Issues in Scienceville.

[JacktheCatholic]

Are you really saying that the question of why Christian Colleges can't produce evidence for creationism does not deserve an answer?

Creationism is simply the belief that God created all.

You will find many Catholic Universities teach evolution , this does not conflict with God creating everything.

 

[Inan3]

I'd just like to point out that not all Christian institutions are pro-creationist hotbeds of idiocy.

so are you saying that they have pro-creationists but don't have hotbeds of idiocy

OR

are you saying that they don't have "pro-creationist hotbeds of idiocy"?

 

[Hespera]

Yes. Firstly, I personally don't know if they do or not. So why I would be asked to answer it. Secondly, I was NEVER asked so I don't know why they are waiting for me to answer the question. Thirdly, it's a loaded question. Three strikes you're out. It doesn't deserve to be answered.

Originally Posted by Inan3

First of all, I would ask it you if you saw this post #308 or read my initial post #1 which started this whole thread? Or did you just jump in from someone elses post to me? Because I would ask you to find out what I am saying. And to answer your question... I have never supposed any specific data is being withheld.

As to your ending statement you prove my point, though. EVEN IF someone DID produce data of the flood or anything else, Sciencevilles attitude is all made up... Reject!! LOL!!! So why should or would anyone TRY to produce it even if they could? That's why we don't see much of it submitted (in Scienceville anyway). Besides who's going to let them pursue their ideas? Their collegues? Their bosses? Nope. Just shut up and keep quiet about that stuff. Forget about it. Scientists are only human after all and they are subject to intimidation and trepidation as much as the next guy. Hmmmm???
​

So why should or would anyone TRY to produce it even if they could? That's why we don't see much of it submitted (in Scienceville anyway)

you probably have never met a real live researcher so of course uyou would not know why they do things or how they think.

Scientists are a pretty egotistical bunch of individualists for the most part what I personally have seen.

Very competitive, like pro athletes. let them pursue their ideas? Who could stop them?

Why would anyone try to produce data?
Well, that is what researchers do isnt it? Try to produce data?

For the ego, there is the chance for immense fame and a shot at the title of greatest scientist of all time.

No imagined "discrimination" works world wide, self administered at taht, to stop someone!. Certainly not at a conservative christian U! Baylor, i think it is sponsors dinosaur digs in the hopes of finding human footprints.
There is an active example of who's going to let them pursue their ideas!



Im not sure where you get this 'not much of it is submitted". We are unaware of any actual data ever submitted to falsify the ToE or support creationism.

But just suppose that there is a fantasy world or parallel universe where 99% the christian researchers did join with all of the atheists, Taoists, Hindus and so forth all around the world to pick on the creationists.

What about the Christian universities?

There is plenty of room and encouragement for the creationists there surely. Who's going to let them pursue their ideas? Who indeed.

So... why do you suppose nothing comes out of those places either

?


Here is where you were asked, so saying you were never asked is false.

Strike one.

IF they ever found anything they would publish it and it would be world headlines.

You do know very well that they COULD publish, contrary to your assertions.

And you know very well they have found nothing coz there are no headlines.

Strike two.

Loaded question? Well I guess you can look ahead and you can see it completely pwns your claim... Besides who's going to let them pursue their ideas? Their collegues? Their bosses? Nope. Just shut up and keep quiet about that stuff

Guess there is somebody who would let them, encourage them pay them, publish them.... and still nothing, no data, no papers, no nothing. Keep quiet about WHAT stuff? They have nothing to keep quiet about!

Strike Three! "Creation science" is scores 0 even on its home turf.

 

[Hespera]

I'd just like to point out that not all Christian institutions are pro-creationist hotbeds of idiocy.

i in no way said or implied that. There was a false claim that creationists cant be heard cant publish. I provided a long list of christian schools that surely would not be against someone publishing his evidence for noahs ark etc.... if he found some.

Since nobody has any data for any such things no school with any self respect is going to embarrass themselves by publishing a paper that has no content.

 

[Inan3]

?


Here is where you were asked, so saying you were never asked is false.

So THIS......

Who's going to let them pursue their ideas? [/quote]


Translates to THIS??????

We still wait for inan to say why they never can produce any data in those places.

No wonder we don't communicate very well???

 

[Incariol]

so are you saying that they have pro-creationists but don't have hotbeds of idiocy

OR

are you saying that they don't have "pro-creationist hotbeds of idiocy"?

I'm saying that institutions that teach and tolerate creationist nonsense are generally full of idiots. No one takes such places seriously. Real universities produce research, which doesn't really happen when you are hampered by silly Bronze Age fairy tales.

Really though, your confusion doesn't make sense, I said "pro creationist hotbed of idiocy". Why did you need this either/or question?

 

[Inan3]

I'd just like to point out that not all Christian institutions are pro-creationist hotbeds of idiocy.

I'm saying that institutions that teach and tolerate creationist nonsense are generally full of idiots. No one takes such places seriously. Real universities produce research, which doesn't really happen when you are hampered by silly Bronze Age fairy tales.

Really though, your confusion doesn't make sense, I said "pro creationist hotbed of idiocy". Why did you need this either/or question?

Well, you used the word "Christian" Christians usually follow Christ and He was a pro-creationist so that is what made it confusing. I didn't know what side you were coming from but NOW it seems you have made yourself quite clear you think Christ is an idiot!

 

[Insane_Duck]

Well, you used the word "Christian" Christians usually follow Christ and He was a pro-creationist so that is what made it confusing. I didn't know what side you were coming from but NOW it seems you have made yourself quite clear you think Christ is an idiot!

Well, that assumes you of all people knows what Christ said, what he thought, and that he existed at all. (evidence for the bible... anyone?)

 

[Inan3]

Well, that assumes you of all people knows what Christ said, what he thought, and that he existed at all. (evidence for the bible... anyone?)

He quoted right out of Genesis 2

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which madethemat the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

He also believed in Noah and the flood.

Mat 24:38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

 

[Incariol]

Well, you used the word "Christian" Christians usually follow Christ and He was a pro-creationist so that is what made it confusing. I didn't know what side you were coming from but NOW it seems you have made yourself quite clear you think Christ is an idiot!

lol, Jesus isn't a Creationist. Please. No need to be so melodramatic.

 

[sandwiches]

Creationism is simply the belief that God created all.

You will find many Catholic Universities teach evolution , this does not conflict with God creating everything.

Well, I think we're talking about different things here. When most people in this forums refer to Creationism, we're talking about the belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, that humans did not evolve from other animals, etc.

 

[Cabal]

He quoted right out of Genesis 2

Mat 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which madethemat the beginning made them male and female,
Mat 19:5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

He also believed in Noah and the flood.

Mat 24:38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Yes, those verses of course mean he believed in special creation and a literal global flood. He couldn't have just been drawing on the stories to make a point or anything like that.....

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, those verses of course mean he believed in special creation and a literal global flood. He couldn't have just been drawing on the stories to make a point or anything like that.....

Both -- and what is special creation?

 

[Cabal]

Both

You can be drawing from a story that isn't literally true, too.

-- and what is special creation?

Creatio ex nihilo, poof, Goddidit, etc.

Or to put it another way, any way God could create other than that icky TE

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, I think we're talking about different things here. When most people in this forums refer to Creationism, we're talking about the belief that the Earth is about 6,000 years old, that humans did not evolve from other animals, etc.

I do not agree with that. I would have to throw reason out the window and scientific findings would have to be treated like an illusion (which they are not).

 

[Nabobalis]

I do not agree with that. I would have to throw reason out the window and scientific findings would have to be treated like an illusion (which they are not).

Well the issue of confusion does come up occasionally.

Generally people refer to (If I remember this correctly):

"Big C" Creationism: 6000-10,000 year old earth, 6 day creation i.e literal genesis.

"Little C" creationism: God created the universe.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well the issue of confusion does come up occasionally.

Generally people refer to (If I remember this correctly):

"Big C" Creationism: 6000-10,000 year old earth, 6 day creation i.e literal genesis.

"Little C" creationism: God created the universe.

We have to remember that the people that kept the teachings of the Old Testament through the centuries did so through an oral tradition. We also need to be reminded that these people knew a world that was much smaller and a lot less known that we do today.

For example, if we look at Noah and the story of the flood then we need to consider that Noah would not have known of the whole earth let alone the whole continent he lived on. Their world extended as far as they could reasonably travel and with the areas that supported societies. This would not have been very large. We can also consider that we have found traces of a flood during Noah's time that was great in magnitude though surely not over the whole continent let alone the whole planet. So when we read in the Old Testament we need to consider the author's point of view. Now I do believe Noah was a real man and that many men died during a great flood and that Noah could have built an ark that would be able to house all the creatures of his area of the world. I also have seen surviving texts that spoke of people selling parts of what they claimed to be the Ark thousands of years ago. But it does not make sense (to me) to say the entire planet was covered with water during Noah's time. "Context".

 

[AV1611VET]

We have to remember that the people that kept the teachings of the Old Testament through the centuries did so through an oral tradition. We also need to be reminded that these people knew a world that was much smaller and a lot less known that we do today.

For example, if we look at Noah and the story of the flood then we need to consider that Noah would not have known of the whole earth let alone the whole continent he lived on. Their world extended as far as they could reasonably travel and with the areas that supported societies. This would not have been very large. We can also consider that we have found traces of a flood during Noah's time that was great in magnitude though surely not over the whole continent let alone the whole planet. So when we read in the Old Testament we need to consider the author's point of view. Now I do believe Noah was a real man and that many men died during a great flood and that Noah could have built an ark that would be able to house all the creatures of his area of the world. I also have seen surviving texts that spoke of people selling parts of what they claimed to be the Ark thousands of years ago. But it does not make sense (to me) to say the entire planet was covered with water during Noah's time. "Context".

Then why was Noah and family aboard the Ark for a year and ten days, if the Flood was just a local one?

 

[Nathan Poe]

I do not agree with that. I would have to throw reason out the window and scientific findings would have to be treated like an illusion (which they are not).

Funny, you're the only creationist who doesn't have a problem with that.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Then why was Noah and family aboard the Ark for a year and ten days, if the Flood was just a local one?

For the same reason Hester Prynne wore a scarlet letter on her gown for the rest of her life, AV.