What is a "Creation Scientist" ??

reply to post by Akragon


It's a scientist who believes in the Biblical account of creation.

I guess atheists just can't stand the fact there are men smarter than them with PhD's in scientific fields who believe in the Bible.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Sigh

Back to your old antics eh...

Somehow I knew you learned nothing... Apparently my previous assumption on the other thread was wrong

Please get out of my thread if you have no interest in decent conversation and are only here to attack me as per usual



Edit: thank you for editing your attack... maybe one day you'll actually learn to have a conversation with out attacking your opponents....

I hope...

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Here goes with the "automatic atheist" argument again.

Friendly tip: just because someone doesn't believe in your version of god does not mean they are atheists. The world isn't divided into just two categories you know.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


True but the author of this thread has already made it very clear to me in the past that he is an Atheist.

As for the the world being divided into two categories, It actually can be. Those who believe and those who don't. The lost and the saved.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Omg...

And now you're going to lie about me?

I've never once said I was an atheist... Not to you or anyone else on this planet

Get your facts straight about who your talking about brother

Geez

Your bible says DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS... Try playing by your own laws

reply to post by Akragon


You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears.

Matthew 15:18 - But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

reply to post by Akragon


RevGen is enochwasright....but the odd thing is that revgen is a very different poster.
Oh and revgen doesn't know the commandments (he once argued with me that jealously is not a sin)
Just ignore the guy...brainwashed and not one original thought in that closed mind.

Back to the OP a Creation scientist is a person who puts faith before evidence and lies and makes stuff up to try and prove their version of the truth is the right one...no matter on the actual facts.

RevelationGeneration
reply to post by Akragon

 

You can tell a tree by the fruit it bears.

Which means you are a liar... and your fruit is rotten to the core

Just like the message you attempt to spread... Now please leave my thread

You're not even on the topic of the thread... You're just attacking me as you always do when you come to my threads

boymonkey74
reply to post by Akragon

 

RevGen is enochwasright....but the odd thing is that revgen is a very different poster.
Oh and revgen doesn't know the commandments (he once argued with me that jealously is not a sin)

Just ignore the guy...brainwashed and not one original thought in that closed mind.

No my friend he is not Enoch... I know Ed and I miss him terribly on these forums... ATS is a little bit darker with him gone

He is a very intelligent man... This guy is a joke... and I wish he would leave but i'll probably have to get a mod

This happens a lot when he comes to my threads

reply to post by Akragon


I remember enoch saying he had to change his name due to his blog.
Funny how Enoch goes and this one comes back.
I may be wrong though.
Either way expect Rev to damn us all to Hell blah blah blah. Like he usually does.

boymonkey74
reply to post by Akragon

 

I remember enoch saying he had to change his name due to his blog.
Funny how Enoch goes and this one comes back.
I may be wrong though.
Either way expect Rev to damn us all to Hell blah blah blah.

edit on 22-11-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

Trust me brother... RevGen is not enoch... He changed his name from "SuperiorEd"

and he was actually a teacher before he retired... I've had many conversations with him

And I hope he returns soon

reply to post by Akragon


Ahhh me and my old mind you are right
Sorry Enoch If you read this

VoiceInTheWilderness
reply to post by Akragon

 

I found this online somewhere a while ago and would like to share it with you:

The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
Science THEN: The earth was a flat disk
Science NOW: The earth is a sphere

Innumerable stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
Science THEN: Only 1,100 stars
Science NOW: Innumerable stars

Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
Science THEN: Earth sat on a large animal
Science NOW: Free float of earth in space

Creation made of invisible Elements (Hebrews 11:3)
Science THEN: Science was ignorant on the subject
Science NOW: Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)

Each star is different (1 Corinthians 15:41)
Science THEN: All stars were the same
Science NOW: Each star is different

Light moves (Job 38:19, 20)
Science THEN: Light was fixed in place
Science NOW: Light moves

Air has weight (Job 28:25)
Science THEN: Air was weightless
Science NOW: Air has weight

Wind blows in cyclones (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
Science THEN: Wind blew straight
Science NOW: Wind blows in cyclones

Blood is the source of Life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
Science THEN: Sick people must be bled
Science NOW: Blood is the source of life and health

Ocean floor contains deep Valleys and mountains (2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6)
Science THEN: The ocean floor was flat
Science NOW: Ocean floor contains deep Valleys and mountains

Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16)
Science THEN: Ocean feed only by rivers and rain
Science NOW: Ocean contains springs

When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water (Lev 15:13)
Science THEN: Hands washed in still water
Science NOW: When dealing with disease, hands should be washed under running water

For further studies I recommend these sites: www.answersingenesis.org... , www.icr.org... , thatsafacttv.com...

THIS, right THIS is what SCIENCE, pure and true sciense is all about! Find facts, work out the truth the best you can do - and if it is proven(!) wrong, then so be it and you were looking at the facts the wrong way!


No, really NO single creationist/ID-ist would EVER be able to confess that his/her bible would be wrong! As that would not only be contrary to their belief and core of their consciousness, but to their heart and soul. Which is nothing scientific, but simple faith.

Science (on effects observable in the reality): Work out a theory, make a prediction about effects to be found in the future - if said effects differ from your theory, it was wrong or at least has to be refined!

Faith: nothing ever will be able to change faith.


Really, there are sites on ID which I would consider to be worked on and being built with real wisdom, knowledge and insight. Nevertheless, those sites are FIGHTING, FIGHTING a LOSING WAR. Right now, the main battlefield seems to be the Cambrian Explosion, a vast diversigation of species in a geologically very short time. But this happened 500,000,000 years ago, so true science can't have all facts together, as you would have to FIND them. Maybe 10,000,000 years are enough time for evolution to produce such a huge variety on its own. Maybe there were influences which tampered with the DNA in a unimaginable amount - we don't know. Yet.

Another battlefield is happening about some very, very fine details in the core of single cellls - do you see what I see when I think that for a huge claim like "SOMEONE STEERED THE EVOLUTION CONSCIOUSLY!" you have to bring huge facts backing that huge claim? Nowadays, it is not "sun circling the earth, therefore god", but "there is something about a protein that can't be explained by statistics, therefore god!".

That is pathetic!

If ID or creationism would be teached on the schools of my children, I would give those teachers hell on every possible way and time. It is bad enough that they teach "reading through writing" for learning to read.. THAT is another example of failed fake-science! But not from anything biblical, I give it that at least..


Fazit: * Early science made errors, real science isn't as error-prone as it was. Open to discussion everytime, but it has to be based on verificiable data. Not on something called hope or "I found how to disable the second law of thermodynamics" - by magnets, as it nearly always seems to be the point..
* Anything faith-based is not a science, but faith. Theories on how the world moves are not faith, those are verificable.

tl'dr: I am very, very glad that I don't live in a country where you have to teach "evolution is a theory just like creationism".

Now bring on your faithful hate against science, we don't care. Are you a qualified, scientififally educated person, by the way? Otherwise, well, there are some nice stories for you to read. Yes, I am condescending because faith vs. science is such an unbelievable unfair match I just can't take it seriously!

reply to post by ManFromEurope


Hey ManFromEurope

Did you notice the Polish scientist in my comment? Well now, he's pretty European, I would think. And he's a pretty good scientist too...and he does not believe in evolution. Whaaa?? A scientist from Europe, that does not believe in evolution?

Maybe you should read his peer-reviewed journals and debunk that pretty smart European scientist?

Oh, do you have a link for your peer-reviewed articles on your peer-reviewed experiments? This, I should like to see.

adjensen
The difference, again, is that Intelligent Design relies on a scientific approach, while Creationists are philosophical, not scientists. You can fault the findings and claims of ID, but to say that they're not approaching it differently than Creationists are is simply ignorant.

Creationists have creation scientists, along with a creation museum. Neither have any scientific basis, same thing with ID, it has scientists but no scientific basis. They claim the same things, and have produced the same amount of breakthoughs..........none, nada, zip, nothing. Re-branding creationism as intelligent design fools nobody, other than those who really really really want it to be true...

WarminIndy
Really? Cheap lab coats?

See my reply post to Superman.

Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A.(Oxford), Ph.D.(Toronto), D.Sc.(Poznan), is head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland. He is on the editorial board of two international periodicals: Silvae Genetics, published in Germany, and Annales ses sciences forestieres published in France. He is a member of the Polish Academy of Sciences Committee on Forest Sciences, and on the Forestry Council in the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Natural Resources and Forestry. He is the author of about 150 scientific papers in Polish and international periodicals.

Care to say this guy just wears a cheap lab coat?

I wasn't aware that Giertych was ID in it's entirety?

And while he has many letters after his name, and has written many papers on forest-related topics, when it comes to creationism/ID he has nothing to back it up. I mean for pity's sake this man starred in 'Expelled'.....

mystery post

undo
reply to post by Prezbo369

 

not just the christian god but also the jewish god and the muslim god. you missed them. also some less known branches, like the mormons, gnostics, some orthodox, some not.

Maybe you missed the part where I said....

And who specifically? The Christian god. Sure there are others, but generally whenever anyone mentions creationists or ID, it's in the biblical sense.

i think the issue is people who have compiled critical papers on the subject, have based their entire critique on the papal interpretation instead of what the text actually says. and those interpretations usually date back to before the advent of universitiy sciences and archaeology. i view that approach as the lazy strawman. it's easy. 1) go find an indefensible interpretation, 2) add a few scholarly critical papers that can easily debunk it, 3) rinse, wash, repeat. forever.

The issue isn't which particular interpritation is used, it's the fact that there's no evidence to say that the Bible or any other holy book should be given any serious consideration, at all.

But if you think you're correct, and you specifically have the correct interpretation, get busy writing your book and then wait for the scientific institutes, newspapers, churches and TV reporters to call....

reply to post by Prezbo369


Was the Polish guy in Expelled?

Well, I guess if he does not believe in evolution then his credentials are questioned, right?

Tell us what law is there that states explicitly that to be a scientist, one must believe in evolution. Would you care to point that out to us, so then we can charge them for breaking the law.

Again, why is the evolution side so dismissive of scientists that don't teach evolution? Is there a law that says they are not scientists if they don't believe in evolution?

Since it only seems to fall into the realm of bloggers, posters and youtube commenters that they are not real scientists, then would you care to explain to us what a real scientist is, and where a real scientist gets a degree and on his degree does it say "believes in evolution, certified as a scientist"?

Show us the diplomas, certificates, laws, anything that says a scientist must believe in evolution to be a scientist.

reply to post by Prezbo369

Creationists have creation scientists, along with a creation museum. Neither have any scientific basis, same thing with ID, it has scientists but no scientific basis. They claim the same things, and have produced the same amount of breakthoughs..........none, nada, zip, nothing. Re-branding creationism as intelligent design fools nobody, other than those who really really really want it to be true…

Again, there is a significant difference between Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. There is no scientific evidence for a world wide flood, or that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago, so these become philosophical arguments -- could God have created the world in six days 6,000 years ago, with things like the fossil record or the age of the universe set as part of that creation.

Intelligent Design, on the other hand, is the scientific study of pattern, and whether such a pattern exists, regardless of its source. It uses the scientific method and rational examination of complex systems and organisms, it does not refer to the Bible or any other "sacred text" as evidence of anything. Here's what they have to say about it:

Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (Source)

Now, you can complain about that all you want, but that is their stated position.