Creation vs. Evolution

[Soggy]

The more letters i see behind a persons title the more suspicous i become about their ability show some common sense. Doesn't mean they aren't truly brilliant rocket engineers. Just that a bunch of letters behind a name mean nothing without the common sense to back them up. This is born of 25+ years of real world experience working with real folks like this.

Give me real world experience over education anyday. That theory has proven itself out to me, time and time again over the years.

Well, fortunately for the Theory of Evolution, it has nothing to do with 'common sense' and everything to do with scientific study. Science isn't about common sense. Common sense is often not very common and also is almost never very accurate. It might prevent you from paying sticker price on a car, but it certainly isn't going to help you solve the mysteries of the universe.

 

[H2Andy]

Higher education can be soooooo over-rated. One such example would be PHD's, PE's (Professional Engineers) who can derive the toughest equations and yet can't reason their way out of a wet paper bag.

is their job to derive the toughest equations or to reason their way out of a wet paper bag?

if both, then the real PE's will eat them alive

(just because there is incompetentence in a field does not render that field useless)

there are many, many areas of life where simple life experience is not enough, and higher education is essential.

for example, quantum physics, microbiology, astrophysics, paleontology, and any of a thousand scientific disciplines were learning the past advances of your discipline with rigour is essential to success

i don't look down on self-taught people, nor do i look down upon highly educated professionals. they both have important roles in the world.

most often, one can't do the other's work very well at all

(by the way, i reagard the education/life experience issue as a false dichotomy, or an "either or" fallacy. most demanding jobs require quite a bit of both, but instead of arguing about discourse framing (as our good friend Pug is wont to do), i decided to stay in your ontology)

 

[Warthaug]

Give me real world experience over education anyday. That theory has proven itself out to me, time and time again over the years.

But the thousands of scientists publishing about evolution have real-world experience. We don't just sit around in our office dreaming this stuff up - we're out there, collecting samples, running experiments, watching nature work - and it is this real-world stuff that we use to formulate these theories. A PhD is nothing more then formal training which prepares you for work your job. It no different then someone taking plumbing classes before becoming a plumber, except it takes a hell of a lot longer.

Evolution is easily observed in the “real world”. It occurs every day, often right in front of our faces. Just because the creationist crowd ignores this, and pretends it doesn’t exist, doesn’t mean that it isn’t real.

In my job I've actually seen evolution occur, and not because I was looking for it. HIV patients occasionally develop drug-resistant strains of HIV, and in more then one case we've been able to prove, as completely as possible, that the "new" HIV arose via mutation, rather than a secondary inoculation.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

By the way, i don't think i'll be going to many of my fellow engineers for spiritual guidance or for information on evolution so i don't get this whole clergy designing bridges thing. Maybe i missed the post which explained the point of that argument.

The point is simple. In the evolution/creationist debate, creationist often offer up "experts" who have no formal training in biology or another relevant field, but who do have PhD's, and claim that because those people deny the existence of evolution that there is some sort of scientific debate about the existence of evolution.

My point was nothing more then a simili of this situation - that just because you are trained in a scientific field does not mean you have the knowledge to work in, or even offer fair criticism of, an unrelated scientific field. If you want to know the science behind (and any conflicts in) evolution, talk to an evolutionary biologist. You want a bridge built, talk to an engineer. But to ask an evolutionary biologist to build a bridge would be pure idiocy - just like asking an engineer to comment on the veracity of evolution would be idiocy.

As for the priest thing, I was simply trying to extend the argument further. No one expects priests to have the knowledge or ability to build a bridge. And yet when faced with an equally complex scientific field, many people all of a sudden think that priests do have the relevant background, even though few (if any) have formal training in a relevant field.

Bryan

 

[adza]

The point is simple. In the evolution/creationist debate, creationist often offer up "experts" who have no formal training in biology or another relevant field, but who do have PhD's, and claim that because those people deny the existence of evolution that there is some sort of scientific debate about the existence of evolution.

I don't believe the point is that simple - that may be a generalisation of some, but not the truth for all . It is these type of statments that are used to refute creation. Worded well, can cause others to believe their is no evidence.

Previously, I posted a number of PhD questions about various fields - of which around half were either a maybe (and even one likely) to be worth looking at according to Thal . (I only got through less than 1/2 of the qualifications that are in this book too - I could have gone on).

You say that their is no scientific evidence for creation, but I once again put forward the book "in 6 days".

This book does not directly attack evolution - but explains using scientific results why these 50 scientists believe in a litteral 6 x 24hr day creation of the universe - using various fields.

Those in the fields of biology and zoology, etc - yes - their evidence does refute evolution, but they write no some much to refute something, but rather to prove something. - In giving evidence for a litteral 6 day creation - their is no room for evolution. In doing this though, it not only refutes evolution, but also refutes Christian theology of 1 day = 1,000 or 1,000,000 years.)

There are also PhD's in other areas, such as Mechanical Engineering, Geophysics, Inorganic Chemistry, Mathematics, Nuclear Physics, Hydrometallurgy - and the list goes on - and they explain why they believe - each in their own field, why they believe scientifically in 6 literal days. (Creation)

Some of these sure - don't have the expertese to comment against evolution - but that's not what they do. They're using their level of experience to scientifically explain why they now believe in a litteral 6 day universe.

The argument has also been put forward that this book isn't credible - and their not experts in the right field. Again, as shown prior - many do have training and experience in the fields that have been requested previouly on this thread. (For those interested only in the evolution field)

All it takes is for one person to say this book isn't credible, and create a website - and how many other people will simply not bother to study the book for itself simply because of a few people's opinions. (Evolutionists would have to agree that this is done on both sides of the fence - as we creationists have similar websites. One would argue that unless someone is willing to look at actual evidence for evolution first - they're not being objectional. I simply argue the same case. ).

Request re information on scientific evidence for creation (not a fight against evolution) has been asked for. I give this book as a source. If you're not interested in reading it, or don't have the time - then that's fine, but I politely ask now that you no longer say that their is no scientific evidence to support creation until you have actually looked at this book for yourself. Otherwise, you're simply working off heresay.

One cannot be truely objectional unless they are willing to look at both sides of the evidence. (This is the same for both creationists and evolutionists).

Or, as the bible puts it... [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proverbs 18:17 He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him. [/FONT]

Cheers

 

[adurso]

The more letters i see behind a persons title the more suspicous i become about their ability show some common sense. Doesn't mean they aren't truly brilliant rocket engineers. Just that a bunch of letters behind a name mean nothing without the common sense to back them up. This is born of 25+ years of real world experience working with real folks like this.


Odd, I hear this a lot...

A.J. Durso BS, BA, MPA, PhD

 

[Soggy]

One cannot be truely objectional unless they are willing to look at both sides of the evidence. (This is the same for both creationists and evolutionists).

Or, as the bible puts it... [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Proverbs 18:17 He who pleads his cause first seems right; until another comes and questions him. [/FONT]

Cheers

I will read In 6 Days if you will read a book by Richard Dawkins. Deal?

If "In 6 Days" is right, why are no evolutionists swayed? Are they all so closed minded? Or is it that those 50 'scientists' have fallacious information (like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the watch analogy, interim fossils, etc, etc, etc)?

 

[Soggy]

Odd, I hear this a lot...

A.J. Durso BS, BA, MPA, PhD

BS, MS, PhD:
Bull S**t, More S**t, Pile it Higher and Deeper?

 

[adza]

I will read In 6 Days if you will read a book by Richard Dawkins. Deal?

Hi Soggy

You mean the Blind Watchmaker?

 

[Soggy]

Hi Soggy

You mean the Blind Watchmaker?

I believe that would be a good start. I have not read it myself and none of the local bookstores have it, so I'm ordering it from amazon. I have only read some of Dawkins' essays. He's pretty good at explaining why most creationist 'scientists' are no better than your average politician...full of lies and misunderstanding, bending the truth to push their cause.

"The God Delusion" is also pretty popular right now, too.

Maybe some Gould would be in order, too? It might help dispell some of the myths.

But, could you give an example of an argument used in "In 6 Days" that you believe to be valid scientifically?