Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Does NASA know about this ?

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

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: 5455 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 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. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

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: 3668 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: 1961 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. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

khan Posts: 1554 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 Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

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: 5455 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? -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

khan Posts: 1554 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 Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

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: 5455 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

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: 1961 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. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

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: 2780 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   -------------- 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: 5455 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. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Quack Posts: 1961 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. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 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: 4003 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." -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

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: 5786 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.

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard