What is a "Creation Scientist" ??

reply to post by adjensen


Not true, not true at all. There is mountains of evidence for a global flood and a young earth and philosophy has nothing to do with it.

How dishonest of you to claim Intelligent Design uses the scientific method but Creationists don't.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

New continental landmasses bearing new mountain rose while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


*facePalm*

And where does that water go?

It falls back down to earth... as rain

Its called precipitation, condensation, evaporation and sublimation... the natural weather cycle

it doesn't just up and disappear like a fart in the wind

*sigh*

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


And what evidence is there of this in the bible?

Where was all of this water before the flood? Did it just appear from nowhere? If the continents had to rise in order to accommodate all of this extra water, wouldn't that mean the world was flooded even before the flood happened? Water doesn't just appear out of nowhere to cover the entire world, that flood water had to come from somewhere, no?

RevelationGeneration

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

 

What evidence? You mean the evidence that suggests a global flood is impossible? If there was enough water to cover the entire Earth, we'd be under water right now. Where did all that water go after the flood? Did it just disappear into nothingness?

New continental landmasses bearing new mountain rose while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents. That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges.

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

Im gonna have to remember to quote you from now on so people can see what you edited...

Thats quite the different explanation from what you had originally...

The only problem is, mountian don't rise and fall enough to accomdate that amount of water in such a short period of time... I assume your explanation for that is... God did it

Amirite?

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall) of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Where in the world are you getting this stuff from? Not from the bible obviously, or history.

So you're telling me that water that is turned into steam somehow creates more water after it condensates? So if I go into my kitchen right now and boiled one cup of water until it was all steam and captured that steam, it would somehow magically turn into two cups of water through condensation?

Please tell me how that can possibly work.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Those of us in the real world call it nonsense

Science calls it Bullshmite

I call it a fantastic imagination

reply to post by Akragon


I call it delusion.

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Again, no.

There is zero evidence of a global flood, but considerable evidence of a local, Mediterranean, flood, which could be reasonably assumed to be a global one.

adjensen

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.

That's a very specific version of creationism you're arguing against there, and is not what all creationists believe......is it

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.

And there's the cheap labcoat I was talking about.....or at least one of them. It's taken from a 2002 article, 3 years before the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not science, that it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents"

Do you really think people like Michael Behe, Scott Minnich or William Dembski would consider anything other than the biblical god as the agent of design?

I can understand your need to remove yourself from certain literal interpretations of the bible, afterall it makes claims that couldn't possibly be true and are incredibly silly and you want to keep you're beliefs as sane as possible. But if you think science can confirm any of the supernatural events described in the bible, in any way, then you're calling on a creator and are thus a creationist.

But, again, I don't blame you for trying....

WarminIndy
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?

More like WarminTheStrawmanForest......

His credentials in are unquestionable, his claims about creationism and evolution are

reply to post by adjensen


There have been thousands of "local floods" throughout history, but only one "great flood" which covered the earth.


Biblicaly speaking a local flood makes no sense, here's why:

Prezbo369

WarminIndy
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?

More like WarminTheStrawmanForest......

His credentials in are unquestionable, his claims about creationism and evolution are

And you question his claims based on what?

So if his credentials are unquestionable, then he is a scientist..so what's wrong?

WarminIndy

And you question his claims based on what?

Based on the lack of evidence for 'creationism' or anything 'supernatural' and the lack of work and/or breakthroughs in that area....ever

So if his credentials are unquestionable, then he is a scientist..so what's wrong?

He works in forest and environmental sciences, not biology, not evolution and not theology.....so why would he be an authority on those issues?

It was a claim to authority that you made and keep making wasn't it?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


I am unsure , is that post a measure of your dishonesty or scientific illiteracy ?

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Well... Pardon my ignorance

That picture is all the proof i need of a bibical flood

How silly of me to question the authority of photoshop

LMAO!

reply to post by RevelationGeneration


Where did all the water come from Rev? If you believe that condensation makes more water than the original amount, what makes you think that picture can't be possible? I mean, god is god, he could make a sheer wall of water if he wanted to, right? Just like he could double or even triple the amount of water after condensation like you seem to believe.

Except, those things are ridiculous and not based on science in any way, just like a great flood. The water had to come from somewhere or go somewhere you know, it couldn't have just popped in or out of existence like you seem to believe.

Prezbo369

WarminIndy

And you question his claims based on what?

Based on the lack of evidence for 'creationism' or anything 'supernatural' and the lack of work and/or breakthroughs in that area....ever

So if his credentials are unquestionable, then he is a scientist..so what's wrong?

He works in forest and environmental sciences, not biology, not evolution and not theology.....so why would he be an authority on those issues?

It was a claim to authority that you made and keep making wasn't it?

edit on 23-11-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)

Oh I see, one must be a Biologist for you to think they are real scientists...ok.

Michael Behe has developed the argument for design from biochemistry and has published over 35 articles in refereed biochemical journals.

Ralph Seelke is a microbiologist at University of Wisconsin, Superior, who has researched Dr. Behe's ideas in the laboratory, using mutant bacteria. Dr. Seelke explained how his lab work focuses on what evolution really can do in this intriguing podcast last year.

Scott Minnich is a microbiologist at University of Idaho who credits the design paradigm to leading to new insights in his lab research.

OK, I threw Behe out there, not tell us now, the objections you have with Behe. He's a scientist per your parameters, he is a Biologist, and he is well-known. So come, give us the objection to Behe now.

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Pennsylvania in 1978. Behe's current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures.

OK, see, this is what they do, "Nope, a scientist is this" so give them scientist..."Nope, a scientist must be qualified"..give them qualified scientist"..."Nope, a scientist must do this certain thing"...give them a scientist that does certain thing..."Nope not a qualified scientist even though he follows my set of parameters I have set up, because I don't want to see those qualified scientists at all, even though I defined them as qualified in the first place"

Tell us, a scientist is only a scientist because he says what you want him to? Is that how science works? You throw out what makes a scientific experiment work if it leads away from evolution...that's not scientific, now is it.

I threw Behe out there, now watch the criticism against his work...and he's a PhD in Biology. He fits your parameters so you can't toss him out, according to your own parameters. But watch, here it comes....