Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[metis]

and/or a lineup to jump on your bandwagon, it just depends, and it depends on a lot more than scientific method- as we see with Piltdown man, The primeval atom, global cooling/warming/changing/ not changing, canals on Mars, Stalin's 'scientific' farming techniques etc etc.

It depends who you are, how well your theory fits academic fashion, political approval, ideological implications, how valuable it is to various parties. The idea of the wise Gandalf scientist, with no human failings or biases, is good for TV- and many vested interests too. reality, not so much.

Somehow you seem to have me picturing all scientists as all being Prince Charming and never doing anything wrong, which is hardly the case. I do believe I've made it clear that something like Piltdown is highly unlikely to happen again and that we in science are not always saints or inerrant. What more can I say?

 

[Sapiens]

Henry Fairfield Osborn, President of the American Museum of Natural History, examined the Piltdown and Sheffield Park finds and declared that the jaw and skull belonged together "without question"

[science] such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact (Mark Twain)

Hey, you're quote mining. Here's one paragraph ahead in the wiki article that you quoted without attribution:

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[7] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[8]

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Somehow you seem to have me picturing all scientists as all being Prince Charming and never doing anything wrong, which is hardly the case. I do believe I've made it clear that something like Piltdown is highly unlikely to happen again and that we in science are not always saints or inerrant. What more can I say?

well we agree there, we are not likely to claim canals on Mars again either. But I don't think we are beyond mistakes of similar magnitude today- just because we have more technology and money to throw at them. There the tendency amongst some to use 'science' as a label translating as 'cannot be questioned' which is ironic...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hey, you're quote mining. Here's one paragraph ahead in the wiki article that you quoted without attribution:

As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[7] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[8]

well yes I was- in response to the notion that it was merely one man's opinion on something only he had looked at., I take your point though

 

[Sapiens]

well we agree there, we are not likely to claim canals on Mars again either. But I don't think we are beyond mistakes of similar magnitude today- just because we have more technology and money to throw at them. There the tendency amongst some to use 'science' as a label translating as 'cannot be questioned' which is ironic...

I'd say the chances have dropped radically. Look how fast cold fusion was found out or some of the stem cell frauds ... a matter of days.

 

[metis]

There the tendency amongst some to use 'science' as a label translating as 'cannot be questioned' which is ironic...

But not within the scientific community itself. Not today.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But not within the scientific community itself. Not today.

I'd say the chances have dropped radically. Look how fast cold fusion was found out or some of the stem cell frauds ... a matter of days.

To name just one-- Gliese. 581g the first 'habitable' exoplanet, a super earth, universally accepted for years, and declared as evidence that Earth and it's life aren't all that special.
turns out it existed purely in the imagination of scientists and conceptual artists,

was this a bigger or smaller blunder than canals on Mars? I'm not sure, but it was the exact same problem of 'experts' seeing what they wanted to see, catching the fish the net was designed to catch, technology and computer simulations make that easier than ever, and mass media convinces the planet with 'scientists say....and here's a dramatic visual ..' that makes it 'science' and that means it's real, or you're an anti-science denier.

 

[McBell]

To name just one-- Gliese. 581g the first 'habitable' exoplanet, a super earth, universally accepted for years, and declared as evidence that Earth and it's life aren't all that special.
turns out it existed purely in the imagination of scientists and conceptual artists,

was this a bigger or smaller blunder than canals on Mars? I'm not sure, but it was the exact same problem of 'experts' seeing what they wanted to see, catching the fish the net was designed to catch, technology and computer simulations makes that easier than ever, and mass media convinces the planet with 'scientists say....so they must be right'

And yet here you are explaining how they were wrong...
Cause science is like that, hoaxes, lies, just plain old fashioned being wrong are found out and corrected.

Too bad the same cannot be said for religion

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And yet here you are explaining how they were wrong...
Cause science is like that, hoaxes, lies, just plain old fashioned being wrong are found out and corrected.

Too bad the same cannot be said for religion

All atheists I know are wrong, they never change.

This is right organization:

................................/-------creation: materialism, fact, body, etc.
creationism -
............................... \-------creator: spiritualism, opinion, soul, emotions, God, religion etc.

This is how atheists organize:

......................../--------reality: materialsim fact, opinion, morality, body, etc.
whatever -
.........................\--------fantasy: mickey mouse, soul, gods

That is why atheists always tend to social darwinism / scientism / physicalism / materialism / philosophical naturalism. Atheists have no validation whatsoever for subjectivity, so they simply chuck morality, opinion, emotions all into the material category. A very obvious fundamental error.

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, opinion in regards to the creator, and fact in regards to the creation.

 

[metis]

All atheists I know are wrong, they never change.

This is right organization:

................................/-------creation: materialism, fact, body, etc.
creationism -
............................... \-------creator: spiritualism, opinion, soul, emotions, God, religion etc.

This is how atheists organize:

......................../--------reality: materialsim fact, opinion, morality, body, etc.
whatever -
.........................\--------fantasy: mickey mouse, soul, gods

That is why atheists always tend to social darwinism / scientism / physicalism / materialism / philosophical naturalism. Atheists have no validation whatsoever for subjectivity, so they simply chuck morality, opinion, emotions all into the material category. A very obvious fundamental error.

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, opinion in regards to the creator, and fact in regards to the creation.

Fabricating an either/or dichotomy consisting of stereotypes really doesn't help your cause.

 

[Midnight Rain]

All atheists I know are wrong, they never change.

This is right organization:

................................/-------creation: materialism, fact, body, etc.
creationism -
............................... \-------creator: spiritualism, opinion, soul, emotions, God, religion etc.

This is how atheists organize:

......................../--------reality: materialsim fact, opinion, morality, body, etc.
whatever -
.........................\--------fantasy: mickey mouse, soul, gods

That is why atheists always tend to social darwinism / scientism / physicalism / materialism / philosophical naturalism. Atheists have no validation whatsoever for subjectivity, so they simply chuck morality, opinion, emotions all into the material category. A very obvious fundamental error.

Only creationism validates both fact and opinion, opinion in regards to the creator, and fact in regards to the creation.

I don't know any atheists that fall into social Darwinism. Do you know what that is?

 

[Sapiens]

To name just one-- Gliese. 581g the first 'habitable' exoplanet, a super earth, universally accepted for years, and declared as evidence that Earth and it's life aren't all that special.
turns out it existed purely in the imagination of scientists and conceptual artists,

was this a bigger or smaller blunder than canals on Mars? I'm not sure, but it was the exact same problem of 'experts' seeing what they wanted to see, catching the fish the net was designed to catch, technology and computer simulations make that easier than ever, and mass media convinces the planet with 'scientists say....and here's a dramatic visual ..' that makes it 'science' and that means it's real, or you're an anti-science denier.

I can't speak for the general public, but that's not the issue ... that's a public problem with the media, not with science. I read the reports, understood the limitations of the data, thought "that would be nice" but remained quite agnostic about it, as did virtually all the scientists I knew, so I rather fail to see your point beyond just another media complaint that I would agree with.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

public perception = reality, when it comes to funding. People want results, scientists want a job like everyone else, and a little sensationalism isn't protested too fervently if it's for the 'greater good' of the team. certain institutions are not so naïve- as to not know exactly how certain summaries of studies and press releases will be presented to the public... while not technically incriminating themselves. Though more candid internal communications often do.

We all know the implications of being alone v being surrounded by other sentient life,
just as a beginning v a static uncreated universe, the preferred outcome in atheist academia is hardly well concealed

 

[metis]

public perception = reality, when it comes to funding. People want results, scientists want a job like everyone else, and a little sensationalism isn't protested too fervently if it's for the 'greater good' of the team. certain institutions are not so naïve- as to not know exactly how certain summaries of studies and press releases will be presented to the public... while not technically incriminating themselves. Though more candid internal communications often do.

We all know the implications of being alone v being surrounded by other sentient life,
just as a beginning v a static uncreated universe, the preferred outcome in atheist academia is hardly well concealed

What about the theistic academia, including the myriads of scandals that we run across dealing with them on a regular basis?

 

[Midnight Rain]

public perception = reality, when it comes to funding. People want results, scientists want a job like everyone else, and a little sensationalism isn't protested too fervently if it's for the 'greater good' of the team. certain institutions are not so naïve- as to not know exactly how certain summaries of studies and press releases will be presented to the public... while not technically incriminating themselves. Though more candid internal communications often do.

We all know the implications of being alone v being surrounded by other sentient life,
just as a beginning v a static uncreated universe, the preferred outcome in atheist academia is hardly well concealed

The reality of facts in science are not determined by the sensationalism. If what you were implying were true then we wouldn't be able to trust anything that we have learned.

That is one reason why the peer review is such an important process. It isn't perfect but we as laymen are unable to determine what the studies actually mean. However another Ph.D can sniff out the bull****. Then from there we have predictions to verify the discovery.

Sensationalism is easily rutted out. Though having it recognized by the politics is not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The reality of facts in science are not determined by the sensationalism

agree there, we have to recognize the distinction between science- the method we all know and love
and science, the human, political, academic institution

They are often at odds with each other

 

[Midnight Rain]

agree there, we have to recognize the distinction between science- the method we all know and love
and science, the human, political, academic institution

They are often at odds with each other

Usually only for the short term. Only one has evidence. A good example of this would be the idea of lead poisoning from pollution from lead based oil products. The idea of "safe level of led in the human body" idea was promoted and believed till someone who was an expert in carbon and lead came along and proved him wrong. The scientific community understood immediately. However it took congress years to change.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What about the theistic academia, including the myriads of scandals that we run across dealing with them on a regular basis?

Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre were all skeptics of atheism, all went against the academic grain

pop science atheists like Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, De Grasse, Dawkins etc etc may achieve more awards, sell more books, but their combined contribution to actual practical scientific discovery... falls somewhere behind the inventor of the chip clip?

 

[metis]

Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre were all skeptics of atheism, all went against the academic grain

pop science atheists like Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, De Grasse, Dawkins etc etc may achieve more awards, sell more books, but their combined contribution to actual practical scientific discovery... falls somewhere behind the inventor of the chip clip?

You didn't answer my question, so let me post it again: "What about the theistic academia, including the myriads of scandals that we run across dealing with them on a regular basis?"

And, btw, most scientists are not atheists.

 

[fantome profane]

Einstein, Planck, Lemaitre were all skeptics of atheism, all went against the academic grain

pop science atheists like Hawking, Krauss, Sagan, De Grasse, Dawkins etc etc may achieve more awards, sell more books, but their combined contribution to actual practical scientific discovery... falls somewhere behind the inventor of the chip clip?

This is your assessment of the work of Stephen Hawking? You really want to rethink that.