What is a "Creation Scientist" ??

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


What? A dishonest creationist? here? never!

Are you going to continue to argue points I never made while ignoring the points I did make in reply to your claims?

I never said Maciej Giertych was not a scientist, infact if you remember I said his credentials are unquestionable.

Michael Behe is also a scientist, one called as a primary witness in the Kitzmiller v Dover case where his testimony proved nothing less than devastating to the defense....




posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 



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

Creationists base their beliefs on what the Bible says, then attempt to find explanations for how that's possible, and if they can't find any, then they're left with putting it down to God's omnipotence, so, yes, that is what all creationists believe.


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.

As should be readily apparent from this thread, I am neither a Fundamentalist nor a Creationist. My personal belief is that the natural world, and everything in it, was created by processes that have been in motion for billions of years. The only difference between your position and mine is that you believe everything exists as a result of random chance, I believe it was planned.



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Prezbo369
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


What? A dishonest creationist? here? never!

Are you going to continue to argue points I never made while ignoring the points I did make in reply to your claims?

I never said Maciej Giertych was not a scientist, infact if you remember I said his credentials are unquestionable.

Michael Behe is also a scientist, one called as a primary witness in the Kitzmiller v Dover case where his testimony proved nothing less than devastating to the defense....


Ok, since they are both good enough for you to accept as scientists, then what's wrong with them believing intelligent design?

Can we at least discuss their contributions to science without resorting back to "oh, they are Creation scientists that should be avoided"...Do you not see how this idea permeates from the atheist and non-Creation groups when it comes to science?

No, you said that Giertych was not a biologist after I posted his credentials, as though you thought he were not reputable, then I gave you a biologist, then you resort back to the game. Either accept Intelligent Design and Creation Scientists as real scientist or say that you don't. But what you cannot do any longer is say they are not scientists, and since I made that point that you have to accept them as scientists, then let's hear what these scientists are saying.

As Giertyc and Behe are Intelligent Design scientists, then what is the problem with their lack of belief in evolution? Are you arguing with me or are you arguing with the science? Since you can't argue with the science, then I suppose you have to accept that Intelligent Design is as reasonable as evolution, wouldn't you say?



posted on Nov, 23 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


there are actually 2 floods, entwined together, in the flood passages of genesis.
i believe this was the result of the 3 different writers of the pentateuch. both floods were quite real, and both were accurately presented, however, they did not actually occur as one event. they were 2 separate events.

one flood was the black sea flood. this was a bad flood that effected coastal regions (where most cities were at the time). however, it was not global. in this flood, the noah figure was instructed to take 7 clean animals in pairs, 7 birds in pairs and 2 unclean animals in pairs. this amounts to 32 animals. about the size of a barnyard. HOWEVER, the other flood was global, and 2 of each of the approved species would've been saved. bare with me here, this is interesting

in the opening passages of genesis it says the earth was tohu, in chaos. later the text says the earth was not created tohu. so something happened to make the earth tohu in the opening passages of genesis. it also says the spirit of god, moves across the face of the deep. the deep is depicted as water so deep it was covering the land beneath it. then the water draws back to reveal the dry land.

this next part is a lot more specific, so i would rather present it after you've commented on my comments here.

p.s. i still believe moses wrote the initial pentateuch. the question is, was the black sea flood account added later by someone else or was the global flood account added later. my view at the moment is, the black sea flood account was added later.. perhaps while they were captivity in babylon. this would make sense if you take into consideration the accounts in the atrahasis epic and the epic of gilgamesh. it may also indicate that the global version in the opening of genesis is noah's global flood, whereas the later black sea flood is attributed to noah, when it shouldn't be, but rather one of the rulers mentioned in the epics mentioned above.

the torah has to be treated very gingerly. the wording and phraseology has to be carefully examined, and it is best not to take preconceived ideas or prior teaching, into your research. the reason this is so very important is that thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands or even millions of years are condensed down into a few passages in genesis. each word, each phrase, has meaning. the particulars have meaning. the known history of the writer, moses, has meaning. every little teeny tiny bit, has massive amounts of data behind it which is lost on most researchers. they are taught a very simple version that leaves out so much information that it inadvertently and incorrectly colors their understanding of later texts.

such a result would also effect translators as well, who would decide to choose one meaning for a word, over another, based on a misunderstanding of prior data in the texts. for example is the word singular or plural. does it mean one of 20 different things and which one. and so on. this is not an attempt to make the account seem false, as i think it is quite real and accurate in its original form (hebrew, chaldean and aramic), but that things may not always be in the correct order on the timeline, which was a frequent writing device in ancient cultures, et. al, they'd tell the story, then tell it again with different details than the first telling

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



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

WarminIndy

Ok, since they are both good enough for you to accept as scientists, then what's wrong with them believing intelligent design?


Lol what are you talking about? when have I said anybody wasnt a scientist? are you able to write a single sentence without being dishonest? Both of those chaps can believe anything they want, it goes without saying. The problem lies with them being unable to back those beliefs up, and in Behe's case, attempting to teach creationism/ID to children in public schools.


Can we at least discuss their contributions to science without resorting back to "oh, they are Creation scientists that should be avoided"...Do you not see how this idea permeates from the atheist and non-Creation groups when it comes to science?


You mean their contributions in regards to forestry sciences and microbiology....right? Because if you are referring to their beliefs in creationism/ID, then we don't have anything to discuss as in that reguard they haven't contributed anything to science.


Either accept Intelligent Design and Creation Scientists as real scientist or say that you don't. But what you cannot do any longer is say they are not scientists, and since I made that point that you have to accept them as scientists, then let's hear what these scientists are saying.


There's no such thing as a creation/ID scientists...


As Giertyc and Behe are Intelligent Design scientists, then what is the problem with their lack of belief in evolution? Are you arguing with me or are you arguing with the science? Since you can't argue with the science, then I suppose you have to accept that Intelligent Design is as reasonable as evolution, wouldn't you say?


While both of the men in question are undoubtedly scientists, they are not 'Intelligent Design scientists' as ID is not science. So no, I wouldn't say it was as reasonable as evolution.

The day someones imagination becomes as credible as the theory of evolution, is the day the scientific method dies and we go back to living in caves...
edit on 24-11-2013 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

adjensen
Creationists base their beliefs on what the Bible says, then attempt to find explanations for how that's possible, and if they can't find any, then they're left with putting it down to God's omnipotence, so, yes, that is what all creationists believe.


Well you're wrong....


Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being.


Under that definition, and the quote below, you're a creationist


My personal belief is that the natural world, and everything in it, was created by processes that have been in motion for billions of years. The only difference between your position and mine is that you believe everything exists as a result of random chance, I believe it was planned.


You should know better than to put a whole group of people into a box like that

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



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


Dishonesty or scientific illiteracy you say? I would put it to you Sir that you are ignorant of the biblical text. Considering the bible says the flood waters rose above the mountain peeks, it is your burden to show how that would be possible with a localized flood.

~RG~
edit on 24-11-2013 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I'd say it is your burden to show how a global flood that rose above all the mountain peaks is possible. Water covering Mount Everest, over 5 miles high? I seriously doubt it. It's delusional to think that would ever be possible, EVER.

Your two explanations for it so far are pretty ridiculous too. You say that volcanic activity would somehow create more water than before through the act of condensation, then that every continent on Earth rose by a few miles to accommodate all of this new water that magically poofed into existence.

Ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Mount Everest didn't exist until after the flood waters receded.

Anyway my reply wasn't directed to you so please don't pretend like it was, it is annoying.
edit on 24-11-2013 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


I'd say it's your burden to show how Mount Everest didn't exist until 4,000 years ago. What mechanism created Everest? What made such an enormous mountain pop into existence all of a sudden?

I'm free to reply to whoever I want, you could always just ignore me if my questions are too tough.
edit on 24-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I believe I already gave an answer to that in the third post of the third page.

If you attempt to troll I will ignore.
edit on 24-11-2013 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


What mechanics are behind the continents being able to rise by at least 5 miles in order to accommodate all of this water that poofed into existence through condensation?



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:20 AM
link   

WarminIndy
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?

There is always an ... idiot, everywhere. Sorry, I don't no other names for creationists. Anyway, Poland is one of the farmost religious and catholic orientated countries in Europe.



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.


I doubt that you would read them, as zealots are prune to information and try actively to avoid them.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 05:22 AM
link   

RevelationGeneration
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Mount Everest didn't exist until after the flood waters receded.

Anyway my reply wasn't directed to you so please don't pretend like it was, it is annoying.
edit on 24-11-2013 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



Where did the Mount Everest come from? How was it raised? What kind of mechanism could do such a wonder?

Oh, it was a wonder. How nice..



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


So, instead of rationally discussing the issues associated with Creationism / Intelligent Design, you'd prefer to just make an ad hominem attack and claim superiority over everyone who doesn't agree with you?

M'kay, you have fun with that.



posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by Prezbo369
 


So, instead of rationally discussing the issues associated with Creationism / Intelligent Design, you'd prefer to just make an ad hominem attack and claim superiority over everyone who doesn't agree with you?

M'kay, you have fun with that.


Christian plays the victim card shocker!!

No ad hominem attack was made, that is unless you consider being called a creationist an insult...(you can apologize to me or the creationists at your convenience)

I stated that there is no difference between a creationist or an ID proponent, and you disagreed. I presented reasons as to why you were wrong, which led to the conclusion that you yourself were a creationist (which seems to have struck a nerve).

You them call wolf and somehow find the gall to accuse me of claiming superiority over everyone that doesn't agree with me....

So, again, you're being a hypocrite




  exclusive video


top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join