Home > FreeHovind > Content > Discussion: Pwnd or part of a conspiracy?
Pwnd or part of a conspiracy?
15 Comments - 25285 Views
Why Creationism isn't science
Submitted By ben on 09/02/19
Ninny 
This Discussion originally posted in the "FreeHovind" Group

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.
 
"Conspiracy" is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke, because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and on new empirical studies that overturn previously established principles. Creationism doesn't live up to these standards, so its proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books, blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don't maintain scientific standards.
 
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php

» Reply to Comment
Well, Ben Stein is right, rationalist.
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 4:45 GMT
Well, Ben Stein is right, rationalist.
 
The "helm" of litigated science is propagted by mainstream liberal media, radical evolutionary directors and atheist moderated engineering.
 
Creation exclusively incorporates prevalent science with evidential proposition. A lot of science work and acclaimation goes to accredit creation. The problem is the 'anti-god' mentallity that floats about the governance of science accrediting.
 
The reason direct creation material is ignored and unacknowledged in accreditation, is the same reason evolution is pushed down our throats.
They don't like the idea of god and refuse to consider or acknowledge anything that supports supernatural intercession and doesn't support evolution.
» Reply to Comment
Well, Ben Stein is right, ration
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 7:55 GMT
Well, Ben Stein is right, rationalist.
 
Okay, I'll bite: what evidence of biblical creation is being suppressed by... wait, who was it again? I've forgotten the subject of your latest delusions of persecution.
 
The "helm" of litigated science is propagted by mainstream liberal media, radical evolutionary directors and atheist moderated engineering.
 
In  other words, you've discovered how to play "mad libs" with talking points.
 
Creation exclusively incorporates prevalent science with evidential proposition. A lot of science work and acclaimation goes to accredit creation. The problem is the 'anti-god' mentallity that floats about the governance of science accrediting.
 
You're really fond of that false dichotomy, aren't you?
 
The reason direct creation material is ignored and unacknowledged in accreditation, is the same reason evolution is pushed down our throats.
 
That's funny, I was under the impression that it might have something to do with the way that creationists insist on clinging to ideas that were shown to be highly-implausible years ago (vapour canopy, anyone?).
 
They don't like the idea of god and refuse to consider or acknowledge anything that supports supernatural intercession and doesn't support evolution.
 
Aaaaand again with the false dichotomy. At least you're consistent.
» Reply to Comment
How was Ben Stein right?
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 12:25 GMT
How was Ben Stein right?
» Reply to Comment
It's true that if a professor mentions ID then he
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 16:03 GMT
It's true that if a professor mentions ID then he may be punished. The institue for creation research has many scientific articles by thousands of scientists. Here's one: http://www.icr.org/article/chimps-people-show-architectural-genetic-design/
2 days - 3,026v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 16:44 GMT
That's true, bigdog. The institution of creation research is a very important lifeline for creation science.
» Reply to Comment
It's true that if a professor me
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 17:39 GMT
It's true that if a professor mentions ID then he may be punished.
 
That is not true in any way and it was not demonstrated in his farse of a movie. You can discuss ID (Creationism's new name) but it should not be presented as science until it at least has a valid hypothesis that can be tested. Currently the hypothesis is "God did it" but that is not testable.
 
The institue for creation research has many scientific articles by thousands of scientists. Here's one: http://www.icr.org/article/chimps-people-show-architectural-genetic-design/
 
Well first of all that is not a scientific article. That is a webpage that uses assertions to support itself. Perhaps you should read an actual journal article so you have an idea of what they normally look like.
 
That's true, bigdog. The institution of creation research is a very important lifeline for creation science.
 
What "research" have they actually done? I agree that it is important for the movement because it puts that veneer of respectability just like the Bible dinosaur "museum" does.
 
 
Don't worry. I will start a new thread on the "article" you mentioned Bigdog.
» Reply to Comment
Believe it or not, science doesnt just drop e
1 day - 1,984v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 17:51 GMT
Believe it or not, science doesnt just drop everything for some guy screaming, "FREE SPEECH!" when the alternative he's offering makes no sense.  If you want creationism taken seriously, come up with some experiments to prove it. At this point its the same as claiming a geocentric universe, since the bible advocates that too right?
» Reply to Comment
It's true that if a professor me
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/19 - 17:51 GMT
It's true that if a professor mentions ID then he may be punished.
 
...for example?
 
http://www.icr.org/article/chimps-people-show-architectural-genetic-design
 
Interesting article - the author is at least mature enough not to resort to juvenile idiocy like referring to the report authors as "evolutionists" or Darwinists" (a few here could take a lesson from that).
 
But the analysis falls flat on its face with the conclusion.
 
At one point in their Genome Research report, the investigators referred to the chromosomal arrangement of CNVs as “sequence motifs or architectures.”1 “Architecture” logically suggests an architect.
 
No it doesn't. Taking a quick look in a dictionary, the second definition given for "architecture" is "a unifying or coherent form or structure."
 
Although these researchers have encountered architectural (designed) features in DNA, they hold fast to their belief that nature itself is the architect, even though scientists have not discovered a plausible mechanism or observable example.
 
Aside from the mistaken assumption that "architectural" is a synonym of "designed," he is apparently trying to imply that those scientists are at fault... for doing their jobs properly.
» Reply to Comment
See what wikipedia says about architects. I wrote
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 3:40 GMT
See what wikipedia says about architects. I wrote about it on the first thread.
» Reply to Comment
Your premise was flawed there as well.
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 3:44 GMT
Your premise was flawed there as well.
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 4:29 GMT
Check again.
» Reply to Comment
I did. As I said your basic premise is flawed
3 days - 3,596v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 14:11 GMT
I did. As I said your basic premise is flawed.
» Reply to Comment
Even wikipedia compared the similarities of a desi
4 days - 5,621v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 16:04 GMT
Even wikipedia compared the similarities of a design and a designer with an architect.
» Reply to Comment
Re: Even wikipedia compared the similarities of a desi
5 days - 8,142v
Posted 2009/03/21 - 14:00 GMT
from wiki
 
" Etymology and application of the term

The word "architecture" comes from the Latin architectura and that from Greek αρχιτέκτων (architectu), "master builder", from the combination of αρχι- (archi-), "chief" or "leader" and τέκτων (tekton), a "builder" or "carpenter".[8][9] While the primary application of the word "architecture" pertains to the built environment, by extension, the term has come to denote the art and discipline of creating an actual (or inferring an implied or apparent) plan of any complex object or system.

The term can be used to connote the implied architecture of mathematics or of abstract things such as music, the apparent architecture of natural things, such as geological formations or the structure of biological cells, or explicitly planned architectures of which preserves the relationships among the elements or components.

"
 
apparent means :
 
ap·par·ent  (-prnt, -pâr-)
adj.
1. Readily seen; visible.
2. Readily understood; clear or obvious.
3. Appearing as such but not necessarily so; seeming: an apparent advantage.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apparent
 
that coupled with the other defenition of architecture i pointed out in another post.
 
you got served.
» Reply to Comment
See what wikipedia says about ar
3 days - 4,645v
Posted 2009/02/20 - 20:53 GMT
See what wikipedia says about architects.
 
Or you could, say, spend the fifteen seconds of effort that it would take to look up the word "architecture" in a dictionary - which would show you that it doesn't inherently imply the presence of an architect.
 
It screams "desperation" when your argument is entirely based on semantics.


GenTime: 0.0241 seconds

Site Design and Graphics Copyright 2002 - 2019 by Aubrey
Use of this site constitutes agreement to our » Legal Stuff