Restrictions in the Science Forums.

Based on my own observations I would suggest that the reaosn creationists have problems with the science forums is because the mindset of scientific thought is alien to them.Science is fundamentally about integrating the evidence into a coherent overall picture. Evolution is a great success on this score - integrating taxonomy, biogeography and the fossil record at the very start. Since then scientists have integrated Mendelian genetics (the "New Synthesis") and more and more of biology is being integrated with evolutionary theory (e.g. the so-called "evo-devo" work on relating developmental biology to evolution).The creationist mindset, on the other hand, is typically centred on the beliefs of the individual creationist which are held to be highy reliable regardless of the actual evidence. That is why they have no problems citing their beliefs as "evidence" - in one recent case I even saw an example that was essentially circular, a belief cited as evidence to support itself. Thus they often don't see any need to check arguments that seem to support their position resulting in arguments which only work superficially, if at all. Often their arguments are easily seen to be false when properly considered, carry implications which cause further serious problems, or are contradicted by easily obtained evidence.For a good example of how creationists can ignore the need to integrate the evidence into an overall picture, consider the current thread by Willowtree. He has no problem putting the expulsion of the Hyksos in the early 16th Century BC and a Pharoah who reigned only a few generations later in the 10th - without any sign of an explanation of how this could be.

No, Sylas did not quote you out of context.And I have to ask, why does disagreeing with your uninformed and inaccurate opinion indicate that the forum is closed to other viewpoints ?The Big Bang is a conclusion, not a premise. That is a fact, no matter how much you disagree with it.It is founded in a sound knowledge of theory and supported by the empirical evidence. And that is why it is so widely accepted by the scientists working in the field.It was originally proposed be LeMaitre, a Jesuit priest.Georges-Henri Lemaitre: The Astronomer-PriestThis description of Einstein's initial reaction (emphasis mine)

I know you provided what you THINK are examples. However omitting them is NOT quoting you out of context. It does NOT affect the meaning of the paragraph quoted.Moreover that paragraph was not about your arguments. Here's the first sentence again: Clearly you are claiming that a belief that the Big Bang is supported by empiricial evidence excludes other viewpoints. However it is a fact that the Big Bang is supported by physical evidence and it is false to claim that accepting that fact automatically excludes other viewpoints.This message has been edited by PaulK, 05-24-2005 04:32 AM

I think that your continued argument in this thread is demonstrating exactly why you are not and should not be allowed to post in the science forums.Rather than make a coherent argument taking the full facts into account you try to make excuses - which may seme plausilbe to oyu but all too often are completley irrational.e.g.

quote:

---

...regardless of my valid arguments, BB supportive arguments to BB have been deemed empirical, thus excluding ID arguments such as those in my second paragraph as credible, regardless as to whether mine have been refuted or not by my counterparts

---

How can saying that empirical evidence is empirical evidence have the effect you claim ? So far as I can see you are just inventing irrational excuses rather than admit to the truth - a style of argument also seen in the thermodynamics discussion, and one that does not belong in a science forum.