Creation scientists - do they exist?

[Not_By_Chance]

There are tons of manuscripts for the Book of Mormon

Only because we have modern prining methods. The Bible is still the most published book worldwide, so the Mormons have got a lot of catching up to do.

There are even photographs of Joseph Smith.

So what. Where is Joseph Smith now? Where is Muhammad now? Answer, back the dust from whence they came. Where is Jesus - He is risen. This is his proclamation...
Rev 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

 

[digitalgoth]

And the Plum Pudding Atomic Model!

I'd stay late for dessert.

 

[Loudmouth]

Only because we have modern prining methods. The Bible is still the most published book worldwide, so the Mormons have got a lot of catching up to do.

"Truth isn't counted by a majority vote."-NotByChance

So what. Where is Joseph Smith now? Where is Muhammad now?

Where is Jesus now? Where are the gospel writers now?

 

[Astrophile]

It's not ironic. In the first example, Jesus is teaching using stories or parables, but the style he uses in remembering Noah is very different...
Luk 17:25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
Luk 17:26 "Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

Was Jonah really swallowed by a whale, as Jesus said: Matthew 12:39-40?

 

[Astrophile]

Here's just a couple of examples: the women being first at the empty tomb after the resurrection of Jesus. If the story were made up, women wouldn't have been given such a centre-stage role in those days because they were largely thought of as being second-class citizens. The fact that they were, is strong evidence that what is being told actually happened.

Then why doesn't Paul mention them in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8?

 

[CarlaB]

You've obviously done your research haven't you [not]. The other books you mention are not in the same league as the Bible. Check it out.

I suppose it's just a pity that 3 quarters of the worlds population are not Christians and don't see the Bible as the greatest story ever told.

 

[The Cadet]

The point is though, these people, like any scientist, are dealing with scientific matters on a daily basis and yet they still come to the conclusion that macro evolution is false. If the evidence were so conclusive in favour of evolution, then logic dictates that they would be happy to accept it.

Truth isn't counted by a majority vote.

I'm just going to highlight this, because you've completely shifted the context of my quote. You point out that if the evidence were conclusive, logic would dictate that these scientists would accept evolution. Then I pointed out that the vast, vast majority of scientists do accept evolution. Your response was simply nonsensical. If we're going to count the opinions of individual scientists, surely the opinions of a far, far greater number of scientists is far more meaningful! And of course, you completely ignored the thrust of my argument - that very smart people can believe very crazy things. Richard Gage is an architect who believes there is proof that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demolition. Peter Duesburg is a doctor who believes that HIV does not cause AIDS. Andrew Snelling is apparently two different geologists, one of whom believes the earth to be a mere 6000 years old.

Two well known scientists

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? These guys are not mainstream scientists. Their views on evolution, the origins of viruses, and the big bang are nuts, and it's no surprise that they publish dross like this:

- "...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

*sigh*

You know, if you spent maybe 5 minutes trying to debunk your own claims, you wouldn't keep repeating lies.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html#Hoyle

There are three flaws in this conclusion: he assumes (1) that natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling, (2) that all two thousand enzymes, all the enzymes used in the whole of biology, had to be hit upon at once in one giant pull of the cosmic slot machine, and (3) that life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert.​

It's an absurdly bad argument.

And you wonder why I find it more reasonable to believe that "In the beginning God..."

Have you calculated the probability of god doing it? Would you kindly demonstrate how it is more likely than 10^40,000? Don't forget to show your work.

 

[Butterfly99]

I've only got a brief moment this morning, but in answer to your question, I believe it's because the flu virus mutates and so the vaccine has to be changed to target the new form of the virus. Are you somehow suggesting that this is proof of evolution? Is there any evidence that the flu virus would eventually change into something other than a virus? Also, did not the famous fruit fly experiments ably demonstrate the flaws in the fundamental ideas about how evolution is supposed to work, as summarised in this article? And you wonder why the public are so skeptical of the TOE.

I'm short on time right now too & my phone is about to die. This will help you to understand. It's written by someone at the NIH: http://www.livescience.com/16433-everyday-evolution-flu-shots.html

Did you see this response to you? http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ts-do-they-exist.7933412/page-9#post-69308282

You're quoting a site that makes its money solely on creation science. I've learned from here about how those places are all about the $$$$$$, not glorifying God or being honest about science or theology. There's ppl who are skeptical that the earth isn't flat & that 9/11 really happened, so yeah of course there's also ppl who are skeptical about evolution.

 

[Hoghead1]

The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, NotByChance, is simply a human-made theory as to how Scripture may have been written. There is nothing in the Bible that says who wrote these accounts. If yor Bible says something like "First Book of Moses," that is something put in by the translators; it is definitely not in the originals. Like any theory, it needs to be checked out. Having done so, modern biblical studies has found this definitely was not the case.

 

[Hoghead1]

You seem to be assuming that Scripture has to be inerrant and dictated by God word-for-word, NotByChance. OK, fine. But this is purely a human-made theory as to how God and Scripture may be related. Like any theory, it should be tested out. The issue here is not whether Scripture is wrong or God is wrong or science is wrong. The real issue here is whether your interpretation of Scripture is right or wrong, so you are the one in the hot seat who has taken on the burden of providing solid evidence to back your claim.

 

[sfs]

I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature.

Why did you bother to introduce those scientists who reject evolution, then, if you're just going to rely on your gut feeling? Why do you think your opinion is superior to that of the vast majority of biologists, who study these things for a living?

I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.

Try asking some biologists.

Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.

Sure, there are scientists who are creationists. But it's also been claimed -- including by you, if I recall correctly -- that creationism itself is scientific. If that's true, then it should be trivial to point to some of the science that's being done with it. If it isn't, those who made the claim should retract it.

 

[keith99]

I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature. I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.

Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.

Bolding mine.

I think I'll conduct a survey of Creationists and see what percentage know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution.

Of course evolution does not explain where life came from any more than Maxwell's Equations explain where matter came from.

 

[Heissonear]

It is ignorance to use "Creationist" in a singular meaning?

As in prestine, no fossils, no strata, no .... whatever type Earth made by God as the "Creationists" Earth?

Such may be pure ignorance.

In this case, some things are learned along the way. Some upfront, and the rest then along the way.

Some "Christians" may have said and documented in literature there are "no fossils" in rocks before the Noah Flood.

If do, the who said that such is true?

Where is such "no fossils before the Flood" in the Bible?

Do people know how all the doctrines of denominations have come about, and this vould become one?

Who said the Noah Flood caused all of the strata and fossils we see.

In modern times was it Henry Morris and others like Him who summarized and defined by writing what a Creationist is? I've met Henry. He was a very godly, god fearing, intelligent, pleasant Christian man. But the specifics he taught of Creationism, particularly about Noah's Flood, could include some of his interpretation and beliefs. Does that now make all that he taught a denomination to follow, and a "Creationism" set in stone?

No. That would be ignorance and narrow mindedness to think such. That would be stereotyping. "Creationists are ...... " end of story.

No.

Not end of story.

I guess another thread may be needed specific to this.

 

[Heissonear]

Truth isn't counted by a majority vote. Jesus even stated as much 2000 years ago, so it's a well-known fact.

Group thinking is in right now.

There is a type of polarization going on drawing people to chose sides rather than to break ground and stand ground. Persecution (call it whatever) as a result is very high right now.

All it take is one to be right in science, was a statement made by Albert Einstein.

Truth is what matters, not picking a side and persecuting the other side.

Polarization is a type of seperating of the masses before events occur, to my understanding.

 

[Astrophile]

Hoyle and Wickramasinghe? These guys are not mainstream scientists. Their views on evolution, the origins of viruses, and the big bang are nuts, and it's no surprise that they publish dross like this:

Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) was one of the greatest astrophysicists of the 20th century. Part of the most recent edition of the magazine Astronomy and Geophysics (published by the Royal Astronomical Society) is devoted to his work.

Hoyle was largely responsible for the development of theories of stellar evolution and the origin of the elements. Moreover, a prescient paper on accretion by stars (published in 1944) has found application in studies of X-ray binary stars, which were not discovered until the 1970s. For my own part, I learnt a great deal from Hoyle's Frontiers of Astronomy.

Hoyle was willing to entertain 'dangerous' ideas, and to provoke other scientists to investigate them. The fact that most of his ideas proved to be wrong is not that important; what is important is that his ideas were productive in stimulating research. Although Hoyle's steady state cosmology was wrong, it was not obviously 'nuts' when it was published in 1948; it took the discoveries of quasars and the cosmic microwave background during the 1960s to disprove the hypothesis. Even Hoyle's ideas on 'evolution from space' bore fruit in research on interstellar molecules and the production of organic compounds in interstellar clouds.

​

 

[PsychoSarah]

I fail to see how the evidence can be so compelling when it goes against everything we see around us in nature. I think I'm going to conduct a little survey of my own and find out what proportion of those I ask think that evolution is a good explanation for how life came to be. I think I'll also ask a question or two about the alleged Big Bang while I'm at it.

Regarding the other points, I can't find the thread, but clearly there are some scientists who find no conflict between the real science they do in their research/employment and their views that evolution is nothing more that pseudo science.

If you are going to do an honest study, be sure that your questions don't show your personal bias.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When I see odds against life starting as being more than the number of atoms in the known universe,

How did you calculate those odds?
How are you aware of all the factors involved?

And 10 to the power of 80 is nothing compared with what others have quoted.

Again, how did you come up with this number?

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!

I don't care if it was a scientist or captain kirk that claimed this calculation.
My point is that not enough is known about it to be able to properly calculate it.

And you wonder why I find it more reasonable to believe that "In the beginning God..."

When it is not known how something came to be, the only proper answer is that we don't know how something came to be.

This is a classic textbook example of the god-of-the-gaps.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation scientists - do they exist?

Yes.

 

[Jay Follett]

Yes.

Which part of the creation story do creation scientists work with?