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.
lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.Because most of those listed were not, in fact, creationists. Isn't that a good enough reason for you?
depends on if you are comparing to the same scientific discipline or all disciplines...oh well apples and orangesLooking at lists of creation scientists and comparing it to the number of scientists in the world, it tells me that they're an extremely small minority. Based on my experience, they're a tiny minority among Christian scientists.
I have seen many such lists put out by creationist "ministries" and they are all the same in that regard, with such well-known scientists as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Lord Kelvin falsely claimed. They also usually claim a large number of non-scientists; dentists, engineers, etc.lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.
But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo oftenI have seen many such lists put out by creationist "ministries" and they are all the same in that regard, with such well-known scientists as Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Lord Kelvin falsely claimed. They also usually claim a large number of non-scientists; dentists, engineers, etc.
So prove me wrong and post your list again.
And most of them are not creationists, so what?I suspect that many Jews, Christians, and Muslims would also accept that the One who created life (and the natural world in which life exists) is also able to intervene, from 'time' to 'time.'
I didn't say your list was from a "ministry," just that all the other lists I've seen are from creationist ministries like AiG, ICR and CMI. If you've got a list of creationist scientitsts from a non-creationist source I really will sit up and take notice.. But right now all that is on the table is your unsupported claim that there are many creation scientists.But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo often
No reason to find the list and post it again, you aren't listening anyway and your posts prove it, so it's a meaningless exercise...you have already proven my point.
as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others hereI didn't say your list was from a "ministry," just that all the other lists I've seen are from creationist ministries like AiG, ICR and CMI. If you've got a list of creationist scientitsts from a non-creationist source I really will sit up and take notice.. But right now all that is on the table is your unsupported claim that there are many creation scientists.
LOL! That's fine. I just didn't want you to go away thinking that respectable scientists like Newton, Pasteur and Kelvin were creationists.as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others here
lol I believe what the evidence shows too bad you aren't willing to do the same.LOL! That's fine. I just didn't want you to go away thinking that respectable scientists like Newton, Pasteur and Kelvin were creationists.
Well, if you compare the number of creationist biologists to all of the biologists in the world, you'll find that it's a tiny, tiny fraction. If you compare the number of creationist scientist overall to all of the scientists in the world, you'll find that it's still a tiny, tiny fraction. So no, it doesn't really depend.depends on if you are comparing to the same scientific discipline or all disciplines.
I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something? Does the same apply to religions? laws? professions? etc?Well, if you compare the number of creationist biologists to all of the biologists in the world, you'll find that it's a tiny, tiny fraction. If you compare the number of creationist scientist overall to all of the scientists in the world, you'll find that it's still a tiny, tiny fraction. So no, it doesn't really depend.
I think this a difficult study to have actually done. It would be very difficult to control bias. How does one determine if someone has a good understanding of Evolution? Apparently they just did a poll. Usually, if someone studies something, one at least broadly agrees with the content. Seldom do people continue to study a concept once they found something unacceptable or that they consider wrong. On average, a person with a good understanding of Christianity or Islam say, is more likely to be a Christian or Muslim. Most who study the Koran or Bible would do so with the understanding that inherent worth is to be found there. Muslims or Christians seldom study the Rig Veda. You would find the odd religious scholar, but broadly this would be the case. I have used religion as an example, but it would hold true for geology or paleontology or any of the sciences.
So intrinsically, someone that has done the effort to be able to have a "good understanding" is probably someone who has already broadly accepted the concept. This study does not really give us much useful information, therefore. It hinges on what is understood as a "good understanding", but I believe the study has inherent problems of presupposition and bias that renders it fairly moot. It would be a different matter entirely if they gave a randomised group instruction in Evolution and then determined their acceptance thereof, but to retroactively try and correlate acceptance with understanding is going to presuppose that they are broadly equivalent, by its very nature.
But it wasn't from a "ministry" so you still are talking without listening....which is what I said in the beginning that happens way tooooooooo often
No reason to find the list and post it again, you aren't listening anyway and your posts prove it, so it's a meaningless exercise...you have already proven my point.
as I said, your posts all of them show an unwillingness to listen...unless or until that changes I have nothing more I am willing to add to the discussion because quite frankly, I am sick and tired of people NOT listening to each other and reinventing arguments just to make their side look wiser without ever really offering anything of significance. Enjoy your mis communications with others here
Let's assume there's evidence that someone like Newton believed in creationism.lol I believe what the evidence shows too bad you aren't willing to do the same.
I have a question for you....when did truth depend on how many people believe or don't believe something?
Post the list; I try to go through each individual claimed one by one, to see if the people listed meet these qualifications of being a creationist scientist relevant to evolution. These qualifications are as follows:lol well they were, it was a list of creation scientists...isn't it funny that you don't even have the list and you judge it as not being creation scientist when the list is nothing more than a list of creation scientists...you are proving my point at an alarming rate.
this again shows a lack of understanding but don't really have the patience for such non sense at the moment....reminds me of the above post by dogma hunter...the same principle applies.The fact of the matter is that such a list is irrelevant.
It matters not how many people, scientist or otherwise, you can find that believe in creationism.
1, 5, 20, 100 million.
It matters not what people believe.
What matters is what they can demonstrate.
Not a single of those "creation scientists" has ever even attempted to pour his/her ideas into a scientific paper, detailing the evidence and the reasoning.
Because there's no such thing. There's only religious beliefs. That's why.
And again, it matters not how many people merely "believe" something - anything.
lol you didn't read my posts if you have to ask this question...just saying, I already talked about this topic and how it is non sense to what is really truth.Talking about never offering anything of significance....
Lists of people who believe a certain thing, especially in science, is like the epitome of insignificance..........
Are you familiar with the argument from popularity?
It's a logical fallacy.
exactly... glad you finally figured that outLet's assume there's evidence that someone like Newton believed in creationism.
It would only prove that Newton believed in creationism.
Wheter Newton's belief was accurate, is not demonstrated simply by him having the belief.
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?