Why Creationism or Intelligent Design is Important

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Then why do you call the site embarrassing?

Because it's embarrassing. It purports to argue about science without using actual science or even logic. It gets by almost purely on assertion.

[Rob Osborn]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

Because it's embarrassing. It purports to argue about science without using actual science or even logic. It gets by almost purely on assertion.

You need to research it a little more. Actual scientists are coming up with these things using science. They arent just pulling rabbits out of hats.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

Again, this thread is not about forensic criminology. 

[Jane_Doe]

dup.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[anatess2]

52 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.

An atheist says the sky is blue.  A theist scientist says the sky is blue.  That doesn't make the blue sky observation atheistic.  It is simply a scientific observation devoid of theism.

An atheist says the sky is green.  A theist scientist says the sky is blue.  That doesn't make the blue sky observation theistic.  It is simply a scientific observation.

A theist says the sky is green.  A theist scientist says the sky is blue.  That doesn't make the blue sky observation athiestic just because it goes against some other theist's claims.  It remains simply a scientific observation.

As far as Behe.  He is a scientist.  His ID claims were deemed lacking in scientific validity.  That doesn't mean that his ID conclusions are false.  It simply means that the scientific community agree that his method used to support ID does not meet scientific process standards.

So, it's like the scientist that concludes that the sky is blue and came to that conclusion by putting blue shaded glasses on.  The conclusion may be sound but the process is faulty science.

 

Edited January 18, 2017 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You need to research it a little more. Actual scientists are coming up with these things using science. They arent just pulling rabbits out of hats.

If you wish to make this claim, please post actual science.  Not junk sites.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Actual scientists are coming up with these things using science.

For my coda to this thread, I'm just going to let this statement take center stage.

[anatess2]

 

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

For my coda to this thread, I'm just going to let this statement take center stage.

I thought this was the climax of this thread:

29 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im pretty sure evolution is junk science.

That pretty much explains it.  That assertion is completely lacking in science.  That is pretty much on the same scientific level as "Global Warming is settled science".

Do we have to go into a discussion on what SCIENCE means?

Edited January 18, 2017 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

If you wish to make this claim, please post actual science.  Not junk sites.

Why, you just dismiss it. I brought up Behe, you shrugged. Now what?

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Why, you just dismiss it. I brought up Behe, you shrugged. Now what?

 You brought up a source that I cannot read without paying for it, hence I cannot comment on it.  If he cites peer-reviewed articles, you can link those directly without requiring others to purchase the book.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[unixknight]

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 You brought up a source that I cannot read without paying for it, hence I cannot comment on it.  If he cites peer-reviewed articles, you can link those directly without requiring others to purchase the book.

I probably shouldn't get involved in the "quality of science" argument but I'd like to comment on this.

The peer review system isn't the gold standard of quality we'd like it to be.  How often do studies get funded to repeat what someone else already did?  In other words, if someone publishes a paper, do others often come behind them and repeat their experiment?  Because in my experience the answer is "rarely, if ever."  People don't fund research that's already been done.  If I were going to award a grant, I'd want you to use it to discover something new.

Then there's the Sokal Affair.

Later, more folks tried that experiment and actually got papers filled with deliberate nonsense to pass peer review and get published.  Not once.  Not a handful, but hundreds.

This happens because of competition for grant money, which I've witnessed firsthand, as well as tenure, status in the community, etc.  So when I hear someone dismiss sources solely on the basis of peer review, I scratch my head and wonder why that's supposed to make them more reliable.  Well, I know why it's supposed to, but it doesn't.  It's become just another debate  tactic.

No offense, Jane_Doe, I don't mean to accuse you, just wanted to comment on why that argument may not be as effective as you might like it to be.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

No offense, Jane_Doe, I don't mean to accuse you, just wanted to comment on why that argument may not be as effective as you might like it to be.

 

Bro, you are the LAST guy here who gets accusatory or personal. Just saying. 

[unixknight]

Just now, MormonGator said:

Bro, you are the LAST guy here who gets accusatory or personal. Just saying. 

Thanks, though if that's true it's only through great effort.  I used to have some very bad debate habits.  Besides, when it's the printed word and with someone you don't know well, it's all too easy to miscommunicate.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I probably shouldn't get involved in the "quality of science" argument but I'd like to comment on this.

The peer review system isn't the gold standard of quality we'd like it to be.  How often do studies get funded to repeat what someone else already did?  In other words, if someone publishes a paper, do others often come behind them and repeat their experiment?  Because in my experience the answer is "rarely, if ever."  People don't fund research that's already been done.  If I were going to award a grant, I'd want you to use it to discover something new.

Then there's the Sokal Affair.

Later, more folks tried that experiment and actually got papers filled with deliberate nonsense to pass peer review and get published.  Not once.  Not a handful, but hundreds.

This happens because of competition for grant money, which I've witnessed firsthand, as well as tenure, status in the community, etc.  So when I hear someone dismiss sources solely on the basis of peer review, I scratch my head and wonder why that's supposed to make them more reliable.  Well, I know why it's supposed to, but it doesn't.  It's become just another debate  tactic.

No offense, Jane_Doe, I don't mean to accuse you, just wanted to comment on why that argument may not be as effective as you might like it to be.

 

No offense taken!  Yes, these are huge real problems, several which I have personal soapboxes about.  The scientific community is working on trying to addressing them... it's a long and clumsy process.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, unixknight said:

Thanks, though if that's true it's only through great effort.  I used to have some very bad debate habits.  Besides, when it's the printed word and with someone you don't know well, it's all too easy to miscommunicate.

That's a good thing because it means you take the effort to make sure you don't come across like a jerk. I think all of us (myself included, for sure) should do that more. 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

 You brought up a source that I cannot read without paying for it, hence I cannot comment on it.  If he cites peer-reviewed articles, you can link those directly without requiring others to purchase the book.

The peer review stuff is a bunch of crap. Its just another tactic evolutionists use knowing that to prequalify for peer review one has to be pro evolution to even get noticed or looked at. Its kind of like letting the Iranians decide on whether the Palestinians should be given Israel.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The peer review stuff is a bunch of crap. Its just another tactic evolutionists use knowing that to prequalify for peer review one has to be pro evolution to even get noticed or looked at. Its kind of like letting the Iranians decide on whether the Palestinians should be given Israel.

Do you think any opinion other than your own is a "bunch of..." as you charmingly put it? 

Peer review keeps fringe views from gaining mainstream acceptance. It's a good thing. A very good thing. 

Edited January 18, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, your saying a forensic science isnt science then.

There are many branches of forensic science.  What many people think of is crime scene investigation.  And many methods used by said branch are barely an imitation of real science.  But other branches of forensic science are very by-the-book as far as scientific method is concerned.

In my experience in forensic engineering, especially when providing expert witness testimony, I have to be very certain that everything I say can be backed up by a quantifiable (having a numerical value) fact that is beyond dispute.  There is a scientific methodology to determine some numerical values on some things that may be considered non-quantifiable.  And without it, I have no facts.  I only have opinions.

One lawsuit had a "difference of opinion" between the expert witnesses of the opposing parties.  Defendant #1 and Defendant #2 were both arguing about who's fault it was and therefore who owed Plaintiff damages.  Witness for Def1 said that an object on an aerial photo was X. Witness for Def2 didn't dispute it immediately, but simply asked "where is the evidence to back it up?"  WD1 said it's obvious from the photos.  WD2 saw a black blotch and could not distinguish it.

WD2 showed photographs from various years which indicated construction sequences and development of a facility over several decades.  Because of the timeline (numerical values) it was proven that said object was NOT "X".  Since WD1 was proven wrong he was fired.  And all work was given by both Defendants to WD2.  He did a very good job defending both defendants.  WD2 was absolved of all liability.  WD1 was able to greatly reduce the judgment against him due to proper evidence and quantifiable evidence.

Edited January 18, 2017 by Guest

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Do you think any opinion other than your own is a "bunch of..." as you charmingly put it? 

Im just saying that its a common tactic by evolutionists to use the peer review line because they already know its their side that is the one who does the peer review.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Im just saying that its a common tactic by evolutionists to use the peer review line because they already know its their side that is the one who does the peer review.

Perhaps the majority of scientists think that way because it is true. The most well traveled roads are well traveled for a reason, after all. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Again, this thread is not about forensic criminology. 

But, what happens if we find that structures such as DNA couldnt of possibly been developed naturally in nature as evolutionists say? Whats left? If it can be shown that the encoding process had to have some intelligent input or direction would it not directly imply intelligent design? In forensic criminology they use this same inference from scientific testing to deduce that a person was either murdered or not and perhaps why and how and who by.

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Perhaps the majority of scientists think that way because it is true. The most well traveled roads are well traveled for a reason, after all. 

So, does that mean the highly traveled road of Catholics were right this whole time and our lowly less traveled road of Mormonism is false?

[unixknight]

To be fair, the peer review thing is often used as a tactic not only in arguments over Evolution but in other areas as well.  I have a friend who's an Astronomer and he often calls for peer reviewed sources when we discuss things like climate change or evolution.  Mind you, unlike our friend @Jane_Doe here, he steadfastly refuses to admit any flaws exist at all in the peer review system.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, what happens if we find that structures such as DNA couldnt of possibly been developed naturally in nature as evolutionists say? Whats left? If it can be shown that the encoding process had to have some intelligent input or direction would it not directly imply intelligent design? In forensic criminology they use this same inference from scientific testing to deduce that a person was either murdered or not and perhaps why and how and who by.

Don't take my previous statements to say that ALL CSI methods are unscientific.  Some are.  Some aren't.  The job of the admittedly unqualified jury is to try to distinguish between them.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

To be fair, the peer review thing is often used as a tactic not only in arguments over Evolution but in other areas as well.  I have a friend who's an Astronomer and he often calls for peer reviewed sources when we discuss things like climate change or evolution.  Mind you, unlike our friend @Jane_Doe here, he steadfastly refuses to admit any flaws exist at all in the peer review system.

There really isn't a flaw in the theoretical system.  But your friend seems to be missing two things.

1) The people participating in the "flawless" system are still flawed humans (much like the Church is true, but the people in it are flawed).
2) Just because it was peer reviewed isn't supposed to mean it is necessarily fact.  It simply means that a certain level of care was taken in the process of coming to a certain conclusion.