posted
I find people who put "Darwin fishes" on their cars, or call themselves "brights," just as obnoxious as people who plaster their cars with "Jesus fishes," "Support our troops" ribbons, or "Gore/Leiberman" stickers in 2007. They're all, however, completely irrelevant to the scientific process, so I don't see how Sawyer's article has anything to do with the subject at hand (especially since, as has been pointed out here and elsewhere, there are plenty of evolutionists who aren't atheist).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne: In terms of individual organisms the Methuselah tree at 4700ish is the oldest living organism. If we take collective organisms that operate as a single unit then the pando tree might fit the bill.
posted
Dendrochronology matches many trees and fossilized trees to establish a regional scale of tree ring growth that can extend 10,000 years back. http://sonic.net/bristlecone/dendro.htmlPosts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ice cores are God's frozen tears of sorrow, shed every time someone believes in the theory of evolution. The cores appear older and older every time a Christian becomes an atheist.
posted
I've never heard about Ice-core debates, but I would assume creationism could explain the ice-core's layers with Noah's flood.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teh Flood is crap. That's easily disprovable through looking at genetic diversity among different species. Humans have the least genetic diversity of all species, sponges have the most. There's a clear inverse relationship between a species' complexity and its genetic diversity. I've certainly never read that all land-dwelling species have only 2 degrees of genetic diversity, based on either 2 or 7 members of their species being on teh Ark.
I'd add an eye-roll smilie here, but they don't make one big enough.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Ice cores are God's frozen tears of sorrow, shed every time someone believes in the theory of evolution. The cores appear older and older every time a Christian becomes an atheist.
You bigot! Why don't all theists get equal billing?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: Teh Flood is crap. That's easily disprovable through looking at genetic diversity among different species. Humans have the least genetic diversity of all species, sponges have the most. There's a clear inverse relationship between a species' complexity and its genetic diversity. I've certainly never read that all land-dwelling species have only 2 degrees of genetic diversity, based on either 2 or 7 members of their species being on teh Ark.
I'd add an eye-roll smilie here, but they don't make one big enough.
It'd be fairly easy to convince me there was SOME sort of flood. There's too many ancient texts that all depict a massive flood, from all different parts of the world, all from around the same time, for it to be coincidence, in my opinion. It might have just been a huge world wide perfect storm that created massive tsunamis, but something happened. I wouldn't be surprised if the story of Noah was just a dramatized parable based on a real life event that wasn't nearly so catastrophic.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh man, you ain't even heard the worst. For every child born in a secular household, He tightens up the orbit of the moon ever so slightly.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I went back and reread much of the thread, and though we've largely moved away from the original point of the thread...
Frankly my biggest complaint about the museum is the $19.99 entrance fee for adults, that's outrageously expensive for something that doesn't have either a famed cartoon mouse or a very large, very fast roller coaster inside. I'd probably consider stopping by, as it strikes me as the kind of goofy roadside attraction I'd find interesting and amusing, but 1. That price is ridiculous and 2. I don't know who that money is going to, and I think I wouldn't like the answer if I knew it anyway.
Sometimes I don't get what all the hubub is about. I don't get why this has to be an all or nothing discussion (well, Young Earth Creationism is an exception to that confusion, I'll admit). I don't see why the "six days" in the Bible couldn't refer to billions of years of development. Do we have any proof or even a reason to believe that God was a big fan of the Gregorian calendar? (which of course didn't exist back when the OT was penned (quilled?) anyway).
I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion. And I see religion butting its head into science far more often than the other way around. Science only uses science to prove or disprove its beliefs. Religion tries to use religion AND science to prove itself. And that's where I am forced to choose a side. It looks to me, as someone on the outside of religion, that religion feels so incredibly threatened by science that they feel the need to try and beat scientists at their own game. Science can't measure a Godly force in the world, and it doesn't even try to, it tries to put the world into a context that we can all understand.
If you take it as a given that everything on Earth was created by and guided by God, then science is just our way of trying to figure out how God did it, so what's the problem with that? Why can't we research and discover how evolution happened while believing that God might have had a hand in it? If religion says to everything that has ever happened: "God did it," then all science is doing is saying "Okay, well how'd he do it?" Religious people don't want to answer that question perhaps, they don't need to, faith is enough, but science people are more curious, and want to know. And this is why religious science, if you can call it that, has no place in school. If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else. I don't think most, if not all, scientists really start to bash religion until religion tries to use science to discredit itself, and it strikes me as an unwarranted attack from an easily offended people.
So do I have a problem with this museum? On religious grounds, no, they can believe whatever they want. If they want to put forth false science as truthful though, then I have a problem, because it dishonestly deals with the subject.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see two realms of belief: Science and Religion.
I disagree. There is only one truth in the world - that which actually is true. Therefore, there should be only one realm of belief. Otherwise we'd run the risk of having two conflicting beliefs at once. For instance, if we had one scientific belief system that told us abortions are okay and had another religious belief system that told us abortions are not okay, we would be stuck if we ever had to make a decision about an abortion. Instead we need one unified belief system that we can use to guide our decision making.
In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable. In order to figure out what we should do we'd need a belief system that integrates both science and religion. That means making a tough choice where the two seem to point to the exact opposite conclusions.
quote:If the science was real, and true, and well researched and criticized, and it still backed up religion, then it should be in science classes, but if it hasn't met the rigorous standards that all science must meet, it has no place there, regardless of anything else.
I disagree. Even if religion is well-supported by scientific evidence, the Constitution still forbids putting it in schools, doesn't it? The Constitution says nothing about allowing the government to establish a state religion provided that it can use science to prove it.
The reason we have freedom of religion is not just because we don't think we can prove our religious beliefs to be true. Many DO think their religion can be proven true. Some even think there is scientific proof for it, as we've seen with this museum.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: ... In fact, ultimately science is not very useful without some sort of religion. The two need to be unified in order for science to have value, because science can only give us a set of theories about cause and effect; it cannot tell us anything about what effects are desireable or what causes are ethically acceptable ...
Of course religion is not the only thing that can deduce these two things. This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: all from around the same time? As far as I can tell, the best flood stories line up is to 'within a few thousand years', which is hardly all at the same time. That's easily accounted for by local experiences with large floods.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: not-science does not equal religion (though it does in Tres's system). Many people get by just fine as atheists or agnostics, but this does not mean their every thought is backed by science. Indeed, just because someone is religious doesn't mean their every thought is backed by science or religion (at least in the basic sense). For instance, food preference. Sometimes a person just likes (or dislikes) a food. It probably has nothing to do with religion or science.
And Tres is quite correct, science is not normative. It does not tell us what is preferable (though it can be strong support). Anything normative a person believes must therefore follow from something else.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand how it is that science determining the pathological is not problematic, but determining the normative is somehow.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you mean determining what to define as a "disease" and what is "healthy", I don't think that is really science. But it is directly related to science, and is an important part of the field of medicine (which includes science along with certain normative elements.)
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now I don't understand what you mean. I would be suspicious of any diagnosis of disease that was not scientific.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disease as a particular set of attributes is determined scientifically; it is an approximate term useful for many purposes (much like species ). Disease as something bad is a normative position that usually follows quickly from associations of disease (really, the attributes that come along with it) with negative things, and is not scientific.
Medicine involves weaving normative judgements (such as that virii have less right to live than their human host) with scientific evidence.
We can describe something as a particular disease (diagnose) without making any normative judgements. Its the normative implications we usually (and unscientifically, though perfectly reasonably) draw from that diagnosis that I think you're identifying with the diagnosis, but are really separate.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't fully parse what you are trying to say. Describing a disease requires a normative baseline from which it differs. If either of those determinations are not scientific, I want a second opinion.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The sickle cell mutation is harmful in most environments - it's a disease. Carriers of sickle cell are resistant to malaria. In environments where malaria is prevalent, it's an adaptation rather than a disease.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is not normative, at least as I understand the word, to observe that a disease state differs from the baseline ("patient shows decreased CD4 cell count"). Nor is it normative to note that consumption of antiretrovirals according to a strict schedule appears to stabilize the disease's effects. What is normative is stating that the disease state is "bad," and should be corrected back to the baseline state. The first two statements are scientific; combining all three is medical.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, in environments where malaria is prevalent, it's an adaptation and a disease. The nasty effects don't go away, and having two copies of the gene is still awfully likely to cause you to die young. However, for carriers the benefits of malarial resistance outweigh the drawbacks of mild sickle-cell disease. (Not so for those with two genes and full-fledged sickle-cell disease.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the baseline isn't normative. We make normative judgements about the goodness of the baseline and the goodness of the difference from it, but the difference itself involves nothing normative.
Also, it is very possible for judgements to be well-supported without being scientific. For instance, the judgement that it is better (in general) to save someone's life by medical intervention than to let them die, absent additional information or ways to obtain it. That's a well-supported medical judgement, but it isn't a scientific one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose, but the statement "patient shows decreased CD4 cell count" assumes that there is a normative CD4 cell count. The judgement that this is 'bad' is perhaps over and above scientific determinations about functionality. I will have to consider the seperation between 'medical' and 'scientific' while walking the dogs.
posted
steven, I was raised a Free-Will Baptist, and became a Seventh-day Adventist on my own through my own study at the age of 15. The majority in the SDA church (including what is fashionable among officaldom) currently teaches old universe, young earth biosphere. In this I differ with my church. But I hope that my minority opinion will yet become the majority view in due time. I also push minority views of Rev. 4-5, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and Daniel 11:40-12:13. Some conservative SDAs may think I am dangerous, because I have such good arguments for my views on Bible prophecy, and so easily shred their arguments for their traditional, majority views.
So I'm the Ronster, huh? I kind of like that.
Mucus, you said: "This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion."
That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising. Nothing about it can be useful, because it isn't true in the first place. And how can something that is not true be real science, anyway?
Xaposert, what the U.S. Constitution prohibits is the federal government doing anything to promote an institution of any particular denomination. The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
Lyrhawn, you said: "If you take it as a given that everything on Earth was created by and guided by God, then science is just our way of trying to figure out how God did it, so what's the problem with that? Why can't we research and discover how evolution happened while believing that God might have had a hand in it?"
I can go along with the first sentence. But let me offer in place of the second sentence: "Why can't we research and discover how (by what means) God created the Earth and continues to guide it?" That might actually be useful!
I agree, I see no reason for the hysteria some have shown over the idea of a creationist museum, or of one that charges admission. So long as the federal government does not sponsor it, endorse it, or subsidize it, then so what? I just wish that the federal government did not implicitly sponsor, endorse, and subsidize evolution theory in the way it allocates research grants.
orlox, et. al., here are a few links to Creationist rebuttals to the conclusions of geological gradualists about ice cores:
posted
Standing in line to take the Praxis II exam on Saturday I met a high school science teacher, that also happens to be a creationist. He says he teaches what the county curriculum says he must, but he said he likes to open up their minds about evolution. It was an interesting discussion. When he found out I was Jewish (after asking if I went to church) he asked what the Jewish view on the matter was. My reply was basically if you ask 10 Jews you will get 20 answers, but that I think there are a lot more important things to worry and talk about in the bible.
I don't really understand the creationist need to refute evolution. Isn't there more important stuff to try and prove like the events at Mt Sinai, or for Christians Jesus?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
I know the thread isn't about this, but I just can't let this comment go by without a comment of my own.
I sincerely hope that such a thing as the American government breaking the First Amendment never happens in my lifetime or in anyone else's. And I give a sigh of relief that I'm almost positive it never will happen.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: steven, I was raised a Free-Will Baptist, and became a Seventh-day Adventist on my own through my own study at the age of 15. The majority in the SDA church (including what is fashionable among officaldom) currently teaches old universe, young earth biosphere. In this I differ with my church. But I hope that my minority opinion will yet become the majority view in due time. I also push minority views of Rev. 4-5, the seven seals, the seven trumpets, and Daniel 11:40-12:13. Some conservative SDAs may think I am dangerous, because I have such good arguments for my views on Bible prophecy, and so easily shred their arguments for their traditional, majority views.
(Emphasis mine.)
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
quote:That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising.
Utter nonsense. Medical research relies very heavily on evolutionary theory. We use gene homology searches to identify potential drug targets as a matter of routine. Studies of infectious agents like viruses and bacteria repeatedly demonstrate the power of natural selection- the H5N1 strain of bird flu is a perfect example of a "beneficial" mutation in action (in the sense that it benefits the pathogen- it's obviously bad news for us humans). You, quite simply, have no idea what you're talking about.
quote:Xaposert, what the U.S. Constitution prohibits is the federal government doing anything to promote an institution of any particular denomination. The "non-establishment" clause refers to institutions of churches. In other words, the federal government cannot require everyone to pay tithe, nor require that everyone regard Sunday as the day of rest, nor require that everyone attend church. My understanding of Bible prophecy (particularly Revelation 13) indicates that the last two will be required in the future. The Constitution will have to be changed first to allow these things. But it will happen.
Wow. Not just anti-science, anti-intellectual, and anti-rationalist, but also anti-American to boot. And I say that with only the slightest hint of facetiousness.
quote:I can go along with the first sentence. But let me offer in place of the second sentence: "Why can't we research and discover how (by what means) God created the Earth and continues to guide it?" That might actually be useful!
Except such research would be based on a nonscientific premise ("God created the Earth and continues to guide it"). That introduces an inherent bias into the work.
Again, this is not to say that scientists cannot also be theists. It does mean that "God did it" is not a valid answer- the most we can say at any given time is, "We don't know what causes X observed effect. It might be God, it might be something else. No conclusions can be stated without further data."
quote:I agree, I see no reason for the hysteria some have shown over the idea of a creationist museum, or of one that charges admission. So long as the federal government does not sponsor it, endorse it, or subsidize it, then so what? I just wish that the federal government did not implicitly sponsor, endorse, and subsidize evolution theory in the way it allocates research grants.
I actually agree with the second sentence above- so long as the creationist museum is not supported by the government, it is perfectly legal in my eyes. I find it repugnant, but unlike some people, I am all right with letting people do things that I consider morally bankrupt, so long as they aren't actively hurting anyone else and are doing it with their own time and money.
However, it is perfectly valid for the government to support research into evolution, because, unlike the bullcrap you spew, evolution is real science. Period. We've explained why this is true dozens of times, in this thread and others.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Mucus: not-science does not equal religion (though it does in Tres's system)...
This is entirely true and was what I was hinting at, although I did not say so explicitly.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Mucus, you said: "This a is a fact well-demonstrated by the millions of people that find science extremely useful without religion."
That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory...
You mean aside from the thousands of people working in pharmaceutical companies and universities creating such things as new drugs and treatments?
Not to mention the hundreds of algorithms and processes used in their development that rely upon evolutionary theory such as phylogeny, gene finding, protein structure prediction, and protein-protein interaction modelling?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote--"If you replace the words "geological gradualists" with "geologists," it'd be a bit more honest."
Oh! and Tom's elbow comes crashing down on Ron's head! Tom wins the Battle Royale! He's the new Champion!
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: ...I actually agree with the second sentence above- so long as the creationist museum is not supported by the government, it is perfectly legal in my eyes. I find it repugnant, but unlike some people, I am all right with letting people do things that I consider morally bankrupt, so long as they aren't actively hurting anyone else and are doing it with their own time and money. ...
Indirectly, you may actually be subsidizing it, if the museum was funded by money that was donated as part of a tax-deductible charitable donation. However, that is quite the can-of-worms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually religion id not needed since the Enlightenment as the moral compass of humanity, ethical theory is actually pretty good at elaborated what is ethically right/wrong.
For example the Commandments state that A-H is wrong, but I think doesn't do a pretty good job at explaining it. Ethical theory by say Emmanual Kant does much better.
IP: Logged |
quote:That may be true for some science, but no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution theory. This should not be surprising. Nothing about it can be useful, because it isn't true in the first place. And how can something that is not true be real science, anyway?
This right here is a wonderful example of your biggest problem with this debate.
You have no idea what you're talking about, first. Literally none. The opening statement is clearly at odds with reality in a way which is easily refuted. You just won't believe the refutation. You're too busy working off of required conclusions, selectively referencing minority 'scientific' opinions that reinforce what you need to find true (Behe, etc) and blurting out bald assertions and self-reinforcing pablum like 'but of course it couldn't be true, someday you'll all have to admit it.'
HELPFUL HINT: It does no good to just sit back and devote an abnormally large portion of your commentary on the matter on empty statements reinforcing your views on evolution's invalidity. Ranting about how false evolution 'obviously' is only comes off as comical if it is not supplanted with an actually succesful debate standpoint.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Porter, of all the times when you could have justly criticized the figurative use of the word "literally," you picked a time when it's arguably valid. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
I certainly agree with your second sentence. The question is how do we determine a normative cell count if not scientifically. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps something else but even then, I am not not so sure.
A cellular theory which ascribes normative values is no less scientific than any other theorizing, say for evolution or plate tectonics.
Posts: 675 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You have no idea what you're talking about, first. Literally none.
I assume that you're using the word "literally" in a figurative, and not a literal sense.
... maybe. Maybe.
In order to be able to honestly suggest that no one has ever demonstrated any practical usefulness for evolution[ary] theory, while having invested so much time, learning, and effort in the controversy at large, you have to be practicing a significant degree of selective ignorance.
He has no idea what evolutionary theory is. He only knows a fictional, grossly incorrect construct of it. Starting from the core subject, and outward to the outward assertions, the statement is total manifest ignorance on all levels. He has no idea what he is talking about.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: orlox: a commonly observed cell count isn't normative, its descriptive/positive. Normative statements are statements about what should be, not what typically is.
I certainly agree with your second sentence. The question is how do we determine a normative cell count if not scientifically. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is perhaps something else but even then, I am not not so sure.
A cellular theory which ascribes normative values is no less scientific than any other theorizing, say for evolution or plate tectonics.
In this particular example, I don't think it's inherently normative to distinguish between the mean CD4 counts within the categories of "HIV+ people" and "HIV- people." The "HIV-" set can be considered "normal" because it is the most commonly observed.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Why don't all theists get equal billing?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
