Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: Teaching Creationism is Child Abuse

  1. -31
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Sure, I can provide you with some sources, but only if you explain to me why you didn’t ask for them to begin with but now are asking for them? Do you have to move the goalposts in order to win the debate? Why do you only want peer-reviewed sources? If something isn’t peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically false and if it is peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically valid? Seems like a rather naïve view of science to me.



    No it’s not, can you postulate a way we can know anything without scripture being infallible? Good luck.
    Too much to ask? Hmm.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  2. -32
    tylerdolphin's Avatar
    More Smug than Birthday Dog

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Sep 2005
    Posts:
    12,343
    vCash:
    4248
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post

    Sure, I can provide you with some sources, but only if you explain to me why you didn’t ask for them to begin with but now are asking for them? Do you have to move the goalposts in order to win the debate? Why do you only want peer-reviewed sources? If something isn’t peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically false and if it is peer-reviewed does that mean it’s automatically valid? Seems like a rather naïve view of science to me.



    No it’s not, can you postulate a way we can know anything without scripture being infallible? Good luck.
    So its naive to view science not accepted by scientists in a different light than science thats accepted by scientists? Makes sense.




    Quote Quote  

  3. -33
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by tylerdolphin View Post
    So its naive to view science not accepted by scientists in a different light than science thats accepted by scientists? Makes sense.


    That’s obviously not even close to what I said; it’s naïve to ask someone to prove their point by only using peer-reviewed sources because it assumes that all science that hasn’t been peer-reviewed is invalid and science that is peer-reviewed is automatically valid, which is absurd.

    As to your point, it’s also a bit naïve to think simply because the system ought to work a certain way it therefore actually does function that way.

    The vast majority of my points are supported by peer-reviewed studies, and I have no problem providing the citations. However, I just want him to explain why he moved the goalpost and why he only asks for peer-reviewed sources all of the sudden; it smells like a rat to me.
    Quote Quote  

  4. -34
    SkapePhin's Avatar
    Brady Slayer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2002
    Posts:
    19,228
    vCash:
    21762
    Loc:
    Washington DC
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I didn't move any goalposts. This is absurd. Any discussion regarding science should include data from peer-reviewed studies. A study that isn't peer-reviewed is pretty worthless. I could come out with a study tomorrow that shows that mushrooms are actually really small people with big hats, and unless another person reviews it and comes to a similar conclusion based on their own impartial research, my study is garbage.

    You and I both know that you won't find a single peer-reviewed study to support your fantastical assertions unless you dive deep into the Hovind circle jerk that is the Creationist "scientific community". Of course, you will claim that all legitimate scientists are moved by Satan... That is normally how these discussions end.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -35
    Perfect23's Avatar
    I wish people understood this

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2005
    Posts:
    4,285
    vCash:
    1522
    Loc:
    Earth
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I believe in evolution but I believe getting into a debate about science and religion is good because I feel its the best way to advance!
    Quote Quote  

  6. -36
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by SkapePhin View Post
    I didn't move any goalposts. This is absurd.


    You asked for evidence, I provided a list of evidences, then you altered your request by now wanting only peer-reviewed sources, which was something you never mentioned; that by definition is moving the goalposts. It’s not a big deal, I can hit the new goalposts (which I am sure you’ll move again), but I just wish you had the intellectual honesty to admit what you were doing.


    Any discussion regarding science should include data from peer-reviewed studies.


    Your position is naïve at best, I actually just watched a scholarly debate between Dr. Dembski and Christopher Hitchens (someone I am sure you respect and possibly even idolize), and Hitchens made numerous rather flamboyant scientific claims during the debate (99.8% of all species have gone extinct, quantum physics proves something can come from nothing, and natural processes can create a human eye just to name a few), and he referenced nearly two dozen sources….not a single one was peer-reviewed. Apparently your standard isn’t reasonable for even a scholarly and recorded debate, so it’s not even close to being reasonable for a friendly discussion on a football forum; so I simply reject it upon those grounds.
    You can watch the debate for yourself…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6K43WSZrmI

    A study that isn't peer-reviewed is pretty worthless.


    This is why I gave you a chance to smooth out your position a bit because you really painted yourself into a corner with these sort of statements. Let’s look at some scientific work that apparently you view as “worthless”…

    1. Newton’s Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, which contained his laws of motion, work on universal gravitation, and planetary motion was never peer-reviewed, even though it is regarded as one of the greatest contributions ever made to mathematics and Physics, according to you it’s….WORTHLESS!
    2. Copernicus’ “De revolutionibus orbium coelestium” which first proposed a heliocentric model for our solar system was never peer-reviewed, so again according to you it was really just….WORTHLESS!
    3. Einstein’s work on relativity was first published in the journal “Annalen der Physik”, but was never peer-reviewed, even though it’s the foundation for all of modern Physics, Einstein’s work on relativity was, according to you….WORTHLESS!
    5. Darwin’s Origin of Species was never peer-reviewed, I guess everything Darwin has contributed to Biology was in your eyes….WORTHLESS!
    6. Harmut Michel won the 1988 Nobel Prize for Chemistry for a study he did that was actually rejected for peer-reviewed publishing; I guess that study must have been….WORTHLESS!
    7. Hans Krebs's letter describing the citric acid cycle was rejected by Nature in 1937, he later won the Nobel Prize for that same letter, I guess that study was also…WORTHLESS!
    8. Stephen Hawking’s work on black hole evaporation, which is often regarded as his most impactful work, was rejected for peer-review, I guess that paper was…WORTHLESS!
    9. Watson’s and Crick’s ground-breaking work on DNA and the double helix was never peer-reviewed; I guess this research was….WORTHLESS!
    10. Mayer’s work and formulation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was never peer-reviewed, I guess that study was…WORTHLESS!
    11. Fermi’s paper on weak interaction theory of beta decay was rejected for publishing by Nature, I guess that work was…WORTHLESS!
    12. Deisenhofer’s work on photosynthesis was also rejected by Nature for publishing, I guess that work was also…WORTHLESS!

    The list goes on and on…

    In fact, what we have seen is that if all of the reviewers for a particular journal believe the Earth is old they will be willing to allow fraudulent work to be published as long as it agrees with their paradigm. The German anthropologist Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten spent 30 years submitting fraudulent work for publishing and it was all published, in numerous journals even. Thomas Terberger who is an archeologist finally blew the whistle on the fraudulent research. Protsch had given many of his discoveries fraudulent dates in order to back up his old earth views, his discovery known as “Binshof-Speyer woman” was dated by Protsch to have died 21,300 years ago, she was later verified by Oxford University to have only died 1,300 years ago after the fraud was exposed. His discovery known as “Paderborn-Sande man” was dated by Protsch to have died 27,400 years ago, but was later verified to have only died in 1750 AD. As long as you agree with the dogma, you’ll get your work published. [http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29004/]

    Your view that only peer-reviewed science is good science was actually shot down by the US Supreme Court in 1993, in a letter to the court the late great Stephen J. Gould and others supported the court’s decision to shoot down such an unreasonable and quite frankly misinformed position, in the letter Gould writes…
    [Emphasis added by SW]
    “Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone's notion of the prevailing "consensus" of scientific opinion. Science progresses as much or more by the replacement of old views as by the gradual accumulation of incremental knowledge. Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. A categorical refusal even to examine and consider scientific evidence that conflicts with some ill-defined notion of majority opinion is a recipe for error in any forum.

    Unable or unwilling to investigate scientific methodology and determine just what is orthodox and "generally accepted," the Ninth Circuit instead seized upon publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as the badge of respectability, the sine qua non of admissible "good science." The court thereby converted that editorial tool into something no scientist or journal editor ever meant it to be: a litmus test for scientific truth. This is not the way scientists work in their laboratories and symposia, and it is not the way that science should be used in the courtroom if the goal is to ensure the most accurate and valid judgments possible.
    As scientists, physicians, historians of science and sociologists of science who are members of the "scientific community," amici can assure the Court that this is not how scientists work in their pursuit of truth. Amici challenge the Ninth Circuit's premise that the only "good science" is that which is "generally accepted" and published in peer-reviewed journals, and reject the notion that scientific analysis and conclusions that might diverge from what a court deems the published "consensus" are so unreliable as to be wholly unworthy of consideration. The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists. Even if it were possible to determine the existence and character of a "consensus," which is itself a task fraught with difficulty, prevailing views and conventional wisdom have all too often been consigned to the dust heap of the history of science. If the purpose of the Federal Rules of Evidence is to enable the fact-finder to make the most informed decision possible, by providing the assistance of qualified experts who possess "scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue," Fed.R.Evid. 702, then it would be a grave mistake to require that all scientific analysis be supported by a consensus and published in a particular form in order to be considered.”

    I could come out with a study tomorrow that shows that mushrooms are actually really small people with big hats, and unless another person reviews it and comes to a similar conclusion based on their own impartial research, my study is garbage.


    That’s not how peer-review even works. The reviewers do not base their approval or rejection upon their own research, impartial or not. Most ground-breaking science appears in scientific books anyways, the peer-review system is more for incremental changes and refinements to currently accepted views. You could publish a book concerning your study and we could all read it and determine whether it is valid upon its own merits. That’s how Newton and Darwin did it.

    You and I both know that you won't find a single peer-reviewed study to support your fantastical assertions unless you dive deep into the Hovind circle jerk that is the Creationist "scientific community". Of course, you will claim that all legitimate scientists are moved by Satan... That is normally how these discussions end.


    Why do you keep bringing Hovind up? That right there displays your ignorance on the matter if you truly believe he is the best Creation has to offer.
    Actually, a lot of the evidence I provided was derived from peer-reviewed journals; however, what I am trying to get you to understand is that it doesn’t matter one way or the other. Peer-review is not the litmus test for “good science”, that is a completely naïve view of science today and it will still be a naïve view of science tomorrow.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -37
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,793
    vCash:
    4794
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks

    If I could take your pain and frame it, and hang it on my wall,
    maybe you would never have to hurt again...

    Quote Quote  

  8. -38
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    You all have a strange concept of what it means to win a debate, here are some rather egregious mistakes the Priest makes…

    1. He is confounding empirical sciences and historical sciences, every single example he gave was an example of a claim that can be tested empirically, the age of the Earth cannot be tested empirically, so he’s committing a fallacy of irrelevance.
    2. The Bible doesn’t teach any of the claims he mentioned, the Catholic Church taught a couple of them at one point in time, but scripture never has, so again the fallacy of irrelevance. Scripture does however reject the notion that the Earth is billions of years old and that man is just another animal that evolved.
    3. The Priest rejects the idea of a “young” Earth simply because he believes the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors an old Earth (which is debatable), and yet the scientific evidence even more overwhelmingly rejects the idea that a virgin can give birth, a man can resurrect from the dead three days after being killed, a man can heal the blind and sick, a man can turn water into whine, and a man can walk on water- and yet the Priest believes all of these things actually happened and would teach children they actually happened, inconsistency! He’s merely trying to gain favor and respect from the God haters, and that in itself is anti-Christian and absurd.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -39
    Locke's Avatar
    They looked like strong hands.

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Aug 2008
    Posts:
    8,793
    vCash:
    4794
    Loc:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler Waldorf View Post
    You all have a strange concept of what it means to win a debate, here are some rather egregious mistakes the Priest makes…

    1. He is confounding empirical sciences and historical sciences, every single example he gave was an example of a claim that can be tested empirically, the age of the Earth cannot be tested empirically, so he’s committing a fallacy of irrelevance.
    2. The Bible doesn’t teach any of the claims he mentioned, the Catholic Church taught a couple of them at one point in time, but scripture never has, so again the fallacy of irrelevance. Scripture does however reject the notion that the Earth is billions of years old and that man is just another animal that evolved.
    3. The Priest rejects the idea of a “young” Earth simply because he believes the scientific evidence overwhelmingly favors an old Earth (which is debatable), and yet the scientific evidence even more overwhelmingly rejects the idea that a virgin can give birth, a man can resurrect from the dead three days after being killed, a man can heal the blind and sick, a man can turn water into whine, and a man can walk on water- and yet the Priest believes all of these things actually happened and would teach children they actually happened, inconsistency! He’s merely trying to gain favor and respect from the God haters, and that in itself is anti-Christian and absurd.
    Statler Waldorf: Knows more about the bible than Priests. All hail Statler Waldorf, supreme master of religion...
    Quote Quote  

  10. -40
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,261
    vCash:
    1259
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke View Post
    Statler Waldorf: Knows more about the bible than Priests. All hail Statler Waldorf, supreme master of religion...
    Nice fallacious appeal to authority! Obviously they don’t teach any sort of logic to psychology majors in this day and age. I knew you couldn’t actually address any of my points; you’re so inept when it comes to these sorts of debates it would be funny if it were not so downright sad.
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 06:03 PM
  2. Pope Blames Child Abuse Scandal on Society
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Religion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-22-2010, 02:15 PM
  3. US Debt Is CHild Abuse
    By SnakeoilSeller in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-24-2010, 09:08 AM
  4. Child Bitten In 'One Of Worst Abuse Cases'
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2007, 05:33 PM
  5. UN troops face child abuse claims
    By Eshlemon in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-05-2006, 04:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •