• 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.

Proof of Creation?

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The writer interviewed over 100 persons who were active in what is known as the creation-intelligent design movement. Most felt that the standard evolutionary paradigm of origins was inadequate and should be ‘balanced’ with alternative positions. The creationists interviewed differed considerably relative to their views of origins, and about half would be identified with the seven day literal 24-hour day non-gap universal Noachian deluge creationist position. Almost all felt that they had faced serious religious discrimination in their academic careers at least once or more often. The discrimination ranged from derogatory comments to denial of tenure or an earned degree. The writer also reviewed the literature and interviewed about a dozen academic deans and department chairs in the field of science. All, without exception, felt that openly holding a ‘scientific creation’ worldview would seriously impede or terminate an academic career. Many openly stated that they would not hire or support the candidacy of an out-of-the-closet scientific creationist for a tenured position in academia.

‘Most scientists are only dimly aware of the various “anti-science” systems of belief now widespread [including] … politically dangerous movements such as creationism … . We protect ourselves by never letting these mutually exclusive beliefs surface at the same time. For example, the constellation of religious fundamentalism and creationism is often combined with a high regard for high tech. Many creationists’ tracts are tapped out on extremely expensive personal computers. Creationists are able to accept and reject the physics that makes these machines possible as the occasion demands. There is no God, and Mary is His mother.’21

‘… hardy believers in creation … have been heaped with scorn and ridicule. Evolutionists dominated the field so securely that creationists were fired, denied tenure and denied advanced degrees with impunity in public schools and universities.’22

‘America has a new bigotry. Traces of it have been around for a long time, glimpsed only fleetingly and in widely-scattered places. But in 1983, it assumed nationwide proportions. This is bigotry against evangelicals. Two things are particularly frightening about this bigotry. Few recognized it, and nobody … [has so far done] anything about it. It is difficult to say which is more disturbing. Any religious group that defies public opinion and practices nonconformity runs the risk of ridicule and rejection. This can quickly turn to persecution in time of crisis, particularly if such persecution is advantageous of those in power.’26



‘It appears from various reports reaching this office, that a trend is developing in the halls of Academe … that Liberalism’s great contribution to American education, namely “Academic Freedom” has become a victim of incest, having been raped by its own sires … . [A] former Louisiana State Senator … said instances [of] … pro-creationism professors and teachers … being dismissed have begun to proliferate in the past ten years … highly-qualified educators denied tenure or otherwise discriminated against simply because they hold views or engage in activities which oppose the tenets of … [evolutionism].’28




The writer, as part of an ongoing research project, has interviewed over 100 active self-labelled creationists who are, or were, employed in academia. He specifically asked if they had faced religious discrimination and, if so, to delineate their experience. Almost all believed that their creationist beliefs caused at least some career problems. These ranged from open derision to outright firings, and even attempts to rescind earned degrees. Some cases were tragic in their extent, blatancy and consequences.31

It is easy for me to understand that people who continue to believe in a 6000 year old earth after reviewing all the evidence for the true age of the earth may not be the most competent of scientists. Such people, who found their careers limited due in fact to their scientific incompetence, might well conclude it was actually religious persecution they were experiencing.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
It is easy for me to understand that people who continue to believe in a 6000 year old earth after reviewing all the evidence for the true age of the earth may not be the most competent of scientists. Such people, who found their careers limited due in fact to their scientific incompetence, might well conclude it was actually religious persecution they were experiencing.


So, these educated people are being persecuted for being incompetent and to such a degree that ALL of them feel it's due to the fact that they don't conform to the TOE?

Even you, yourself, are assuming that these people are incompetent. You are discriminating. You are proving my point all on your own.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Jack,

If you are just going to copy and paste large sections from creationist websites, at least cite them. It's the proper thing to do.

Also, are you aware of the numerous conservative christian universities in the US. Why can't we find a single one of these universities that have an active research group using these so called "alternate theories"? Why doesn't Liberty University build a research lab and fund this research? What is stopping them?

The truth of the matter is that creationists know that their ideas are bunk. They know they aren't supported by the evidence. They know it is bad science. That is why they won't do the research, because it is a waste of money. Don't believe me? Look at the journal "Bio-Complexity". It is supposed to be a research journal for original research, and it is funded by the Discovery Institute. Do you really think the Discovery Institute is going to reject papers because they do not conform to evolution?

So is there any real science to be found in that journal? Nope.

Klinghoffer claims "In the evolution controversy, it's supporters of intelligent design who stand for ideas (disagree with us or not) and idealism." Well, that's something that we can actually check. Since ID is so brimming with ideas, let's look at ID's flagship journal, Bio-Complexity, and see how many papers were published this year. ID supporters are always complaining about how their groundbreaking word is censored by evil Darwinists. If true (it's not), then in Bio-Complexity they have no grounds for complaints: nearly all of the 32 people listed on the "Editorial Team" are well-known creationists and hence automatically friendly to any submission.

How many papers did Bio-Complexity manage to publish this year? A grand total of four! Why, that's 1/8th of a paper per member of the editorial team. By any measure, this is simply astounding productivity. They can be proud of how much they have added to the world's knowledge!

Looking a little deeper, we see that of these four, only one is labeled as a "research article". Two are "critical reviews" and one is a "critical focus". And of these four stellar contributions, one has 2 out of the 3 authors on the editorial team, two are written by members of the editorial team, leaving only one contribution having no one on the editorial team. And that one is written by Winston Ewert, who is a "senior researcher" at Robert J. Marks II's "evolutionary informatics lab". In other words, with all the ideas that ID supporters are brimming with, they couldn't manage to publish a single article by anyone not on the editorial team or directly associated with the editors.
Groundless Annual Ritual of ID Self-Congratulation - The Panda's Thumb
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
My God is very clear from his word that he created everything.

I don't believe the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation. One
interpretation of the evidence backs a naturalistic explanation and
it has many problems other explanations do not have.

I don't believe the Word of God rules out evolution. One interpretation of the Bible backs a non-evolutionary explanation and it has many problems in reconciling with reality that an evolutionary interpretation of the Bible does not have.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
So, these educated people are being persecuted for being incompetent and to such a degree that ALL of them feel it's due to the fact that they don't conform to the TOE?

Even you, yourself, are assuming that these people are incompetent. You are discriminating. You are proving my point all on your own.

Who don't you show us their science so we can judge their competency for ourselves. Show us their research that is based on ID/creationism.
 
Upvote 0

JacksBratt

Searching for Truth
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2014
16,294
6,495
63
✟596,843.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Who were these people?

Oh man, this retort is as old as the gospel....


Luke 10:29International Standard Version (ISV)

29 But the man wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”


Always the "who is this" and "define" that. A great deflection from the fact that I was asked for proof of people being or feeling persecuted and showed it.
 
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,858
✟278,532.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So, these educated people are being persecuted for being incompetent and to such a degree that ALL of them feel it's due to the fact that they don't conform to the TOE?

Even you, yourself, are assuming that these people are incompetent. You are discriminating. You are proving my point all on your own.

I'm merely pointing out an alternative interpretation of the so called facts you are trying assert. I name no names. I take no administrative career changing actions. Therefore I am not discriminating against anyone.

You should consider that people who are considered incompetent might actually be incompetent, remote as the possibility might seem to be in your mind.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟236,977.00
Faith
Seeker
Oh man, this retort is as old as the gospel....


Luke 10:29International Standard Version (ISV)

29 But the man wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”


Always the "who is this" and "define" that. A great deflection from the fact that I was asked for proof of people being or feeling persecuted and showed it.

I didn't ask you for proof of people 'feeling persecuted'. Alex Jones 'feels' persecuted. The KKK 'feel' persecuted. The old man down the street who think aliens stole his car 'feels' persecuted.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Always the "who is this" and "define" that. A great deflection from the fact that I was asked for proof of people being or feeling persecuted and showed it.

Why would a scientist at a conservative christian university that openly rejects evolution be persecuted for researching creationism and not "conforming to evolution"?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
So, Kylie, why do you get to choose which discipline of the sciences you regard as the only one acceptable. Do you hold your discipline as the golden discipline?

There are many factions of science. All are credible. You cannot cherry pick the information you allow to be relevant.


If evolution contradicts theviews of a physicist, chemist, astronomer, nuclear science, botanist, geneticist, and paleontology, in your view is fine. If the scientist is not a biologist you won't listen?

This is kind of a limited point of view.
...
That the theory of evolution may be contrary to the personal views of a physicist, chemist, astronomer, nuclear scientist, botanist, geneticist, or palaeontologist is irrelevant.

If it is contrary to the science being done by a physicist, chemist, astronomer, nuclear scientist, botanist, geneticist, or palaeontologist then it is a big deal. However, you have not made a case for that.

It does sound like you essentially need all of mainstream science to be wrong for your interpretation of the bible to be true. Would you consider that an accurate statement?
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Oh man, this retort is as old as the gospel....


Luke 10:29International Standard Version (ISV)

29 But the man wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

A quote about loving your fellow man is 100% irrelevant to asking you about who the people in your claim were.

Always the "who is this" and "define" that. A great deflection from the fact that I was asked for proof of people being or feeling persecuted and showed it.

You claim that there were these 100 people or so. It's perfectly natural that we'd like to know who they were, what they were writing, when it happened etc etc. Otherwise it's a pretty hollow claim and certainly isn't 'proof'


"Your honour, I say that the defendent is guilty"

"What proof do you have of that?"

"Oh, like, 100 people saw him - honest."

"That's enough for me - guilty as charged!"
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
15,069
5,309
✟327,545.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So, Kylie, why do you get to choose which discipline of the sciences you regard as the only one acceptable. Do you hold your discipline as the golden discipline?

I freely admit that there are many things about the world that I am ignorant of. Therefore, I accept the word of the people who study those things as their livelihood and can demonstrate that they can use their theories to get usable and testable results.

I have this crazy notion that if their ideas give accurate information about reality, then those ideas are probably correct, even if I don't understand them.

There are many factions of science. All are credible. You cannot cherry pick the information you allow to be relevant.

I'm sorry, where did I say that I discard some areas of science as irrelevant?

If evolution contradicts the views of a physicist, chemist, astronomer, nuclear science, botanist, geneticist, and paleontology, in your view is fine. If the scientist is not a biologist you won't listen?

No, I don't think an astronomer's view about evolution is going to be relevant because the astronomer is not trained in evolutionary biology. I wil happily accept the astronomer's opinions FOR THE FIELD IN WHICH HE IS TRAINED, but I see no reason to accept his views on a field he has little to no experience in.

For example, I am a musician. I not only play the piano professionally, but I also teach it. I am qualified to give information about piano playing. I am not qualified to give information about the best way to do plumbing work. It is outside the area of my expertise. Likewise, evolution is outside the area of expertise for an astronomer, and you'll be a fool if you think an astronomer is better qualified to make comment about evolution than a biologist.

This is kind of a limited point of view.

Yes, your strawman is a limited point of view. Thankfully, it doesn't represent my point of view.

Remember, some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

And of course, you are unable to provide the names of these scientists due to their fear of job discrimination, leaving us with a claim that is not checkable and thus worthless.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟28,767.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
I don't believe the Word of God rules out evolution. One interpretation of the Bible backs a non-evolutionary explanation and it has many problems in reconciling with reality that an evolutionary interpretation of the Bible does not have.

I don't think it rules out evolution either. That is how species survive
and diversify.
 
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The physical evidence infers a very old planet. I haven't found any dating method that is claimed in support of a young earth that is actually valid.
The answer is simple.

Genesis 1 is describing the creation of new earth life on an old rocky planet.

The rocks are old. The life is new.

It's not complicated.
 
Upvote 0

EternalDragon

Counselor
Jul 31, 2013
5,757
26
✟28,767.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0