RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Does NASA know about this ?, Anti evolution< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,12:07   

That many of their engineers are apparently YECs. Well, according to Ken Ham anyway:

http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundt....visitor

 
Quote
Special NASA Visitor

I’m continually amazed to hear of so many scientists and engineers who are associated with NASA and the American space program who are creationists. Last Friday, one of the engineers who has worked on the International Space Station toured the Creation Museum. This man (we’ll keep his identity hidden—his position could be jeopardized if his supervisors knew that he rejected the evolutionary worldview) will tell you that evolution is the basis for some of America’s space exploration programs, like SETI.

This engineer confirmed what I’ve known for several years (especially after I spoke at a Bible study held at the Goddard Space Center in Maryland several years ago): many scientists and engineers reject the evolutionary belief system. In fact, many that I met back in the’90s at Goddard had been involved in the refurbishing of the Hubble Space Telescope.


Maybe NASA need to issue a disclaimer, in the same way that Leeds University has done with McIntosh

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,12:16   

Consider the source before you get too up-in-arms about this, Peter.

Ham isn't known for his honesty, let's face it.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,12:30   

I chat with a NASA engineer at another site. He would confirm that some NASA engineers are creationists. Of course we already know that engineers are not scientists and often have no interest in or competence in biology.

The same could be said of doctors.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
dvunkannon



Posts: 1377
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,15:18   

Many of the engineers Ken Ham met at a Bible study are creationists? Whooda thunk it?  Natural selection overpowered by self selection.

--------------
I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter
I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

  
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,18:53   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 06 2009,12:30)
I chat with a NASA engineer at another site. He would confirm that some NASA engineers are creationists. Of course we already know that engineers are not scientists and often have no interest in or competence in biology.

The same could be said of doctors.

I take offense to this.  The medical field - at least the one I signed up for - requires a very vigorous background in the biological sciences.  In fact, at the university I attend, there is no such thing as a "pre-med" major; for all intents and purposes I am a Biology major, and none of the professors I know suffer any creationist nonsense inside or outside of the classroom.

To paint doctors as "not real scientists" because of a select few (who seem to be able to slip through the cracks without actually believing any of the stuff they're studying) is unfair.  I know a good handful of people of the kind you're describing, but it's truly the exception, not the rule.

I can't speak about engineers because I don't really know any, much less their specific views on origins.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2009,19:32   

I do know a couple of creationist geologists.  And it does seem that engineering attracts more creationists than the sciences.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,05:27   

I am a YEC .
I agree engineers are not into science except as they must use it.
Doctors also only memorize science stuff for background.
I find science or scientists come with different agendas. they are more interested in the prestige of doing "smart" things then practical things. So they can study bugs or bugs within bugs NOT because of interest in the bug but because of a desire to advance knowledge and get the credit.
I find scientists all want to be Einstein and the field of study is beside the point even if a passion develops later for it.
High science draws people who want to advance important knowledge for mankind. These people see this as very prestiges. They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
This also explains motivations for demographic abberations in high science.
This is unrelated to professions that use science but only desire to do a particular thing.

So high science would have few people coming from demographics of bible believing heritage or inclination. while Engineers is from a greater cross the board demographic in America
And so on.

Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,05:44   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

Evolution "and company" have been shown to be supported by available evidence. Massively supported. For 150 years.

Genesis does not explain the origin of species in a scientific way and therefore the two cannot be either or positions. One is scientific and the other is not.

By all means, believe what you want. Just don't call something science when it is not (and expect not to be laughed at) and don't try and teach children in schools that Genesis is science.

It is not.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,07:27   

Quote
They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
You mean they're just like you? Guess it is time for the good old  
Quote
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


It never fails, creationists are blind to reality.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,09:37   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,06:27)
I am a YEC .
I agree engineers are not into science except as they must use it.
Doctors also only memorize science stuff for background.
I find science or scientists come with different agendas. they are more interested in the prestige of doing "smart" things then practical things. So they can study bugs or bugs within bugs NOT because of interest in the bug but because of a desire to advance knowledge and get the credit.
I find scientists all want to be Einstein and the field of study is beside the point even if a passion develops later for it.
High science draws people who want to advance important knowledge for mankind. These people see this as very prestiges. They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
This also explains motivations for demographic abberations in high science.
This is unrelated to professions that use science but only desire to do a particular thing.

So high science would have few people coming from demographics of bible believing heritage or inclination. while Engineers is from a greater cross the board demographic in America
And so on.

Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

WTF is "high science"?

And are you trying to sound stupid?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,09:53   

Quote
The medical field - at least the one I signed up for - requires a very vigorous background in the biological sciences.


I've been told though, that evolution is not part of the cirriculum in medicine RDK, certainly not here in the UK. If that were true it would explain why so many doctors are YECs. Apparently there's a push to have it included.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,12:02   

Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,10:37)
WTF is "high science"?

And are you trying to sound stupid?

I wonder which is really worse: Sounding that stupid by accident or on purpose?

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,12:35   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,13:02)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,10:37)
WTF is "high science"?

And are you trying to sound stupid?

I wonder which is really worse: Sounding that stupid by accident or on purpose?

Hard to tell.

Is there a thesis involved?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,12:43   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,12:02)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,10:37)
WTF is "high science"?

And are you trying to sound stupid?

I wonder which is really worse: Sounding that stupid by accident or on purpose?

I think he may well have had a brain injury sometime in the past. There's a couple of things you'll notice if Byers continues posting here:

1. He's persistent in his stupidity, to the point that Febble (who is among the most patient of pro-evo debaters I've ever read) threw up her hands and refused to deal with him.

2. He will become increasingly unintelligible as he is cornered by actual evidence. Eventually he degenerates to where none of his sentences contain semantic sense or meaning.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,14:37   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 07 2009,13:43)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,12:02)
Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,10:37)
WTF is "high science"?

And are you trying to sound stupid?

I wonder which is really worse: Sounding that stupid by accident or on purpose?

I think he may well have had a brain injury sometime in the past. There's a couple of things you'll notice if Byers continues posting here:

1. He's persistent in his stupidity, to the point that Febble (who is among the most patient of pro-evo debaters I've ever read) threw up her hands and refused to deal with him.

2. He will become increasingly unintelligible as he is cornered by actual evidence. Eventually he degenerates to where none of his sentences contain semantic sense or meaning.

You suspect a physical brain injury in addition to the massive viral load of bible bullshit that was injected at some point, you mean?

It's always hard to tell, and I'm not sure your listed symptoms are helpful in distinguishing between the two.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,15:50   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,14:37)
You suspect a physical brain injury in addition to the massive viral load of bible bullshit that was injected at some point, you mean?

It's always hard to tell, and I'm not sure your listed symptoms are helpful in distinguishing between the two.

I just mentioned the behaviors as a heads-up of what to expect.

So far as brain injury, I recall him mentioning being blind in one eye and headaches at IIDB, along with the stress-induced nonsense-language that I mentioned, characteristic of relatively mild Wernicke's aphasia ("agrammatic aphasia"). Of course, I've also seen that "nonsense-language" used as an actual debate tactic by people as well.

Take a look at these sentences strung together by Byers (who claims to be of "English descent"):
 
Quote
"I find scientists all want to be Einstein and the field of study is beside the point even if a passion develops later for it.
High science draws people who want to advance important knowledge for mankind. These people see this as very prestiges. They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
This also explains motivations for demographic abberations in high science.
This is unrelated to professions that use science but only desire to do a particular thing.

So high science would have few people coming from demographics of bible believing heritage or inclination. while Engineers is from a greater cross the board demographic in America
And so on.."


Try to count the flaws in thinking/logic and syntactical structure there.


Anyhow, it's my suspicion only -- no real evidence than what I've mentioned, and I acknowledge it's a cheap shot if he has no history of head trauma.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,16:02   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
I am a YEC .
I agree engineers are not into science except as they must use it.
Doctors also only memorize science stuff for background.
I find science or scientists come with different agendas. they are more interested in the prestige of doing "smart" things then practical things. So they can study bugs or bugs within bugs NOT because of interest in the bug but because of a desire to advance knowledge and get the credit.
I find scientists all want to be Einstein and the field of study is beside the point even if a passion develops later for it.
High science draws people who want to advance important knowledge for mankind. These people see this as very prestiges. They strive or see themselves as smarter then most folks.
This also explains motivations for demographic abberations in high science.
This is unrelated to professions that use science but only desire to do a particular thing.

So high science would have few people coming from demographics of bible believing heritage or inclination. while Engineers is from a greater cross the board demographic in America
And so on.

Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

I taught myself English here in Norway and yet even I spot your poor language. It is my experience that smart people also are capable of expressing themselves in quite good language. Besides, in your case it is not just the language; that could be excused if the thoughts expressed were of a better quality - but they are not.

Do you mind telling us your age? It might serve as the excuse you need.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
lkeithlu



Posts: 321
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,16:30   

Quote (khan @ Nov. 07 2009,09:37)
WTF is "high science"?

Silly thing. "High Science" employs incense and all incantations are in Latin.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,18:05   

i've known a number of graduate students who practiced high science but i dont think it worked out for them that well

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2777
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2009,19:02   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 07 2009,18:05)
i've known a number of graduate students who practiced high science but i dont think it worked out for them that well

Yeah, high science was probably the norm in the 70's, at least in graduate schools in California  :p

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,03:23   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 07 2009,05:44)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

Evolution "and company" have been shown to be supported by available evidence. Massively supported. For 150 years.

Genesis does not explain the origin of species in a scientific way and therefore the two cannot be either or positions. One is scientific and the other is not.

By all means, believe what you want. Just don't call something science when it is not (and expect not to be laughed at) and don't try and teach children in schools that Genesis is science.

It is not.

Genesis is revealed truth as historic Christianity and so Christiandom has always seen it.
The whole point is that some elements of origin subjects say genesis is wrong.
So creationism takes on the evidence that is brought against us.
Its not science here we argue with but a pretender to it in the areas of unobserved origins. or as they do or used call these subjects Historical sciences.
So neither us or them is doing science as the great Henry Morris ICR said.
Creationism simply takes on and seeks a audience to show how anti-genesis etc conclusions are wrong and anyways can not claim the prestige of science.
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,04:18   

Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,04:35   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,05:50   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
 
Genesis is revealed truth as historic Christianity and so Christiandom has always seen it.


History FAIL. You really should actually know something about the history of your superstitions before imposing them on other people.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
The whole point is that some elements of origin subjects say genesis is wrong.


By "some elements of origin subjects", I presume you mean "evidence". Yes, that's true. In fact, all the relevant evidence says Genesis is wrong. That's mostly because Genesis is wrong.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
So creationism takes on the evidence that is brought against us.


No, creationism studiously ignores, twists, and deliberately lies about the evidence. It has to. All the evidence, every scrap, points to the fact that creationism is a load of crap.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
Its not science here we argue with but a pretender to it in the areas of unobserved origins.


Projection. The attempted usurpation of the mantle of science is entirely on the part of a small group of power-hungry theocrats and their brainless sheep (that would be where you come in).

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
or as they do or used call these subjects Historical sciences.


I'm not sure anyone uses that term.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
So neither us or them is doing science as the great Henry Morris ICR said.


Relying on Henry Morris or ICR as a reputable source for anything is likely to get you quite a reaction. I doubt it's the one you're looking for, however.

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
Creationism simply takes on and seeks a audience to show how anti-genesis etc conclusions are wrong and anyways can not claim the prestige of science.


No, Creationism simply takes advantage of P.T. Barnum's observations to find rubes to fill their offering plate. (This would be your encore.)

 
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:23)
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.


Reality doesn't care one little bit about the success or failure of your political machinations. Genesis is still wrong.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Quack



Posts: 1746
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,06:42   

Robert, I don't mind telling anyone that I am 79. Why can't you answer the simple question about your age?

Got anything to be afraid of? If you are the adolescent you appear to be, there's always the prospect of improved intellect and expanded knowledge. FYI, the brain is not fully developed before about 25 so I suspect you have a few years to go. Rejoice, there's still hope!
Quote
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.

You all have been at it for so long and all you have are promises about the future. I am more interested in what you have today. Got anything? So far you haven't even given a hint that you might have a clue.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,07:23   

Quote

We do alright and will prevail soon enough.


That's the longest-running falsehood in creationism.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,07:40   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 08 2009,07:23)
Quote

We do alright and will prevail soon enough.


That's the longest-running falsehood in creationism.

Not to mention the quickest way to spot the semi-literate. I'd thing a good home-schooled kid would avoid writing "alright."

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,17:04   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 07 2009,05:27)
Yet this all has nothing to do with the merits of whether evolution and company are true or Genesis is true.
Its on the evidence and not respect of persons.

True.  However, when non-scientists make pronouncements on scientific issues that they have no relevant training, education, or experience in, can be shown that they are inn error, yet insist that they are correct and everyone else is wrong, we have a real problem.

And that problem seems to be endemic on only one side of the creation-evolution issue.

I am in a discussion on another board with a YEC who claims a science-related doctorate (yet he did not know that phenotype covers physiology, among other things).   When I informed him that two YECs with real PhDs, Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, have acknowledged that there is evidence for evolution and that there are transitional fossils, this YEC declared that they were "ridiculous people" and 'silly'.  Because afterall, a TROOOO YEC would reject all things scientific...

  
Peter Henderson



Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2009,18:20   

Quote
Because afterall, a TROOOO YEC would reject all things scientific


I have been repeatedly told on Premier Radio's discussion forum SLP, that YECs in no way reject science. However, they do reject the science that is taught in every school, college, and university both here and in the US. For some odd reason they don't appear to realise this.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:00   

It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:28   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,15:00)
It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

NOT IF THEY DENY MY JESUS THEY AIN'T

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:37   

Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:37)
Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

Almost.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
RDK



Posts: 229
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:56   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:37)
Correction to my previous post:

It's almost as if they think that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think your previous post made more sense in the context of what we're talking about.  ID Creationists constantly use people from completely different fields to bash evolution when said fields have absolutely nothing to do with biology (psychology), or sometimes even nothing to do with science (philosophy), and yet they still feel qualified to be the final authority on whether or not evolution is scientific.

--------------
If you are not:
Leviathan
please Logout under Meta in the sidebar.

‘‘I was like ‘Oh my God! It’s Jesus on a banana!’’  - Lisa Swinton, Jesus-eating pagan

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,15:16   

Ah. Right, at that pathetic level of detail they're independent, and a person can be intimately familiar with one set of pathetic details while being a complete amateur* in another.

The dependence is that all of them have to be consistent with the same set of data.

*Which produces the question what would an incomplete amateur look like, but never mind that.

Henry

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2090
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,17:03   

"Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. "

Really?

You didn't read the Bible first and then go look for validation of your already firm conclusions?

I'm betting you did.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,05:20   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,05:26   

Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2009,06:42)
Robert, I don't mind telling anyone that I am 79. Why can't you answer the simple question about your age?

Got anything to be afraid of? If you are the adolescent you appear to be, there's always the prospect of improved intellect and expanded knowledge. FYI, the brain is not fully developed before about 25 so I suspect you have a few years to go. Rejoice, there's still hope!
Quote
We do alright and will prevail soon enough.

You all have been at it for so long and all you have are promises about the future. I am more interested in what you have today. Got anything? So far you haven't even given a hint that you might have a clue.

I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,06:19   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:20)
     
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

"Insisting" it's true doesn't make it true, Booby. And yes, if you make assertions regarding demographics of sex and ethnicity, you need to demonstrate the validity of your claims--that's what science is all about. Oh, and I know you're wrong about "all" anthro students/professors  being liberal democrats -- I have friends in the field at UCLA who are not democrats at all. I can prove that if need be -- because I prefer not to make empty claims based on nothing more than vapid assertions as you do, Booby.

Do you think that anthro departments are skewed in favor of males, Booby? How about graduates? Males? Females? PhD.'s? How about "skewed" in terms of ethnicity? More minorities than European-descent caucasians? what? What does "skewed" mean in your world, Booby ... one more male than females? 10% more? 50? Clarify yourself and start using data rather than vapid claims of pretending you know you're right.  

So...have you ever suffered some form of brain trauma in your life, Bobby?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,10:29   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,11:20)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

Assertions are not evidence, however forceful.

I could for example assert something terrible and shameful about you personally, yet that wouldn't make it true now would it?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,10:33   

Yeah bubba like if you look at the members of the NAS you'll find that none of them are retarded.  Skewed like a mofo.  and not even on "coolness"

Jesus wept

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3550
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,12:14   

Quote
This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.


Check out darwincentral.org. You couldn't ask for a more politically conservative forum -- everyone a card carrying evilutionist.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,13:45   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:26)
I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

1) reality TV is also exploding in popularity and fame.  It's still trash.

2) Please give me one tool that is based on YEC that can be used to predict the effect of antibiotics on bacteria.

3) We don't have an audience.  Evolution does not 'pander to the masses'.  It's called science.  It doesn't care what you think about it.  It's science.  It simply is.

4) No, the reason government institutions must become your target is because they are the only ones who are willing to believe you.  Scientists refuse to listen to your arguments because you have none.

Now, I asked a bunch of questions earlier which you ignored.  Please answer the one above.

What is one tool, based on YEC, that can accurately predict the outcome of anything?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,20:28   

"High science" is science done in the laboratory on the top floor of the building. Obviously.

Henry

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,02:56   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 10 2009,06:19)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:20)
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Nov. 08 2009,04:35)
       
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 08 2009,04:18)
Everyone here. By high science I mean where knowledge is gained by the scientific method or the search for knowledge.
The other is where professions use some 'science' in their doings but the job is the end result.
So Engineers or Astronauts do science things but they are not scientists.
Science is a search for knowledge and scrunity of method before firm conclusions can be made. so the reward from this, prestige, calls out a different type of person. A more rare person.
Subjects that simply use science but have "regular" results call out a more general type of person. so any analysis of "scientists' will show in modern North America skewed demographic ethnic/sex/political affiliation/coolness factors.

Regarding the bit of your post I've bolded above: "Any" analysis? Any analysis of any specialized group might well lead to "skewed demographic results" -- but I'd still like to see the data you've used to come to your "conclusion" -- for all the factors you mentioned, especially "coolness" (LoL !).

Start with anthropologists, please. They use the scientific method, especially in paleoanth and archaeology. Do that now.

its my assertion and i insist its true. This particular field for example i bet are all liberal democrats.
I don't need to prove my point by lists. Those who know the makeup in these areas know its not close to a cross section of the nation.
Thats my point.

"Insisting" it's true doesn't make it true, Booby. And yes, if you make assertions regarding demographics of sex and ethnicity, you need to demonstrate the validity of your claims--that's what science is all about. Oh, and I know you're wrong about "all" anthro students/professors  being liberal democrats -- I have friends in the field at UCLA who are not democrats at all. I can prove that if need be -- because I prefer not to make empty claims based on nothing more than vapid assertions as you do, Booby.

Do you think that anthro departments are skewed in favor of males, Booby? How about graduates? Males? Females? PhD.'s? How about "skewed" in terms of ethnicity? More minorities than European-descent caucasians? what? What does "skewed" mean in your world, Booby ... one more male than females? 10% more? 50? Clarify yourself and start using data rather than vapid claims of pretending you know you're right.  

So...have you ever suffered some form of brain trauma in your life, Bobby?

This isn't science. my assertion is from my knowledge. So its in good standing as a assertion. it doesn't mean you have to believe it.
One does not have to prove ones point to justify the assertion. only you can say your not persuaded by your knowledge.

i have seen heaps of stats about demagraphics in high sciences.
in fact they proudly make the point about the liberal democrat or liberal leanings. Ethnic/sex/immigrant ratios are common knowledge. If you don't know then simply do research. Not my job.

Skewed does not mean on purpose. i just mean results.
Anyways this is all about any profession is not a cross section of the people but can show deeper motivations and so change how one scores who's on whose side.
Evolution must make its case on the merits and likewise creationism.

  
Robert Byers



Posts: 160
Joined: Nov. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,02:59   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2009,13:45)
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 10 2009,05:26)
I didn't know you wanted my age. its 44.
Today creationism is exploding in popularity and fame in many  types.
YEC can confidently teach and persuade audiences to question and reject claims of solid evidence behind the great claims of evolution.
In fact its just finding your audiences that is the frustration.
Thats why government institutions must become a target for equality in the discussions on origins.

1) reality TV is also exploding in popularity and fame.  It's still trash.

2) Please give me one tool that is based on YEC that can be used to predict the effect of antibiotics on bacteria.

3) We don't have an audience.  Evolution does not 'pander to the masses'.  It's called science.  It doesn't care what you think about it.  It's science.  It simply is.

4) No, the reason government institutions must become your target is because they are the only ones who are willing to believe you.  Scientists refuse to listen to your arguments because you have none.

Now, I asked a bunch of questions earlier which you ignored.  Please answer the one above.

What is one tool, based on YEC, that can accurately predict the outcome of anything?

The bible predicts a great deal and is always right.
Genesis is right and so any conclusions about the natural world can be predicted to fit within the boundaries of genesis.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,03:07   

You didn't answer my question as to whether you've ever had head/brain trauma, Robert.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,03:13   

It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,08:16   

Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 11 2009,02:59)
The bible predicts a great deal and is always right.
Genesis is right and so any conclusions about the natural world can be predicted to fit within the boundaries of genesis.

So you believe that bats are birds, spiders are insects,  and that the value of Pi is exactly 3.

Got it.  You're nuts.

Yes, you can 'assert' anything you want.  However, your credibility [sic] will be enhanced by citing sources that support your claims.

Fell free to 'assert' that Pi = 3.  But, please don't build a bridge using it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,08:17   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2009,03:13)
It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

So? Lobotomy?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 990
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,16:57   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 11 2009,08:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 11 2009,03:13)
It is a well-known result in neurology that certain forms of frontal lobe damage lead to perseverative behavior patterns.

So? Lobotomy?

I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

  
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,17:06   

I wonder if the YEC engineers are working on finding that missing day?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,20:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 09 2009,14:00)
It's almost as if they don't realize that different branches of science are independent of each other.

I think it's more like they do think that they're independent of each other and don't understand the role that consilience plays in supporting a theory.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,20:49   

Booby's getting awfully close to "Help, help, 'We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture'".

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Henry J



Posts: 4010
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,22:09   

Quote
I think it's more like they do think that they're independent of each other and don't understand the role that consilience plays in supporting a theory.

That does seem likely. But to complicate (irreducibly?) the matter, the independent/dependent question is not a simple question. Where overlap exists they have to be consistent with each other, and any of them can make use of results from any of the others where appropriate. But also each can have lots of details that none of the other branches specifically depend on.

Henry

  
  54 replies since Nov. 06 2009,12:07 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]