Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Come on now,you really think a man with a solid education is gonna say "
living beings decrease the entropy of the universe"

That looks like sarcasm about the ones promoting Misinformation.

His sarcasm was directed at you? Okay.

So are you going to continue pushing your 2nd Law error?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.

Great.

Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?

 

[daws101]

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

You might be right but I do remember reading something someone admitted this intelligent agent was the Christian God.

and? an admission of belief is not evidence. lol!

 

[daws101]

You mind pointing out the lie ?


Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

everything you post is based on a lie, that pretty much covers it.


you question is ridiculous ...
your fairytale say in very clear terms god boinked everything into existence... from the simple to the complex.. so food would not have been a problem.
problem is it's way too convenient and completely and utterly false.
there is no evidence of any kind to support a creator.

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food
Bacteria from a hot spring in California conduct photosynthesis with arsenic--and suggest a process that might have predated typical photosynthesis

By David Biello

Arsenic, a deadly poison, kills by blocking the ability of cells to produce and consume energy. Yet, some red and green slime mats in briny hot springs in Mono Lake, Calif., use the potent compound rather than water to carry energy during photosynthesis (the process used by bacteria and plants that converts sunlight into food) new research in Science reveals.

The newly discovered microbes steal two electrons from the arsenic in the spring water, turning it into so-called arsenate, and use the energy to transform carbon dioxide into food. This only happens in the presence of light, which provides the energy to initiate the process, according to microbiologist Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey, who led the discovery.

These are not the only bacteria that use poison to make food: They are from the genus Ectothiorhodospira, which largely relies on another poison, toxic hydrogen sulfide, for the same purpose. By analyzing the genetic material of the microbe, the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years, according to Oremland. That could mean that arsenic-based photosynthesis predates the oxygen-producing variety that enables life as we know it.

Not everyone agrees. "I don't think this is an ancient organism that predated most purple bacteria but something that evolved after purple sulfur bacteria already existed," says molecular biologist Donald Bryant of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who reviewed the paper for Science, speaking of the new bacteria's ancient relatives that are thought to have evolved earlier. "It is an interesting case in which nature has taken something that is normally quite toxic and made good use of it for growth."

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food: Scientific American

the most important part "the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years"

that fact all by itself lays waste to creationism fairytales.

[ame=http://youtu.be/q71DWYJD-dI]How did the evolution of complex life on Earth begin? - The Gene Code, Episode 1 - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth?

Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation
Editor's Note: We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today, and then we added a few that were on our minds, too. This article is the last of 15 in LiveScience's "Greatest Mysteries" series.

Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.

Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.


The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex—they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.

Lots of ideas

Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.

"There may have been several origins," said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We usually make 'origins' plural just to indicate that we don't necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn't happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts."

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this "RNA World" hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteins—which perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNA—developed.

"A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable," Deamer said.

RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes.

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky."

The anthropic principle

But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.

Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.

Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.

As Dawkins writes, "There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack."

Shapiro doesn't think it's necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.

"If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren't astronomical anymore," Shapiro told LiveScience.

Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.

"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."
Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience

Now prove it conjecture boy.

no need what's posted is proof.
unlike when you post GOD SAID.....is conjecture. slapdick.

 

[Hollie]

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

SNIP

All good stuff, but sadly wasted.

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.

If you are gonna be a scientist may I suggest that you understand creationists carry the same degrees as many of the secularists,they just have different interpretations of the very same evidence.. You really think they did not learn the same science as the secularists ?

Your comment fails credibility on a couple of levels. As it happens so frequently with the creationist cabal, suspicious credentials seem to haunt a great many of the fundies.

In addition, I’m always suspicious of creationist “authors” who claim expertise in a subject yet have no formal training in that subject. What we see frequently is that creationist often have no academic credentials to give them credibility for work in the field of “creation voodoo science” and their degrees (often from degree mills), do not coincide with the knowledge necessary to develop a thriving dissertation on life sciences.


Suspicious Creationist Credentials




Secondly, let’s remember that most of the creation ministries require a formal, signed “statement of faith” from the charlatans who represent these Christian fundamentalist organizations.

For one example:
The AiG Statement of Faith - Answers in Genesis


Quite clearly, by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between theories deserving credibility: the rational position being natural laws; the extremist Christian position being supernatural intervention. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your gods (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observer who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

 

[itfitzme]

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy.

Not so fast, sparky.

Do you admit that the 2nd Law in no way disproves evolution or increasing complexity?

It would be irresponsible to let him move forward, completely misrepresenting the 2nd law.

Not from what I have been reading. Hell I have even quoted people on your side agreeing with me.

Give me an example of any organism reducing entropy ?

You haven't defined the system.

It also doesn't really matter because your assumed premise for the question is faulty from the outset.

 

[Hollie]

Fun with Fundies.


Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit

Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit - Law Blog - WSJ

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a master’s degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by “dismissed,” we mean the judge tore it apart.

…

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institute’s arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the group’s concerns “to the extent [he] is able to understand them.” At another, he describes the group’s filings as “overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information.” Click here: Judge Sam Sparks Ruling in ICR v. Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board
for the judge’s opinion.

 

[daws101]

Fun with Fundies.


Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit

Texas Judge Rips Creationism Group in Science Degree Suit - Law Blog - WSJ

Austin federal judge Sam Sparks dismissed a suit by the Dallas-based Institute of Creation Research, which seeks the right to grant a master’s degree in science from a biblical perspective. And by “dismissed,” we mean the judge tore it apart.

…

That claim was dismissed by Sparks in an opinion that criticized the Institute’s arguments as incoherent. At one point he writes that he will address the group’s concerns “to the extent [he] is able to understand them.” At another, he describes the group’s filings as “overly verbose, disjointed, incoherent, maundering and full of irrelevant information.” Click here: Judge Sam Sparks Ruling in ICR v. Texas Higher Ed Coordinating Board
for the judge’s opinion.

what the judge said seems kinda familiar....?

 

[itfitzme]

Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

Who is "you people"?

 

[Hollie]

Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

As is so often the case, you're completely befuddled. "Dissorder" has nothing to do with biological evolution. If you're going to argue against those theories presented by atheistic evilutionists, you shoud acquire at least a middling understanding of the subject.

Hell, you're befuddled ^2

 

[itfitzme]

Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

Look not trying to be rude but you people can't make up your mind. You know that dissorder is a problem for your theory. Hell that is one of evolutionists favorite arguments that the universe and nature does not show order because order would infer design.

Talk about reversing directions.

Now that I think of it, I had never heard of this concept that entropy means "dissorder" until you said it, apperently drawing it from some Creationist "proof".

 

[itfitzme]

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

SNIP

All good stuff, but sadly wasted.

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.

Oh, I have no expectation of him actually learning science. He's constructed a false image in his mind. It is quite ironic.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

SNIP

All good stuff, but sadly wasted.

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.

Oh, I have no expectation of him actually learning science. He's constructed a false image in his mind. It is quite ironic.

YWC is trying to play a game of "gotcha". A normal person would learn something from consistently losing this game. But YWC isn't interested in "learning science" at all. He only wants his beliefs validated. So far he has a perfect record of striking out but he still persists. Such is the irrational nature of belief.

 

[YWN666]

This is nice of pbs;

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

Excellent show but I also recommend the book "The Devil in Dover" by Laurie Lebo for a more in depth explanation of the trial.

 

[YWN666]

It comes down to the sorry state of science education in this country. The average person simply doesn't know enough science to be able to listen to the IDers and Creationists and recognize that their arguments are crap on any technical level. The man on the street doesn't know enough about physics, so when one of the anti-science spouts off about how entropy doesn't work that way or Irreducible Complexity or "It's just a theory" it sound perfectly reasonable.

Short of turning public schools into STEM factories for kids, I don't know how to change this either.

It is a sad state. In a time when we are falling behind other countries in science education, these nitwits want to go in the other direction and teach our kids that fantasy is fact for their own selfish goals. If I was an astronaut sitting in a capsule on top of millions of pounds of explosive liquid oxygen, I'd be more than a little nervous to find out that the technicians that have my life in their hands majored in "creation science". I can't believe in the year 2013 that we even have to have this laughable debate.

Most creationists did not major in creation science because its not taught in major universities nor community colleges,you nitwit.

Have you ever asked yourself why? Here is a hint: CREATIONISM IS BULLSHIT

 

[Youwerecreated]

Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?

There is a difference between having an unconventional idea and disregarding and/or intentionally misrepresenting what science has discovered.

And no, I don't think intellectual dishonesty is over the top considering some of the things the ID crowd and their allies among Fundamentalist Christianity have done.

Creationists were the earliest scientists. They don't attack real science,they reveal the weaknesses of theories that lacks evidence and is taught as fact. They poke holes in stupid baseless theories that cause people to reject God.

Deal with it,the creationist is slowly but surely poking holes in peoples vivid imaginations. ID are not allies to creationists you are beginning to sound like many of the angry Ideologues in this thread.

What are you worried about you have the courts and the government on your side ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I wonder why science departments aren't teaching Creation Science alongside Physics, Geology, Chemistry, Biology, Meteorology, and Hydrology.

Didn't you understand the Judgement in the Dover trial ? hell because of a little phrase spoken of in a letter by Jefferson.

Jefferson simply explained the 1st amendment in layman's terms. At least he did so for anyone capable of comprehending that the unholy alliance between church and state had been the primary cause of considerable suffering and death for mankind over the millennia.

Believe as you wish.

 

[Hollie]

Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?

There is a difference between having an unconventional idea and disregarding and/or intentionally misrepresenting what science has discovered.

And no, I don't think intellectual dishonesty is over the top considering some of the things the ID crowd and their allies among Fundamentalist Christianity have done.

Creationists were the earliest scientists. They don't attack real science,they reveal the weaknesses of theories that lacks evidence and is taught as fact. They poke holes in stupid baseless theories that cause people to reject God.

But remember, creationism / ID is not in any way connected with Christian fundamentalism.

It's "creation science".

 

[Youwerecreated]

His sarcasm was directed at you? Okay.

So are you going to continue pushing your 2nd Law error?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system. Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy ?

I will concede that earth may be an open system even though some say it is essentially a closed system.

Great.

Are you willing to admit that it is very rare for a system to reduce entropy?

You still don't get it. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy increases.
You can look at a plant or an animal and by using outside energy, they can decrease entropy in themselves, without changing the fact that entropy, universe-wide, is still increasing.
The fact that an oak tree is more complex than an acorn can be explained by the sunlight energy it used to make itself more complex.

So claiming that because, universe-wide, entropy is increasing, therefore life cannot evolve into more complex forms, is just plain wrong.

Do you get it yet?

Listen, I don't believe the current theory of evolution is even possible let alone ever happened. I believe small changes happened but only because the genetic data for these small changes already existed in our genome.

I believe there are limits to adapting to the environment and that is why the extinction list is so long.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Like no other person of science never went against the establishment ? namely secularists gaining control over the creationist. I happen to agree with his views on Irreducible Complexity. Intellectual dishonesty,that is just a little over the top don't you think ?

There is a difference between having an unconventional idea and disregarding and/or intentionally misrepresenting what science has discovered.

And no, I don't think intellectual dishonesty is over the top considering some of the things the ID crowd and their allies among Fundamentalist Christianity have done.

Creationists were the earliest scientists. They don't attack real science,they reveal the weaknesses of theories that lacks evidence and is taught as fact. They poke holes in stupid baseless theories that cause people to reject God.

Deal with it,the creationist is slowly but surely poking holes in peoples vivid imaginations. ID are not allies to creationists you are beginning to sound like many of the angry Ideologues in this thread.

What are you worried about you have the courts and the government on your side ?

For someone who allegedly believes in the "Truth" YWC certainly has no problem with fabricating blatant lies. Then again his "Truth" is also a fabrication so it goes with the territory.

 

[itfitzme]

All good stuff, but sadly wasted.

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.

Oh, I have no expectation of him actually learning science. He's constructed a false image in his mind. It is quite ironic.

YWC is trying to play a game of "gotcha". A normal person would learn something from consistently losing this game. But YWC isn't interested in "learning science" at all. He only wants his beliefs validated. So far he has a perfect record of striking out but he still persists. Such is the irrational nature of belief.

Sounds similar to addictive behavior, random reward strengthens it. I'm sure I've got mine, just to close to see. After all, why would anyone, in their right mind, spend the day reading and posting in this thread???!!