The dishonesty of creationists.

[painted wolf]

There is some nice history here, but all still in use? Can you steer us to some current examples?

I do recognize the Rutherford description, which is only really concerned with the scale of the nucleus, and the diagram with the orbitals is familiar.

I used most of them in my chemistry classes during my undergrad... that was only a few years ago. The Rutherford was only discussed as the "sterotype" of what an atom is supposed to look like.

Each one has it's use depending on the situation. The electron cloud model is better for understanding the quantum nature of atoms but not so good for figuring out things like lewis structures, there the electron shell model is better.

If you want current examples you just have to look at any college level chemistry text book. In the textbook I used: Chemistry a project of ACS, chapers 1.2 and 4 goes into some detail about the subject and shows the uses of the electron cloud, electron wave and electron shell models of atoms.
It just happens that the electron shell model (bohr's) is the most generically useful.

It's just like the fact that the common periodic table is just one of several models for atomic families. It's just one means of conceptualizing the subject.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

a cool picture of atoms here

Atom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We can get nice pictures of the "outer shell", but you'll notice no detail on the actual structure. You can't tell where the electrons actually are because they are in a quantum probability state, thus they are "everywhere" and "nowhere" at the same time.

You certainly can't see the nucleus.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

We can get nice pictures of the "outer shell", but you'll notice no detail on the actual structure. You can't tell where the electrons actually are because they are in a quantum probability state, thus they are "everywhere" and "nowhere" at the same time.

You certainly can't see the nucleus.

wa:do

nope, most people dont understand how small the "parts" are, or the extreme hollowness of the atom.

 

[Looncall]

I used most of them in my chemistry classes during my undergrad... that was only a few years ago. The Rutherford was only discussed as the "sterotype" of what an atom is supposed to look like.

Each one has it's use depending on the situation. The electron cloud model is better for understanding the quantum nature of atoms but not so good for figuring out things like lewis structures, there the electron shell model is better.

If you want current examples you just have to look at any college level chemistry text book. In the textbook I used: Chemistry a project of ACS, chapers 1.2 and 4 goes into some detail about the subject and shows the uses of the electron cloud, electron wave and electron shell models of atoms.
It just happens that the electron shell model (bohr's) is the most generically useful.

It's just like the fact that the common periodic table is just one of several models for atomic families. It's just one means of conceptualizing the subject.

wa:do

Fair enough. We do sometimes use computationally convenient models without supposing that they match the way things actually are. Physicists have a phrase I have a bit of sympathy for: "shut up and and calculate".

 

[camanintx]

Painted Wolf...

I wasn't actually talking directly at you, however, I entened no wrong posting clear recorded findings from authenticated people who knows more than most here concerning Human Evolutionism.

But look at how it was taken read the rest of the board here and you can see the anger and discontentment in most all of the posters here. They are not going to allow anyone else to come in between their pagen driven beliefs (take a good look at Shroom and Outhouse for example.

I have much better things to do other than get put down by every word I speak.

so I am getting out of this while I still have some humanity left. But, I do admit, there are a few in these postings I find good to talk to...however the goods here do not out do the bads; so BY

You come on this board attacking the Theory of Evolution with old arguments that have been repeatedly debunked and you wonder why they respond with anger and discontent. What were you expecting, a Nobel Prize?

 

[paarsurrey]

Most Creationists rely on the reveled revelations of the Bible, and a literal interpretation of the OT in particular. As a former Christian I was also taught the inerrancy of the Bible.
I was also taught as a Christian not to bear false witness, that is, to lie, use deceit, or mislead is wrong.
However, the instances where leading Creations do deceive are numerous, and show the dishonesty many Creationists will stoop to in order to persuade those ignorant of science that Evolution and the ToE are wrong.

​

What is this "ToE"? Please.
I don't understand it.
One should not misrepresent the facts. I agree with you.​

 

[mycorrhiza]

What is this "ToE"? Please.
I don't understand it.
One should not misrepresent the facts. I agree with you.

ToE is the Theory of Evolution

The ToE would be the explanation of how evolution works. We should rather speak of Theories of evolution as there are several, though. Darwin's theory is not the same as the modern mainstream theory.

We know that evolution happens. At least 99% of all professional biologists believe in it.

 

[paarsurrey]

ToE is the Theory of Evolution

The ToE would be the explanation of how evolution works. We should rather speak of Theories of evolution as there are several, though. Darwin's theory is not the same as the modern mainstream theory.

We know that evolution happens. At least 99% of all professional biologists believe in it.

Thanks for you explaining it for me.

However, Darwin was not the first to discern Evolution of life from the nature; neither he set the evolution on.

Please see the following:


Pre-Darwinian Theories

Early Theories of Evolution:* Pre-Darwinian Theories

Evolution: an ancient pagan idea
Evolution ancient pagan idea

History of evolutionary thought

"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. With the beginnings of biological taxonomy in the late 17th century, Western biological thinking was influenced by two opposed ideas. One was essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable, a concept which had developed from medieval Aristotelian metaphysics, and that fit well with natural theology. The other one was the development of the new anti-Aristotelian approach to modern science: as the Enlightenment progressed, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.
In 1858, Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory that was explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life, meaning that two very different species could share a common ancestor. The theory was based on the idea of natural selection, and it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology."

History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[McBell]

However, Dawkins was not the first to discern Evolution of life from the nature; neither he set the evolution on.

Nor is he the last one.
To bad most creationists do not understand that the ToE has come a LONG way since Darwin.
To bad most creationists do not understand that survival of the fittest is one one small aspect of evolution.
To bad creationists do not understand that even if they were to "prove" evolution to be 100% bull ****, their creationism does not replace it.

 

[outhouse]

Thanks for you explaining it for me.

However, Dawkins was not the first to discern Evolution of life from the nature; neither he set the evolution on.

Please see the following:


Pre-Darwinian Theories

Early Theories of Evolution:* Pre-Darwinian Theories

Evolution: an ancient pagan idea
Evolution ancient pagan idea

History of evolutionary thought



History of evolutionary thought - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

more proof of creationist dishonesty

 

[paarsurrey]

more proof of creationist dishonesty

Whatever

 

[outhouse]

Whatever

typical creationist repsomce to facts


after posting known false information based on mythology

 

[painted wolf]

Actually the differences between the ancient Greek idea of evolution and the modern theory of evolution are pretty important.

If you are going to claim something is "pagan" based on it's pedigree... then mathematics, the printed Bible, the English language and computers all count as "pagan" ideas.

wa:do

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Actually Hammer:

I have no need to reinforice anything....I believe I made myself very clear in my very first posting, neither field of human interest has any clear provable evidence good enough to back up and/or even fully support either; The "Theory" of Human Evolution or The "Theory" of Creationism. As for my own personal beliefs, well---I believe in God, and that really has nothing at all to do with the issue of who is right or wrong here..........!

Well, it kind of does, as it's an obvious drive for you to reject what is true in favor of keeping your superstition alive.
Your statement about the theory of evolution in this post and the previous are all dead wrong, I'm afraid.
So, you quote nonexistent papers which you claim offer evidence, then claim to have attended an agreeable symposium which never occurred, all as a method of 'proving' your statements about ID/creationism pseudoscience, as being true?

OK, good luck with all that.

small note, by the way: creationism is at best, an hypothesis, it's not a theory. Theories describe evidence.

 

[Krok]

Thanks for you explaining it for me.

However, Dawkins was not the first to discern Evolution of life from the nature; neither he set the evolution on.

(I take that you mean Darwin).

Evolution has been a fact from way before Darwin.

Darwin explains how it happens: the mechanism of evolution is the origin of species by means of natural selection.

Easy.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes; I meant Darwin.
Thanks

 

[tumbleweed41]

Recently in another thread, a Creationist not only claimed that Piltdown Man is being used in textbooks as evidence of biological evolution, but also claimed he had those textbooks sitting on his desk, and that they were currently being used in biology classes.

I have yet to hear back on my challenge to provide the Titles, Authors, Publishers, and Library of Congress numbers of these supposed textbooks. (Easy enough to do, since they are "sitting on his desk")

Do these people not realize that a blatant lie such as this not only hurts their credibility as a person, but also reflects poorly on their professed religion and faith?

 

[johnhanks]

Recently in another thread, a Creationist not only claimed that Piltdown Man is being used in textbooks as evidence of biological evolution, but also claimed he had those textbooks sitting on his desk, and that they were currently being used in biology classes.

I have yet to hear back on my challenge to provide the Titles, Authors, Publishers, and Library of Congress numbers of these supposed textbooks. (Easy enough to do, since they are "sitting on his desk")

I hope you're not holding your breath.

Do these people not realize that a blatant lie such as this not only hurts their credibility as a person, but also reflects poorly on their professed religion and faith?

No, I think they really don't. I imagine their personal morality classes lying in the interests of their faith to be perfectly acceptable (end justifying means etc); and on the pragmatic level, anyone who calls them on the lie is probably lost to the cause anyway, while there's always the faint chance some naive soul will believe it and so be brought closer to Jesus...

 

[outhouse]

there is a track record of theist refusing knowledge because it contradicts with science.

according to science, no spirit or deity exist, no creator, so ALL theist can be tucked into this pattern of refusing knowledge to protect their theism.


there are now only different levels of disbelief and acceptance of knowledge. this goes from a global flood and a 6000 year earth to the atheist. every human fits in the scale somewhere.


thus the lies have to, and will continue.

 

[tumbleweed41]

...there is a track record of theist refusing knowledge because it contradicts with science.

according to science, no spirit or deity exist, no creator...

Correction, science has no say in whether or not their is a spirit, deity, creator, etc...
Science deals only with the natural world. Since the existence of a deity is not falsifiable, science does not deal with it.

YEC Creationism and Flood literalism, however, do make claims that directly conflict known scientific data.
That is where willful ignorance and dishonesty come into play.