Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

@Jane_Doe-I'm just curious, do you have a science background? You seem very knowledgeable! 

I am a published peer review scientist in ecology who actively works with evolution on a professional level.  

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am a published peer review scientist in ecology who actively works with evolution on a professional level.  

Very cool! 

[zil]

53 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am a published peer review scientist in ecology who actively works with evolution on a professional level.  

I get reviewed and tested by my peers all the time, though I'm not really a scientist.  And I'm actively working on devolving on a professional level. 

[Guest]

I'm not really an evolutionary scientist.  But I play one in my family theater.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

Actually science can't make any claim on an intelligent designer either way.  It's not a question testable with the scientific methods.  Now scientist may have their personal opinions, but that's all they are.

So, your saying a forensic science isnt science then.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Can you provide some examples of "irreducible complexity" that the science types just cannot prove wrong?

Heres a quick google searched article

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, your saying a forensic science isnt science then.

This is totally off topic.  

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Heres a quick google searched article

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

This is a junk site.  If you want to state something, a good source should preferably be peer-reviewed or at minimum published by a research institution.  

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Reference for this assertion?

It differs greatly from my experience working professionally with evolutionary scientists.

Really? You got to be kidding. Evolution and any even close reference to God or may be associated with God is incompatable. ID theory is sure proof of that.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

This is totally off topic.  

This is a junk site.  If you want to state something, a good source should preferably be peer-reviewed or at minimum published by a research institution.  

Typical atheist evolution jargon response.

Years ago I bought and read Behe's "Darwins Black Box". What did evolutionists say- that it was junk science. Yeah, theres no obvious bias is there?

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Really? You got to be kidding. Evolution and any even close reference to God or may be associated with God is incompatable. ID theory is sure proof of that.

No, they are not incompatible.  I myself am a very religious LDS person.  In my small department we have a man who's an Evangelical presiding elder at his church, Lutheran Sunday School teacher, Evangelical women's group leader, devoted Presbyterian, another LDS man, a devoted Catholic woman, and those are just the people I can think of off the top of my head.  These are all men and women devoted to God while researching evolution.  

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Typical atheist evolution jargon response.

I'm not an atheist, you have been told this repeatedly and can even see it under my name.  Please cease these blind slanderous remarks. 

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Years ago I bought and read Behe's "Darwins Black Box". What did evolutionists say- that it was junk science. Yeah, theres no obvious bias is there?

Evaluating the quality of science has to do with the QUALITY of the scientific method applied, not with whatever the conclusion was.  For example, the previous site you linked was completely devoid of any actual science being done.  No science = a junk site.

 

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Typical atheist evolution jargon response.

Okay, I've been following this thread for quite a while and enjoyed the exchange.  But Rob, this has gone way too far.  Godless is an atheist.  Jane_Doe is a fully active Mormon who happen to be in a career field in evolutionary science.  Please don't make these stupid statements.

Now that I've chimed in, let me just say... Rob, you're hailing from a position of butthurt.  All your assertions come from your disgust of evolution scientists because of your experience with them.  This kind of arguments is what makes scientists - including those who are devout theists - dismiss Intelligent Design (captial I, captial D) discussions.  The people in that creation.com site are like you.  They come from the same position of butthurt and does nothing but try to demean scientists for their use of science.  To them, science is the tool of Satan.  That's why scientists dismiss them.  Galileo was a scientist who was a very devout Catholic.  He presented science that was compatible with his theistic beliefs yet the Catholics condemned him for it forcing him out of the Church against his desire.

Tons of evolutionary scientists - including Darwin himself (even as history is harsh on him) - are theists.  But they don't wield God like a hammer to bludgeon non-believers with their theistic science.

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

No, they are not incompatible.  I myself am a very religious LDS person.  In my small department we have a man who's an Evangelical presiding elder at his church, Lutheran Sunday School teacher, Evangelical women's group leader, devoted Presbyterian, another LDS man, a devoted Catholic woman, and those are just the people I can think of off the top of my head.  These are all men and women devoted to God while researching evolution.  

I'm not an atheist, you have been told this repeatedly and can even see it under my name.  Please cease these blind slanderous remarks. 

Evaluating the quality of science has to do with the QUALITY of the scientific method applied, not with whatever the conclusion was.  For example, the previous site you linked was completely devoid of any actual science being done.  No science = a junk site.

 

So, is Behe's work junk science or is his work sound?

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, I've been following this thread for quite a while and enjoyed the exchange.  But Rob, this has gone way too far.  Godless is an atheist.  Jane_Doe is a fully active Mormon who happen to be in a career field in evolutionary science.  Please don't make these stupid statements.

Now that I've chimed in, let me just say... Rob, you're hailing from a position of butthurt.  All your assertions come from your disgust of evolution scientists because of your experience with them.  This kind of arguments is what makes scientists - including those who are devout theists - dismiss Intelligent Design (captial I, captial D) discussions.  The people in that creation.com site are like you.  They come from the same position of butthurt that's why scientists dismiss them.

Tons of evolutionary scientists - including Darwin himself (even as history is harsh on him) - are theists.  But they don't wield God like a hammer to bludgeon non-believers with their theistic science.

 

Im just stating that the response is typically an atheists quick response. Im not saying she is an atheist, just her response is typically the same response you get from atheists. My point is to show that secular evolutionary theory is backed and promoted by atheism.

[Jane_Doe]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, is Behe's work junk science or is his work sound?

I cannot evaluate a book I cannot read (you must buy it first).

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im just stating that the response is typically an atheists quick response. Im not saying she is an atheist, just her response is typically the same response you get from atheists.  My point is to show that secular evolutionary theory is backed and promoted by atheism. 

You're hiding behind blind stereotypes when evidence to the contrary is standing right in front of you.  In a way, you remarks are just like people who say "you're beliefs in Mormonism are typical of an uneducated idiot- Mormonism promotes a lack of education" when they are addressing a college professor who's a devote and educated LDS person.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Heres a quick google searched article

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

Rob, did you actually read this site? It's kind of embarrassing, even if you aren't a creationist. I imagine it would be humiliating to a creationist.

Or maybe not. If you're going to close your eyes to what people have demonstrated, maybe this sort of thing sounds pretty convincing.

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I cannot evaluate a book I cannot read (you must buy it first).

You're hiding behind blind stereotypes when evidence to the contrary is standing right in front of you.  In a way, you remarks are just like people who say "you're beliefs in Mormonism are typical of an uneducated idiot- Mormonism promotes a lack of education" when they are addressing a college graduate whom has studied LDS beliefs thoroughly.  

Hum...I am pretty sure theistic evolution is junk science too.

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Rob, did you actually read this site? It's kind of embarrassing, even if you aren't a creationist. I imagine it would be humiliating to a creationist.

Or maybe not. If you're going to close your eyes to what people have demonstrated, maybe this sort of thing sounds pretty convincing.

Embarrassing? Do you think the Bible is embarrassing?

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...I am pretty sure theistic evolution is junk science too.

Honestly, I can't see any reason to pursue this conversation. Rob wants to call names and make assertions. Okay by me.

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Embarrassing? Do you think the Bible is embarrassing?

Nope.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Embarrassing? Do you think the Bible is embarrassing?

The site you referenced is not the Bible and is junk science.  The Bible is not science (it's theological document) so it's not applicable to scientific discussions.  There are somethings which are out of science's domain.  

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

This site is not the Bible and is junk science.  The Bible is not science (it's theological document) so it's not applicable to scientific discussions.  There are somethings which are out of science's domain.  

Im pretty sure evolution is junk science.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im pretty sure evolution is junk science.

You're welcome to think that and ignore the vast volume of high-quality science supporting it.

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Honestly, I can't see any reason to pursue this conversation. Rob wants to call names and make assertions. Okay by me.

Nope.

Then why do you call the site embarrassing?

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

You're welcome to think that and ignore the vast volume of high-quality science supporting it.

And you are also welcome to think that and ignore the vast volume and high quality science that ID theory teaches.

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

And you are also welcome to think that and ignore the vast volume and high quality science that ID theory teaches.

I am a huge supporter of ID.  And no, there's no science behind ID- such questions can't be tested by the scientific method. 

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I am a huge supporter of ID.  And no, there's no science behind ID- such questions can't be tested by the scientific method. 

So, you too are in the same boat that believes such fields such as forensic criminology are not science.