Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
And that is why I didn't respond to your last post. You like to see your self as the final judge between what is bad and what is good science.
|
Do you mean bad and good science, or bad and good results? Bad science can be identified without having to be an expert on the subject; no references, no evidence, makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, poor methodology, presumed conclusions, published in poorly refereed journals (or not published at all) tons of things can show that things are bad science.
Good science is the opposite of these things.
I'm not the judge, the scientific process is the judge. I'm just going over what the current consensus is and why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Creation science= junk ; Evolutionary science= well resourced and documented.
|
That isn't my fault, and I suspect you mean it backwards to the way I actually think. Creation science is junk not because it's creation science, but because it's junk. I don't classify it as junk right off the bat, it has to be evaluated. Don't forget, I used to be on the other side of this fence.
If you have scientific papers or resources that support your views, please present them. 95% of what I read from creationist resources though isn't actual positive evidence with positive statements, it's just sitting back and trying to poke holes. Science cannot be done by criticism alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
Well just because you can find an article or paper that refutes something I say doesn't mean the assessment is fair or even truthful. Your qualifications doesn't exclude you from being wrong.
|
If I reference a paper it doesn't preclude me from being wrong.. but if that paper is heavily referenced, has been through peer review, is well supported, accepted by the scientific community, makes verified predictions, etc... all the things that make good science, what I am saying is that that paper is the best understanding of things as they currently are. If you want to overturn that, you have to come up with something better.
You seem to think a scientific paper is something just written on a whim and published without any opposition. Hardly.
Something appearing in a reputable refereed scientific journal is light years away from some article posted on Answers in Genesis.
If you think I am wrong, show it. Bring your evidence, not hand waving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgaryborn
There are people far more qualified in these areas than you or I who don't agree on much. Sure your side have got the numbers but, your position is also where the money/prestige is.
|
Sure there are, but just because someone disagrees does that mean their disagreements have any merit?
With respect to evolution, the qualified ones who disagree are very few, and don't do so based on the science but on their faith. If they disagreed with their science and had good reason to, they would publish. I know you will say that they can't but that's baloney, I've already demonstrated historically how science has been completely overturned before.
There is no doubt in the scientific community about the modern synthesis of evolution; the evidence is vast and can only be willfully ignored.
It's interesting though that you bring up people more qualified that don't agree, I assume to try and give some support to your position? I know Christian scholars who could spend years showing you why a literal view of scripture isn't supported, I would guess though that that wouldn't have the same impact on you as you are expecting your statement to have on me?
Evangelical Christians who accept evolution have been brought up in this thread yet you are silent on that.
No response on my offer for books?