[_ Old Earth _] Reliable science?

[brother Paul]

MD...(and others)

I have heard it said over and over (a common propaganda technique) here, and on other forums, that “Science is self-correcting”. This is NOT true…”science” is NOT self-correcting. This is a misnomer....

What happens is that “scientists” (an intelligence) who shape experiments, interpret data, and draw conclusions from that data are called out by others, often these are other scientists (outside intelligences), who point out flaws or errors in their methods, practices, interpretations, or conclusions.

Sometimes it is the result of newly acquired data but not always…sometimes it is simply they were wrong, or drew erroneous conclusions.

So if you have been indoctrinated with this mantra (which people often repeat verbatim) please free yourself from this programming. Looking at things with fresh eyes as considering rationales outside of the box is important to objectivity and intellectual integrity in or out of science.

“Science” has no innate power of its own without intelligence being involved. It is merely one tool by which pre-existing intelligences can explore, discover, and explain (and not always the only plausible explanation) our Universe and world.

Paul

 

[Doulos Iesou]

apparently I struck a nerve! I am so amused though because you so remind me of myself 20 years ago..

Let's lose the personal comments, and this one particularly is offensive. As if you have progressed so far beyond me and I am some naive kid.

I'm a stranger.. hi nice to meet you.. let's not make personal comments. Sound good?

I gave you the names of the source articles, the author, the Vol., date, etc., for all the papers quotes were taken from. They were all from respected members of the scientific community. I fully realize these would be rejected by you because you are insisting that only “recent” papers from current “Evolutionary Biologists” be accepted. For your mind to be able to reason upon possibilities we must close the box and not allow alternative explanations thus “a study based upon a current understanding of evolutionary biology” which by its nature precludes that all that is concluded by this “current understanding” is the only possibility that will be allowed or considered. Rather closed minded I would say.

None of what your provided was what I asked for, I asked for:

Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description?

Also please use the proper quoting function, do you know how?

What is one to do who does not agree with all the conclusions of this “current understanding”? If they have papers offering alternative explanations of the data, where do they publish for innocently inquiring minds to consider? The so called EB Journals will not publish these. For people to reach their own information based conclusions they should have all the views and all the data (for and against) presented for THEIR review.

It is either there is some gigantic conspiracy and all the world's major scientific organizations are out to get creationism, or it simply lacks any scientific credibility to be considered in a legitimate scientific paper.

I will go with option 2.

And if you are a Christian then you are also a creationist (or a hypocrite), albeit not a YEC (which I also am not).

We all know that the specific term creationist refers to someone who embraces either Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism, and it is not a term most theistic evolutionists use to describe themselves. I believe God created the universe, but I believe he did so very differently from creationist perspectives.

Then you are just dismissing things given for consideration or rejecting alternate plausible possibilities of explanation regarding the same data (and only accepting the theory based EB view…some of which is fine, and other merely assumption based because it fits the theory).

I don't agree therefore I am dismissive and close minded?

Talk about assumptions.

When I was an agnostic (for the first 3 decades of my life) I was trapped in this mode of thought, so I know also from ”experience” (which is a great teacher) that if it did not agree with my indoctrination (many YECs suffer from this same inability to see outside the box) then I rejected it and used all the articles and quotes to support my dismissal of the reasonable thought of others questioning the accepted mantra.

You seem to keep doing this, you insert your own experiences on my life and make all kinds of assumptions about my state of mind and general method of thinking. I am not indoctrinated, I have not always been an evolutionist and became convinced through independent study.
If there was genuinely reasonable thoughts that fit all the available data then I would consider it, alas I have never seen anything fitting that description from creationists.

First off on every forum I have or do participate in, your side always shrinks the box of "acceptability" usually by who, then by what Publications, then by what fields of expertise, then by date, etc., until the only thing a person has with which to allegedly intelligently DISCUSS are the only scientists YOU will accept, from ONLY the publications YOU will accept, in accordance with a timeline ONLY YOU can define as acceptable (all these varying as convenient to YOUR side only).

If a creationist were to actually represent evolution in an accurate light then I would say, "yes I agree with that," this is something I have almost never seen.

I made my qualification as to something recent, as creationists love to dig up old flawed studies that are no longer accepted as accurate. How is that not a rational qualification to make in a debate, that a person's representation of the opposing viewpoint should be accurate?

This isn't some kind of dodge or trick, it is a reasonable criteria.

Now undoubtedly you are a very intelligent person as far as I can tell, so how come you are unable to see the limitation this imposes on new creative insights, freedom of thought, and the ability to true critical reasoning (and I do not mean thinking up ever newer criticisms which itself violates true critical thinking)?

What if I were to quote some kind of creationist fallacy from the 1970s and say that this is a perfect demonstration of your view?

You would naturally object would you not, saying that it is a straw man. You would be right. Now... apply that exact same logic to my view and behold, you have now reached the logical conclusion that it is best if one properly represents the view they are criticizing.

Moving on, you have spent an unnecessary amount of time belaboring the point on this one.

I always love this twist of fiened admission, because for decades when people were offering other perspectives or questioning the accepted mantra these older perspectives offered (some of which may yet still prove true) the opposition were looked at as wrong, sometimes publicly discredited, academically humiliated, or accused of dwarfing education, or not understanding tried and true science, or being antiquated, or superstitious or bigoted...But alas, what this really means the truth is…is that...many earlier EBs (only a few decades ago, and far more incorrect as we go back in time) were just plain ol’WRONG! As are many today…time will reveal this if you choose not to believe me…better to stay open minded now....

Not all scientists are created equal, if one looks into the history of science they will see plenty of awful human beings. Much like any other group of individuals. The progress of science continues on despite that though, and creationism continues to try and halt that progress whilst offering nothing beneficial in the process.

Creationism offers nothing meaningful to the conversation, and is simply fundamentalist dogma. Hence it is banned from most science classrooms.

Plenty of examples have been given in other posts so either your programming will not let you reason upon the examples or arguments or else you are not being honest (I will assume number one because allegedly you are a brother in the Lord)

Yes, my programming won't let me see the reason of the many posts from creationists. I have been turned into a robot by liberal education. Comment deleted. Good day.

 

[brother Paul]

And good day to you sir! But since the subject is Christianity AND science why must I let you set these limitations. Even just science, let alone logic, and philosophy, and more being totally sideswiped is hardly objectivity wouldn't you say? If all we can speak from is "current" Journals regarding Evolutionary Biology how is that a discussion or debate (besides I did not even realize we were debating).

So within that overview we are discussing reliable science...I believe science is very reliable just not all scientists. I provided many reasons for this....which one in particular do you wish to discuss (and I will draw resource material from anywhere I decide). Just because one does not agree with you will not mean they are not allowed to see things differently or that they are incorrect in their assessment. Maybe a person has reasons for their difference of opinion.

 

[turnorburn]

Let's lose the personal comments, and this one particularly is offensive. As if you have progressed so far beyond me and I am some naive kid.

I'm a stranger.. hi nice to meet you.. let's not make personal comments. Sound good?


None of what your provided was what I asked for, I asked for:

Could you present a recent scholarly biological research paper that fits this description?

Also please use the proper quoting function, do you know how?


It is either there is some gigantic conspiracy and all the world's major scientific organizations are out to get creationism, or it simply lacks any scientific credibility to be considered in a legitimate scientific paper.

I will go with option 2.


We all know that the specific term creationist refers to someone who embraces either Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism, and it is not a term most theistic evolutionists use to describe themselves. I believe God created the universe, but I believe he did so very differently from creationist perspectives.


I don't agree therefore I am dismissive and close minded?

Talk about assumptions.


You seem to keep doing this, you insert your own experiences on my life and make all kinds of assumptions about my state of mind and general method of thinking. I am not indoctrinated, I have not always been an evolutionist and became convinced through independent study.
If there was genuinely reasonable thoughts that fit all the available data then I would consider it, alas I have never seen anything fitting that description from creationists.


If a creationist were to actually represent evolution in an accurate light then I would say, "yes I agree with that," this is something I have almost never seen.

I made my qualification as to something recent, as creationists love to dig up old flawed studies that are no longer accepted as accurate. How is that not a rational qualification to make in a debate, that a person's representation of the opposing viewpoint should be accurate?

This isn't some kind of dodge or trick, it is a reasonable criteria.


What if I were to quote some kind of creationist fallacy from the 1970s and say that this is a perfect demonstration of your view?

You would naturally object would you not, saying that it is a straw man. You would be right. Now... apply that exact same logic to my view and behold, you have now reached the logical conclusion that it is best if one properly represents the view they are criticizing.

Moving on, you have spent an unnecessary amount of time belaboring the point on this one.


Not all scientists are created equal, if one looks into the history of science they will see plenty of awful human beings. Much like any other group of individuals. The progress of science continues on despite that though, and creationism continues to try and halt that progress whilst offering nothing beneficial in the process.

Creationism offers nothing meaningful to the conversation, and is simply fundamentalist dogma. Hence it is banned from most science classrooms.


Yes, my programming won't let me see the reason of the many posts from creationists. I have been turned into a robot by liberal education.

I don't see it constructive to continue talking with you. You don't even realize how overtly insulting you are making side comments about my "indoctrination," or "programming."

You know nothing about me, and you seem incapable of talking about the issue without making judgments about me.

I have limited time that I value and will spend elsewhere. Good day.

I've always thought a creationist believed God when he said he created heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them in six days, that's what I've always believed. There have been many that have said otherwise but I'm sticking with Gods word..

Exodus 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

tob

 

[brother Paul]

DL you said "We all know that the specific term creationist refers to someone who embraces either Old Earth or Young Earth Creationism, and it is not a term most theistic evolutionists use to describe themselves. I believe God created the universe, but I believe he did so very differently from creationist perspectives."

Now if I were you I would have to ask, "Could you please support this opinion from only current peer reviewed journals or papers written by reliable Evolutionary Biologists?"

To say one is a theistic evolutionist that believes God created the universe, and at the same time assert one is not a "creationist", to me is a self-contradiction. I am sorry if you feel offended but maybe you can explain this? If you wish to address my alleged false assertions (some being just my opinion, which we all have) then choose one or two and maybe I can give my reasons for this belief. This discussion was not just an exchange of back and forth scientific papers it was a discussion of reliable science and the OP suggests it is not all reliable.

I suggest science IS reliable for what it can discern but that some scientists are not reliable. You asked for an example of the assertion of "selective exclusion"....I gave you a verifiable example (with references and character witnesses)...do you want more? is or are there other issues with my view you would discuss?

And yes, if one shuts down all avenues of knowledge, data, and reasoning, to only one little tiny corner of the available resources, then I THINK that is either dismissal or rejection of alternate possibilities or else it is closed minded (that is my opinion and for you I ASSUMED the former not the latter)....IMO "open mindedness" considers all the data and then draws its own conclusions after considering all arguments for and against and objectivity does not blanketly dismiss or disregard any view or evidence that may disagree or be contrary to the position that person personally holds true at the time (learning involves growing from one perspective into another

I do not wish to insult YOU but I gave ample legitimate resources testifying to the fact that some "scientists" made practice of disregarding or discarding data (in their own studies) that would have indicated results contrary to their (what I consider predetermined) conclusions. THIS is NOT reliable science....so would you at least agree with that?

 

[Barbarian]

The evidence is in, and science has been much, much better at understanding nature than anything else we've done so far. No dodging that fact.

 

[brother Paul]

The evidence is in, and science has been much, much better at understanding nature than anything else we've done so far. No dodging that fact.

I agree, it is a great tool...the conclusions some scientists draw are not always reliable but there is no better tool.

 

[Barbarian]

Expecting perfection from a human activity is foolish. We merely note that science is more reliable at what it does, than anything else we have.

There are, after all, far more religious frauds than scientific frauds.

 

[brother Paul]

Fraudulence is definitely part of the human condition. But when one genuinely accepts the truth value of something and along come the many (religionsists or scientists) who commit such deceit, it only causes the innocently inquiring seeker to be deceived or to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. In all areas of knowledge and learning this to me is a sin...errors in thinking and mistakes are one thing (we all make those) but knowing something is not and creating the illusion that it is (usually to gain something) and then to convince others of what may not be as if it is, is inexcusable!

 

[Barbarian]

It's why a scientist's career is usually over if he reports something no one else can reproduce. And why the people at "Answers in Genesis" can be caught in one dishonesty after another, and never lose their jobs.

One of the important differences between science and creationism.

 

[Paloma]

It's why a scientist's career is usually over if he reports something no one else can reproduce. And why the people at "Answers in Genesis" can be caught in one dishonesty after another...

Oh really, love to see a few examples. The AIG crew are good people. Their ministry is awesome. They interpret the data differently than you but consecutive dishonesty? Pray tell.

 

[brother Paul]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2012/oct/12/scientific-fraud

 

[Barbarian]

The most notable are the doctoring of the statment of astronomers Clark and Caswell, regarding supernova remnants. AIG quoted them as saying it was "a mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved." After numerous protests, they finally took that down.

Another is altering the words of the Baptist Evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, deleting his mention that the Earth is millions of years old. You see, prior to the early 1900s, most creationists had no problem with an ancient Earth or even with evolution. That's a very modern change to creationism.

 

[Barbarian]

It's why you see so much replication going on. The best way to fight fraud is to try to replicate the results. And so it works. On the other hand, notice that creationists have never lost a job, even after egregious frauds.

This is one of the most important differences between science and creastionism.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

The most notable are the doctoring of the statment of astronomers Clark and Caswell, regarding supernova remnants. AIG quoted them as saying it was "a mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved." After numerous protests, they finally took that down.

Another is altering the words of the Baptist Evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, deleting his mention that the Earth is millions of years old. You see, prior to the early 1900s, most creationists had no problem with an ancient Earth or even with evolution. That's a very modern change to creationism.

The most notable are the doctoring of the statment of astronomers Clark and Caswell, regarding supernova remnants. AIG quoted them as saying it was "a mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved." After numerous protests, they finally took that down.

Another is altering the words of the Baptist Evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, deleting his mention that the Earth is millions of years old. You see, prior to the early 1900s, most creationists had no problem with an ancient Earth or even with evolution. That's a very modern change to creationism.

Charles Darwin penned the word "creationist" and was used in letters between he and friends.
Not until 1929 was "creationist" used in relation with Christian fundamentalists.
I doubt there were very many people in the world prior to the early 1900's who even knew the word "creationist", never mind thought of themselves as being one.

 

[Barbarian]

Charles Darwin penned the word "creationist" and was used in letters between he and friends.
Not until 1929 was "creationist" used in relation with Christian fundamentalists.

About the time YE creationism was invented.

 

[Paloma]

The most notable are the doctoring of the statment of astronomers Clark and Caswell, regarding supernova remnants. AIG quoted them as saying it was "a mystery." In fact, they wrote "the mystery is solved." After numerous protests, they finally took that down.

.

Sarfati....He offers the following quote from Clark and Caswell in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1976, 174:267:

"As the evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell say, ‘Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?’ and these authors refer to ‘The mystery of the missing remnants’."


Sarfati conveniently forgot to finish the last sentence, which actually appears on page 301. In its entirety, it reads

"…and the mystery of the missing remnants is also solved."


Lots of people on both sides of the tracks use this little trick....but as usual, there is probably more to the story.

 

[Barbarian]

It is entirely one thing to selectively quote. It is another thing to blatantly misrepresent what someone wrote.

A person reading AIG's edited version would get exactly the opposite message the the article presented.

I do not doubt that there are also dishonest scientists.

 

[jasonc]

If ye is current as in no older then 1900,how is it that judaism has been using the religious calender and says the years since Adam's creation?

 

[Barbarian]

If ye is current as in no older then 1900,how is it that judaism has been using the religious calender and says the years since Adam's creation?

A specific date for creation is not a part of YE creationism. Indeed, as you've seen, YE creationists are often very flexible in terms of how old the universe is, as they begin to realize that it couldn't possibly be 6,000 years old. Often the new boundary is about 10,000. But that fudges too.

YE creationism is based on the Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess whose visions were evangelized to some fundamentalists in the early 1900s.