I did warn you all not to feed the TROLL!!!!!!!
Upvote
0
I was the one who asked that... I asked you to list them because you said.Some other evolutionist asked for YEC's who had PhD, then i listed them, but they are not good enough?
Perhaps you shouldn't have lied then about knowing these people.You atheists/evolutionists can never accept when you are wrong can you. Such ignorance.
And they were in the minority in your list. I can show you a list of nothing but biologists who do believe in evolution and do have phds in biology.And i listed numerous YEC's with PhD biology.
Oh so they aren't people that you know.These are authors of creationist articles. I;ve encountered most of their work before, since i've been reading their scientific contributions for several years now.
Modern medicine.And what exactly have evolutionists ever contributed to anything?
Nope sorry.All the theory of evolution has done is promote poor morality, promoted abortion, homosexuality (and other bad acts) and gave rise to bad ideologies such as Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Nazism.
I've written the article, exposing the true origins of Darwinism. So far no one could refute it.
It was all political based. By the way, Marx wrote to Darwin numerous times, and even dedicated his work Das Kapital to Darwin. You can find his name in the preface to the book.
I was the one who asked that... I asked you to list them because you said.
"Evidence? Most creationists i know are Ph.D. level." I wanted to know what ph.d. creationists you knew. I didn't think you were going to spam a list of mostly non-biologists.
Perhaps you shouldn't have lied then about knowing these people.
What does it matter? Why would you hold an astronomer as a source on matters of biology?Why does it matter what PhD they hold? It proves they are very academic and have a very high level within their field to have obtained their degree.
Right.I know these people, most of the leaflets i recieve i get from them directly through various organisations, in UK there are two YEC organisations which give all this stuff out free.
I'm sorry, I expected you to link ph.d.s in a field that had something to do with biology.I don't know who the Old Earther's are, as i said they are the minorities in the list. However it doesn't matter, the point is i provided a long list of PhD scientists who reject evolution. Your only responce (in denial, since i proved you wrong) is to pick holes at anything you can.
Why does it matter what PhD they hold? It proves they are very academic and have a very high level within their field to have obtained their degree.
I personally know many YEC Creationsists, and not one of them has a degree in a relevant field.Evidence? Most creationists i know are Ph.D. level.
Obviously not a Ph.D. in biology.I'm taking a Ph.D. in a few years, i probably have more qualifications than anyone else in this thread.
EVERY SINGLE one of these links leads back to NOTHING but the ChristianForums home site.
- Earl M.J. Aagaard Ph.D. Biology
- Gary L. Achtemeier Ph.D. Meteorology
- E. Theo Agard Ph.D. Physics<snipped for brevity>
- Henry Zuill Ph.D. Biology
Duh Your ENTIRE list led back to nothing more than this URL- Christianforums.comSome other evolutionist asked for YEC's who had PhD, then i listed them, but they are not good enough?
<staff edit> provide ACTUAL links. Your parody of Creationism is becoming FAR to transparent.And i listed numerous YEC's with PhD biology.
These are authors of creationist articles. I;ve encountered most of their work before, since i've been reading their scientific contributions for several years now.
I personally know many YEC Creationsists, and not one of them has a degree in a relevant field.
Obviously not a Ph.D. in biology.
EVERY SINGLE one of these links leads back to NOTHING but the ChristianForums home site.
Posted by Pocktio:
These people may exist but it's what they've contributed to the scientific community which should be focused on in this debate.
Why? Funding to conduct research is often hard to come by, and the research often influenced by who is doing the funding. I cant imagine that a scientist trying to conduct research from a creationist point of view is going to be very competitive in the field, and even if one did get funding, have his work taken as objective. But some of the factors which may influence science as done by a creationist would also influence science as done by anyone else, the principal being money.
An imperfect world
Quote:
In a perfect world, money wouldn't matter all scientific studies (regardless of funding source) would be completely objective. But of course, in the real world, funding may introduce biases for example, when the backer has a stake in the study's outcome.
End Quote. Link: www.undsci.berkely.edu/article/who_pays
If the only proper benchmark which is going to be used to determine someones personal worth when it comes to his or her scientific knowledge is whether or not he or she was ever part of a peer-reviewed study, then in one respect all science is suspect. Someone had to pay for that research which led to the findings published in the article, which means someone else wanted the money to begin with in order to do the research. The claim that all science except Creationist science is pure and free of bias is nonsense.
Besides, the watchdog groups out there guarding against any notion of Christian belief from intruding onto sacred Scientific ground are both persistent and effective.
Coalition Letter to Senate regarding "Creation Science" Earmark
Quote:
We, the undersigned religious, civil rights, education, science, and advocacy organizations write to urge you to remove an earmark from the Fiscal Year 2008 Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriation Bills Committee Report. The Fund for Improvement of Education, under Title III, contains an earmark for uses that, if funded, would be blatantly unconstitutional. The earmark would fund curriculum that promotes teaching creationism in the science classroom, even though uniformly prohibited by federal courts.
End Quote. Link: http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/coalition-letter-senate-regarding-creation-science-earmark
I wonder how many Earmarks each year are opposed in such a manor?
Posted by Cabal:
Because everyone knows Nazis and Communists got on SO well together.
I dont want to get into a debate on Darwinian influences on Stalin and Hitler. However, the fact that the Nazis and the Communist fought each other during World War Two does not preclude both Stalin and Hitler from having read Darwin.
Posted by Pocktio:
Science is not actively trying to disprove God
It doesnt need to. Evolutionary Theory by default assumes the absence of a divine creator.
Are... are you now disputing the existance of DNA???1. Fossils arn't conclusive evidence for anything. They are dead, not alive; therefore they can only be interpreted by man.
Evolutionist's have their interpretation, creationist's have theirs, even other religions have their own different interpretations.
The ignorance is when evolutionist's equate interpretation to fact.
2. DNA isn't evidence for anything, nor is it even proven, it's based on the Atomic theory, which was invented by Atheistic materialists. Anyway, evolutionist's themselves don't use DNA to prove evolution, since they maintain man shares over 60% DNA with a banana. So did we all evolve from a banana, or other fruit and veg?
3. I wouldn't trust a word from Darwin. For those who don't know, the man had no scientific qualification whatsoever and was a college drop out.
4. The belief in evolution is anti-Biblical. The Bible and belief in evolution and not compatable.