|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: "Creation Science" experiments. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I don't think you researched our conversation back far enough because he did in fact make the claim even though it probably was not what he meant (see the very first sentence in post #50). (bolding mine)
Message 50Straggler writes: Creationists and IDists don't do anything that can be meaningfully called science. I'm beginning to wonder if you think "creationist" means anyone who believes in god...... I have yet to run into ANY member of this forum who confuse creationists with run-of-the-mill theists. When any of us use the word creationist.....we mean creationist. Likewise for IDist. If there is confusion, it is your own. Now, care to pony up with some experiments? "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I agree with JBR in the sense that the original claim by straggler in that quote was that a creationist cannot do science, but it now seems to be ''science derived from his creatonist beliefs''. This is a bit of changing the goalpost.
Plenty of creationist scientists out there who don't invest time in the evo/creo issue and just do their normal science in a university lab. Of course, JBR isn't right to equivocate creationist and theist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Plenty of creationist scientists out there who don't invest time in the evo/creo issue and just do their normal science in a university lab. Certainly you have an example? Or are you referring to "scientists" who are also creationists? I'd be hard pressed to see an actual scientist who is a creationist who also does not push a creationist agenda. "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Certainly
Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.
Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr James Allan, Geneticist Dr John Ashton, Chemist, Food technology Dr Steve Austin, Geologist Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert Dr Donald Baumann, Solid State Physics, Professor of Biology and Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr David Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Stuart Burgess, Engineering and Biomimetics, Professor of Design & Nature, Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering, University of Bristol (UK) Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Dr Robert W. Carter, PhD Marine Biology Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony) Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr Xidong Chen, Solid State Physics, Assistant Professor of Physics, Cedarville University Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Dr Bob Compton, DVM Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr Andr Eggen, Geneticist Dr Leroy Eimers, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Cedarville University Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Dr Dennis Flentge, Physical Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry and Chair of the Department of Science and Mathematics, Cedarville University Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr Steven Gollmer, Atmospheric Science, Professor of Physics, Cedarville University Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications Dr Joe Havel, Botanist, Silviculturist, Ecophysiologist Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr Steven Hayes, Nuclear Scientist Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr Larry Helmick, Organic Chemistry, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr George F. Howe, Botany Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Dr G. Charles Jackson, Science Education Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr Pierre Jerlstrm, Creationist Molecular Biologist Dr Arthur Jones, Biology Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Physician, leading expert on sickle-cell anemia Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry Dr Johan Kruger, Zoology Dr Wolfgang Kuhn, biologist and lecturer Dr Heather Kuruvilla, Plant Physiology, Senior Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr John Leslie, Biochemist Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics Dr Jean Lightner, Agriculture, Veterinary science Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Ral E Lpez, meteorologist Dr Alan Love, Chemist Dr Heinz Lycklama, Nuclear physics and Information Technology Dr Ian Macreadie, Molecular Biologist and Microbiologist Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemistry Dr Mark McClain, Inorganic Chemistry, Associate Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr John McEwan, Organic Chemistry Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr David Menton, Anatomist Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr John Meyer, Physiologist Dr Victor Meyer, Entomology, environmental science Dr Douglas Miller, Professor of Chemistry, Cedarville University Dr Albert Mills, Reproductive Physiologist, Embryologist Robert T. Mitchell, specialist in Internal Medicine and active speaker on creation Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical Engineer and Dentist Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist Dr John D. Morris, Geologist Dr Len Morris, Physiologist Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Dr Mathew Piercy, anaesthetist Dr Terry Phipps, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Jules H. Poirier, Aeronautics, Electronics Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr A.S. Reece, M.D. Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr David Rosevear, Chemist Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr Ronald G. Samec, Astronomy Dr John Sanford, Plant science / genetics Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist Dr Alicia (Lisa) Schaffner, Associate Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist Dr Ian Scott, Educator Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic Physicist Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr Dennis Sullivan, Biology, surgery, chemistry, Professor of Biology, Cedarville University Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr S.H. ‘Wally’ Tow (Tow Siang Hwa), retired chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Singapore Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient History (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and Archaeologist Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr Daiqing Yuan, Theoretical Physics Dr Henry Zuill, Biology Lot's of example to pick from. Also, CMI publishes an interview with a creationist scientist who more often then not is not involved in the creation/evolution debate issue (although he makes his position clear in the interview obviously) in every creation magazine. For example: Manipulating life? Dr Eirich interview - creation.com Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects. For exampel Dr. Jonathan Sarfati was co-publishing in Nature at the age of 22. AbE: The list is found here: Scientists who accept the biblical account of creation - creation.com. And you can add to that list Elizabeth Beauschene PhD, a friend of mine who just completed her Doctorate in Medical Biology (Neuroscience) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects. That is quite telling, is it not? They preach creationism, and yet they can't practice it. The whole point of this thread is to get beyond what someone believes. What we want is for someone to DEMONSTRATE through experimentation that creationism is a viable scientific pursuit. If creationism is a valid scientific pursuit then the people in your list would be publishing papers in scientific journals which contain experiments which test the creationism model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. Just not on origin-related subjects.
I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science. No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs. Also,
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
You continue to miss the point.
Evolutionary theory, Big Bang cosmology and all the other scientific theories that you have a problem with have been verified by means of prediction and verification. The most objective, the most exacting, the most indicative test of accuracy we can apply to any theory or interpretation mankind has ever formulated. And thus a key component of the scientific method. As a result of these methodologies evolution etc. has made predictions that have resulted in both the uncovering of new evidence and demonstrable progress in our understanding of nature and it's workings. Namely discoveries. What has creation/ID "science" ever discovered? And if the answer to that question is "nothing" how can you even call it "science"? This is, always has been, and remains the question you cannot and never will be able to answer as an advocate of creationist/ID "science". That is your eternal failing. Until creationist or ID "science" is able to make discoveries based on the logical consequences of it's theories it is incomparable to anything that can genuinely be called science.
JBS writes: The claim that no one who believes in a divine creator ever made any valid scientific contributions is false. But the claim that no-one has ever made a discovery on the basis of the hypothesis that there is a divine creator remains stubbornly true.
JBR writes: What you mean to say is that you don't think any creationists have ever conducted any science that supported creationism. No. What I mean is that there is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. All you do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Does that fact that Newton was an advocate of alchemy mean that his scientific credential give any weight to his alchemistic beliefs?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'm responding to Theodoric, but the other two responses my post got will pretty much be answered here
I think you are missing the point. The point is this. Why are none of these scientists doing any science in creationism or ID. You can tout their credentials and research all day long, but at the end of the day none of them are doing any creation or ID science. Don't forget thet post I was replying to. I was replying to hooah who said:
quote: No one is questioning that they have strong religious beliefs. No one is questioning whether they are performing science in their fields. (though I think a questioning of the validity of some of their research may be in order.e.g. Dr Clifford Wilson, Dr Kurt Wise, John Whitmore and Bryant Wood to mention a few).They are just not doing any research into creationism and ID. Why is that? I would have to question the strength of some of their beliefs if they are not willing to try to find evidence for their beliefs. Look at the list again. It also includes scientists who work for CMI and are doing research into creationist hypotheses. For example, Dr. Austin published Austin, S.A., A.A. Snelling and K.P. Wise, Canyon-length mass kill of orothocone nautiloids, Redwall Limestone (Mississippian) Grand Canyon, Arizona, Abstracts with Programs, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Denver, Colorado, p. A-421, 1999. Of course, his opinion is that this nautiloid graveyard was deposited during the biblical flood. Of course this would never pass peer-review, so he simply pushed a watery mega-castrophy as an explanation as far as the peer-review would allow. The people from the RATE research are there also.
Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter. Well let's just take a few examples then: Dr. John Baumgardner:
quote: (John Baumgardner - Wikipedia) Dr. Don Batten. 13 papers Dr Don Batten cv - creation.com Dr. John Hartnett: Dr John Hartnett cv - creation.com Russell Humphreys D Russell Humphreys cv - creation.com Jonathan Sarfati Dr Jonathan D Sarfati - creation.com I just got a few recognisable names out, who are all full-time into creationist organizations now (except for hartnett). Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Of course, his opinion is that this nautiloid graveyard was deposited during the biblical flood. Of course this would never pass peer-review, so he simply pushed a watery mega-castrophy as an explanation as far as the peer-review would allow. So no real creation science then.
The people from the RATE research are there also. What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again?
me writes: Seems to be bullshit. A lot of these people are very obscure and I can find no peer reviewed articles by them, in any subject matter. Well let's just take a few examples then: Lets look at you original assertion.
Message 94 Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature.
You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority". But the point still stands. Where is the "creation science"? Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
So no real creation science then. Define creation science then. His hypotheses of a massive watery catastrophe making the nautiloid graveyard stems directly from his belief that the earth was once covered by waters of the biblical flood.
What a crock that was. They threw out all the evidence and enacted some sort of magic effect from their god. Do we have to rehash the RATE thread again? Let me guess, you never actually read their actual research right ?
You have shown far less than majority. Even just looking at the ones on your list. I have already found that many that are so obscure that hardly anyone knows who they are. You should be very careful on using words like "majority". It's just because you forgot to bold an important part in the quote
Finally, the majority of creationist involved in the debate have also/still publish in peer-rviewed litterature. That initial list I gave aren't those scientists involved in the debate. It's just scientists who believe in the biblical account of creation. And the little list of 5-6 names I gave was a 5 minute search of a couple of well known names in the creationist movement. Pretty much all had published, even if they were working full-time for a creationist organisation now. I could probably do this exercise for a lot of them, but I think you get the point that youy didn't actually search very hard before claiming you couldn't find anyone who published. And don't worry that they at least all published in order to get their PhD Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
These discussions of creationists doing science are useless. It doesn't matter how many people with scientific credentials actually do science! That's what they are supposed to do.
Here's the key: Anyone who follows the scientific method is doing science. Those without credentials sometimes do it badly, but if they follow the scientific method they are doing science. (Sometimes those with credentials do it badly also.) Those who follow and promote creationists' methods are doing creationism, no matter what their credentials are. If they are advocating a young earth or a global flood about 4,350 years ago they are ignoring scientific methods and evidence and promoting a religious belief. They are doing religious apologetics, not science--no matter what their credentials are. The famous scientists from the past who happened to be creationists? Are they famous for being creationists or for doing science? The long lists we see of credentialed scientists who are creationists? So? Are they doing science or creationism? And if creationism, odds are long their publications are not in a scientific journal unless they pulled some sort of sneaky to get there. And if there are so many credentialed scientists on these lists, where are the creation "science" experiments? They surely could come up with some experiments to bolster their case, eh? Face it, creation "science" is religious apologetics and everyone knows it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Why do you think listing names has any bearing on the validity of creation "science" as an endeavour? If I cite you a list of Muslim scientists does that mean that Islam is scientifically superior to Christianiity? What about scientists who practise Scientology? Are all religions with "scientists" interpreting data in accordance with their particular predefined beliefs doing "science" or is it just the Christian ones?
There is no science that supports creationism. No verifiable predicted results that have been achieved as a direct result of creationist theories or interpretations. No discoveries. Nothing new. Zip. Nada. Zilch. How can you call an activity that has never discovered anything "science"? All you guys do, all you ever do, is re-interpret genuine scientific discoveries in terms of your own pre-defined beliefs. That is not science. It is confirmation bias of the very worst kind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
As you emphasise, you are describing a hypothetical situation. It would seem to arise only at the (hypothetical) point when we have reached the "end of naturalistic science", and no further understanding of nature could be had. You just proved my point. Even though I went through great links to describe a completely hypothetical situation you still could not bring yourself to suggest that under those conditions an intelligent designer could be a possibility. On the one hand you assured me that most atheistic evolutionists would not approach science this way, and then on the other hand you demonstrated that is exactly the attitude commonly found. And this is the point I have been trying to get across here. Atheistic evolutionists (AEs) love to gloat that ID proponents do not do science, do not publish in peer reviews, and have no testable theories, and yet you refuse to even see that this is because you don't even allow for the possibility. It is not even in your vocabulary. Your attitude is reflected in the way you compare the idea to gremlins and fairies and unicorns, and yes even flying spaghetti monsters. In order to be able to see the evidence you have to at least be willing to allow for the possibility. Again I say that any attempt to put forth science for ID in the wake of such blatant bias, is an exercise in futility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Just being real Member (Idle past 3965 days) Posts: 369 Joined: |
I'm beginning to wonder if you think "creationist" means anyone who believes in god...... I have yet to run into ANY member of this forum who confuse creationists with run-of-the-mill theists. When any of us use the word creationist.....we mean creationist. Actually I think a creationist is exactly what the common definition defines one as: Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. Of course the most common form of creationism thought of in this debate is Biblical creationism.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024