A simple question for creationists.

[Ignite]

Except that the scientists don't just "say so." Publications have to be peer-reviewed, and there are rivals around the globe to try repeating the experiments.

But then of course we all know what your response would be. "The hegemony of science is a massive conspiracy funded by Illuminati." Every evolutionary biologist knows deep down that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, they are just too timid to challenge the institution/have their evil agenda in keeping the whole world ill-informed.

That was brilliant.

 

[johnhanks]

If you are paying attention, you'll notice that this approach is never fruitful in bring up a predictable model for the Law to be formed out of the theory!

If you had paid any attention when learning science at school, you'd have noticed that laws are not formed out of theories - it works the other way. The gas laws are not derived from the kinetic theory of gases, but vice versa.

Laws describe regularities in nature; theories seek to explain them.

 

[TC Mike]

This is a really simple and probably obvious question to ask creationists (or anybody who doesn't think evolution is correct), but one to which I can not ever recollect obtaining an answer to.

My question is simply, how do you explain fossils?

Please give your honest opinions

Fossils are the organisms that became buried in the sediments that were laid down by the global flood. They were rapidly burried and subsequently fossilized.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fossils are the organisms that became buried in the sediments that were laid down by the global flood. They were rapidly burried and subsequently fossilized.

Hopefully you're joking...right?????

 

[JustWondering2]

I guess some people still believe in fairy tales, HUH?

 

[McBell]

Hopefully you're joking...right?????

I guess some people still believe in fairy tales, HUH?

It is just more evidence that suggests that science classes are failing the world over...

 

[painted wolf]

Fossils are the organisms that became buried in the sediments that were laid down by the global flood. They were rapidly burried and subsequently fossilized.

Except for all the ones that weren't.

A lot of the best fossils are produced by dry ashfalls from volcanic eruptions.
Others in mud traps during a drought or in asphalt/tar seeps that also show dry conditions.
Most of the rest of the best were buried slowly by fine silt in anoxic conditions.

Not saying that we don't have some nice bone beds that are the result of seasonal flooding (the Centrosaurs beds of Alberta are a great example) but we know the flooding is only seasonal because the remains have been scavenged by predators.

wa:do

 

[rusra02]

Except that the scientists don't just "say so." Publications have to be peer-reviewed, and there are rivals around the globe to try repeating the experiments.

But then of course we all know what your response would be. "The hegemony of science is a massive conspiracy funded by Illuminati." Every evolutionary biologist knows deep down that evolution is wrong and creationism is right, they are just too timid to challenge the institution/have their evil agenda in keeping the whole world ill-informed.

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

 

[McBell]

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

Slackjawed creationist surprised at his own incompetence at a scientific job : Pharyngula

 

[McBell]

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

You do realize that your link actually hurts your argument, right?
He was not fired because he is a creationist.
He was fired because he flat out refused to do the job he was hired to do.

Thus again we see yet another example of the dishonest tactics of creationists.

 

[camanintx]

Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says - The Boston Globe

So you think it is okay if a creationist doesn't do the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs?

 

[rusra02]

You do realize that your link actually hurts your argument, right?
He was not fired because he is a creationist.
He was fired because he flat out refused to do the job he was hired to do.

Thus again we see yet another example of the dishonest tactics of creationists.

You do realize your quote from an evolutionist does not prove this scientist refused to do the job he was hired to do. The suit was dismissed for procedural reasons.

"The defendants, however, argued that Abraham did not file the lawsuit within the timeframe specified by law. Furthermore, the court documents stated, research in Hahn's lab "would have involved application of evolutionary principles without qualifications concerning the acceptance of evolution."
Read more: Creationist postdoc loses lawsuit - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences Creationist postdoc loses lawsuit - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

In so many words, the Woods Hole Institution stated if you cannot accept evolution, you cannot do scientific work. Thus again, we see yet another example of the dishonest tactics of (some) evolutionists. Your claim that people who believe in creation are dishonest appears to be just another ploy to divert attention away from the weaknesses of the ToE. And it brings no credit to you.​

 

[rusra02]

So you think it is okay if a creationist doesn't do the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs?

The statement that the scientist "doesn't do the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs" presupposes facts not in evidence. He was apparently fired because he believed in creation, not because he didn't do his job. The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, not evidential.

 

[McBell]

In so many words, the Woods Hole Institution stated if you cannot accept evolution, you cannot do scientific work. ​

This is nothing more than a bold faced lie.

Your claim that people who believe in creation are dishonest appears to be just another ploy to divert attention away from the weaknesses of the ToE. And it brings no credit to you.

It is not a claim.
It is a proven fact.
One that you yourself have verified repeatedly right here on RF.

 

[camanintx]

The statement that the scientist "doesn't do the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs" presupposes facts not in evidence. He was apparently fired because he believed in creation, not because he didn't do his job. The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, not evidential.

You should be careful what you claim about the "facts not in evidence" when the facts are so easily obtained. According to the Caselaw files, Dr. Abraham was hired to research the evolution of zebrafish. When he told his boss that he didn't believe in evolution, he was in effect saying he could not do the job he was hired to do. While the federal court dismissed his lawsuit because he waited to long to file it, both the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rejected his claim of religious descrimination.

So I ask you again, should someone be excused from doing the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs?

 

[rusra02]

You should be careful what you claim about the "facts not in evidence" when the facts are so easily obtained. According to the Caselaw files, Dr. Abraham was hired to research the evolution of zebrafish. When he told his boss that he didn't believe in evolution, he was in effect saying he could not do the job he was hired to do. While the federal court dismissed his lawsuit because he waited to long to file it, both the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) rejected his claim of religious descrimination.

So I ask you again, should someone be excused from doing the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs?

This is quote from Abraham's supervisor, Dr. Hahn, as reported in the Boston Globe:

"You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

Also, the EEOC routinely dismisses nearly all the complaints made to them, as a prerequisite for filing a discrimination lawsuit, so their dismissal is of no import.

 

[Looncall]

The statement that the scientist "doesn't do the job they were hired to do because of their religious beliefs" presupposes facts not in evidence. He was apparently fired because he believed in creation, not because he didn't do his job. The court dismissed the case on procedural grounds, not evidential.

I think a good case could be made that he obtained the job using false pretenses. That's a firing item right there.

 

[McBell]

This is quote from Abraham's supervisor, Dr. Hahn, as reported in the Boston Globe:

"You have indicated that you do not recognize the concept of biological evolution and you would not agree to include a full discussion of the evolutionary implications and interpretations of our research in any co-authored publications resulting from this work," Hahn wrote in the letter, which the commission provided to the Globe. "This position is incompatible with the work as proposed to NIH and with my own vision of how it should be carried out and interpreted."

Also, the EEOC routinely dismisses nearly all the complaints made to them, as a prerequisite for filing a discrimination lawsuit, so their dismissal is of no import.

Yes, from your own quote we can see that he flat out refused to do the job he was hired to do.

Thank you for pointing that out.

 

[tumbleweed41]

The headline should read:

"Scientist" applies for job under false pretexts, predictably fired.