|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationist quotes and citations reflects a greater level of academic dishonesty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We're trying to tell you something, Almeyda, and you're not listening.
What we're trying to tell you is that the people you say said those things didn't say those things. They may have used those words, but they used them as part of a larger context that you're ignoring. That means that when you say these people said the things you say they said, you're lying. Do you think lying is good as long as you're doing it for God? I doubt God thinks so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Did you find these sources yourself or did you cut and paste them from some other source? If you claim to have them from personal reference I am going to get every one from the University of Alaska ILL service and ask you details from above and below each quote. Don't look me in the eye, I am a pissed off PhD student facing comp exams in the next month. By this I mean I have to take a series of exams written by my committee members (5) that justifies my scientific knowledge and credibility. This is in opposition to people who go through a diploma mill (like Hovind) to add the PhD title to their name.
This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 05-23-2004 05:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
CRASHFROG -
quote: I admit these quotes are taken out from a longer story/article. But the fact is these quotes arent so much taken out of context. Just because Ghould speaks on fossil problems does not mean he doesnt believe in evolution. I know this already. Its Ghould for gods sake. But this is evolutionists themselves speaking on significant problems with the theory. The theory can be a hopeless quest, which will indeed never end until the death of these men only to be continued more by the living evolutionists. Why then do the creation scientist stand so proudly against evolution?. These scientist have the same degress and PhDs, same achievments. Awards and prize winners for there discoveries and achievements. They are both capable scientist. The only difference is one believes evolution occured and the other creation. Creation scientist are shunned by mainstream science. Propaganderd againsts in a bid to prove they are not science and their evidence is nothing. God word will not be explained away by such naive thoughts as evolution. LITHODID MAN - Ahh yes very intimidating. I got those quotes from the Revised Quote book.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But the fact is these quotes arent so much taken out of context. How do you know? Did you look them up in their context to check? Did you have the expertise and training in the sciences to understand the context? If you say that these quotes aren't out of context, but it's obvious to anyone who knows the context that they are, you're lying again. Don't you get tired of lying all the time? I know I'm getting tired of pointing it out. Do you think that's how God wants you to act, or what?
These scientist have the same degress and PhDs, same achievments. No, they really don't. As a rule, they generally only have Ph.Ds in irrelevant fields - like engineering or computer science - or degrees that are outright fraudulent or worthless, like Kent Hovind.
Awards and prize winners for there discoveries and achievements. Oh, yeah? C'mon - tell me who among Creationists has a Nobel Prize in a relevant field.
Creation scientist are shunned by mainstream science. Yeah, just like Holocaust deniers and UFOlogists. That's because those things - like creationism - just aren't science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Almeyda- So you were what I expected you were. No more, no (maybe a little bit) less. I am saddened by this. I have suggestion for you. Read Darwin's Origin Of Species. Truly read it from cover to cover. I am sure you can pick it up from your local used bookseller for a song. It is hard reading (I am a Darwin fanatic and find his writing tedious). But do it before you criticise him. I think, if you have any thinking skills, you will see the brilliance of his work and how he tries so hard to be consistant with conventional theology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
admit these quotes are taken out from a longer story/article. But the fact is these quotes arent so much taken out of context. You don't have the slightest idea whether they are taken out of context or not. As I pointed out, at least one is not even a quote from one person.
But this is evolutionists themselves speaking on significant problems with the theory. No, some of them are evolutionists speaking out on small issues within the theory, some are not evolutionists, and some are just plain made up.
Why then do the creation scientist stand so proudly against evolution?. These scientist have the same degress and PhDs, same achievments. Awards and prize winners for there discoveries and achievements. No, a very few of them have the same degrees, but none of them have any relevant scientific achievements or awards or prizes, and the vast majority of them have no scientific achievements, awards, or prizes.
I got those quotes from the Revised Quote book. Ah, a famous source of lies. See The Revised Quote Book:: Looking at how Creationists Quote Evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Read Darwin's Origin Of Species. Truly read it from cover to cover. I am sure you can pick it up from your local used bookseller for a song. There's many versions online. The first edition, another first edition (part of The writings of Charles Darwin on the web), the sixth edition, another sixth edition, the sixth edition in one text file, and undoubtedly more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
Bios
| Answers in Genesis
After reading this do you still think their are not real scientist who work under a different assumption rather than evolution?. You dont need to believe in evolution to be a fully qualified scientist. You do however have to be a evolutionist to get anywhere in the mainstream scientific communities, or if you want to teach science in the education system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When the very first paragraph
Many historians (of many different religious persuasionsincluding atheistic) have shown that modern science started to flourish only in largely Christian Europe. is blatantly a lie, how can you trust anything in the rest of it? Modern Science and the Scientific method did not start in Christian Europe. It began far earlier in Pagan Greece and under Islam. The idea that you must test any hypothesis, any theory, any new knowledge against the objective world came about in spite of Christian Europe. If you look at the record, time after time, the opposition to EVERY new advance in science came from the Christian Church. Look at the history of Mendel for just one example. edited to add mandatory spelling errors. This message has been edited by jar, 05-23-2004 10:59 AM Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
After reading this do you still think their are not real scientist who work under a different assumption rather than evolution?. Not in biology. There are a few, a very very few, scientists in fields outside of biology who don't accept evolution, and since their work has nothing to do with evolution, their contrafactual beliefs don't interfere. Similarly, the very very few geologists who don't accept an old Earth and actually do geology use old Earth in their scientific work ... because a young Earth doesn't work. Most of that page consists of irrelevancies, especially the list of scientists who beleived in God. Belief in God is very different from belief in the peculiar interpretation of the Bible promulgated by YECs.
You do however have to be a evolutionist to get anywhere in the mainstream scientific communities, or if you want to teach science in the education system. Yeah, that discrimination against cranks and crackpots is the pits, isn't it? It would be ever so much better if any loon that came up with a hypothesis were allowed to teach it, even if the evidence contradicts it. Creation "science" had its day. It was the dominant "theory", but it was abandoned because it just doesn't fit the facts. Claims about being scientific, lists of people with degrees, whatever AIG says ... young Earth creationism just doesn't fit the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2952 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
You do however have to be a evolutionist to get anywhere in the mainstream scientific communities, or if you want to teach science in the education system Your point? You have to have a basic understanding of combustion engines to be a mechanic. You have to understand basic math to be an accountant. Likewise to even comprehend biology you have understand evolution. Dobzhansky's famous quote "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" sums it up nicely. I think the point you are parroting Almeyda is that somehow evolution is an independant, stand alone concept in biology. That all other sciences are in concordance with YEC etc. This that point that people like Hovind push. They make the claim that evolutionists are the only ones in science who require an old cosmos, and they have brainwashed geologists, astronomers, physicists, etc. into concluding that their evidence of a few thousand year old creation must be wrong. Geologists concluded that the earth had to be millions of years old long before Darwin. If biology didn't exist as a science YEC would be challenged by astronomical observation. Just the fact that we can observe steller evolution from start to finish by looking at the stars in various stages and observing the changes over time. Do you honestly believe that God created stellar corpses to litter the galaxy? Dead stars that appear to have went nova millions of years before creation? Sorry for going off-topic, but these 'evolutionary conspiracy' jabs need to squashed lest some unfortunate soul believe they have some credibilty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
almeyda Inactive Member |
PHYSICS - Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin
CHEMISTRY - Boyle, Dalton, Ramsay BIOLOGY - Ray, Linnaeus, Mendel, Pasteur, Virchow, Agassiz GEOLOGY - Steno, Woodward, Brewster, Buckland, Cuvier ASTRONOMY - Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Hershel, Maunder MATHEMATICS - Pascal, Leibnitz, Euler Many branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. It was God that taught man that the earth was real, orderly, consistent, and possible to investigate. This message has been edited by almeyda, 05-23-2004 08:45 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Many branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. It was God that taught man that the earth was real, orderly, consistent, and possible to investigate. What? :LOL: Let's look at a few of those. Mendel, ordered by the Prior to but aside his work in genetics. Judged by the Church to be incapable of Teaching or Science. Shall we talk about how Galileo fared with the Church? Now, please list which of those were POST Darwin. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The idea that accepting an orderly rules based universe is needed for science isn't a new philosophical idea. I don't have a reference but I think that Christianity may have helped set the stage for that a bit. Aylmeda may have a point there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Many branches of modern science were founded by believers in creation. Yes, and they all used the methodological naturalism that YECs discard and decry in order to found those branches of science. They never considered any possibility that God intervened to prevent the scientific method from reaching the correct answers.
It was God that taught man that the earth was real, orderly, consistent, and possible to investigate. Unsupported assertion. Does not follow from the premise.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024