Thread: Split from Palin for VP: Creationism in schools

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Enough with the damn unicorn already. An invisible pink unicorn is a paradox in itself anyway. If it's invisible...then how can it have colour?

Because it's supernatural! If you could understand the supernatural you would know that there is a whole spectrum of invisble colors, "invisible blue" is one of my favorites. Too bad the unicorn is invisible pink, I'd be much more open to accepting it if it had been invisible blue.

Russel is correct, she is both pink and invisible because she is omnipotent and can be any combination of colors she feels like, may her hooves never be shod!

Originally Posted by jockeys

Russel is correct, she is both pink and invisible because she is omnipotent and can be any combination of colors she feels like, may her hooves never be shod!

I've always preferred the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

yes, I, too, have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

unlike other deities, however, FSM is cool with me digging the IPU... he's not a jealous pasta.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

Well, John, that is just not how science works.

A theory must be supported by experimentation for it to be given credence. "Supported" does not mean proven. The self replicating polymers support the idea that organic matter (and possibly life) can occur naturally, they don't prove the theory of abiogenesis, but they show that it can't be ruled out.

Likewise, Russel, they also show that creation cannot be ruled out; therefore since the experimentation has not lead to proof of *either* theory, that IS how science works. The same rules apply to everything.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

If you claim the abiogenesis crowd has shown no proof for their theory, why not reciprocate the thought for the creation fellas. They haven't even shown "supporting" experiments in an empirical manner.

Russel this is sad, because if you really look at this argument, neither has abiogenesis. So far we've been shown that amino acids can be made in a laboratory, and you assure me certain polymers "reproduce" (still waiting for that link) but nothing that actually supports that *life* was created that way; likewise these same experiments can equally be said to demonstrate that "life may be possible to create"-which in no way proves abiogenesis, let alone disproving creation. So, essentially saying "well you haven't proved it either is an exercise in futility. My argument is that both should be approached equally, because the empirical evidence (the same stuff you listed, in fact) could be said to support both theories.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

If it doesn't satisfy you to see theologians, creationists, philosophers, chemists, biologists mathematicians, etc. agreeing on the point that intelligent design/creationism is not a science, then I doubt anything will, you are apparently in favor of Creation on a worldview basis, not a scientific basis. Check out the books by the members of the ISSR, Books by ISSR Members many of them are extremely supportive of creation, but still on a scientific basis they realize it's shortcomings.

The ISSR is only one organization Russel; it is like saying the extraterrestrial life society believes in Aliens. Abiogenesis is no more science than creation is; it is just an idea that people who do not believe in creation (or do not want to) are seeking desperately to prove. So far unsuccessfully.

Originally Posted by Russel Baldridge

The grand consensus is seldom always right?

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Carl Sagan "

What I mean is that, yes, majority opinion is wrong sometimes but the majority having an opinion does not make it wrong all the time. You can twist the "majority is not always correct" stance to match your position, but it will not make it anymore correct until some supporting experiments are shown.

Russel, this argument would be more grounded had your preferred theory been based in some conclusive experiments; however it is not, and therefore, laugh or not it really is not a decision you or anyone else can make without more evidence. You can make an assumption there is no creator, or no God, or both, if you prefer, but making assumptions based on unknowns is never good "science". Any amount of mocking the other guy's theory is ridiculous until your own actually has some basis of support, which so far, it does not. Sure, there are a lot of experiments you can link to which seek to prove it is, however, none of these has successfully done so. If such had been done it would be all over the news and Alfred Nobel's little prize committee would be taking a good look at the research as we speak. This has not happened.

Scott, Jockey, et al: please give some real arguments to your viewpoints? So far I've seen mockery of "the Christian God" (something that is not the scope of this discussion, by the way) or that if there was creation, it had to be done by an "invisible pink unicorn". Even the charge that "Christians" are upset because "Atheists" wish to teach their "exalted" science instead of a "creation myth". Ultimately, science is not about making assumptions, and probability alone favors an act of creation at some point. Not to mention, while many scientists (the Atheist ones, anyway) have sought for years to prove life came from nothing, they have shown no more empirical evidence for their ideas than have the ones who support creation in some form or another. "Creation" isn't about one God or another, or aliens, or any of those things. It is simply the consideration that someone or something preexisted life here, and brought it into existence, using whatever techniques. Mock whatever God you think I or others believe in, fact of the matter is the other theories have not stepped up to the plate, and are no more based in science than creation is. I will give that the Atheist theories have been given cool, official-sounding Latin names (which basically mean "a beginning without life" abiogenesis and autogenesis "self generation") based on this if you want to consider it differently, call "creation" "extragenesis". Does it matter? Not at all. Ultimately theories and hypotheses have to stand on the evidence, and so far, none of the above is any more grounded in evidence than the other.
Which is why, again, both should be taught or neither should, because in the blind eyes of true science, they are equal theories.


John P.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Likewise, Russel, they also show that creation cannot be ruled out; therefore since the experimentation has not lead to proof of *either* theory, that IS how science works. The same rules apply to everything.

No John, it's not how science works, not since Darwin at least. You can't just make up any old stuff you want to make up, say you think that's how it happens, and then say "prove it didn't happen that way" to detractors. that's ANTI-RATIONALISM. An absence of proof otherwise does not infer truth. An assertion that aliens molded up with laser beams cannot be disproved, but its still a rather silly assertion.

Let's call this end of topic for me, as I can't dredge up any respect for that outlook of science.

Originally Posted by ScottS

No John, it's not how science works, not since Darwin at least. You can't just make up any old stuff you want to make up, say you think that's how it happens, and then say "prove it didn't happen that way" to detractors. that's ANTI-RATIONALISM. An absence of proof otherwise does not infer truth. An assertion that aliens molded up with laser beams cannot be disproved, but its still a rather silly assertion.

Let's call this end of topic for me, as I can't dredge up any respect for that outlook of science.

Do what you wish. I never set out to disprove your religious theory any more than to prove mine; only to demonstrate they are equally unsupportable by science.
Incidentally, your statement of "not since Darwin at least" is something you could look into. Darwin was not an atheist, nor did he come up with the idea of abiogenesis.
While an absence of proof does not infer truth is one thing I agree with you on, I feel it should apply to all of the above. There is an absence of proof for abiogenesis just as there is for creation (other than probability) therefore abiogenesis deserves no more exalted status.
Otherwise, you are making decisions based on what you do not know, simply because of an assumption you made at some point in your life. That is not science, no matter what shade your lab coat.

Originally Posted by JohnP

Otherwise, you are making decisions based on what you do not know, simply because of an assumption you made at some point in your life. That is not science, no matter what shade your lab coat.

Actually, not. I've got about 15 credits in history of science, about half of them from the chair of the department of history of science at Hopkins. I've studied how man has interacted with science from Aristotle to the present in some depth through coursework, and like to think I have a pretty good feel for these things. While I"m not involved, my brother has actually just endowed an undergraduate scholarship in Science History. I point to Darwin, not for his beliefs or findings, but as a point in the scientific timeline at which God was effectively removed from scientific discussion.

The scopes trial came after darwin

I have 0 credits in history of science