Evolution? How?

real life

Quote:

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

. REF; what Pauligirl said.Actually, I didnt have to add a qualifier about modern times since The term "Creationist" had no meaning in normal discourse until the early 1900's when there was a philosophical basis upon which to make the distinction. Until that time, most anyone could be called a'Beleiver in the biblical account", even Darwin.There were very few who questioned the biblicl account as reality until well after Darwin.
Ill almost bet that Ill never hear an answer to areally simple question.
For a historical perspective the concept of "scientific Creationism" owes its being to a chap named George McCready Price. He was a Seventh Day ADventist minister of Fundamentalist persusasion. He published a volume entitled
The NEw Geology, in 1923. In this book Price mounted a scientific argument for the literal occurence of the Noachian flood. He invented the "geologic Column" that was defined by flood deposits, and all the fossils were merely the dead remains of drowned organisms.
The book was an instant hit and , in essence began the connection of "science" to the Bibical account.
The first real scientific association (in the US of course) that embodied Prices beliefs was the "religion and Science Association" founded in the 1930's.
SO one really cant have specifically Creationist views until there is a defined sub discipline in Creationist SCience. Trying to claim credit for work of the early (pre DArwin) sciences , is the rooster taking credit for the DAwn.

Until that time, most anyone could be called a'Beleiver in the biblical account", even Darwin.There were very few who questioned the biblicl account as reality until well after Darwin.

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Its interesting how, when confronted with a simple question, with all the qualifiers understood by most everyone, Creationists will always duck and try to slide and evade.


There are no discoveries that were made within the realities of "Creation science" All the "proofs" of a young earth or a "waterplate beneath the Himalayas," are cartoons for science magazines.

Its no wonder , since the standard positions of Creationism involve (officially) no individual research lest they actually find something , which , as everyone with half a brain will recognize, stands their precious myths in uncomfortablepositions.

I daresay that everything Im aware of , that has started as a "position statement" or "data" from creationists or ID proponents has been successfully discounted.This includes everything from "flood geology", young earthism" to Intelligent Design's "irredcible complexity" The only problems have been that a large portion of the population only hears the Creationist side because they spend all their money on communication and "outreach"while the scientists are not willing to engage at their levels.

It is interesting how when confronted with a simple answer to your simple question, you suddenly try to throw in qualifiers ('modern era scientists only please').

You asked about Creationists as valid contributors to the accumulated scientific knowledge of the world.

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

You may not like to consider men such as Newton to be Creationists, but what else would you call him? He was a scientist who believed God created the world.

The fact that he was a huge contributor to scientific advancement embarrasses you when you see the conclusion you have brought yourself to.

Sorry about that. Maybe you should choose your simple questions more carefully next time. Or maybe just accept the answer to the one you asked.

farmerman asked "This may be a bit unfair but Id like to hear about 1 advance that has come about directly related to Creationist views."

Not about advances that come from scientists that are religious.

Can you see the difference?
P

With all due respect Farmerman, this line of argument doesn't serve your view well.

. That, about sums it up precise and concise

Pauligirl wrote:

real life wrote:

farmerman wrote:

Its interesting how, when confronted with a simple question, with all the qualifiers understood by most everyone, Creationists will always duck and try to slide and evade.


There are no discoveries that were made within the realities of "Creation science" All the "proofs" of a young earth or a "waterplate beneath the Himalayas," are cartoons for science magazines.

Its no wonder , since the standard positions of Creationism involve (officially) no individual research lest they actually find something , which , as everyone with half a brain will recognize, stands their precious myths in uncomfortablepositions.

I daresay that everything Im aware of , that has started as a "position statement" or "data" from creationists or ID proponents has been successfully discounted.This includes everything from "flood geology", young earthism" to Intelligent Design's "irredcible complexity" The only problems have been that a large portion of the population only hears the Creationist side because they spend all their money on communication and "outreach"while the scientists are not willing to engage at their levels.

It is interesting how when confronted with a simple answer to your simple question, you suddenly try to throw in qualifiers ('modern era scientists only please').

You asked about Creationists as valid contributors to the accumulated scientific knowledge of the world.

Creationists are scientists who believe God created the world, correct?

You may not like to consider men such as Newton to be Creationists, but what else would you call him? He was a scientist who believed God created the world.

The fact that he was a huge contributor to scientific advancement embarrasses you when you see the conclusion you have brought yourself to.

Sorry about that. Maybe you should choose your simple questions more carefully next time. Or maybe just accept the answer to the one you asked.

farmerman asked "This may be a bit unfair but Id like to hear about 1 advance that has come about directly related to Creationist views."

Not about advances that come from scientists that are religious.

Can you see the difference?
P

Evolutionists criticize creationists for being 'religious' , but when I was asked to name some Creationists who are contributors to science and I did so, then you object "Not ones who are religious!"

then you object "Not ones who are religious!" [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing]

real life again

Quote:

then you object "Not ones who are religious!" [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing] [Laughing]

honest , sometimes your density is that of U238. That was not my objection and you know it. Youve danced around not answering that Im assuming that its not in your ability to answer or else youre busily trying to come up with something that we wont find ridiculous.
PS, forget it, it was a loaded question anyway , cause the only contributions that Im aware of were by Russ Humphries and even his geophysics modelling programs dont deviate from standard science; Even hes not that stupid to try to "speed up" tectonics to align withn his worldview.
We can move on.

H O P E L E S S - a. futile lost, despearte, irrevocable, bleak, discouraging, vain, foreboding, incurable, threatening, grave, unobtainable, impossible.


That is the definition of trying to discuss any topic relating to science and evolution with the likes of real life.

All of us have just wasted our time trying to talk with a religious nut.

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratòr], or "Universal Ruler". … The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect.

An ordinary person should be curious enough about our origins to understand evolution. It explains to us the changes in our environment and how living things survive. It also explains the origin of homo sapiens, and how humans migrated to the different lands of the world. It has everything to do with decisions about self, family, and community (local, country, and the planet earth). Some people may prefer to remain ignorant; that's their choice.

Scientists can be religious, but religion isn't science.

(The New York Times, Apr 8, 2001)

Haeckel's Lie: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Big words make us smarter.

neologist wrote:

Haeckel's Lie: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." Big words make us smarter.

Haeckel's theory was discredited years ago. It's unfortunate that those errors remain in the texts, however, the fact that there are errors in the text books, does nothing to discredit the validity of Evolution (as noted at the end of the article which Satt quoted). The evidence which supports evolution remains unchanged.

The evidence remains unchanged. Whether it supports evolutionary theory is another matter.