole now your saying your premise is not true/ you started this I put the statement that did in bold and underlined. Viole can you please answer the following as you seem to have forgotten that science by your terms can not exist or go forward with out evolution, all fields your words not mine. Isaiah, this goes beyond the mere discussion about evolution. And i would not extrapolate the future from the past. Rome and Greece were also the beacons of western cultural civilization a long time ago (incidentally, would that imply that philosophy would not exist if it wasn't for those Zeus/Jupiter believers?). 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. Believing that the universe is some thousands years old flies in the face with all we know about science. You can believe it, but I do not see how you can even read a layman scientific magazine without seeing huge contradictions with this view. That would imply that all we know about - Physics Sir Issac Newton - Cosmology - Astronomy Johannes Kepler - Geology - Anthropology - Paleontology - Biology Louis Pasture How would it imply that? Really, all we know? You are stretching a lot and exaggerating a lot. This is an emotional response not a scientific one, please provide actual proof not wild emotional. statements with no bearing on fact. 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. is wrong by 6 orders of magnitude (one million factor), surely not a deviation that falls into the expected experimental error range. It would be like saying that the width of North America is a couple yards.Um again massive emotional exaggeration. Um again massive emotional exaggeration. Not based in fact with no facts to back it up. I could never embrace science if it makes predictions that are so massively wrong from what I think is true. If it is really the case that a certain nation holds beliefs which are so distant from the result of science, then I do not see the motivation for this nation to keep on financing such "useless" research. If I firmly believed that North America is a couple of yards wide and science tells me that I am wrong by a factor 1 million, why should I invest my taxes on science? I would agree if that was a fact, however it is not a fact. This shift has already started: the focus of fundamental experimental physics research has moved from North America to Europe (Geneva). Okay, and... And considering the discussions concerning teaching ID and creationism in American biology classes, I am afraid that this is only the beginning. Ciao - viole Again there is Zero Correlation between thinking the earth/universe is thousands of years old and a lack of scientific progress or interest. Also it is painfully apparent that you did not read the whole article. I'll post in full in a moment so you don't have to click out to it. It is very interesting to note that it appears that many atheists/evolutionists can seem to understand the most complex of terms but if something is explained to them that goes against there ideas they seem to suddenly have a hard time understand what was written and decide that it is nonsense because it is incomprehensible to them or as you put it this time a "Non-sequiter" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Server issue, I have to run Watch this space for the full article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Well, once again, the thread has veered from the topic to re-hashing the same evolution vs. creation debates. But going back to the OP. In another thread, it was put forth that America could not keep its science edge because people believed in a young earth. I have yet to actually have the evidence presented that equates American scientific illiteracy with Creationist beliefs. I proposed the problem is in our education system in general. One can see we have math illiteracy, English grammar illiteracy, and writing illiteracy problems in our schools as well. Can these be equated to Creationism? No, it is an across the board education problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all. I am not sure whether medical research does not benefit from acceptance of evolution, but the rest of the sentence is a non-sequitur. Viole, your arguments are - well, I'm not sure of the term for it, but your using a potential scenario of consequence to argue against the point, which really do not counter the actual point made. Just to make an example, cosmology is not necessary to understand how computers work or plants and animal function. how planes fly, etc. Is that enough to say that we can get rid of cosmology? Maybe we should, since it predicts that the big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago and has zero energy (thereby not requiring ex-nihilo creation of net energy). Who is talking about getting rid of cosmology? The question is does it matter what one believes about God as Creator and the Bible or not to know how these things work in the here and now? Computer science is not necessary to understand how the planets orbit the sun, how telescope operates, how plants and animal function, therefore we do need that either. Actually, computer science is dangerous, since it might be able in the future to produce a conscious computer showing that our so called soul is also a computational process. Again, your sarcasm misses the point to the point of ridiculousness. Many fields of science are not necessary for the majority of the other fields, obviously. Should we reject them all? If not, why cherry picking evolution (which explains neatly biology) if not because of a-priori religious bias? Isaiah is not talking about rejecting rejecting fields. He is asking if evolution is needed for all of science to be performed. He is not proposing evolution be rejected because it isn't necessary. The OP is about whether or not Creationism is responsible for America's science illiteracy problem. Your angle of debate has no application to the point being made. What about neurosciences? The vast majority of neuro-scientists believe that what we are is reducible to the functions of our brains. No soul whatsoever and no free will, really. Actually, I consider this discipline even more corrosive against religion than evolution. Let me guess, we can have science also without neuroscience. If by "majority" there is implication of a "non-majority" then that means it is quite feasible and possible to be a neuro-scientist without believing what we are is reducible to the functions of our brains. Physics shows clearly that atoms decay at a fixed rate and the speed of light in vacuum is constant, thereby setting the age of many things in the universe and on earth in the billion years range. Physics makes also predictions concerning matter sprouting spontaneously from nothing and the possibility of parallel universes which nullify the cosmological and fine tuning arguments. Should we get rid of physics, too? Again, how one interprets the past from what we see in the present has no bearing on one's ability to function in the here and now in the field of physics. The same with geology, which is not really necessary to explain how planes fly or telescopes operate, either, so it should not be a problem to get rid of that too, since it shows clearly that no world wide flood ever took place. For the work most geologists perform, again, how he or she believes in Genesis has no bearing on their ability to complete their given tasks - which are about the here and now. I am afraid, there will be nothing left at the end. And what your argument succeeds in doing is driving a wedge between people of religion and any interest in science they might have had, making them have to chose between one of the other. My experience with Christians is that if they have to chose between the two will reject science. So if you want to improve the value of science and improve scientific literacy, you need to quit this "conquer" mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isaiah 6:8 Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 426 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 3,633 Content Per Day: 0.58 Reputation: 222 Days Won: 13 Joined: 03/23/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1978 Author Share Posted December 7, 2011 Of course a subset of science can proceed without evolution. If that would not be the case then all science before Darwin would not be science, as you correctly pointed out. You brought it up, now you are backpedaling. You are the one who said that those would not be science, remember? Believing that the universe is some thousands years old flies in the face with all we know about science. You can believe it, but I do not see how you can even read a layman scientific magazine without seeing huge contradictions with this view.that would imply that all we know about Anthropology Paleontology Biology is wrong by 6 orders of magnitude (one million factor), surely not a deviation that falls into the expected experimental error range. It would be like saying that the width of North America is a couple yards. It is just that theory of evolution is the only scientific theory that makes sense of biology and life. First off I beg to differ, and you never did read that article. Also you never said that, you brought in many fields of science and said they would all be wrong. Again you are trying to take back what you have said and its not working. Now, if both evolution and relativity are not strictly necessary to develop a large subset of scientific knowledge, why should we exclude one and not the other? The answer is for me obvious, relativity is not corrosive of Christian belief whereas evoultion is. They both use the same paradigm and both have the same predictive power and both are disprovable. Actually, if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old, you should reject relativity, too. I disagree, as creationism has predictive power as well as is falsifiable. So, we have three possibilities for coherent believers 1) YEC should reject both 2) OEC should reject only evolution 3) Theists (or is it deists?) who consider nature a closed system (non creationists theists) should embrace both You have lost me by what you mean on this. So, if you are 1) what reasons do you have to accept relativity which clearly states that the speed of light is constant and therefore far away galaxies are very old? Actually, you should reject electromagnetism, geology, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, astronomy, cosmology, etc. which all point towards a very old universe. What puzzles me is that you do not reject any of these fields which make predictions which are so completely contradictory with what you believe. I would, if I were in your shoes. Hmm.. To much to explain but try this on for size http://christianansw...g/aig-c005.html Possible explanations. The site even says its only possible explanations not the explanation. In a nutshell, light is consistent, however time is not. If time is not consistent there is a possibility of earth basically being in a state of time travel. This makes sense since all the science shows that have dealt with time travel, and books I have read have stated that if you traveled at the speed of light, by the time you got somewhere you would not have aged but the people you left behind would have aged many years, and yes, this is supported bye relativity. I am not sure on the mechanics of this but its a thought. And if a nation consisted mainly of YEC, what motivation would they have to finance a multi billion dollars large hadron collider which would give meaningful results ONLY if the theories which support an old universe are correct? Ciao - viole Because the LHC is not only used to try to find the elusive "God" particle, but researching hot to use fusion as a source of energy among other useful things. So that is a non point, and your whole premise is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted December 7, 2011 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.95 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I agree our education system in general needs a major overhaul, however I think creationism is partially the result of that broken system. Will dispelling creationism solve all our educational problem, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a necessary step within the walls of education. As I said before, if teachers can't teach the central component/theory of biology without fear of retaliation what's next? I disagree. "Dispelling creationism" won't fix the curriculum, won't increase interest in science, won't make students actually study, etc. I live in Maryland - where Creationism is not taught in the science classroom by any means. Can you show me that Maryland high school graduates are doing any better in science that other parts of the country? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts