1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 May '13 09:111 edit
    Originally posted by Kepler
    Perhaps your memory is failing you. Part of that enormous pile of dribble you posted was this:

    "In the 70s and early 80s, physicist Robert Gentry had several articles with very significant creationist data published in mainstream journals (Science, Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, etc.), but found he couldn’t publish openly creationist conclusions. hey are posted by creationists because you tell us. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
    That was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:

    "In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is true that we are not likely to publish letters supporting creationism.’ This admission is particularly significant since Science’s official letters policy is that they represent ‘the range of opinions ’. e.g., letters must be representative of part of the spectrum of opinions. Yet of all the opinions they receive, Science does not print the creationist ones."

    I just wanted to make it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
  2. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    07 May '13 09:24
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:

    [b]"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is tr ...[text shortened]... e it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
    You posted it, I replied to it. Your not liking that fact is neither here nor there to me.
  3. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    07 May '13 10:331 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    That was included to demonstrate and spport the statement below:

    [b]"In the summer of 1985 Humphreys wrote to the journal Science pointing out that openly creationist articles are suppressed by most journals. He asked if Science had ‘a hidden policy of suppressing creationist letters.’ Christine Gilbert, the letters editor, replied and admitted, ‘It is tr e it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
    And rightfully so, since creationists are not in the slightest interested in actually forwarding science, quite the opposite in fact. They want to discredit any science that refutes the fairy tales of the bible. They want to destroy science not build up actual scientific truth, they just want us to all go back in time when no one knew squat about the real world and therefore the biblical fantasy world could rule un-contested by mere facts and also put you on the stretcher rack if you disagreed.

    That is their ultimate goal, send us back 1000 years into the dreaded time of the inquisition where people who thought for themselves were executed summarily.

    They come into an issue with a stated agenda. Real science does not do that. Real science and real scientists come in with one agenda: Finding the fundamental cause of whatever they are working on, not to attempt to destroy 200 years of known discovery in their vain attempt to show creationistic fantasy as if it were real.
  4. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 May '13 11:18
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    And rightfully so, since creationists are not in the slightest interested in actually forwarding science, quite the opposite in fact. They want to discredit any science that refutes the fairy tales of the bible. They want to destroy science not build up actual scientific truth, they just want us to all go back in time when no one knew squat about the real w ...[text shortened]... years of known discovery in their vain attempt to show creationistic fantasy as if it were real.
    You seem proud of your prejudices.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    07 May '13 17:05
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    You seem proud of your prejudices.
    Hey, show me a bunny from 100 million years ago and we will be forced to chuck the whole evolution thing. Show me the money. You have nothing but words from a man made book from 3000 and 2000 odd years ago. Again, a one trick pony.
  6. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    07 May '13 20:022 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Hey, show me a bunny from 100 million years ago and we will be forced to chuck the whole evolution thing. Show me the money. You have nothing but words from a man made book from 3000 and 2000 odd years ago. Again, a one trick pony.
    Birth of a Bunny
    YouTube

    Evolution of a bunny
    YouTube

    Giant bunny fossil found
    YouTube

    Fossils due to flood.
    YouTube

    The Instructor
  7. Dublin Ireland
    Joined
    31 Oct '12
    Moves
    14235
    07 May '13 21:00
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Birth of a Bunny
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImOJvtA-2OU

    Evolution of a bunny
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOHiOJ7wjzU

    Giant bunny fossil found
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbh-L8iJiOo

    Fossils due to flood.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAgNxQCc2CI

    The Instructor
    When are you ever going to learn
    that You Tube is not populated
    by academic experts?
  8. Joined
    23 Nov '11
    Moves
    43657
    07 May '13 22:49
    It would be nice if the religious arguments/questions were placed on the "spirituality" forum rather than here with science. Intelligent Design and creationism is not science.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    08 May '13 02:59
    Originally posted by Phranny
    It would be nice if the religious arguments/questions were placed on the "spirituality" forum rather than here with science. Intelligent Design and creationism is not science.
    Yes, it is science. However, it also has some religious connotations and implications.

    The Instructor
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    08 May '13 12:27
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Yes, it is science. However, it also has some religious connotations and implications.

    The Instructor
    No, it is NOT science and never will be. It is dogma and faith, nothing more. Fairy tales. SOME religious connotations. YOU THINK?
  11. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    08 May '13 18:091 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    No, it is NOT science and never will be. It is dogma and faith, nothing more. Fairy tales. SOME religious connotations. YOU THINK?
    Many scientists consider it science.

    The Instructor
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    08 May '13 21:48
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I just wanted to make it clear that there is a bias that results in prejudical treatment of creationist scientist.
    There is a similar bias in the medical profession
    that results in prejudicial treatment of homeopaths.
  13. Standard memberKepler
    Demon Duck
    of Doom!
    Joined
    20 Aug '06
    Moves
    20099
    09 May '13 07:04
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Many scientists consider it science.

    The Instructor
    No they do not. There are some pseudo scientists who think that bending evidence to fit the Big Book of Fairy Tales is science. Real scientists don't work that way.
  14. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    09 May '13 07:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Many scientists consider it science.

    The Instructor
    I spend all day surrounded by scientists and haven't met a single one who takes creationism seriously. Perhaps you are creatively applying the word "many". Not that it matters whether scientists in general take it seriously - obviously, the ones who matter in this case are the ones who are experts in the field of biology.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    13644
    09 May '13 09:31
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    I spend all day surrounded by scientists and haven't met a single one who takes creationism seriously. Perhaps you are creatively applying the word "many". Not that it matters whether scientists in general take it seriously - obviously, the ones who matter in this case are the ones who are experts in the field of biology.
    No, the ones that matter are the ones that are experts in creation science.

    The Instructor
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree