Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The wolves have come out to the slaughter.
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device
Evolution is basically a religious philosophy
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device
2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption
3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module
7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo
8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)
1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)
2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Lukes Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.
Evolution is basically a religious philosophy
I'm not TO'd that I haven't been a part of this thread lately.Why are you so T.O'd you have not even been apart of this thread lately.
OK. And the relevance of this?And I'm answering a least one of my 15 or so critics here being that I'm the only creationist supporter here.
Our name is Legion...I actually think it's telling that the creationism vs evolution subforum on a Christian forum is basically ran by the evolution proponents.
Sure, quite a few atheists post here, but so do a lot of Christians. I'm not sure the atheists outnumber the Christians but I am sure that the creationists are outnumbered.
He's right, though. You've switched the topic yet again. Who cares that he didn't post, his point is correct and should not be ignored. Especially not by you. Now, get back to where we left off with the SLOT. You know? The discussion you started but changed the topic away from when you couldn't answer the arguments?Why are you so T.O'd you have not even been apart of this thread lately. And I'm answering a least one of my 15 or so critics here being that I'm the only creationist supporter here.
By the way, Nobel nominations are not made public until fifty years later. If Schaefer was nominated, he wouldn't know it yet, unless he was nominated for one in 1958. Now, if that was the case, he would indeed be brilliant, given that he was 14 by that time.1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)
A list of creation scientists who are/have contributed to science
1) Dr. Raymond Damadian - inventor of MRI device
2) Dr. Raymond Jones - CSIRO Gold Medal, detoxified Leucaena for livestock
consumption
3) Dr. Keith Wanser - 48 published papers, seven U.S. patents
(Professor of Physics, Cal State Fullerton)
4) Dr. Russell Humphreys - successful planetary magnetic predictions
(nuclear physicist, Sandia National Laboratories )
5) Dr. Kurt Wise - Ph.D. in paleontology under Stephen J. Gould at Harvard
6) Jules H. Poirier - designer of radar FM altimeter on Apollo Lunar
Landing Module
7) Dr. Sinaseli Tshibwabwa - discovered 7 new species of fish in the Congo
8) Dr. Saami Shaibani - "International Expert" by the US Depts of Labor and
Justice. 100 published articles (B.A. (Hons), M.A., M.Sc., D.Phil, a
physics professor and researcher)
1) (ID) Dr. Henry F. Schaefer III - five-time Nobel nominee
(professor of chemistry at the University of Georgia)
2) (ID) Dr. William S. Harris - $3.5 million in research grants, over 70
scientific papers, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory at Saint
Luke’s Hospital. Chair in Metabolism and Vascular Biology and is a
Professor of Medicine at the University of Missouri.
Evolution is basically a religious philosophy
None of these people as far as I can see have published papers on creationism, if they have please corrected me. Therefore they are not creationist scientists; they are scientists in their own fields, but not the field of creationism.
In may be true that they believe in some sort of mystical creationism, but they all shy away for research into creationism, because they now there is no such thing as creation science.
I am not an atheist scientist, even though I am labelled one. I am an analytical chemist/geologists and not an atheist scientist.
The same is true of the above named scientists, they are NOT creation scientists, if they are where is their research ?
Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science. .
Good, a creationist way of thinking has not contributed to science. Thanks for admitting that.What sort of backward thinking do you have.That's like saying the religious thought of Islam has contributed nothing to science. Of course it has not!
No, it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. We can observe it happening and it leads to testable hypotheses. Creationism doesn't do that. It cannot be tested, or if it can it has been falsified. It is not science.Evolution just like creationism is a way to look at the same science.
No, it is not. It is a testable theory. How is it a religion? What characteristics of cult thinking or religion does it have?It's a thought process, a religion and seen by some(myself) as more of a cult way of thinking of distorting the facts to fit the "evolution" agenda.
And the hallmark of science is that it is testable. Evolution is, creationism is not, or where it is has been falsified. That is why evolution is science and creationism is not.Science is science even outside of the "label's" we give science including, creation science, evolutionary science, ect.
The point we make is that those scientists holding to creationism, never use creationism in doing science. Meanwhile, scientists holding to the theory of evolution do use that to do good science. See the difference?I could even emphasis my point by saying something crazy like cartoon network science. One of my points is that both scientists, those that believe in evolution and those that believe in a literal creation are still reputable scientists. Science is science and often times the facts are scewed and false statements are given to fit ones own personal bias and hidden agenda.
Great, how about horses? We'll trace horses back all the way. Allright? Will you stop changing topics if we do that? If you say yes, I'll be happy to start a thread on it. But you'll have to stay on topic in that for a change.I dare one person give me any animal that exists today and we can debate how it has evolved or not from it's distant past to now with clear examples of it's entire evolutionary process. If someone can give me no shadow of a doubt clear evidence of this animals evolution through out the ages of time I will give them all major props. I contend that with common reasoning this animals evolution can easily be disputed.
I'm going to kick myself for following in another switch of topic, but anyway.
Good, a creationist way of thinking has not contributed to science. Thanks for admitting that.
No, it is not. Evolution is a scientific theory and a scientific fact. We can observe it happening and it leads to testable hypotheses. Creationism doesn't do that. It cannot be tested, or if it can it has been falsified. It is not science.
No, it is not. It is a testable theory. How is it a religion? What characteristics of cult thinking or religion does it have?
And the hallmark of science is that it is testable. Evolution is, creationism is not, or where it is has been falsified. That is why evolution is science and creationism is not.
The point we make is that those scientists holding to creationism, never use creationism in doing science. Meanwhile, scientists holding to the theory of evolution do use that to do good science. See the difference?
Great, how about horses? We'll trace horses back all the way. Allright? Will you stop changing topics if we do that? If you say yes, I'll be happy to start a thread on it. But you'll have to stay on topic in that for a change.
No it is not; creationism only works when science is ignored.
Evolution only works when science is observed.
Evolution dictates that there should be a progression to higher life forms through time.
Creationism dictates that all life forms were created at the same time.
What does the physical evidence show, well this.
A slow but steady evolution to higher life forms, proving evolution correct and creationism wrong.
There is no creation science, if you have any evidence for creationism please share it with us.
Which challenge have I backed down from now, which before? We'll continue after you've clarified this, because as far as I'm concerned you're lying here. But I may just have misunderstood.Yes and once again you back down my challenge.
You're reading the chart as if it is a ladder, with a progression from top to bottom. This is incorrect.Apreciate the response legacy.At the very top there we start with the prokaryote. It's funny to mention that I wanted to talk about the prokarote many posts back. So the starting point of evolutionary theory is that all life we have to day starts with the prokarote? Is this a good starting point?
You're reading the chart as if it is a ladder, with a progression from top to bottom. This is incorrect.
So what were the first organisms then Tom. Give me insight instead of ussless drivel as you usually do, always digressing.
So what were the first organisms then Tom. Give me insight instead of ussless drivel as you usually do, always digressing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?