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.
And so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...Secular scientists don’t change their stories. The press gets the story wrong and leaves out important details . Creationist publications do this on purpose as they want people to criticise evolution without actually understanding it.
And so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...
Skeptical is not the same as questioning... skeptical implies serious doubt.Claim:
“Many scientists reject evolution and support creationism.” --- Morris, Henry. 1980. The ICR scientists. Impact 86 (Aug.). *http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=163
Response:
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSEd). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.
One needs to examine not how many scientists and professors believe something, but what their conviction is based upon. Most of those who reject evolution do so because of personal religious conviction, not because of evidence. The evidence supports evolution. And the evidence, not personal authority, is what objective conclusions should be based on.
Often, claims that scientists reject evolution or support creationism are exaggerated or fraudulent. Many scientists doubt some aspects of evolution, especially recent hypotheses about it. All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. Creationists frequently seize such expressions of healthy skepticism to imply that evolution is highly questionable. They fail to understand that the fact that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning really means it is about as certain as facts can get.
I know... I was not being literal. I was referring to the fact that no one kind developed from the morphing of another kind.. Frogs never become rabbits and lizards never become birds . You’ve demonstrated that you’ve got a poor understanding of evolution and of some basic genealogical lineages. Also science only deals with natural phenomena and natural processes so why are you bringing religious beliefs or the lack thereof, into this ? Your misconceptions of a major science theory don’t negate the theory!
Thank you ,.. thank you.. thank you..JackRT ‘s post was too polite to mention it but creation scientists are considered to be crackpots . No one pays attention to them and they have to publish in creationist publications.
That info is years old so the numbers of creationist life scientists might have gone down from .15%. That does mean that 99.85% of life scientists accept evolution
In other words if you do not recognize some scripture as metaphorical, figurative or interpreted different than you, then you draw a line. If scripture is not interpreted as a little child would interpret it, you draw a line of unbelief, just as you accuse others of. That's rich : )I don't draw a line, I believe it all happened as God has told in his word.
. Given that creationists take these stupid stories and pretend that this nonsense is current research even a hundred years later, I don’t think I’m the one grasping at straws. Nebraska man ? How many times have I heard that PRATTAnd so mainstream scientists never follow-up to correct the press?? Really grasping now...
No. Perhaps unintentional on your part but the argument of saying those who believe Genesis actually occurred as it is written MUST believe every literary style as fact is the standard reductio ad absurdum (reducing an idea to the point that it seems absurd, as an attack or defense strategy).In other words if you do not recognize some scripture as metaphorical, figurative or interpreted different than you, then you draw a line. If scripture is not interpreted as a little child would interpret it, you draw a line of unbelief, just as you accuse others of. That's rich : )
PS: It does not matter to me how you interpret scripture, its between you and God. The main reason I post is for entertainment and I have an interest in the subject being discussed.
Not sure what a Nebraska man is or a PRATT is, but do you believe God turned Moses' staff into a serpent and then back into a staff, or do you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead?. Given that creationists take these stupid stories and pretend that this nonsense is current research even a hundred years later, I don’t think I’m the one grasping at straws. Nebraska man ? How many times have I heard that PRATT
Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...Creationism is like being told that god said that the sky is red with purple spots during noon on a sunny day . And while measuring it with a spectrometer even the machine confirms it’s blue. Then you’re told that you’re a liar and atheist and apostate for believing that the sky is blue, when you can see the sky is actually blue and had had it verified that it is blue. This is THE reason creationist scientists get treated like they are crackpots. The creationists are pretending that confirming evidence doesn’t exist for scientific facts . Mainstream scientists accept how nature really is . Creationists get angry at mainstream scientists because mainstream scientists refuse to accept a fantasy in place of reality.
And mainstream science has nothing to do with atheism. Facts are facts
No, they didn't suddenly become smarter in 1800. What did happen was that church control of thought was considerably weakened to the point where some brave men were actually allowed to think and question.
Secular scientists don’t change their stories. The press gets the story wrong and leaves out important details . Creationist publications do this on purpose as they want people to criticise evolution without actually understanding it.
So, when exactly was the church so powerful that courageous heathen couldn't exist
. Scientism is what? No idea what you mean. Beliefs aren’t relevant for science.Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...
How long will you and others here will continue to avoid the question of whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back again, or whether you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Seems you're more interested in supporting that which you truly idolize: scientism.
actually we do have a sort of spectrometer that points to all life having a common ancestry. But we usually call it genetics!Nice analogy, but you don't have a metaphorical spectrometer showing all life evolved from a universal common ancestor or that one fossil came from another. Now, you were saying something about fantasy and reality, please continue...
How long will you and others here will continue to avoid the question of whether you believe God changed Moses' staff into a serpent and then back again, or whether you believe Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead? Seems you're more interested in supporting that which you truly idolize: scientism.
another PRATT . Humans ARE great apes along with orangutans gorillas bonobos and chimpanzees. Family HominidaeThe concept of us evolving from apes is a lie OR God lied. It's that simple. So, you decide who you want to believe and deal with the consequences of that choice. I'm sticking with God and the consequences of that choice.
You have misunderstood what I am saying.No. Perhaps unintentional on your part but the argument of saying those who believe Genesis actually occurred as it is written MUST believe every literary style as fact is the standard reductio ad absurdum (reducing an idea to the point that it seems absurd, as an attack or defense strategy).
another PRATT . Humans ARE great apes along with orangutans gorillas bonobos and chimpanzees. Family Hominidae
Aside from that I’m a Christian so I’ll stick with God myself . Which is why I find creationist lies about nature to be offensive
Failed [again] to answer a few basic questions about the Bible.. Scientism is what? No idea what you mean. Beliefs aren’t relevant for science.
Science describes natural phenomena as accurately as it’s possible. Creationist organisations usually lie about that fact and they want you to believe the silly fantasies about science that they tell you
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?