Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by npetreley
Shoot... Duane Gish has a PhD in biochemistry, not a masters, so I guess that doesn't count. Does it help that it's from UC Berkeley?
Hmm. That would be the Duane Gish who repeatedly offers statements he knows to be false, yes? The one who acknowledges a correction in one debate, and uses the same argument again next time?
For instance, Gish repeatedly claims that Triceratops appeared without ancestors - but in fact, ancestors are known, and appear about where they were expected. This has been pointed out to him, in exhaustive detail, and he keeps going back to it.
So... he would be qualified, except that he lies about things to support his point. I think we'll disqualify him for willful dishonesty.
What about Lane P. Lester, Geneticist and Biologist? No, he's got a PhD, too, and it's not in biology, it's in Genetics. And it's from Purdue University.
No, I guess I have to give up. No matter how many searches I perform, I only come up with people with doctorates, not masters degrees. And they're all from those mail-order degree houses like UC Berkeley, Purdue, Ball State U, etc.
Yeah, and, by no small coincidence, every one of them lies about the positions and supporting data available. Huh.
That's amazing; it's almost as if there's some underlying quality of the data that makes the position untenable unless one either lies about it or doesn't understand it.
Well, I wouldn't count someone who believes that Lamarckian evolution is a plausible thing, or a serious theory, as a "real" biologist. I guess I stand corrected on the question of whether such a person could actually sneak through a college program... now the question is "what makes these people lie so much".
__________________ Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn I follow Christ; therefore I am To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39
Originally posted by seebs
That's amazing; it's almost as if there's some underlying quality of the data that makes the position untenable unless one either lies about it or doesn't understand it.
Gosh, you ask for creationists with degrees, and I give you examples. But they're not good enough because you disagree with them. (Gosh, an evolutionist disagrees with a creationist and proves it with unsubstantiated ad-hominem attacks? When have they ever?)
I guess you just won't be satisfied until I dig up staunch creationists with degrees from reputable institutions and who also believe evolution. You want to toss a few more conditions on that search or are you pretty satisfied now that it won't return any results?
And can you get any better example of evolutionist thinking than this? Ask for contradictory evidence, get it, and then explain it away.
Last edited by npetreley; 8th June 2002 at 02:28 AM.
I think seebs is just saying that the few people who actually have qualifications in biology and who still believe in creation are of questionable integrity. I personally think there has to be a lot of self-denial for a person to get through a biology degree without accepting the plausibility of the theory of evolution.
__________________ 'Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.'
(Aldous Huxley)
Originally posted by chickenman I think seebs is just saying that the few people who actually have qualifications in biology and who still believe in creation are of questionable integrity. I personally think there has to be a lot of self-denial for a person to get through a biology degree without accepting the plausibility of the theory of evolution.
No, what seebs is saying is "this person lies all the time" and "that person's arguments are full of holes".
I don't call evolutionists liars much, but I claim arguments are full of holes, too. And I provide quotes and/or present what I feel are wrong with the arguments, and I explain why I think they're full of holes.
You may disagree with everything I say and agree with the people whose arguments I feel are full of holes. But at least I don't just call Gould a liar and expect everyone to take my word for it, as if the insults I dish out must be warranted simply because I wear creationist credentials.
In any case, he said there wasn't one creationist with a masters degree, I gave him 3 creationists with doctorates. So he can't handle it. No big surprise.
You seem to have quite a snobbery going on between yourselves, but if you evolutionists are indeed as wise as you think you are, then I'm proud to be a fool.
An honest, well educated, credentialed, respectable creationist: an oxymoron? Not quite. Kurt Wise stands out from the crowd. If all creationsists were like him, the world would be a better place.
__________________ Man should no more get tired of using his brain--if he is using it properly--than a fish should get tired of water.
Originally posted by npetreley
No, what seebs is saying is "this person lies all the time" and "that person's arguments are full of holes".
I don't call evolutionists liars much, but I claim arguments are full of holes, too.
I think it's worth noting that evolutionists may sometimes be mistaken, but never seem to feel it necessary to lie. Creationists seem to end up needing to fall back on lies.
The fact is, there's no good science left in creationism. It's fine as theology, but it's crappy science.
I think it's worth noting that evolutionists may sometimes be mistaken, but never seem to feel it necessary to lie. Creationists seem to end up needing to fall back on lies.
Right. Evolutionists never seeem to feel it is necessary to lie. Like...
I think you've mistaken two separate classes of things for "lies for evolution":
1. Lies for personal glory, with no concern whatsoever for effects on theories. Classic hoaxes, in other words.
2. Theories which were tossed out when data didn't support them.
By contrast, creationist lies from twenty years ago are still widely cited, because creationists are reluctant to expose lies or stop using a persuasive-sounding argument just because it's been shown to be false. Consider the "Chinese character etymology" which gets dragged out occasionally; I've seen two good debunkings of it (assuming I'm allowed to call mine a "good" one), but it's still used, because admitting that it was pure nonsense would hurt the *cause*.
Creationists get bonus points by supporting the existing theory. Scientists get bonus points by finding a problem with the existing theory.
__________________ Save me / And when you see me strut / Remind me of what left this outlaw torn I follow Christ; therefore I am To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. . I affirm the Nicene Creed.
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. -- Romans 8:38-39
Linear Mode
