3
   

Darwinists: Persisting despite the evidence

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:21 am
@OmSigDAVID,
quite a few. GUNGASNAKE and his ilk regularly provide statistics as to what percent of the US population accept Biblical Inerrancy v scientific evidence. Its kind of funny because , somehow, by presenting the "VOTE COUNT" of who accepts Creationism, GUNGASNAKE somehow feels that this adds credibility to Creationist nonsense.

There are "Scientists" of all stripes in the Creationist ranks. Several astronomers apparently just let their brains turn off when it comes to how fast light travels and how many light years into space we can now see.

The fact is that YECS and OECS may have one point of science in which they try tp debate from a point of strength. However, all other "support" sciences do not underpin this single point. EG, the YECS believe that the earth is <10000 years old and therefore light must have travelled at a greater speed in the past. However, all geophysical and geochronological data says NO to the YEC belief.


OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:48 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Quote:
quite a few. GUNGASNAKE and his ilk regularly provide statistics
as to what percent of the US population accept Biblical Inerrancy
v scientific evidence. Its kind of funny because , somehow,
by presenting the "VOTE COUNT" of who accepts Creationism,
GUNGASNAKE somehow feels that this adds credibility to Creationist nonsense.

How did the vote count come out (percentage wise)
as far as rejecting evolution and rejecting the age of the Earth?

Quote:

There are "Scientists" of all stripes in the Creationist ranks.
Several astronomers apparently just let their brains turn off
when it comes to how fast light travels and how many light years into space we can now see.

Does the few 1000 year age apply only to Earth
or to the rest of the solar system ?
Any observation qua other gallaxies?


Quote:

The fact is that YECS and OECS may have one point of science
in which they try tp debate from a point of strength.

What is that point?

Quote:

However, all other "support" sciences do not underpin this single point.

WHICH single point ?


Quote:

EG, the YECS believe that the earth is <10000 years old and therefore
light must have travelled at a greater speed in the past.
However, all geophysical and geochronological data says NO to the YEC belief.

I have heard some theorizing
that at the moment of the Big Bang, the speed of light was faster.
From what I understand of the theory,
that long antedated the beginning of the Earth or the solar system.





BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:53 am
@farmerman,
To be overly fair is not part of the current big bang theory that space for some little time after the bang did expanded faster then light speed?

Am I wrong in that?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 09:56 am

To Spendius and to Gunga:

Do either of u, or both of u,
have any thoughts about the propriety
of the Pope having confined DaVinci to house arrest for life,
after extorting a repudiation of the heliocentric theory of the universe from him ?

Good ?
Bad ?
Y ?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:04 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
WHICH single point
Quote:
You will notice that, whenever a Creationist attempts an argument of some scientific point, they choose one point at a time (eg, age dating by K/Ar of MtSt Helens lava dome aplites) dont provide accurate data. This is actually true, howvwer , the mere fact that

1 the method is missapplied

2The outgassing of previous eruptions has not been accounted for

3NO OTHER GEOLOGIC SUPPORT DATA IS COLLECTED.

So, what happens is that all other methods will tightly underpin the standard science results and the results of the nuke dating are already in question from a QA standpoint

When the Creationists rely on a WORLDWIDE FLOOD, they fail to provide all the data from stratigraphy, nuke dating, archeology etc. They just pull one point of discussion out of their asses and go with it. NEVER caring a jot that all other science will debunk what they are trying to "p rove

Quote:
How did the vote count come out (percentage wise)
as far as rejecting evolution and rejecting the age of the Earth? [/quote[quote]
]

Among the general public the"vote" is clearly in favor of CREATIONISM and ID. However, in the case of biological and geological scientists the vote is decidedly in favor of SCIENCE.
Votes are kind of rube Goldberg ways of gaining support. I just ignore em.

Quote:
Does the few 1000 year age apply only to Earth
or to the rest of the solar system ?
Any observation qua other gallaxies?
.

They dont (CREATIONISTS that i ) Do any "observations" they pull stuff out of thge Bible and run with it as truth. Im of the opinion that, since Genesis 1:1 seems to talk about the creation of the heavens and the arth, it was talking about the Universe.

Not much detail in the Book you know. The Creationists "interpret" their data from the minimalist explanations in the Bible and come up with some really whacky Physics. Then, they try to top it off by saying that they are being Biblically literal.















OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:37 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Among the general public the"vote" is clearly in favor of CREATIONISM

I find it very surprizing
that most of the general public rejects evolutionary development
and believes that the Earth is only a few 1000 years old;
(maybe the whole universe?), but then again,
I was quite taken aback when I found out that my neighbor, Angie,
believed that. She identified herself as being a Catholic.
(Italian, but she looked Irish)
I am not of the general impression that this is what Catholics believe,
but I am no expert. I don 't ofen bring this subject up in conversation.

Did this come from reputable pollsters ?

I am going to start asking around
to get a sense of how widely prevalent these concepts r.

I have hitherto been of the general impression
that almost everyone accepted the conventional science
of Earth being c.4,600,000,000 years old and the universe
being a bit less than 14 billion years old, in addition to evolution
from microbiology to Man.


`
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:50 am
Click here to see poll results on this subject from Religious Tolerance-dot-org.

This has survey results for American adults based on polling by the Gallup organization.

I put this out there because it's an interesting subject, and others might want to see it. David got in a snit once, and put me on ignore, so someone will have to quote this post for him to see it, if anyone cares.

There's been a slight increase in the acceptance of "non-theistic" evolution over a 22 year period, but as that was slight to begin, i wouldn't be willing to suggest how significant that is.

"God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

1982--44%
2004--45%

"Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation."

1982--38%
2004--38%

"Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process."

1982--9%
2004--13%

One assumes that the rest of the body surveyed are accounted for under a rubric of no opinion.

The page linked has certain demographic breakdowns of the surveys, as well, such as that women were more likely to believe in biblical creation than men, and African-Americans more likely to believe in biblical creation than "Caucasians," in that case, based on a 1991 Gallup poll.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I beleive it was Menken that said
"nobody''s ever gone broke underestimating the intelligence of people"
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:54 am
@farmerman,
Mencken, for sure, but you botched the quote:

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.

A lot of people have substituted "intelligence" for "taste," but they would be wrong.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:56 am
@Setanta,
FD, if he didnt say what I quoted, he should have.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 10:57 am
Most people think he did, so it is unlikely that you'll get busted for misquoting him . . . i promise to say nothing about it in public . . .
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:24 am
@Setanta,
SAD SAD SAD SAD..........
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 11:40 am
In the demographic breakdown, i was surprised to see that although college graduates were less likely to believe in biblical creation, they were not any more likely to believe in non-theistic evolution--that one struck me as strange.

0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:05 pm
Judging from Set's poll figures I am batting against a team of cranks, misfits and ne'er-do-wells which does not even know the rules of the game.

They say that there are few spectacles more ridiculous than men of a certain age, conscious of a grievance, self-importantly holding forth in the full confidence of their right to let it be aired , as well they might when calling forth the authority of Science to their cause, and when 87% of their audience are rolling their eyes and trying to supress a titter.

I think the quote attributed to Mencken derives from a 19th century newspaper editor in London. I think the word was "taste". But I am relying on memory and might well be wrong. I had been under the impression that Mr Mencken never had an original thought in his life.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:15 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
I had been under the impression that Mr Mencken never had an original thought in his life.
.

Sad, when all one can bring to the table is bitterness from a life passed by.

spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:43 pm
@farmerman,
Tell me one of Mr Mencken's original thoughts effemm. I read his Usage book and there are none in that.

Can't you up your game a bit? That was a pathetic response serving only to lose even more votes.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 05:05 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

To be overly fair is not part of the current big bang theory that space for some little time after the bang did expanded faster then light speed?

Am I wrong in that?

The expansion of space is not the same as moving through space. So cosmological inflation does not conflict with special relativity.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 05:42 pm
@rosborne979,
I wonder if ros has the equations to prove that load of easy to do shite.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2019 at 07:31:54