Creationist Scientists?

Who believes apes evolved from Humans?

Geoffrey Bourne, John Gribbin, and Jeremy Cherfas are the ones I know about, but that's not to say there aren't others.

"To clear up some misunderstanding on evolution man is not claimed to decend from an ape. Man is decended unto himself. That is, man is a species unto himself . "

Correction, that's ONE theory of the descent of man. There are others. I believe the more common one is a "common ancestor", which may or may not be what you're saying here but I can't tell based on your wording.

"He shares much of the characteristics of other primates but just like a monkey is not an ape man is not an ape. Mans DNA and chimps DNA are 97% identical and if the junk is thrown out it reaches over 99% identical. This is simply too close too ignore as being chance."

But still doesn't disprove God which is your apparant goal.

"Man has a relationship biologically with primates. Don't bother showing how the theists don't accept the idea and how they say the tests are rigged or they are inaccurate as I have already seen the claims."

I don't think they're rigged.

"The bottom line again is that theists will refuse to accept the evidence no matter what because to them it would mean defeat and the end to the genesis story and the foundation of Christianity."

No it wouldn't. Want proof? How many Christians believe in evolution?

"Without the Genesis story and the fall of man Jesus died needlessly and like dominoes the whole premise falls apart."

How so, because I can't see how this can be true.

RedClaw/JJ
What Would Jesus Do?
Member of -=DoS-United=-

"StarCraft is fun" - me

Author	Comment
Unfallen Angel Private First Class Posts: 13 (8/19/02 1:04 pm) Reply	Creationist Scientists? Every major branch of modern science was founded by creationsists. Here is a brief, partial overview of what true scientists were accomplishing in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of them were Creationists: Louis Agassiz (1807-1873): glacial geology, ichthyology. Charles Babbage (1792-1871): actuarial tables, calculating machine, foundations of computer science. Francis Bacon (1561-1626): scientific method of research. Robert Boyle (1627-1691): chemistry, gas dynamics. Sir David Brewster (1781-1868) : optical mineralogy, kaleidoscope. Georges Cuvier (1769-1832): comparative anatomy, vertebrate paleontology. Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829): thermokinetics. Jean Henri Fabre (1823-1915): entomology of living insects. Michael Faraday (1791-1867): electric generator, electro-magnetics, field theory. Sir John A. Fleming (1849-1945): electronics, thermic valve. Joseph Henry (1797-1878) : electric motor, galvanometer. Sir William Herschel (1738-1822): galactic astronomy, double stars. James Joule (1818-1889): reversible thermodynamics. Lord William Kelvin (1824-1907): absolute temperature scale, energetics, thermodynamics, transatlantic cable. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630): celestial mechanics, ephemeris tables, physical astronomy. Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) : classification system, systematic biology. Joseph Lister (1827-1912): antiseptic surgery. Matthew Maury (1806-1873): hydrography, oceanography. James C. Maxwell (1831-1879): electrical dynamics, statistical thermodynamics. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884): genetics. Samuel F.B. Morse (1791-1872): telegraph. Isaac Newton (1642-1727): calculus, dynamics, law of gravity, reflecting telescopes. Blaise Pascal (1623-1662): hydrostatics, barometer. Louise Pasteur (1822-1895): bacteriology, biogenesis law, pasteurization, vaccination, and immunization. Sir William Ramsey (1852-1916): inert gases, isotropic chemistry. John Ray (1827-1705): natural history, classification of plants and animals. John Rayleigh (1842-1919): dimensional analysis, model analysis. Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866): non-Euclidean geometry. Sir James Simpson (1811-1870): chloroform, gynecology. Sir George Stockes (1819-1903): fluid mechanics. Rudolph Virchow (1821-1902): pathology. I challenge anyone that believes in Evolution to go here:www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg...pecific=29 it is part one in four of a history of evolution. Good stuff. Here are a couple quotes to tide you over: "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit in with it."—H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138. I took the What Mythological Creature Are you? test by ! Edited by: Unfallen Angel at: 8/19/02 1:10:48 pm
NUHERE Sergeant Posts: 173 (8/19/02 3:32 pm) Reply	creationists I have never doubted nor claimed that their weren't very intelligent people that believed in creation. Your post proves as much. The sticking point is this: is there evidence to support it and the answer is no. Mendel should not be there:- he was inspired by Carl von Nägeli's notion that evolution proceeded by hybridisation in his later investigations, which he would not have been if he had rejected it altogether. As to Pasteur, I do not know, but I doubt it. When 19th century scientists objected to Darwin, they tended to object to natural selection as the major cause of evolution, not evolution itself. As to many of your other listings they lived much earlier before evolution was studied. You should also reconsider Isaac Newton. It doesn't really matter what they all believed in. The whole world believed the world was flat once. Evolution is not a consensus but gathering of evidence and proving the hypothesis. Is it totally proved yet? No. Does stating that there is an all powerfull "being" that did this on purpose and that he is "watching" over all of us and that he desparately needs us to worship him make more likely scenario. I don't think so. All of the arguments from the site have already been answered and some of the arguments are clearly in error.
RedClaw Posts: 1322 (8/30/02 10:36 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "As to many of your other listings they lived much earlier before evolution was studied." Oh really? Ever heard of ANCIENT GREECE!?!?!!?!?!??!!?! It might shock you to know that the idea of evolution was NOT thought of by Darwin. The Greeks had their own theory of evolution. And why should we reconsider Newton? It's obvious you havn't read some of the things he had to say about how the universe operates. Newton's theory was that God created the universe(THE CHRISTIAN GOD) and let it sort itself out. When things go too crazy, God stepped in and patched it up. What's there to reconsider? Newton was also a Bible scholar and he seldom missed a Church service. I don't know much about Mendel. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
RedClaw Posts: 1333 (8/31/02 4:00 pm) Reply	Re: creationists No response Nuhere? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Staff Sergeant Posts: 239 (8/31/02 5:33 pm) Reply	creationists "Oh really? Ever heard of ANCIENT GREECE!?!?!!?!?!??!!?! It might shock you to know that the idea of evolution was NOT thought of by Darwin. The Greeks had their own theory of evolution' Your point? "And why should we reconsider Newton? It's obvious you havn't read some of the things he had to say about how the universe operates. Newton's theory was that God created the universe(THE CHRISTIAN GOD) and let it sort itself out. When things go too crazy, God stepped in and patched it up. What's there to reconsider? Newton was also a Bible scholar and he seldom missed a Church service." Newton obviously changed his stance later in years. When he was confronted as to how the planets realized their present orbits his bewildered response was that God tossed them that way. 'I know not how I seem to others, but to myself I am but a small child wandering upon the vast shores of knowledge, every now and then finding a small bright pebble to content myself with while the vast ocean of undiscovered truth lay before me.' (Isaac Newton) As I said before , it doesn't matter what one believes, but is it true. All the arguments presented to me thus far has been based on emotion and what other people believe. What ever I am posting can be verified at any library.
RedClaw Posts: 1338 (8/31/02 10:18 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "Your point?" You said that Newton and others existed before the idea of evolution was presented. I pointed out that that was completely incorrect, there-by shattering the premis of your argument. The quote you've provided by Issac Newton hardly proves he was an athiest. You'll have to do better than that to prove that lie. Besides, one of Newton's rules was that all theories must be accepted as correct until they have been proven wrong. Since God has never been proven wrong, Newton would have no choice but to conclude that He exists. But don't take my word for it....here's some credible sources for you to look at and see for yourself. "In character he was religious and conscientious, with an exceptionally high standard of morality, having, as Bishop Burnet said, ``the whitest soul'' he ever knew." Taken from: www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/Hist...ewton.html "VII RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND PERSONALITY Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. His book on the subject, which was reprinted well into the Victorian Age, represented lifelong study. Its message was that Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century: but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature." Taken from: www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html You've got some pretty crappy libraries in your area.... BTW, Pasteur was a Christian, stop trying to convince yourself that he wasn't. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 254 (9/1/02 7:54 am) Reply	creationists As you stated Newton had some theories. However the reality is that until a theory is proven it is just a theory. Don't even think about bringing the idea that evolution is a theory. There is enough evidence to conclude that that it is a fact of life and continues to this day. As to Newton I suppose the fact that his early learning was at Trinity College in Cambride had nothing to do with his beliefs. Here is what the history of the school has to say: "King Henry VIII founded the College in 1546 as one of the very last acts of his life. His interest was in establishing an institution that would produce the future leaders of the reformed church.' As I said earlier their are many learned people that are theists. The question that still needs to be asked is this:Is there reason to believe in spite of the fact there is no evidence? " BTW, Pasteur was a Christian, stop trying to convince yourself that he wasn't. " Reality is not based on consensus nor famous people.
RedClaw Posts: 1353 (9/1/02 9:26 am) Reply	Re: creationists "Don't even think about bringing the idea that evolution is a theory. There is enough evidence to conclude that that it is a fact of life and continues to this day." There's a lot that says it aint on a large scale. I love how now you're changing what you said about Newton into something you never did. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 261 (9/1/02 10:05 am) Reply	creationists "Don't even think about bringing the idea that evolution is a theory. There is enough evidence to conclude that that it is a fact of life and continues to this day."Nuhere "There's a lot that says it aint on a large scale." I suppose the entire scientific community doesn't count.
RedClaw Posts: 1359 (9/1/02 1:24 pm) Reply	Re: creationists The entire scientiffic community is not in agreement on this. For example, some evolutionists believe apes evolved from humans. You want names to back this up? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 273 (9/2/02 7:25 am) Reply	creationists "The entire scientiffic community is not in agreement on this. For example, some evolutionists believe apes evolved from humans. You want names to back this up?" Yes. To clear up some misunderstanding on evolution man is not claimed to decend from an ape. Man is decended unto himself. That is, man is a species unto himself . He shares much of the characteristics of other primates but just like a monkey is not an ape man is not an ape. Mans DNA and chimps DNA are 97% identical and if the junk is thrown out it reaches over 99% identical. This is simply too close too ignore as being chance. Man has a relationship biologically with primates. Don't bother showing how the theists don't accept the idea and how they say the tests are rigged or they are inaccurate as I have already seen the claims. The bottom line again is that theists will refuse to accept the evidence no matter what because to them it would mean defeat and the end to the genesis story and the foundation of Christianity. Without the Genesis story and the fall of man Jesus died needlessly and like dominoes the whole premise falls apart. Have you done the HOMEWORK post yet? Really curious as to what you think.
RedClaw Posts: 1376 (9/2/02 1:14 pm) Reply	Re: creationists Who believes apes evolved from Humans? Geoffrey Bourne, John Gribbin, and Jeremy Cherfas are the ones I know about, but that's not to say there aren't others. "To clear up some misunderstanding on evolution man is not claimed to decend from an ape. Man is decended unto himself. That is, man is a species unto himself . " Correction, that's ONE theory of the descent of man. There are others. I believe the more common one is a "common ancestor", which may or may not be what you're saying here but I can't tell based on your wording. "He shares much of the characteristics of other primates but just like a monkey is not an ape man is not an ape. Mans DNA and chimps DNA are 97% identical and if the junk is thrown out it reaches over 99% identical. This is simply too close too ignore as being chance." But still doesn't disprove God which is your apparant goal. "Man has a relationship biologically with primates. Don't bother showing how the theists don't accept the idea and how they say the tests are rigged or they are inaccurate as I have already seen the claims." I don't think they're rigged. "The bottom line again is that theists will refuse to accept the evidence no matter what because to them it would mean defeat and the end to the genesis story and the foundation of Christianity." No it wouldn't. Want proof? How many Christians believe in evolution? "Without the Genesis story and the fall of man Jesus died needlessly and like dominoes the whole premise falls apart." How so, because I can't see how this can be true. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 277 (9/2/02 8:11 pm) Reply	creationists Who believes apes evolved from Humans?Nuhere "Geoffrey Bourne, John Gribbin, and Jeremy Cherfas are the ones I know about, but that's not to say there aren't others." Actually Gribbin and Cherfas are farther out than that. In New Scientist Magazine Vol 91(1981) page 592they believe that chimps evolved from man. Bourne also believe the same theory:Modern People, April, 1976, page 11 "Monkeys, apes and all other lower primate species are really the offspring of man." I give this point to you but you defeat your main argument. Evolution is still the mechanism at work. "But still doesn't disprove God which is your apparant goal." I have no reason to suspect a God is at work. "The bottom line again is that theists will refuse to accept the evidence no matter what because to them it would mean defeat and the end to the genesis story and the foundation of Christianity."Nuhere "No it wouldn't. Want proof? How many Christians believe in evolution?" Red It doesn matter how many do or don't. Believing doesn't make it true. "Without the Genesis story and the fall of man Jesus died needlessly and like dominoes the whole premise falls apart."Nuhere How so, because I can't see how this can be true. If the Genesis story is false then Adam and Eve never lived , never ate the forbidden fruit, damning mankind forever , and forcing Jesus to become man and dying for our original sin. You had to know this.You just wanted me to type all this.
RedClaw Posts: 1379 (9/2/02 8:27 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "I give this point to you but you defeat your main argument. Evolution is still the mechanism at work." Considering I brought that up in response to your baseless theory that the scientiffic community is in complete agreement on evolution, can you explain to me how this defeats my "main" argument. I said people think that, I never said I agreed. "I have no reason to suspect a God is at work." Ok. Now that you believe it than it must be the ONLY logical mechanism . "It doesn matter how many do or don't. Believing doesn't make it true." Stick to the point, because you constantly walk AROUND the main ideas. The point we're discussing here is that you think evolution topples Christianity. I really want to know than, why don't Christian evolutionists think that way? "If the Genesis story is false then Adam and Eve never lived , never ate the forbidden fruit, damning mankind forever , and forcing Jesus to become man and dying for our original sin. You had to know this.You just wanted me to type all this." Not necessarily, because there was a special on the Discovery channel called "the true Eve", where scientists tracked, through DNA, every single person in this world back to one woman in Africa. And you think(or at least appear to) there's no way Adam and Eve existed. Please. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/2/02 9:21:18 pm
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 283 (9/6/02 8:04 pm) Reply	creationists Red:"I give this point to you but you defeat your main argument. Evolution is still the mechanism at work."Nu "Considering I brought that up in response to your baseless theory that the scientiffic community is in complete agreement on evolution, can you explain to me how this defeats my "main" argument." Because the gentlemen you pointed out believe in backwards evolution but evolution never the less. They believe apes are decended from man. "Stick to the point, because you constantly walk AROUND the main ideas. The point we're discussing here is that you think evolution topples Christianity. I really want to know than, why don't Christian evolutionists think that way?" I am not walking around the main ideas. I think evolution topples Christianity for the points I mentioned. I don't see how it could be otherwise. There may be Christians who are willing to give up this or that way of thinking in order to maintain their belief system but logically you can't come to any other conclusion. "Not necessarily, because there was a special on the Discovery channel called "the true Eve", where scientists tracked, through DNA, every single person in this world back to one woman in Africa. And you think(or at least appear to) there's no way Adam and Eve existed. Please' I think I warned someone on this board about taking those Discovery programs too seriously. You have made some wild claims in your post. Please try to find out who made the program and who sponsered it. I know that it wasn't too long ago that they tried to verify if Jesse James was actually buried in the his grave. Science had an awful time doing it and that was only a hundred or so years ago. Now you say that science tracked DNA down to one woman in Africa. Which one and why this one? How can you track down DNA to the first person alive when we don't have evidence of the first person alive. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the claim becomes. You really should demand more of yourself when you watch TV.
RedClaw Posts: 1398 (9/6/02 9:11 pm) Reply	Re: creationists "Because the gentlemen you pointed out believe in backwards evolution but evolution never the less. They believe apes are decended from man." Oh. So despite the fact that they are scientists they are excluded from the rest of the scientiffic community that centres their theories and theorems around your own? "I am not walking around the main ideas. I think evolution topples Christianity for the points I mentioned. I don't see how it could be otherwise. There may be Christians who are willing to give up this or that way of thinking in order to maintain their belief system but logically you can't come to any other conclusion." It's apparant that your logic does not follow mine, because I see nothing wrong with accepting both theories, as neither genuinely contradicts the other. Based on your own "logic", prove that evolution contradicts creation and FORCE ME TO ACCEPT THAT. "I think I warned someone on this board about taking those Discovery programs too seriously. You have made some wild claims in your post. Please try to find out who made the program and who sponsered it. I know that it wasn't too long ago that they tried to verify if Jesse James was actually buried in the his grave. Science had an awful time doing it and that was only a hundred or so years ago. Now you say that science tracked DNA down to one woman in Africa. Which one and why this one? How can you track down DNA to the first person alive when we don't have evidence of the first person alive. The more I think about it the more ridiculous the claim becomes. You really should demand more of yourself when you watch TV." My chemistry teacher and a few other students in my class had brought this up and talked to me about it. They don't seem to have such a problem with it. I find it interesting that you think anything that doesn't agree with your own divine beliefs HAD to be corrupted or twisted somewhere along the line. I mean seriously, why do you think like that? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 294 (9/7/02 6:15 am) Reply	creationists "Because the gentlemen you pointed out believe in backwards evolution but evolution never the less. They believe apes are decended from man."Nu "Oh. So despite the fact that they are scientists they are excluded from the rest of the scientiffic community that centres their theories and theorems around your own?" No not at all. It is just that they have a theory on evolution that is diametrically opposed to the more common theory. I suppose it is possible to have apes decend from man. I would also expect some evidence from them to justify their theory. Their lack of fame suggests they need to do more work or the work they have done is not considered worthwhile. My question to you is this: why would you accept this theory of evolution and not the standard? If evolution is fact what is the difference of going forward or backward in the process. You also need to ask yourself why would God create man in his image and then revert him to an ape. "My chemistry teacher and a few other students in my class had brought this up and talked to me about it. They don't seem to have such a problem with it. I find it interesting that you think anything that doesn't agree with your own divine beliefs HAD to be corrupted or twisted somewhere along the line. I mean seriously, why do you think like that? " (in regards to the discovery channel) I am not interested in consensus from your teacher or class. Is the criteria that I suggested you use in determining whether a program has merit , valid? Most people don't think and are not encouraged to think. I don't have "divine beliefs". I simply point out that theists have no evidence to believe in what they believe. The facts are lacking the evidence is non existant. Look how many posts I have made and not one of you can stay on topic nor have any of the original topics been proven wrong. Any attempt to do so has been soundly rebutted with evidence or lack of it.
RedClaw Posts: 1409 (9/7/02 10:27 am) Reply	Re: creationists "No not at all. It is just that they have a theory on evolution that is diametrically opposed to the more common theory. I suppose it is possible to have apes decend from man. I would also expect some evidence from them to justify their theory. Their lack of fame suggests they need to do more work or the work they have done is not considered worthwhile. My question to you is this: why would you accept this theory of evolution and not the standard? If evolution is fact what is the difference of going forward or backward in the process. You also need to ask yourself why would God create man in his image and then revert him to an ape." You're backing yourself into a corner with this statement. First of all, the popular belief amongs scientists is a common ancestor, not evolution from ape to man like you think. Second of all, I never said I believed this garbage, but I said that it's there and some people do, who are also members of the scientiffic community(a fact you want to deny for whatever reason). "Is the criteria that I suggested you use in determining whether a program has merit , valid? Most people don't think and are not encouraged to think. I don't have "divine beliefs". I simply point out that theists have no evidence to believe in what they believe." Well, atheists.org has no merit because they believe in pro-avis and you have determined that it's impossible to do so. Furthermore, I fail to see how a chemistry teacher and scientists who did this don't think. Also, you never proved that theists have no evidence to believe in what they believe, so using your divine model of truth I'll assume you don't know what you're talking about. "Look how many posts I have made and not one of you can stay on topic nor have any of the original topics been proven wrong. Any attempt to do so has been soundly rebutted with evidence or lack of it." Ok, you havn't been reading Nuke's posts. The only "disproving" you did is an, in your words, "emotional plea". You don't make a rock solid case like you want to believe you do. Besides, when you don't know the answer you create one.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/7/02 10:27:30 am
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 303 (9/8/02 7:33 am) Reply	creationists "No not at all. It is just that they have a theory on evolution that is diametrically opposed to the more common theory. I suppose it is possible to have apes decend from man. I would also expect some evidence from them to justify their theory. Their lack of fame suggests they need to do more work or the work they have done is not considered worthwhile. My question to you is this: why would you accept this theory of evolution and not the standard? If evolution is fact what is the difference of going forward or backward in the process. You also need to ask yourself why would God create man in his image and then revert him to an ape." NU "You're backing yourself into a corner with this statement. First of all, the popular belief amongs scientists is a common ancestor, not evolution from ape to man like you think. Second of all, I never said I believed this garbage, but I said that it's there and some people do, who are also members of the scientiffic community(a fact you want to deny for whatever reason)." You wish I was backing myself into a corner. You implied that you believed these gentlemen. I had no reason to doubt this claim since the only place I can reference these articles are in creationist publications. As to your claim that they are members of the scientific community I ask in what way and what are the standards for acceptance. If there work has been published in any notable science journal it certainly has been ignored. "Well, atheists.org has no merit because they believe in pro-avis and you have determined that it's impossible to do so. Furthermore, I fail to see how a chemistry teacher and scientists who did this don't think. Also, you never proved that theists have no evidence to believe in what they believe, so using your divine model of truth I'll assume you don't know what you're talking about." You really have to get off the proavis kick. As to your chemistry teacher and class they have not been trained to ask if something is true. Who is presenting the material, does the person or organization have credibility, does the person or organization have a point to make. Your statement about me not proving that theists have no grounds to believe is again wrong. It is YOU that must prove that you have evidence to believe. Atheists simply state that there does not exist any evidence to accept your beliefs. There is not any historical evidence , nor supernatural evidence, nor do any of the tools given to the belief system (prayer) exhibit any kind of consistancy.The main foundation of your belief system is the bible and it is full of contradictions and errors. "Look how many posts I have made and not one of you can stay on topic nor have any of the original topics been proven wrong. Any attempt to do so has been soundly rebutted with evidence or lack of it."Nu "Ok, you havn't been reading Nuke's posts. The only "disproving" you did is an, in your words, "emotional plea". You don't make a rock solid case like you want to believe you do. Besides, when you don't know the answer you create one...." I have read all of Nukes posts. I don't see where he has given any answers. At least not ones with any evidence. If he has I am sure I have responded with they weren't first hand evidence (this took a long time to get across) or that he used the bible as reference. (this doesn't count) Again if there is something in particular you claim I ignored post it separately and I will answer it.
RedClaw Posts: 1422 (9/8/02 11:07 am) Reply	Re: creationists "You implied that you believed these gentlemen." No I didn't, I NEVER did. I have no idea how you managed to derrive that! "As to your claim that they are members of the scientific community I ask in what way and what are the standards for acceptance. If there work has been published in any notable science journal it certainly has been ignored." Oh ok. So only scientists who agree with your philosophy are members...I see. "You really have to get off the proavis kick." Why, because it's a bullet to the head of your premis against Christianity? "There is not any historical evidence , nor supernatural evidence, nor do any of the tools given to the belief system (prayer) exhibit any kind of consistancy." Again, this is based on your personal bias, as Nukes pointed out multiple historical and acheological peices of evidence but you never chose to accept them, instead going back to your atheist websites as the sole authority on a topic they know little about. "The main foundation of your belief system is the bible and it is full of contradictions and errors." Someone pulled a list of contradictions off some atheist website over a year ago and everyone proved them to be unfounded, as it was shown that the person who listed them paid no attention to history, the tense, or the audience it was written to. Of course you'll think there's contradictions if you read everything like it was written at the same time to the same audience, but only an idiot looks at the Bible like this. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 314 (9/9/02 5:50 pm) Reply	creationists RedClaw "As to your claim that they are members of the scientific community I ask in what way and what are the standards for acceptance. If there work has been published in any notable science journal it certainly has been ignored." 'Oh ok. So only scientists who agree with your philosophy are members...I see." No, it's not my philosophy. Do they have the respect of other scientists? This means do they use the scientific method to arrive at their conclusion. Apparantly not since they are not published in any scientific journal. Since science does not acknowledge the supernatural I guess they will not be considered real scientists. I would think the reality of God would have made its presence known long ago since God wants to have a relationship with man more than anything else. "You really have to get off the proavis kick."NU "Why, because it's a bullet to the head of your premis against Christianity?" Not even if your right does it validate Christianity. ( which you probably are not)Christianity fails on its own merits or lack of them. "There is not any historical evidence , nor supernatural evidence, nor do any of the tools given to the belief system (prayer) exhibit any kind of consistancy."NU "Again, this is based on your personal bias, as Nukes pointed out multiple historical and acheological peices of evidence but you never chose to accept them, instead going back to your atheist websites as the sole authority on a topic they know little about." Which part of forgery, lying for the faith, lack of evidence don't you understand? Again show the evidence and I will show you why it is wrong. You will be able to counter if you have any evidence. "The main foundation of your belief system is the bible and it is full of contradictions and errors." ' Someone pulled a list of contradictions off some atheist website over a year ago and everyone proved them to be unfounded, as it was shown that the person who listed them paid no attention to history, the tense, or the audience it was written to. Of course you'll think there's contradictions if you read everything like it was written at the same time to the same audience, but only an idiot looks at the Bible like this." I have seen those sites that try to debunk the atheist sites and counter the claims of contradictions. The points they bring up are seldom used by atheists and if you had gone to some of those websites you should have seen that their arguments are missing. I have also seen soem apologist websites still using the Josephus Tacitus and even the bible as proof of their claims. If you have some sites you would like me to look at where it does what you say post it. I am very confident the argument they use falls way short of being debunked. "Of course you'll think there's contradictions if you read everything like it was written at the same time to the same audience, but only an idiot looks at the Bible like this." Only an idiot claims a religion is true if you have to twist and interpret passage to fit your way of thinking.

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > Creationist Scientists?
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>