JOAT
I don't believe for one moment that the list of scholars you produce would describe themselves as creationists.
On the other hand I do believe than many eminent scientists believe in some form of primieval source, the great architect of the universe if you will.
There is nothing, repeat nothing incompatible with belief in "God" and the scientific method. It depends how you define "God". You do that, and I'll consider the proposition.
Steve, Good point; there are many scientists who are also religious. The two are compatible, and it depends on how they interpret science and religion.
Brandon9000 wrote:Jackofalltrades wrote:Obviously some of the people on this board got their degrees somewhere. Does Farmerman, Cicerone Imposter and others have degrees? Where did you get them?
Now here's the list again of creation scientisis in case you missed it earlier:
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist...
Insult is the lowest form of debate, but testimonial is the second lowest, and, logically, is of no significance. Every argument must be judged on its merits alone, and the qualifications of the person who advanced it are irrelevant.
I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Jackofalltrades wrote:Obviously some of the people on this board got their degrees somewhere. Does Farmerman, Cicerone Imposter and others have degrees? Where did you get them?
Now here's the list again of creation scientisis in case you missed it earlier:
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist...
Insult is the lowest form of debate, but testimonial is the second lowest, and, logically, is of no significance. Every argument must be judged on its merits alone, and the qualifications of the person who advanced it are irrelevant.
I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
It is not a valid argument logically to say, "Proposition X is true because person Y said so and he is very smart. It is logically irrelevant. The only valid way to demonstrate the truth of proposition X is to present evidence in support of it. Your colorful phraseology is irrelevant.
I knew an extremely brilliant electrical engineer that worshiped the devil... This was after he converted to Christianity... I think he just liked to do it for the shock value... It was a his way to spark up a good spiritual conversation. A kind soul to all... I would visit him he would be dressed in the black garb robe, ringing bells and drinking alter wine... oh well...
The places "God" leads us to...
Brandon9000 wrote:RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Jackofalltrades wrote:Obviously some of the people on this board got their degrees somewhere. Does Farmerman, Cicerone Imposter and others have degrees? Where did you get them?
Now here's the list again of creation scientisis in case you missed it earlier:
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist...
Insult is the lowest form of debate, but testimonial is the second lowest, and, logically, is of no significance. Every argument must be judged on its merits alone, and the qualifications of the person who advanced it are irrelevant.
I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
It is not a valid argument logically to say, "Proposition X is true because person Y said so and he is very smart. It is logically irrelevant. The only valid way to demonstrate the truth of proposition X is to present evidence in support of it. Your colorful phraseology is irrelevant.
Testimonies are where your heart answers and not your mind...
I knew an extremely brilliant electrical engineer that worshiped the devil... This was after he converted to Christianity... I think he just liked to do it for the shock value..
hope he wore rubber soles
sorry mistake
rubber soul
sings
Michelle, my belle ...
RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Jackofalltrades wrote:Obviously some of the people on this board got their degrees somewhere. Does Farmerman, Cicerone Imposter and others have degrees? Where did you get them?
Now here's the list again of creation scientisis in case you missed it earlier:
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist...
Insult is the lowest form of debate, but testimonial is the second lowest, and, logically, is of no significance. Every argument must be judged on its merits alone, and the qualifications of the person who advanced it are irrelevant.
I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
It is not a valid argument logically to say, "Proposition X is true because person Y said so and he is very smart. It is logically irrelevant. The only valid way to demonstrate the truth of proposition X is to present evidence in support of it. Your colorful phraseology is irrelevant.
Testimonies are where your heart answers and not your mind...
You can come up with clever phraseology all day, and it has no bearing on any of the assertions made here. One does not decide the truth or falsehood of scientific assertions by taking a poll. One does so by logical deduction if one wants to get the right answer. The fact that you think testimonial ("They think so, and they're smart.") is a valid technique for scientific inquiry only reinforces the already obvious fact that your methods of deduction are faulty.
Ive got 3 grad degrees, one terminal and 2 MS's and a BFA as well, I teach MS and PhD candidates( I specialize in an area of the applied sciences. The point of merely relying on ones "degree" as authority , when , if we were to search the records of such men as S Austin, wed find a series of silly debates he got himself into for pushing a theory of rad pleiochroism. A first year mineralogy student could take his argument apart and , because, his audiece is even less sophisticated in the science than he, they accpet his word as authority mostly cause "he sounds believable".
Many of the arguments in science are deep in arcane pits of supportive science and , where the Creationists lose grip is in the areas of reductionist thinking.
Now that the Falwell (Liberty) college is supporting this Creationism mega symposium, the gloves are gonna come off from the natural scientists. Since theyre now going to take shots at stuff like Mag theory, gravity, plate tectonics geochronology, I feel that theyve gotta deal with the little arcane areas of science that they usually just blow off.
Im not ready to give up on our education system being taken over by a bunch of raging zealots who cannot support their sciences.
If you look at theCREATION 2005 syllabus and then visit the scientists featured, youll see that supposed earth scientists like Baumgardner, Humphreys, Austin , and that Karst geologist from Rumania, they have openly admitted that, in standard science discussions they dont open their mouths much . Implications are that they havent thought out their scientific stances really well.
JOAT- In your extensive list of scientists who believed in a CReator your being somewhat disengenuous. Do you know what each had to say? I think that , if you go and search out at least a sample of their writings youll see that they were persons "of their times" .
Also, If I were to list the names of the scientists who understand and support evolutionary thought, we 'd run out of disk space. The fact that there are a bunch of people that Ham has "conned" into being staffers of Answers in Genesis does not, by any means, give that group any credibility.
We know their agenda, its stated right up fron in their website title'ANSWERS IN GENESIS".
Science is unable to reach a conclusion or derive a solution without the necessary data and enough analyses of same. The fact that AIG gives an alternate opinion (totally based on Scripture) is understood by all scientists who chuckle up their sleeves at these guys
. However , lets not "make believe "that its true science these guys are practising. If you look at the Creation 2005 syllabus, youll see that, for all the speakers the fulcrum of their science is "accepting Christianity' or a similar call, to be so constrained by a philosophy or religion is, to most of us, abhorent.
The fact that Creations 2005 is mostly made up of a bunch of young Earthers with a "super glue" adherence to Evangelical Fundamental Christianity makes one suspect the veracity of just about anything they say. All they wish to do is spin recent science discoveries to fit their Biblical worldview.
Im sorry, science does not work that way. Im sure that those guys youve listed would stumble all over that point. If data did not support their beliefs, they would first challenge the data. Even after data shows their beliefs to be incorrect , like the dinosaur eating man fossil, the Paluxey footprints, the "Fake" dinosaur drwaing in Altamira cave, the really outrageous compromises between standard science and Creationist interpretations, the Pleiochroic halos in granites> When all these points are shut down by real science, the Creationists scurry on to some other area of wild belief so as not to point to themselves as Frauds. Yes frauds
Creation "science" is fraudulent , it uses half truths and outright BS to fool its followers. The main skill that the AIG and ICR crowd has , is that they are really slick debators and entertaining showmen. (eg."MY DADDY WERENT NO MONKEY). They always choose their audiences well, they invite junior scientists to debate them and these junior guys get chewed up by debate trickery not fact.
edited to add (MY DADDY WERENT NO MONKEY)
RexRed wrote:I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
Ah yes, testimonials...you can tune in any Sunday evening to the BET channel and see enough testimonials to make your heart cry. See cancer, deafness, and lameness cured before your very eyes. See people relieved of pain and suffering, hear testimonials of people whose financial problems were solved just by donating to God's work via way of the good ministers. Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff, and Dan Stewart are just three of the current hoard of cockroaches preying on the desperate and the gullible. They should be behind bars.
See actual video of Peter Popoff in the act of fraud here.
God's frequency is 39.17 MHz
Peter Popoff?? gimme a break.
I havent even considered those lowliest of slime who prey on the elderly's bank accounts by "soldiers of Christ"
The money for all this pseudo science has to come from somewhere and Liberty college is one of Falwells "Bible Institutes"
Jackofalltrades wrote:Well IF you evolutionists ARE correct then, when I die... pfffffffffffft thats, it lets recycle the atoms into something else and keep on evolving. BUT if the Bible is right then there is an eternal place in heaven waiting for you if you want it.
Well, I guess that proves it then, evolution is wrong and creation is right, because if it were the other way around, then we wouldn't get the things we want. How silly of me not to see such clear and obvious evidence.
"Clear and obvious evidence" still hungers for some answers with facts and logic.
farmer,
Glad you are here. I'm lucky to be able to tell the difference between shale and granite compared to you.
When all else fails, hit them over the head with science. It tends to be a pretty substantial club.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:I knew an extremely brilliant electrical engineer that worshiped the devil... This was after he converted to Christianity... I think he just liked to do it for the shock value..
hope he wore rubber soles
Oh gosh, I didn't see that!!! very punny
You exhibit his sense of humor... strange. He was French from Van Buren Maine... and very charismatic person. I hope to one day aspire to his knowledge of science...
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:sorry mistake
rubber soul
sings
Michelle, my belle ...
I believe that is The Beatles.
Brandon9000 wrote:RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:RexRed wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Jackofalltrades wrote:Obviously some of the people on this board got their degrees somewhere. Does Farmerman, Cicerone Imposter and others have degrees? Where did you get them?
Now here's the list again of creation scientisis in case you missed it earlier:
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist...
Insult is the lowest form of debate, but testimonial is the second lowest, and, logically, is of no significance. Every argument must be judged on its merits alone, and the qualifications of the person who advanced it are irrelevant.
I disagree... I can read you "testimonial" that would bring your to your knees and make you cry like a baby... I heard it once said... "Words are the most powerful way to impact the human mind..." Wisdom is knowledge applied... testimonials speak of this wisdom of the ages... Testimonials can be pure heart, I eat them up like candy...
It is not a valid argument logically to say, "Proposition X is true because person Y said so and he is very smart. It is logically irrelevant. The only valid way to demonstrate the truth of proposition X is to present evidence in support of it. Your colorful phraseology is irrelevant.
Testimonies are where your heart answers and not your mind...
You can come up with clever phraseology all day, and it has no bearing on any of the assertions made here. One does not decide the truth or falsehood of scientific assertions by taking a poll. One does so by logical deduction if one wants to get the right answer. The fact that you think testimonial ("They think so, and they're smart.") is a valid technique for scientific inquiry only reinforces the already obvious fact that your methods of deduction are faulty.
Are you talking about statistics and facts? Facts change... statistics change... but testimonies can speak of truth and truth never changes...
