To all the Science bashers on this board.

[Chi_Cygni]

I agree - but you need one to get them whereas to talk out of your backside about science requires neither.

 

[pressingon]

That doesn't exactly settle it. As Chi said... it is dishonest and insulting to tell someone (actually thousands of scientists that have studied countless facets of nature that you or I don't even know exist) they're wrong when you have no idea what in the world you're talking about. This is a direct result of your lack of credentials. A lack of credentials doesn't mean that you can not understand, but that you do not.

Heck, I haven't even started college yet. That doesn't mean I refuse to study or ignore the facts like you do.

By this logic, does that mean I can dismiss everything you say about science and evolution? You haven't started college yet, so you have no credentials to back up what you say.

My answer? Of course not. Credentials or not, God has given you a mind to reason with and, through your relationship with Christ, the gift of the Spirit to guide you in truth. Every single individual who posts here has the same. That doesn't mean we're all correct, of course, but merely that we all have the potential to be.

This is a ridiculous and unproductive discussion, if you ask me.

 

[Bushido216]

I think a brain is more usefull than credentials.

Credentials show that you have the brains. It's how you use the combination of the two that separates the good scientists from the bad scientists.

 

[Bushido216]

By this logic, does that mean I can dismiss everything you say about science and evolution? You haven't started college yet, so you have no credentials to back up what you say.

My answer? Of course not. Credentials or not, God has given you a mind to reason with and, through your relationship with Christ, the gift of the Spirit to guide you in truth. Every single individual who posts here has the same. That doesn't mean we're all correct, of course, but merely that we all have the potential to be.

This is a ridiculous and unproductive discussion, if you ask me.

That's not necessarily true. All I or L'Anatra have done is repeat (in smaller, simpler bits because I don't think either of us understands the material to the level of the actual scientists) the same data that the scientists have dug up.

What the creationists are doing is dismissing it out of hand or coming up with crackpot and ad hoc redefinitions of... everything.

 

[Enigma'07]

Credentials show that you have the brains. It's how you use the combination of the two that separates the good scientists from the bad scientists.

Their are people with credentials and no brain, but also people with no credentians and a brain, and one that works better than most people's.

 

[Bushido216]

Yeah, but that won't go far to validate creationism, if that's what you're driving at, because just saying "Well, I have a brain and I've decided that evolution has never happened" won't cut it if the evidence doesn't support your position.

 

[Dracil]

Their are people with credentials and no brain

coughKentHovindcough

Let's not mention the great lengths he goes to hide and mislead others on the true nature of his credentials.

 

[L'Anatra]

By this logic, does that mean I can dismiss everything you say about science and evolution? You haven't started college yet, so you have no credentials to back up what you say.

No, I don't have the credentials, but others do. The credentials of others back up the science I post.

My answer? Of course not. Credentials or not, God has given you a mind to reason with and, through your relationship with Christ, the gift of the Spirit to guide you in truth. Every single individual who posts here has the same. That doesn't mean we're all correct, of course, but merely that we all have the potential to be.

Exactly.

This is a ridiculous and unproductive discussion, if you ask me.

Perhaps.

 

[mhess13]

coughKentHovindcough

Let's not mention the great lengths he goes to hide and mislead others on the true nature of his credentials.

Kent Hovind has never lied about his credentials.He has always been clear that he received his degree from Patriot University, and goes on to explain that it is a small UNacredited school. He is also clear that if you don't want to, then don't call him Dr.
He doesn't care, just address the issues. This is the typical snobery so often displayed by evolutionists.
It's a shame that "our TE brothers and sisters in Christ" stoop the the same level as the ungodly.

 

[Dracil]

Oh, I was talking about how he always drop the "Christian" part of "Christian Education" when he goes do his little lectures around the universities. Is the word "Christian" so shameful to him? Or is he trying to make it seem like his degree is a little broader than it really is so as to deceive the audience? And yes, I *have* been to one of his little lectures so I have observed his trickeries first hand.

I won't even go into the problems surrounding his dissertation.

 

[Enigma'07]

Yeah, but that won't go far to validate creationism, if that's what you're driving at, because just saying "Well, I have a brain and I've decided that evolution has never happened" won't cut it if the evidence doesn't support your position.

No, I'm not trying to support either. Both sides have people that fit this description.

 

[Bushido216]

Kent Hovind has never lied about his credentials.He has always been clear that he received his degree from Patriot University, and goes on to explain that it is a small UNacredited school. He is also clear that if you don't want to, then don't call him Dr.
He doesn't care, just address the issues. This is the typical snobery so often displayed by evolutionists.
It's a shame that "our TE brothers and sisters in Christ" stoop the the same level as the ungodly.

That's the first time I've heard that one.

 

[Acts 20:22-24]

Since you seem to knock science and make statements like some science is legit but anything evolution or cosmological is not legit would you please tell me your expertise or credentials that allow you to discern good science from bad science.

This is a question that usually gets little to no response since it seems most Creationists don't have much in the way of a science background.

After all how does someone who doesn't work in the area or especially has never studied the subjects really know what the heck they are talking about?

A few friends of mine referred me quite some time ago to this site for various reasons. The claim that intrigued the most me was that there are real Professors here who claim both Christianity and Evolution on a Theistic basis. While this combination of both Professor and Theistic Evolutionist does not surprise me, the fact that there is a professor of Pathology here debating these issues does.



Paul A. Lucas



Associate Professor of Pathology
Ph.D., 1981, University of Minnesota.
Tissue Engineering. Use of adult stem cells to regenerate tissues. Differentiation of stem cells.



While I suspect that any educational background or field of study will neither prove nor disprove Theistic Evolution regardless of the papers written by the above listed and any other on this board, I do find it interesting that any professor would engage in arguments, structured or otherwise, for such a belief in this type of forum. It shows a total disregard for professionalism, a total lack of self control, and a complete disregard for the rules of engagement in any debate such as Creation vs. Theistic Evolution. A formal debate regarding this issue cannot be structured here at Christian Forums and succeed due to the simple fact that no one in the scientific or medical community would allow the kind of bashing and slander backed by claimed educational superiority in any formal debate as we see here on a daily basis.



Tissue regeneration does not prove or disprove Creation or the Biblical account therein, thus, Paul A. Lucas has about as much ground to stand on in this debate as any other here. The connections he draws between his field of study and this debate are what he would refer to as “straw man”, and “…using PPMSCs to study early genetic and molecular events in differentiation…” is quite a bit like tracing a Picasso with tracing paper and calling it a full understanding of the mind of the painter.



Creation vs. Theistic Evolution is a wonderful debate and should be explored in this forum, but within its context. Allowing Professors, Genetic Engineers, or even Paul A. Lucas types to stomp on Theological and Biblical issues with scientifically redundant arguments that have no place here serve only the like minded or educated and thus should be limited to a forum of debate of its own kind.



My education far surpasses most educations that are advertised here, especially in scientific studies, but I willingly admit that that it equals zero in my ability to debate Creation vs. Theistic Evolution in a Theological forum. Please do likewise.

 

[Card42]

the post i was responding to
was deleted
nothing to see see here

 

[Dracil]

Hmm, where did Acts' post disappear to?

 

[leoj]

That's not necessarily true. All I or L'Anatra have done is repeat (in smaller, simpler bits because I don't think either of us understands the material to the level of the actual scientists) the same data that the scientists have dug up.

What the creationists are doing is dismissing it out of hand or coming up with crackpot and ad hoc redefinitions of... everything.

Most of the evidence for creationism is the same evidence for evolution(and vice versa) it's just a different perspective. The evolutionary bias is 'There is no God.' and the creation bias is 'There is a God. The whole bible is literal.'

Normal people like me who don't have any amazing degress in science or anything. But we present information that has been shown by people who do have amazing degrees.

There is no way of fitting millions (or thousands) of years into the creation week, because it clearly states on day one: 'And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.' (Genesis 1:5b)

 

[PaladinValer]

Most of the evidence for creationism is the same evidence for evolution(and vice versa) it's just a different perspective. The evolutionary bias is 'There is no God.' and the creation bias is 'There is a God. The whole bible is literal.'

Utter nonsense. Science doesn't deal with theology, like it or not. Therefore, it doesn't assume anything about the existance or non-existance of God.

Normal people like me who don't have any amazing degress in science or anything. But we present information that has been shown by people who do have amazing degrees.

There is no way of fitting millions (or thousands) of years into the creation week, because it clearly states on day one: 'And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.' (Genesis 1:5b)

Your whole post can be summed as this:

P v Q
therefore P

That's the Fallacy of Begging the Question.

The proof against it?

P v Q
P v Q or R by rule of addition

A little logic goes a long way. No person will be convinced of your statements.

 

[artybloke]

There is no way of fitting millions (or thousands) of years into the creation week, because it clearly states on day one: 'And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.' (Genesis 1:5b)

And? You never read poems with refrains before? Do you take every poem you read as literal? Do you even read poetry?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Most of the evidence for creationism is the same evidence for evolution(and vice versa) it's just a different perspective. The evolutionary bias is 'There is no God.' and the creation bias is 'There is a God. The whole bible is literal.'

Normal people like me who don't have any amazing degress in science or anything. But we present information that has been shown by people who do have amazing degrees.

There is no way of fitting millions (or thousands) of years into the creation week, because it clearly states on day one: 'And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.' (Genesis 1:5b)

this is simply not true.
there is no scientific proof for a young <10K earth/universe. period.

there is NO evidence for a young earth.
period.

tree cores > 10K
ice cores > 10K

 

[Bushido216]

Most of the evidence for creationism is the same evidence for evolution(and vice versa) it's just a different perspective. The evolutionary bias is 'There is no God.' and the creation bias is 'There is a God. The whole bible is literal.'

Normal people like me who don't have any amazing degress in science or anything. But we present information that has been shown by people who do have amazing degrees.

There is no way of fitting millions (or thousands) of years into the creation week, because it clearly states on day one: 'And there was evening, and there was morning-the first day.' (Genesis 1:5b)

Just because you would like to mangle science to fit your interpretation of Genesis doesn't make science opinionated. The fact is that there are certain things which cannot be explained away by creationism, such as light from distant stars are the lack of certain isotopes.