your views on creationism please

[CapnG]

I know I said I was done but idiocy on this level must be confronted, however futile the pursuit may be.

True, I mention confirmation bias, narrative fallacy and you act like it's all just fairy tales. If the shoe fits...

Your definition of "confirmation bias" seems to amount to "if the data confirms something I disagree with, it's biased".

For the third and final time, scientific theory is not a belief. Beliefs are random, superstitous assumptions (eg it's raining because god is sad). Theories are explanations based on reason, observation and experiment and when they are ultimately proven/disproven they become facts.

You continue to cry out for facts, depite having been repeatedly given them. Don't like 'em? Tough shit, this isn't a buffet where you get to pick and choose. Repeatedly squalking "CONFIRMATION BIAS! NARRATIVE FALLACY!" over and over like a demented parrot with an akward vocabulary won't change them either.

So have fun with your trolling, Mr. Troller McTrollsky (psst... this is the part where you make another self-gratifying remark and repeat "CONFIRMATION BIAS! NARRATIVE FALLACY!" six or seven more times like it actually meant something or anyone cared).

 

[NTS]

I'd like to think that AIDS and guinea worms are a product of blind amoral processes and not part of Somebody's plan, whether you call it Creationism or Intelligent Design or Directed Evolution or whatever. If Somebody designed the world we live in, so much the worse for Him/Her/Them/It. Too much suffering.

 

[Ron Collins]

OpenBibleman if you are right, you will go to heaven and I will go to hell, which is very reassuring because I won't have to cope up with you in the after life.

But I will now get out and slap a couple of nuns, steal something and may be rape a Yorkshire terrier just to make sure...

Alright openmindedman, I will address Confirmation Bias and Narrative Fallacy in science.

Confirmation Bias: Yes it happens in science. This is the reason for peer review and why we use such words as "theory" and "hypothesis". It is also a factor of human nature that is hard to break. Recent discussions on this can be found throughout the global climate change debate, archaeology, and of course creationism versus all other theories.

Narrative Fallacy: Well, this is really just another way of saying conformational bias. Do some scientists and researchers look for ways to confirm facts they already assume? Yes. Again this is managed through peer review and compared to other similar studies.

OK, I addressed it, now please provide the backup for your quote.

 

[openmindedman]

I know I said I was done but idiocy on this level must be confronted, however futile the pursuit may be.

Thank you... that sums up this forum. even a casual internet search leads to many articles on how science is VERY much affected by those two horrible words. The question then is, if it is very susceptible to these bias, and empirical studies prove this... then could the data, that was used to build most of the theory of evolution be flawed... and if flawed, to what degree?

could it simply be another case of facts, piled onto facts created the appearance of truth, without the foundational elements that have been proven without a doubt, and scrutinized for other explanations?

But I know, your religion is right, everyone else is wrong.

I'm sure I will not get a studied response to my question, just more simple minded rhetoric and juvenile insults.

---------- Post added at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 AM ----------

Alright openmindedman, I will address Confirmation Bias and Narrative Fallacy in science.

Confirmation Bias: Yes it happens in science. This is the reason for peer review and why we use such words as "theory" and "hypothesis". It is also a factor of human nature that is hard to break. Recent discussions on this can be found throughout the global climate change debate, archaeology, and of course creationism versus all other theories.

Narrative Fallacy: Well, this is really just another way of saying conformational bias. Do some scientists and researchers look for ways to confirm facts they already assume? Yes. Again this is managed through peer review and compared to other similar studies.

OK, I addressed it, now please provide the backup for your quote.

THANK YOU!!! I really didn't think I'd get any form of response.

peer-review process: Before an article can be published in a scientific journal, it must be evaluated by three or four experts in the field.

Experts is the problem, people with a vested interest in being right... so

"Scientists do what they can to avoid this bias, but, even so, scientists are vulnerable to the same problems as everyone else, and so it's no surprise that confirmation bias can be detected in scientific reasoning. Thus, when scientists encounter facts that fit with their preferred hypothesis, they tend to accept those facts as they are; when they encounter facts that don't fit, they scrutinize the facts with special care, seeking problems or flaws. "

Now if you believe evolution is true, and your career is based on you being an "expert" in that field. Why wouldn't you be more likely to reject "evidence" that could prove you are not an expert and accept evidence with less scrutiny that supports your pre-established beliefs.

How is this not a true statement?

 

[justcurious]

Are you evading my questions ? No, a true genius like you would certainly not need to do that...

What do you mean by creationism being a new idea versus the old theory of evolution ? And what do you find "larger" in the bored-old-man-in-the-sky explanation ?

You are still evading my questions. Are they so hard ?

 

[Ron Collins]

Thank you... that sums up this forum. even a casual internet search leads to many articles on how science is VERY much affected by those two horrible words. The question then is, if it is very susceptible to these bias, and empirical studies prove this... then could the data, that was used to build most of the theory of evolution be flawed... and if flawed, to what degree?

could it simply be another case of facts, piled onto facts created the appearance of truth, without the foundational elements that have been proven without a doubt, and scrutinized for other explanations?

But I know, your religion is right, everyone else is wrong.

I'm sure I will not get a studied response to my question, just more simple minded rhetoric and juvenile insults.

---------- Post added at 01:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:56 AM ----------



THANK YOU!!! I really didn't think I'd get any form of response.

peer-review process: Before an article can be published in a scientific journal, it must be evaluated by three or four experts in the field.

Experts is the problem, people with a vested interest in being right... so

"Scientists do what they can to avoid this bias, but, even so, scientists are vulnerable to the same problems as everyone else, and so it's no surprise that confirmation bias can be detected in scientific reasoning. Thus, when scientists encounter facts that fit with their preferred hypothesis, they tend to accept those facts as they are; when they encounter facts that don't fit, they scrutinize the facts with special care, seeking problems or flaws. "

Now if you believe evolution is true, and your career is based on you being an "expert" in that field. Why wouldn't you be more likely to reject "evidence" that could prove you are not an expert and accept evidence with less scrutiny that supports your pre-established beliefs.

How is this not a true statement?

Because it implies a grand conspiracy of circumventing the scientific method. That evolution is a valid theory is based on more than anecdotal evidence. Skeletal structure, DNA analysis, and tomes of other tests and retests. Science has integrity and its history is rife with men willing to challenge the establishment. Your statement implies an epic conspiracy of silence that is impossible.

 

[satcomer]

There are lots of religious folks here in the US. But they vary in their beliefs with most accepting the many decades of science that supports evolution.

This is what I see also. It just seems people on the net outside the US want to paint a picture of people in the US as nut jobs and cooks that only believe in creationism.

 

[dyingsun]

Then the US should get rid of that..easier said then done I guess.
.

 

[openmindedman]

Because it implies a grand conspiracy of circumventing the scientific method. That evolution is a valid theory is based on more than anecdotal evidence. Skeletal structure, DNA analysis, and tomes of other tests and retests. Science has integrity and its history is rife with men willing to challenge the establishment. Your statement implies an epic conspiracy of silence that is impossible.

Actually no. It implies that scientists are human, and fall prey to the exact same psychological problems we all face. It is more of a conspiracy to say, "Nope, evolutionists are impervious to psychology and have never fallen prey to it!"

That is harder to believe, than to think a tenured, published professor that has his identity wrapped up in being an expert on a subject would unconsciously look for ways to validate his careers work.

thanks not a conspiracy it's life.

 

[justcurious]

I'm sure I will not get a studied response to my question, just more simple minded rhetoric

Things like: "The Bible says that the Bible is right."
Is that what you are looking for in terms of "studied response" ?

Larger possibilities ? Like a solidly built elderly man in a throne deciding to play designer to fend off boredom ?
New ideas ? Creationism is a NEW idea ? Versus the OLD evolution theory ?

And please give a "studied response" to my previous questions... the Bible is not of any help on those or what ?

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------

That is harder to believe, than to think a tenured, published professor that has his identity wrapped up in being an expert on a subject would unconsciously look for ways to validate his careers work.

thanks not a conspiracy it's life.

And that doesn't apply to religious believers who have their life wrapped up in a composite book of doubtful history ?

BTW you now have 5 unanswered questions on my account, so much for "studied responses".

 

[openmindedman]

You are still evading my questions. Are they so hard ?

No, I read. evolution theory started with Plato and Aristotle who classified all living organisms hierarchically in his great scala naturae or Great Chain of Being, with plants at the bottom, moving through lesser animals, and on to humans at the pinnacle of creation, each becoming progressively more perfect in form.

It then carried on to... wait for it... the church father Augustine who linked it to God. There are more but that's a good start.

Then... much later comes Darwin and the co-creator Alfred Wallace who also linked it to God (heaven forbid!)

 

[dyingsun]

No, I read. evolution theory started with Plato and Aristotle who classified all living organisms hierarchically in his great scala naturae or Great Chain of Being, with plants at the bottom, moving through lesser animals, and on to humans at the pinnacle of creation, each becoming progressively more perfect in form.

It then carried on to... wait for it... the church father Augustine who linked it to God. There are more but that's a good start.

Then... much later comes Darwin and the co-creator Alfred Wallace who also linked it to God (heaven forbid!)

How cute Now he deems it worthy to 'pose' with knowledge everyone here knows already.Do go on.

 

[openmindedman]

Things like: "The Bible says that the Bible is right."
Is that what you are looking for in terms of "studied response" ?



And please give a "studied response" to my previous questions... the Bible is not of any help on those or what ?

---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------



And that doesn't apply to religious believers who have their life wrapped up in a composite book of doubtful history ?

BTW you now have 5 unanswered questions on my account, so much for "studied responses".

Well, I will try to answer your questions... but I never even mentioned the Bible, nor did I mention Christianity etc.

I will have to study to answer those bible based questions. I'm sure you have studied the bible, biblical archeology etc. well and already know it's false. Right?

My question is, why do you care about the bible when that's not what I'm talking about?

---------- Post added at 01:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:37 AM ----------

How cute Now he deems it worthy to 'pose' with knowledge everyone here knows already.Do go on.

sorry I'm sure you know everything right?

What ever you do, don't talk about my point! just make fun of it! it's the easier and intellectually vacant thing to do.

 

[justcurious]

No, I read. evolution theory started with Plato and Aristotle who classified all living organisms hierarchically in his great scala naturae or Great Chain of Being, with plants at the bottom, moving through lesser animals, and on to humans at the pinnacle of creation, each becoming progressively more perfect in form.

It then carried on to... wait for it... the church father Augustine who linked it to God. There are more but that's a good start.

Then... much later comes Darwin and the co-creator Alfred Wallace who also linked it to God (heaven forbid!)

Thank you, so the beliefs that ended up in the old testament are still older than the theory of evolution. I consider that one settled...

Its OK if you are wrong, thank you any way for trying, 4 to go ! Keep on the good work

 

[Ron Collins]

Actually no. It implies that scientists are human, and fall prey to the exact same psychological problems we all face. It is more of a conspiracy to say, "Nope, evolutionists are impervious to psychology and have never fallen prey to it!"

That is harder to believe, than to think a tenured, published professor that has his identity wrapped up in being an expert on a subject would unconsciously look for ways to validate his careers work.

thanks not a conspiracy it's life.

The problem with your argument is that you are basing it on an individual case (single professor) and isolating it to this one theory and assuming that this is the norm. Show me your evidence for that. Provide me examples where this has been shown to be true across the board.

Yes conformational bias exists. BUT, its existence is not evidence enough. What you are really questioning is the approach of science and then relating it to this specific scenario. If conformational bias is hopelessly permeated in this theory then that same proliferation should be evident in all other aspects of research utilizing accepted scientific research procedures. If thats the case show me a non-creationism vs evolution example where your view is supported.

 

[openmindedman]

Thank you, so the beliefs that ended up in the old testament are still older than the theory of evolution. I consider that one settled...

Its OK if you are wrong, thank you any way for trying, 4 to go ! Keep on the good work

have no idea what you point is. Old things are wrong? after a certain age old things don't work? please enlighten me on what your point is?

 

[justcurious]

have no idea what you point is. Old things are wrong? after a certain age old things don't work? please enlighten me on what your point is?

I was trying to understand what you meant by :

At least I don't have a limited mind that can't accept larger possibilities.

But alas, true believers are always blind to their own faults and bigoted as a protection against accepting new ideas.

 

[Ron Collins]

I am going to remove my aforementioned requirement that Openmindedman supply the quoted reference in 30 minutes or be banned. The thread has not totally lost merit. I am admittedly in a pissy mood tonight and the early tone of the thread just fed that. However, I do think it would go a long way if he did decide to share the quote reference and respond to other questions posed to him.

 

[justcurious]

Well, I will try to answer your questions... but I never even mentioned the Bible, nor did I mention Christianity etc.

My question is, why do you care about the bible when that's not what I'm talking about?

Okay, so may I ask : Do you agree with creationism as stated in the Bible ?

Be honest, God is watching, listening and he's got his notebook handy

 

[satcomer]

I have a different take in evolution on species. It has based on my time in the US Army dealing with soldiers from other countries (England, Japan, Australia) that the strong usually aren't the smartest. Plus actual luck does happen including just plain bad luck. I see that all the time so to me Darwin was wrong in that account. The evolution of species was the animal that was the luckiest over time, not necessarily the strongest.