Re: did man walk on the moon...and creationism.
Suzanne
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:24:43 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
> <leila...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 19, 10:34 am, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 18, 11:45 pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Nov 16, 12:47 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> > > Suzanne wrote:
> >> > > > On Nov 13, 10:08 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > > >> Suzanne wrote:
>
> >> > > >> <snip>
>
> >> > > >> You have been given references from all of science that shows that a
> >> > > >> flood could not have happened unless your god changed all the rules,
> >> > > >> hid the evidence, and then lied about it.
> >> > > >> You ignore it or deny it.
>
> >> > > > All science does not say this, and it would not
> >> > > > survive the Square of the Opposition aka the
> >> > > > Aristotalian Square. All scientists are not
> >> > > > non-beleivers in the Bible.
>
> >> > > Why wouldn't it survive the Aristotalian (sic) Square?
> >> > > In particular as applied to science and not individual scientists.
>
> >> > Apparently someone has to explain to you what
> >> > the Square of the Opposition is.
>
> >> > > There is no field of science with the possible exception of astronomy, that
> >> > > does not offer evidence that the flood could not have happened.
> >> > > It does not matter if a scientist does believe in the bible unless he or she
> >> > > lets it interfere with science.
>
> >> > > There are well over 2 million scientists in just the united states today and
> >> > > an organization that is trying to show that the bible is right can only come
> >> > > up with a list of under 800, many of which are not even scientists.
> >> > > If they all were scientists and there were 800 that would still be 0.04% of
> >> > > just the scientists in the USA.>
>
> >> > More nonsense.
>
> >> > Suzanne- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
>
> >> Truth hurts doesn't it? Especially when it smacks you in the face
> >> like those facts just did. They are not nonsense but are true.
>
> >> Harry K- Hide quoted text -
>
> >The truth was not what we just heard. There are people
> >who are scientists who also believe what the Bible tells
> >us.
>
> You have been asked to prove that. In fact there is a challenge to do
> so that you have been ignoring for over four weeks.
>
>
>
> >Suzanne
>
> --
> Bob.
>
I do not believe that you don't think there are any creationists
who are also scientists.
>
Suzanne
Ye Old One
The two groups are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both at the same
time. To be a scientist you have to apply the scientific method and
creationism does not stand up to examination in that way.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Will in New Haven
My you're incredibly stupid. That wasn't an attempt to join in this
argument. It was an awe-struck comment. That sentence has no equal.
--
Will in New Haven
Friar Broccoli
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:13:09 -0800 (PST), Suzanne
.
> The two groups are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both at the same
> time. To be a scientist you have to apply the scientific method and
> creationism does not stand up to examination in that way.
As I understand it, some Medical Doctors take an oath to
"do no harm". Is a doctor who runs an abortion clinic not
a doctor?
Andre Lieven
> > >> >> like those facts just did. They are not nonsense but are true.
>
> > >> >> Harry K
>
> > >> >who are scientists who also believe what the Bible tells
> > >> >us.
>
> > >> You have been asked to prove that. In fact there is a challenge to
> > >> do so that you have been ignoring for over four weeks.
>
> > >> >Suzanne
>
> > >> --
> > >> Bob.
>
> > >I do not believe that you don't think there are any creationists
> > >who are also scientists.
>
> > >Suzanne
>
> > time. To be a scientist you have to apply the scientific method and
> > creationism does not stand up to examination in that way.
>
> As I understand it, some Medical Doctors take an oath to
> "do no harm". Is a doctor who runs an abortion clinic not
> a doctor?
As a fetus is, under the law, neither a person nor a patient of the
doctor's, then said doctor is following their oath just fine.
Andre
Will in New Haven
Legal absolutism. If the doctor does not believe the fetus to be a
person, the doctor is following the oath. If the doctor believes that
the fetus is a person, the doctor is not following the oath, law or no
law. An oath is not a contract, to be decided by a judge in a dusty
courtroom. An oath is something the oath-taker must judge.
I, for one, don't think the fetus is a person, at least not at the
stage when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed. But I
don't presume to make that decision for the doctor.
Ye Old One
In my book, no. Except in rare cases where the health of the mother is
at serious risk, or where it can be shown that the child would not
have a acceptable quality of life, I find no grounds whatsoever for a
doctor to perform an abortion.
--
Bob.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
There are zero creationists who are engaged in biological research about
the history of life on earth. Zero.
Ye Old One
Some may indeed quieten their conscience by claiming that. I would not
agree. The law in most countries protects the life of the unborn
child. For some reason some doctors seem to be exempt from the law.
>
>Andre
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
.
> As a fetus is, under the law, neither a person nor a patient of the
> doctor's, then said doctor is following their oath just fine.
If law is the principal consideration then why are medical doctors
prohibited from assisting in state executions? If you can define
a fetus out of personhood, surely the same could be done for
a "cold blooded murderer".
However, I am not in any way concerned with Doctors and
abortions, only with illustrating that people can compartmentalize
and thus be creationists on Sunday and Scientists during the
week, especially if they are working on say material sciences
in the computer industry.
All-seeing-I
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:13:09 -0800 (PST), Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So let's tell the 'theist evolutionist'
I'm sure they will want to know.
I believe there are at least 6 that post regularly to Talk Origins-
monkey
All-seeing-I
They call themselves a "Theist Evolutionist"
How is THAT for an oxymoron?
Andre Lieven
No. Basic standards are objective, not subjective.
> If the doctor does not believe the fetus to be a
> person, the doctor is following the oath. If the doctor believes that
> the fetus is a person, the doctor is not following the oath, law or no
> law. An oath is not a contract, to be decided by a judge in a dusty
> courtroom. An oath is something the oath-taker must judge.
The problem with this is that, if such a doctor also believs that an
adult black person, say, isn't a person in their eyes, then they would
have no obligation to treat them.
As I said, such standards are not subjective.
> I, for one, don't think the fetus is a person, at least not at the
> stage when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed.
> But I don't presume to make that decision for the doctor.
No, that would be the law (As defined in a democratic society), and
medical associations.
Andre
Andre Lieven
The law in most countries also treats women as property. Care to try
that
argument again ?
Whatever one's view of abortion might be (And, I am not a fan of it on
several grounds.), the basic point remains: Standards such as
scientific
peer review and medical peer review, coupled with the law as defined
in a democratic society, are not subject to individual
interpretation.
Anyone is free to try to convince others of their own views. That
does
not change the law, the standards of science peer review, or medical
ethics.
Andre
Andre Lieven
How about because the law does no such thing ?
> However, I am not in any way concerned with Doctors and
> abortions, only with illustrating that people can compartmentalize
> and thus be creationists on Sunday and Scientists during the
> week, especially if they are working on say material sciences
> in the computer industry.
Sure. My point is one of agreement that one cannot be a creationist
while working on fields about biology where the science of evolution
is an inseparable component.
And, that scientific peer review is not a primarily subjective
process.
Andre
Friar Broccoli
.
> In my book, no. Except in rare cases where the health of the mother is
> at serious risk, or where it can be shown that the child would not
> have a acceptable quality of life, I find no grounds whatsoever for a
> doctor to perform an abortion.
It follows logically that you are a strict vegetarian,
since the grown livestock we slaughter for meat is
far more alive and aware that a human fetus prior
to birth. I am correct so far?
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>So let's tell the 'theist evolutionist'
They are not creationists as the term is generally used here. I
generally call it anti-science creationists to make clear that I have no
problem with theistic evolutionists.
Ye Old One
Not as strict as I would like to be.
>since the grown livestock we slaughter for meat is
>far more alive and aware that a human fetus prior
>to birth.
A human fetus has been shown to be aware LONG before birth.
> I am correct so far?
No.
--
Bob.
Did you know that 1 in 4 people make up a quarter of the world's
population?
Ye Old One
Ah! Mudbrain at his best^w worst.
Did you miss the word evolutionist?
>
>I'm sure they will want to know.
>
>
>I believe there are at least 6 that post regularly to Talk Origins-
>monkey
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
Friar Broccoli
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:57:33 -0800 (PST), Friar Broccoli
What tests have been conducted to show that a human fetus
is as self-aware as say a fully grown pig?
(Although not really relevant, my own working hypothesis is that
the brain of a fetus is a mass of undifferentiated wiring with
a core "operating system" that is able to respond to stimuli.)
> > I am correct so far?
>
> No.
Then I suggest that you (like me) are living a contradiction here.
If we can live a contradiction, why do you think creationists
cannot do so?
Friar Broccoli
.
As I understand it, Medical Doctors are concerned with the
ethics, not the law, and it is on that basis that the medical
associations have (if I understand correctly) threatened to
decertify any doctor assisting in state executions.
>
> > However, I am not in any way concerned with Doctors and
> > abortions, only with illustrating that people can compartmentalize
> > and thus be creationists on Sunday and Scientists during the
> > week, especially if they are working on say material sciences
> > in the computer industry.
>
> Sure. My point is one of agreement that one cannot be a creationist
> while working on fields about biology where the science of evolution
> is an inseparable component.
I agree that it would be really really difficult, but I think not
impossible. About two years ago there was a report on an assistant
professor in Montreal (McGill??) who was an active campaigner against
creationism, but he was a former creationist. I have a really bad
memory and a tendency to not listen closely, but my impression was
that
he had made it all the way through graduate school (in some branch of
biology or paleontology) before the internal contradictions finally
broke
him, causing him to abandon his Young Earth beliefs.
I know at least one Young Earth creationist, who at least in terms of
brute force intelligence, is way smarter than I am. My impression is
that
he, or someone like him, could FUNCTION in a research lab by walling
off his
beliefs. In fact this is exactly how my creationist friend works,
although
he is a computer programmer and does not need to face the
contradictions on
a daily basis.
> And, that scientific peer review is not a primarily subjective
> process.
In GoogleGroups (which I am using) this thread is completely broken up
so I haven't seen your previous comments and so have no idea what the
above might mean or why you think it is relevant.
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeah, the thread is a total mess as is the one in
alt.talk.creationism. Google appears to hae a top limit of 1,000
posts, both threads broke at post 1001.
Harry K
Andre Lieven
> > > > doctor's, then said doctor is following their oath just fine.
>
> > > If law is the principal consideration then why are medical doctors
> > > prohibited from assisting in state executions? If you can define
> > > a fetus out of personhood, surely the same could be done for
> > > a "cold blooded murderer".
>
> > How about because the law does no such thing ?
>
> As I understand it, Medical Doctors are concerned with the
> ethics, not the law, and it is on that basis that the medical
> associations have (if I understand correctly) threatened to
> decertify any doctor assisting in state executions.
If you are seeking perfect consistancy in organisations that
include a healthy dollop of politics, you may well have a long
search...
> > > However, I am not in any way concerned with Doctors and
> > > abortions, only with illustrating that people can compartmentalize
> > > and thus be creationists on Sunday and Scientists during the
> > > week, especially if they are working on say material sciences
> > > in the computer industry.
>
> > Sure. My point is one of agreement that one cannot be a creationist
> > while working on fields about biology where the science of evolution
> > is an inseparable component.
>
> I agree that it would be really really difficult, but I think not
> impossible. About two years ago there was a report on an assistant
> professor in Montreal (McGill??) who was an active campaigner against
> creationism, but he was a former creationist. I have a really bad
> memory and a tendency to not listen closely, but my impression was
> that
> he had made it all the way through graduate school (in some branch of
> biology or paleontology) before the internal contradictions finally
> broke him, causing him to abandon his Young Earth beliefs.
OK, I was speaking of *working* scientists, whose work is in the
field of biology.
On this point, I am in general agreement with YOO, who said,
upthread (Including in GG):
"The two groups are mutually exclusive. You cannot be both at the
same time. To be a scientist you have to apply the scientific method
and creationism does not stand up to examination in that way."
> I know at least one Young Earth creationist, who at least in terms of
> brute force intelligence, is way smarter than I am. My impression is
> that he, or someone like him, could FUNCTION in a research lab by
> walling off his beliefs. In fact this is exactly how my creationist friend
> works, although he is a computer programmer and does not need to
> face the contradictions on a daily basis.
Then he is not an example of a creationist functioning as a scientist
in the field of biology.
Further, I would not say that a computer programmer counts as a
scientist in the first place.
> > And, that scientific peer review is not a primarily subjective
> > process.
>
> In GoogleGroups (which I am using) this thread is completely broken up
> so I haven't seen your previous comments and so have no idea what the
> above might mean or why you think it is relevant.
I was addressing the notion that one could have a creationist
biologist
scientist who got an anti-evolution paper through the scientific peer
review process. Theoretically, if one ran across a small group of
such claimed anti-evolution biologist working scientists, then it
could
be possible for some such to use their subjective views on the topic
to pass an anti evolution biology science paper.
But, because peer review isn't based on subjective standards, this
result is greatly unlikely.
Andre
Will in New Haven
They are vis a vis an _oath_ One does not take an oath to the state.
Obviously, there are legal requirements and legal consequences to ones
actions but judging whether one has fulfillled and oath _is_
subjective.
>
> > I, for one, don't think the fetus is a person, at least not at the
> > stage when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed.
> > But I don't presume to make that decision for the doctor.
>
> No, that would be the law (As defined in a democratic society), and
> medical associations.
Then it would be moral and correct to return a slave to his or her
master in 1855?
Next thing you know you will be telling me that the law against
robbing gas stations has moral force.
Andre Lieven
So ? The state is not the only body whose standards are not subject
to each individual's choices.
> Obviously, there are legal requirements and legal consequences to
> ones actions but judging whether one has fulfillled and oath _is_
> subjective.
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without
evidence". Christopher Hitchens.
> > > I, for one, don't think the fetus is a person, at least not at the
> > > stage when the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed.
> > > But I don't presume to make that decision for the doctor.
>
> > No, that would be the law (As defined in a democratic society), and
> > medical associations.
>
> Then it would be moral and correct to return a slave to his or her
> master in 1855?
Morality, as well, is a moving target in time. Silly people are those
who try to fit a 2009 view of popular morality into, say, the 19th
century.
> Next thing you know you will be telling me that the law against
> robbing gas stations has moral force.
It may have some, but that is rather irrelevent to the societal
purpose of such a law.
Andre
Friar Broccoli
.
I did not say or imply that was the case.
Friar Broccoli
Here's one in rec.arts.sf.written that's messed up too:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.written/browse_frm/thread/d790a44357b5ed49
I suggest you complain here:
http://groups.google.com/group/is-something-broken/topics
and encourage others ot complain as well.
Hatunen
And some doctors (I don't think I'd really call most doctors
scientists" no matter what Leonard McCoy said about himself) do
think the fetus is entitled to legal rights, some don't. But this
belief is not the same sort of belief that is involved in
believing in Creationism. Whether a fetus is a legally protected
human being or not is a matter of how "human being" is defined.
There is no way test the hypothesis that humanness starts with
fertilization, of division of the blastosphere or what. if the
courts were to say a fetus is a legally protected human being,
then the fetus is a legally protected human being, but that
doesn't, ipso facto, actually make it a human being anymore that
classfying bamboo as a tree would make it a tree.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
All-seeing-I
But that is not what you said, lier.
you said "zero creationists" do science.
Clearly you have lied.
> >I'm sure they will want to know.
>
> >I believe there are at least 6 that post regularly to Talk Origins-
> >monkey- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That was a nice back peddle but it did not work, did it?
Either your theist-evolutionist pals are lying that they believe in
God (that would be the "theist" part of "Theist Evolutionist")
or option B
you just lied.
Knowing your very long and distinguished track record for spreading
lies while pointing a finger at others and saying it is them that
lies, I will go with option (B)
You are the lier.
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Knowing my very long and distinguished track record for spreading
>lies while pointing a finger at others and saying it is them that
>lies...
Text corrected without charge.
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
--
Bob.
Will in New Haven
They believe in god but they are _not_ creationists in the sense that
you and your brain-dead ilk are creationists. They accept the _fact_
that evolution happened and is happening.
Of course, there are other ways for a creationist to do science. There
are large fields of science that are not impacted by evolution.
However, a chemist's opinion on evolution is, for most chemists, a
_layman's_ opinion on evolution. A ballistic specialist's opinion on
evolution is a layman's opinion on evolution. Those fields where a
creationist could do real scientific work and ignore evolution are not
inconsiderable, but they don't teach one much about biology in deep
time or about genetics. The people who practice them are laymen on the
subject of evolution.
Free Lunch
wrote in talk.origins:
No. I do not call theistic evolutionists 'creationists'. I don't need to
mislead people about how many people accept my claims. I already know
that educated people accept that evolution happens.
>> >I'm sure they will want to know.
>>
>> >I believe there are at least 6 that post regularly to Talk Origins-
>> >monkey- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That was a nice back peddle but it did not work, did it?
>
>Either your theist-evolutionist pals are lying that they believe in
>God (that would be the "theist" part of "Theist Evolutionist")
>
>or option B
>
>you just lied.
>
>Knowing your very long and distinguished track record for spreading
>lies while pointing a finger at others and saying it is them that
>lies, I will go with option (B)
>
>You are the lier.
You are silly and proud that you are a fool. I still am not a liar.