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.
Thatmaturgy, please answer this:As I showed in an earlier post, the list from Genesis appears to show the appearance of life forms and items sometimes in the wrong order by a significant amount.
Or publishing in Nature or Science?Blabla. Really Michael, here is what is bothering me. Again it just doesn't answer the question in any way. As all your other posts, it just tries to search for a way to avoid answering it.
Why am I never encountering these scientists? I mean, I could put credence to your story above, but why do none of these scientists work at Answer in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research or the Discovery Institute? And why do I never meet them on the forums where I post? They can remain anonymous there. But all I've ever seen in the last 8 or 9 years I've been participating in this discussion in various forums and in person, is people who when you really get down to it have a number of misconceptions about evolution due to bad research or logical fallacies, usually a combination of both.
Why do I never meet these people? I cannot trust you on the answer, because from what you have posted up to now I see no indication to think you could accurately assess whether these people have a good grasp of the theory of evolution. So why do I never meet them, when I have put in effort to search them out?
Well, if Michael's ideas of harrassment are true, they wouldn't be able to do that. I'm entirely willing to give him that, even though I think he is wrong.Or publishing in Nature or Science?
So lemme get this straight....
You answer only ONE of the issues I raised and ignore the rest of them.
And the only response you provide isn't any kind of argument or evidence, merely a claim that you just arbitrarily decided to assume something.
You've gotta give me more than that if you want to actually answer my questions. You DO want to answer them, don't you?
So why do I never meet them, when I have put in effort to search them out?
Interest.If what they believe is tantamount to fiction in your eyes, then I guess, why are you searching them out?
Again, as I already mentioned, they don't need to go into the lime light. I post here under an alias, they can do the same.Because they all have families, there is a tendency to stay out of the lime light so to speak.
I saw it. Thanks. I'll stress one thing here again. I don't care about the PhD's. I want them to know the stuff they are criticizing, not a caricature of it.I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll look up names with PhD's for you who I don't know, and pm them to you?
Fair enough?
~Michael
Thatmaturgy, please answer this:
If you could find a way to grow, say, an Oak tree in a laboratory w/o the sun, would you do it?
And? Why can scientists with families who understand the theory of evolution and accept it post on forums, as well as creationists who do not understand the theory of evolution, while creationist scientists who actually understand the theory of evolution but don't agree with it are not able to post on anonymous forums?They all have families Tom.
The ACG, as far as I can gather, is more in the direction of theistic evolution, although individual members may disagree here. They don't make a clear statement on this, although they give some articles supporting the theory of evolution. They supported the original Kansas Science Standards for one thing, while opposing the alternative where the theory of evolution was left out.And there are many other organizations other than the ones you listed. Just one of several which is old earth is the ACG.
~Michael
The complexity of the pebble should have been enough to demonstrate
something, BUT the video makes a strawman out of God in the first
place by putting an old man with a beard in the clouds.
There is a lot of them. But one, I wouldn't want to you to bother the one's who are in professions.
And, two, many of them are teaching in Christian Colleges and I wouldn't want you to bother them either.
I just don't believe in name dropping and drawing attention to them here).
I'm sorry, but they would not spend the time to engage in futile debate, but they DO fully understand DET.
Because they all have families, there is a tendency to stay out of the
lime light so to speak.
I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll look up names with PhD's for you who I don't know, and pm them to you?
And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.Thatmaturgy, please answer this:
If you could find a way to grow, say, an Oak tree in a laboratory w/o the sun, would you do it?Answer: Yes, sure. I most assuredly would.
I was referring only to Kent Hovind, not these other PhD's you refuse to mention by name. Not every creationist with a PhD is as ignorant as Hovind is, and I never claimed they were. Also, see Agentorange20's post (#450) for a classic series of examples of Hovind's ignorance of basic theories in Biology.I would like to see a source for point # 7.
As far as points 2,3, and 4. There are a number of people who know just
as much about science (PhD's in multiple areas) who would agree with him. Perhaps it bothers you that they have access the same information
you have and yet "choose" to disagree with you because they are
interpreting data with a different set of assumptions.
Just because they dismiss D.E.T. (Darwinian Evolutionary Theory) does
not make them ignorant, they recognize the role of common ancestry
within genera and the principle of natural selection as a part of creation.
They just do not extrapolate these processes to conclude universal
common ancestry.
~Michael
Unfortunately you appear to be doing precisely that.Caduceus, don't make the mistake of using some copyrighted book to glean your Theology from, or you'll end up with the wrong perspective of the universe.
I think you are trying to introduce some ‘red herrings’. This is merely from one translation of the Hebrew (KJV).I want you to notice something closely here, please:Now watch ---See something new in 2:1 that isn't in 1:1?
In 2:1, heaven has an ess on the end of it --- meaning it's plural; but in 1:1, Heaven is singular.
This has nothing to do with my original comment. However, we can plainly see here that Paul is torturing the text of the Septuagint to make it fit his own theories.Note what Paul says here ---Notice how Paul is making it very clear that seed is singular, not plural?
Even adding an ess on to a word can lead to the wrong interpretation.
WOW --- have a good day, Caduceus ---Below is the Genesis 1.1. text from a selection of English translations.
You have no idea of the hatred that exists toward creationists in
the fields of geology and paleontology or even genetics. They keep
quite because they don't want to get kicked out of school sometimes.
If DET was truly as sound as you say, then there wouldn't be this
insecurity about debating creationism or hatred of those who believe
in creation. I'm not saying you hate me. There ARE those who do
hate creationists, and they make there opinion very well known.
~Michael
And I believe God would too. Growing an Oak tree outside is ho-hum; growing an Oak tree w/o the sun is Creation.
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?