A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

What untruth? I'm merely stating the facts. Science is a very wide field. Hence to narrow it down to specifics, those who are proponents of evolution theory are evolutionists as much as those who are proponents of Creation are termed as Creationists. Both are involved in the same field of scientific studies but from a different point of view. That's a fact and no untruth in it. Now if evolutionist is a misnomer, then what about this - scientists who are proponents of evolution theory? Will that work?

In any case, for simplicity, I'll just refer to them as evolutionists.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

What untruth? I'm merely stating the facts.

Not really, you're giving your interpretation based on bias

Science is a very wide field.

No, science isn't a field. Science is a tool used to investigate natural phenomena that can be recorded and tested.

Hence to narrow it down to specifics, those who are proponents of evolution theory are evolutionists as much as those who are proponents of Creation are termed as Creationists.

No because scientists who understand the facts that support the MES still work in separate, highly specialized fields that may deal with evolution, but they aren't proponents of evolution in the way you are trying to make it sound. There's a BIG difference between understanding the facts that support MES and being a proponent of evolution. Anybody can be a
Supporter of biblical or non biblical creation as there are billions of people who believe in some Creation mythos or another that are not of an Abrahamic faith. You're hung up on a very specific niche of people who are the minority amongst even adherents to the same Faith. You try to make it out like there's a competition but it only exists in people that support the narratives of the ICR and AIG and their ilk. They represent less than half a percent of members of the National Academy of Sciences for example and not much higher of a percentage of Christians the last time I checked.

Both are involved in the same field of scientific studies but from a different point of view. That's a fact and no untruth in it.

It's hot even close to a fact. In Anthropology for example, we study specific aspects of the evolution of Hominids and what led various species to become the Genus Homo. We look at the data, extrapolate information and make
Conclusions then test those conclusions and then allow other people see how we obtained the data, reached the conclusions and the work involved so that they may check the veracity of that work themselves to see if it lasses muster. There is no preconceived notion or goal other than studying the data and seeing where it goes.

Creationists on the other hand, start with the answer they want and then fit the pieces in to mke it look like
They're doing something vaguely scientific to people who don't know any better and think "hmmm... this guy has a PhD and I work the drive through at Arby's so he must know hat he's talking about!". And don't bother to look and see that this guy has a PhD sure, but it's in Physics and he's challenging standards of Geology or Biology. The notion that a Physicist is qualified to discuss a field not within their purview is like saying a a human body is kinda like a machine, cars are machines so I'll go ask my mechanic for medical advice because they both diagnose problems and then fix them. I don't correct physicists because my background is in paleoanthropology and I know the very fine and intricate details regarding Pleistocene Hominids but don't know a damned thing about string theory. At least not anywhere near enough to start telling other Physicists that they're wrong. I know enough about related fields like biology and geology to know when someone is full Of s#. And Creation "Scientists" are full of S#

Now if evolutionist is a misnomer, then what about this - scientists who are proponents of evolution theory? Will that work?

In any case, for simplicity, I'll just refer to them as evolutionists.

Why offer a counterpoint that's not insulting to people who have bothered to educate themselves within specific fields of inquiry? Noinden works in bioinformatics, not evolutionism. I have a degree in anthropology and studied a very specific time period and specific hominids within that time frame, not evolutionism. While both of our fields of study are a part of the study of evolution and evolutionary biology, we aren't evolutionists in the sense that you are using the term.

a reply to: edmc^2

Space is either: 1. Infinite. or 2. Finite. Evidence shows the former.

Please present the evidence. That means experimental data with results that suggest that the universe is infinite - not your opinion.

Absolute infinity simply means the existence of an infinite universe without question. I probably used the wrong word - but that's what I meant.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: edmc^2

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

A cause as defined by whom?

I would say - the observer.

A initial cause would not have a observer...

If so... Who or what would that be?

Look at humans, look at bonobos, look at gorillas, look at mice, look at bananas.

The percent of genetic similarity goes in the predicted by evolution manner. Even noncoding dna, even dormant viruses, nonfunctional genes, etc shows such similarity. There's no real valid reason for this to follow the predictions of evolutionary theory.

Only way you're getting creationism is a last thursdayism event
rationalwiki.org...

Flat earthers claim dozens of passages in the bible in their favor, versus one or two that vaguely might imply a round earth.

Now the odds of a 6,000 year old flat earth are extraordinarily low, perhaps in a simulation if most scientists are NPCs, brain washed, or fed fabricated data, or part of some giant conspiracy.

a reply to: edmc^2

You are implying that a Christian must be a creationist, and not agree evolution is the likely cause of speciation. That has been demonstrated to be an untruth. This is the most recent one in your thread.

Neighbour I again remind you, evolutionist is not a thing.

originally posted by: edmc^2
There's a question that had been asked around. But somehow, it's baffling why smart thinking people are unable to give a straight answer.
They go round and round explaining how stuffs work and how science work but never giving an answer. Sometimes they say the question doesn't make sense. Some say we don't know the answer. But some protest that it's a leading question. But really, are they being honest as to what they know or is it that they don't want to admit the obvious?

Well let's see where you stand.

But first let me please state this scientific and incontrovertible fact:

Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

So, what's the answer to this simple question:

If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

What say you?

I assume you are talking about life or the universe? If so... then it's because you are looking at it the wrong way.

You seem to assume that time has stretched from a point in one direction.

But here's the problem....

Time has a detrimental opposite.

Imagine the point of which you choose to understand was the beginning of our time... the beginning of the universe.
From that point a line starts to stretch out, eventually bringing the universe to it's current state.
But you also seem to think that time is linear from one point towards another?? That this "line" will keep stretching and stretching.

But what will happen is that at some point in time, this line will collapse on itself like a loooong rubberband.

The collapse of this rubberband will use all this force to deminish back towards the "original" point, and then flip to the other side of that point and repeat the process.

There you have it.... no end and no beginning. Therefore, no cause.... everything just.... is.

It's mind blowing when you finally comprehend it.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

You are implying that a Christian must be a creationist, and not agree evolution is the likely cause of speciation. That has been demonstrated to be an untruth. This is the most recent one in your thread.

Neighbour I again remind you, evolutionist is not a thing.

Apparently there is such a thing as a "creation scientist"

Had to ask that question a few years back... pretty much most of the time said "scientist" doesn't actually specialize in the sciences required to prove their points based on the bible...

Though because they are actually scientists in a field completely unrelated to anything that would show creationism, their studies are valid to these people

you'll find a lot of them on the answers in Genesis site

a reply to: Akragon


Well its a Pseudo Science, plenty of those, Homeopathy, electric Universe etc .... to be a Sceince you need to be able to submit to peer review.

a reply to: edmc^2

Physics and Schrodinger's cat not withstanding,I would say semantics aren't a scientific hypothesis nor even an effective debate tactic.
Things occur spontaneously all the time, humans infinitely so with our creativity,again, all the time.

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

Those proponents of biological evolution are called Scientists. It is a theory, which has been agreed upon, which has evidence to support it. Just like THermodynamics, Gravity (which we understand less than evolution, yet it is apparent, just like evolution). The SN1 and SN2 mechanism.

Thus the people who use evolutionist as a term, just like Darwinist, are those who do not understand science. Thus, I refute your points again.

As a religious scientist, you are indeed speaking untruths.

What untruth? I'm merely stating the facts. Science is a very wide field. Hence to narrow it down to specifics, those who are proponents of evolution theory are evolutionists as much as those who are proponents of Creation are termed as Creationists. Both are involved in the same field of scientific studies but from a different point of view. That's a fact and no untruth in it. Now if evolutionist is a misnomer, then what about this - scientists who are proponents of evolution theory? Will that work?

In any case, for simplicity, I'll just refer to them as evolutionists.

Please don't, because there's no such word. It's a simplistic concept thought up by those who are naïve enough to think that creationism is on the same playing field as biology. It's not. There are no 'creationist scientists' either, there are just people with an agenda.
Good grief, this topic again? Seriously?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Akragon


Well its a Pseudo Science, plenty of those, Homeopathy, electric Universe etc .... to be a Sceince you need to be able to submit to peer review.

They actually have "creation science" conventions here... its like a weekend retreat with your church where you can learn all about creation science from real scientists... they always have a PhD but they don't ever say what field said doctorate was attained.... just "Name PhD"

its even televised via internet...

a reply to: Akragon

Oh I know They have homeopathic conventions too, its still a pseudoscience If one truly thinks their ideas are scientific and merit the title, they allow fellow scientists to review it

I've seen a number of non scientists as the leaders in creationism. Fine, good, they don't get a free pass however As I've always said here. I am qualified to talk at science (multiple degrees and diplomas and working in an industry), I'm only a subject matter expert in Chemistry, and bioinformatics (thus Biochemistry, Genetics and Statistics). Beyond that, I am slightly more qualified than the casual reader, but not that much.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

I am afraid some people can't let things go. these creationist missionaries are unwilling to try and educate themselves. They cry "semantics" when people correct them on what biological evolution covers (as always not the beginning of all things) or foul because Science will not give Creationism a chance. The current attack is that a true Religious person (this poster seems to think that this means Christian ) can not agree that evolution is the most likely outcome vs creationism. They've said as much, and implied Science is the bastion of atheists...which kind of amuses this Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan, who works in Science. I hope he's willing to take the Pharmaceuticals I've helped developed if he needs them

a reply to: Akragon

There's a local church near my house that offers an Archaeology Camp for two weeks every summer since I've lived here. I wanted to enroll one of my kids so I could find out what type of archaeology the church is promoting but couldn't bring myself to use my kid as a Trojan Horse and guinea pig just to satiate my own curiosity.

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah don't weaponize your progeny That is what the Zealots do.

a reply to: Noinden

I think the zealots would argue that I've already weaponized them by allowing them to make their own decisions on what they believe and giving them access to all of my books that demonstrate the evidence supporting the MES

a reply to: peter vlar

Yeah well they could argue that, but that is their thing. I feel they all consider that free will is the problem to all things

a reply to: peter vlar

Well OK then - let's keep this thread going instead of creating a new one.

To my point: i.e. scientific field

You said:

No, science isn't a field. Science is a tool used to investigate natural phenomena that can be recorded and tested.

Yes, I agree it's also a tool but I think you missed my point when I said 'science' being a field.

To quote:

Read here:
io9.gizmodo.com...

There was a time when science could be broken down into neat-and-tidy disciplines — straightforward things like biology, chemistry, physics, and astronomy. But as science advances, these fields are becoming increasingly specialized and interdisciplinary, leading to entirely new avenues of inquiry. Here are 11 emerging scientific fields you should know about.

Or here:
wordinfo.info...:analytical%20chemistry

Scientific Fields or Categories of Science Specialties

Or here:
www.kavlifoundation.org...

The Kavli Foundation supports four areas of science — astrophysics, nanoscience, neuroscience and theoretical physics. Together, these fields seek answers to some of humanity’s most fundamental scientific questions while creating basic knowledge for a better future. They are also among the most exciting scientific areas in the 21st century, with the promise of discoveries in the near future that – just a relatively short time ago – would have been unimaginable.

and of course your "trusty" Wikip (as a reference only)

en.wikipedia.org...

The branches of science (also referred to as "sciences", "scientific fields", or "scientific disciplines") are commonly divided into three major groups: Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including cosmological, geological, chemical, and biological factors of the universe) Formal sciences: the study of mathematics and logic, which use an a priori, as opposed to factual, methodology. Social sciences: the study of human behavior and societies.[citation needed] Natural and social sciences are empirical sciences, meaning that the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions. [1]

But if you still disagree, then I can't help you.

As to what I said about evolutionists - so as not to insult your sensibilities, how do you want me to address them then? Propose one and I'll gladly use it.

In any case, I shall refer to them in lieu of the aforementioned nomenclature as 'evoth-propo' (proponents of evolution theory/evolution theory proponents).

Hope this works.