Is that the very best you have?
What is this supposed to prove?
*sigh*
I assumed you would attack any facts listed rather than the opinions of Henry Morris. * Sigh *
I should have guessed otherwise. Even then,
your criticism of his opinions are met only with your own self-serving opinions.
1) This is not self-serving, but a matter of indeed scientific integrity. Creationists have arrived to the conclusion first (the bible is literally true) and the facts are shoehorned in this conclusion.
My own personal journey was just the opposite so I operate under
the bias that others can and have followed the similar paths. Your fact-less conclusions just make your accusations
completely valueless.
There for facts are distorted, ignored or made up. This goes completely against the scientific method. So anyone claiming to be a creationist can't indeed be a scientist.
Many creationist organisations publish a statement of faith, claiming that the authority of the bible is higher than any scientific discovery. So they set themselves outside the scientific community.
No. In fact they are throughout the community. Besides myself, my discussions with scientists/creationists, I happen to have additional relatives "on the inside". So your statement fails,
except at the
propaganda level.
I presume that you will claim that "if creationists aren't scientists for that reason, evolutionists can't be it either".
This is wrong.
Critical analysis of any
of my unstated claims is dismissed as the rantings of a failure. I mean you, the critic.
First lie:
Science still means "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts,". It only doesn't mean preconceived "knowledge" or "truth," or "facts". And it certainly doesn't mean confirmation of bias or confirmation of a statement of faith. Henry Morris knows this, so he is deliberatly telling lies.
Second lie:
Science has always used natrualistic means. It explores nature!
Chemists never pray above their test tubes. Mathematicians don't bless their pocket calculators.
Science, by definition explores the laws of nature, and seeks natural explanations of observed phenomena. By suggesting otherwise HM is again telling a lie. And with that little phrase "according to this new definition he si again lieing. This is absolutely not a new definition.
Again, HM is wilfully not telling the truth.
Now he is confusing his readers by mixing up the methodological working of science (science is looking for natural explanations) with the existence of a god itself.
Many scientists are religious. The first that comes to my mind is Ken Miller (who testified in the Katzmiller vs Dover trial, but also Robert Backer (a famous paleontologist, who is also a pentecostal preacher), the late and regretted Stephen Jay Gould (one of the leading figures of the American paleontologist mouvement happened also to be a singer in his synagogue. Christian de Duve, was catholic. And those evil evolutionists have prohibited him so hard of their scientific fraternity that they awarded him with the Nobelprize. Again, nothing of HM's paragraph resists {"requires" I think you mean} a closer scrutiny.
I agree. It was not my intention for you to analyze his opinions.
Oh yeah. They were "creationists" at a {time} that the theory of evolution didn't exist. Really a reference. No HM, no. They didn't for the reason I mentioned above: creationists force facts into preconceived conclusions. Those emminent scientists you want to get on your side did this not.
I don't agree that creationist forces facts into molds. I
see the facts that fit, and
find that only the
opinions or conclusions of the non-believing scientist fall outside of scriptural boundaries.
[list of scientists]
First: a big number of them died even before Darwins birth. Sometimes they even didn't live in the 19the century. Way of making your list impressive!
Like Keppler, Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, they died years or even a century before Darwin's time! Speaking of some worthless argument.
That's not a worthless argument. You are suggesting that Darwin altered reality with his publishings and that before him and his writings, truth was not to be found. Hogwash. There is no merit to that logic. Darwin's writings did not even cover new ground. Darwin simply applied a geological
theory of gradualism that was all the rage in his time, to the field of biology.
Second: their is no one in this list that lived after 1950. So since we have a real understanding of how genetics work, HM can't come with a single scientist who doubts evolution anymore. Actually he is saying that scientific advancement has made evolution indeed accepted in the scientific community.
Ummm....that's a different article.
"The ICR Scientists."
Please, letsstick to the current topic.
And indeed, you are correct, evolution is accepted in the scientific community as well as in most, if not all of the Christian community.
It's only the theory of Evolution
as a mechanism of abiogenesis, that many Christians object to.
It's kind of hard to separate the two,
thanks to the efforts of scientists and supporters to link the two together.
I have found only
one source, in the world, that
specifically separates the theory of evolution from abiogenesis.
And I can show that it does a
poor job of it.
