Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists Question Darwinism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Next time some moron asks why creationists don't publish, we'll expect you to be the first to correct them.
    Of course they publish. The vast majority of them are not biologists, and so much of their work passes peer review. And the few biologists have published papers. But you have to know what you're looking for; they are about 0.3% of biologists.

    And some creationists, like Kent Hovind have degrees from diploma mills, and so can't get published in a reputable journal.

    I could probably find a few examples for you, if you'd like.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
      Since none of those men were alive by the time the Seventh-day Adventists invented YE creationism, wouldn't think so.
      Good, then stop making the false claims.
      Learn to read what is written.

      _____
      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        Perhaps the great majority of Christian have it right, and you have it wrong.

        Bandwagon is a fallacy based on the assumption that the opinion of the majority is always valid: that is, everyone believes it, so you should too. It is also called an appeal to popularity, the authority of the many, and argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"). Argumentum ad populum proves only that a belief is popular, not that it's true.


        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        You really think your new interpretation is better than that of the early Christians?
        The early Christians were Jews who believed in the six days of creation.
        Any other interpretation came into Christianity from Gentiles who were not raised to believe in the accuracy of the Torah.

        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        And as you have been taught, the creation story is explicitly figurative;
        We have been taught that you believe that the creation story is explicitly figurative.

        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        from the beginning, Christians dismissed the idea of the creation week as a literal history, pointing out that the text itself shows us this. It is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.
        There were a few Christians who rejected the Bible account, but that does not mean more than those few rejected it.

        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
        The good news for you, is that God doesn't care if you approve or not. You can be a YE creationist and still be saved.
        It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved, but those who profess to be Christians but reject the Bible for the doctrine of evolution may have a more difficult time being saved.
        Learn to read what is written.

        _____
        The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
        ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

        Comment


        • #79
          It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved,
          But you can be saved, too. God doesn't care if you accept the way He created things. That's not how you will be judged. Only if you make an idol of your new doctrine will your salvation be at risk.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post

            It is easy for people who believe what the Bible says to be saved, but those who profess to be Christians but reject the Bible for the doctrine of evolution may have a more difficult time being saved.

            he's trolling you GO - i reported him

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
              Only if you make an idol of your new doctrine will your salvation be at risk.
              If a person is already saved then his salvation cannot possibly be at risk.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
                If a person is already saved then his salvation cannot possibly be at risk.
                I've heard people who believe that. Their argument is that if one is saved, that person would not make an idol of creationism. However...

                Colossians 1:21 And you, whereas you were some time alienated and enemies in mind in evil works: [22] Yet now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unspotted, and blameless before him: [23] If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.

                St. Paul says it's conditional on continuing in the faith. I think he's right. What do you think?

                Comment


                • #83

                  More Than 1,000 Ph.D. Scientists Are 'Skeptical' of Darwinian Evolution

                  On the 210th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birthday, the Discovery Institute is going public with a list of more than 1,000 Ph.D. scientists who declared their skepticism toward Darwin's mechanism for evolution: natural selection acting on random mutation. This mechanism is the centerpiece of Neodarwinism, the current but eroding consensus on how evolution took place.

                  "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged," the statement reads.

                  "Our statement is not anti-evolution, it's on what is the mechanism," John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, told PJ Media on Monday. He said the list originated in 2001 "as a response to claims that were frequently parroted by the media that there are no scientists who raise questions about Darwinian theory."

                  The Discovery Institute found 100 Ph.D. scientists and published the list in The New York Review of Books. After a few years, "the pushback became really harsh; some of the people on the list lost funding, some were threatened with their jobs. We thought, 'We don't have to keep promoting this.' People kept signing anyway."

                  West insisted that the list "keeps growing on its own accord without our promotion." In fact, West told PJ Media that the Discovery Institute encouraged many professors not to sign, lest they lose their jobs. "There are people who want to sign and we tell them not to because they don't have tenure. It's not like we're begging people to sign," he said.

                  Importantly, not everyone on the list is a Christian, and the list has nothing to do with the theory of Intelligent Design.

                  Americans need to understand that there is a real debate about key aspects of Darwin's theory of evolution, and that dissent is not merely a religious position, but a scientific one.


                  Scientists lose funding and lose their jobs just for questioning whether "natural selection acting on random mutation" is responsible for the complexity of life?
                  Learn to read what is written.

                  _____
                  The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                  ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by jgarden View Post

                    guilty of what?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                      Perhaps the great majority of Christian have it right, and you have it wrong.
                      Perhaps.

                      Tell us why "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.

                      You really think your new interpretation is better than the Bible?

                      As you have been taught, the creation story is explicitly historical narrative.

                      From the beginning, God mocked those who rejected His word.

                      It is absurd to imagine mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.
                      Take it up with God.

                      Long, long before evolution, Christians were aware that the "yom" of the creation week did not mean literal 24 hour days.
                      Question-begging nonsense. Try engaging rationally.

                      The good news for you is that it is not crucial whether you approve. You can be anti-YE creationist and still be saved. Even if you make it into an idol.
                      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                      E≈mc2
                      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                      -Bob B.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                        Why not learn a little bit about what Christians believe?
                        Because what people believe is irrelevant compared with what the Bible teaches. And as you have been taught, the Bible is explicit:
                        "Six days."
                        "The whole world."

                        Instead of losing your temper, and making foolish and false accusations, why not learn a little bit about what the Bible says?

                        Wouldn't hurt to try?
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Stripe View Post

                          Tell us why "six days" cannot mean what it plainly says.
                          Because it does not fit with the evidence. And dont bother to ask "What evidence?" You know the evidence. Your fear of your vengeful deity makes you incapable of rational thought.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Jonahdog View Post
                            Because it does not fit with the evidence.
                            The evidence is the words of the text. They say "six days." The Bible plainly says "six days." The evidence is that it says "six days."

                            If you want to disagree, you have to claim that the Bible does not plainly say "six days." Show us your evidence that the Bible cannot mean what it plainly says.

                            Go have a nice lie down and think through your approach before you post again.
                            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                            E≈mc2
                            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                            -Bob B.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              The evidence is the words of the text. They say "six days." The Bible plainly says "six days." The evidence is that it says "six days."

                              If you want to disagree, you have to claim that the Bible does not plainly say "six days." Show us your evidence that the Bible does not mean what it plainly says.

                              Go have a nice lie down and think through your approach before you post again.
                              Words written in a book are not evidence, they are a testimony. We measure the accuracy of such testimony by how well it fits the observable evidence. In this case, a literal six-day creation does not fit the observable evidence. Starting simply with the observable age of the Universe and the Earth. The observable horizon of the universe and the chemical composition of the Sun and Earth tell us that this solar system is rather recent creation in a much older universe.
                              "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
                                Words written in a book are not evidence.


                                Of course they can be. The claim is that the Bible teaches "six days" of creation. Where else are we supposed to look to find out what scripture says other than the text?

                                If the claim was: "Tolkien uses an out-of-universe metaphor in The Lord of the Rings, the evidence would obviously be in his book.

                                Why are Darwinists so universally dense?

                                Six-day creation does not fit the observable evidence.
                                You need to respond to what people have claimed, not what you wish they had said.
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X