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.
how precisely?Young Earth creationism, of course. As to your version of creation de novo, you haven't given us enough information about it to tell. But by the evidence it would have to have been so long ago and involve such a small a number of different kinds of creatures created "de novo" as to be functionally equivalent to universal common ancestry.
i didnt said they are scientists. but many scientists do believe in creation rather then evolution.Specify the name, or names, of any educated person, who applying the scientific method, believed this to be the case. The Greeks had measured the Earth's circumference a couple of centuries before Christ.
Name a reputable scientist who insists upon the reality of bigfoot.
"Common ancestry" is usually framed as descent from a single abiogenesis event--for simplicity's sake. But all scientists realize that multiple abiogenesis events must be considered a possibility as well. Life may have emerged on this planet more than once and in more than one place at one time.how precisely?
Ok, so let's evaluate this list. I will list all the names that are biologists, as well as geneticists. Also, I will only be using names that the site itself provides links for, because many have names too generic for a Google search to easily find them (which means they probably aren't particularly prominent in their scientific field or in creationist circles). I also won't bother mentioning books people participated in, because those aren't published research:
Be prepared to find some ringers. Once, when we were going through this exercise over on the old Beliefnet, one of our colleagues got his name put on the list as a researcher at a fictitious university. Great laughs.Robert H. Franks: There is a biology professor with this name, but for the life of me, I can't find anything that shows he's actually a creationist. No statements or interviews or bios, nothing, that state that he's a creationist. The most famous individual with this name is actually an economist. This seems like a bust, probably should just mentally cross him off the list.
Jesus is -- and that's all that counts.And nobody before 1840 counts as a creationist.
I personally think that is a fully rational position to take. It's fully understandable from a layman perspective that despite that the person Jesus most probably having existed, the supernatural aspects that surround him do warrant a certain degree of skepticism on the accuracy of the gospels (and to a larger extent the Bible).Yes and no. I don't consider that the case for a historical Jesus is strong enough to warrant the acceptance of his existance to the same degree that I accept the historical existance of Julius Ceasar for example.
On the other hand, I have no problem assuming it was a real person around which the chrisian religion was developed.
So I have no "definitive" belief or disbelief about it. Nore does it keep me awake at night.
But as said, for the sake of discussion etc, I have no problem assuming there really was a human named Jesus / Joshua / some other variation around which the christian religion was developed.
I get that you like to believe there is no actual evidence of a worldwide flood, but the point was that your analogy was weak (as in false) because it was based on the notion that I was referring to Noah's flood being true because all I had to do was believe it to be true without facts and evidence. I was actually asserting the point that if Noah's worldwide flood was true based on the physical evidence (which there is plenty of) and the ToE being falsified, then the validity of the creation account goes up by 20 to 45% give-or-take.It is not. It is a perfect analogy.
It goes to show how falsifying hypothesis 1, does not lend extra credence to unrelated hypothesis 2.
Sure. The thing is though, a global flood makes testable predictions (global geological layer of sediments, universal genetic bottleneck,...) and when tested, these predictions do not check out. Which falsifies the flood story.
Evolution on the other hand, is an extremely solid scientific theory that accounts for all the facts, is contradicted by none and has extreme explanatory power.
The science is pretty much settled on this.
But it can't.... in fact, the opposite is true.
Are you really going to pretend here that your religion (or indeed any religion) does not require "faith"? Come on now....
The actual evidence and science, falsifies the flood story.
The actual evidence and science, is completely inline with evolution.
I disagree. Telling kids (or let's say the future generations) what to decide on what is "good" and what is "bad" despite seemingly good intentions, is still indoctrinating them to adhere to the biases of the evolutionist teachers, or Steven Anderson-type pastors, or the Islamic stewards, etc. Good and bad become relative to the currently accepted paradigm in certain environments. Being objective on the facts rather than predetermining what is good and bad allows much more space to experiment and test what is accurate and what is dogmatic assertions.Sure. But kids don't get to decide what is good and bad science, because they lack the knowledge to do so. Note that by "kids", I'm talking about 12-year olds.
"kids", instead, need to be taught what science is and how they can differentiate good science from bad science. And they are taught exactly that.
Afterwards, when they have a good grasp on logical thinking, reasoning, the scientific method and to ability to identify reasoning errors and fallacies... that's when they are in a position to make such evaluations. And even then.............
Take a scientific publication from genetics, for example. Or theoretical physics.
Most well educated adults, who's subject of expertise is NOT genetics or theoretical physics, wouldn't understand a word of what is written in those papers. How, then, would well-educated adults be able to evaluate the "science" in those papers?
If well-educated adults can't even do it, how do you expect kids to do so?
You'ld basicaly need to become a geneticist to be able to evaluate the science and conclusions of a technical genetics paper.
Sure. But that is a loooong process of learning and specific studies. Someone with a high school diploma, is not going to "forward research" or introduce "new understandings" in fields like genetics, geology, chemistry, biology, theoretical physics, astronomy, etc.
Simply teaching them the current conclusions, theories and understanding of the sciences involved, is not "indoctrinating" them. That's educating them.
I'm sorry, it's really not and I'll explain why.Yes. Biology is the field. The theory of evolution, is a scientific theory within the field of biology, to explain the diversification of biological things. And it is the only game in town...
It seems you might need some education on the subject as well.
I'm sure it has been told to you countless times before, but both "micro" as well as "macro" are powered by the exact same process. The only difference here is time / amount of generations.
Moving 1 inch = micro movement.
Moving 1 mile (1 inch at a time) = macro movement.
Evolution works by the gradual accumulation of micro changes.
1+1+1+1+1......+1+1 = big number.
There is no distinction. It's the same process.
That said, it should be noted that many have tried to refute the resurrection of Jesus
only to have ended up becoming Christians themselves because of the facts and evidence for the resurrection.
I get that you like to believe there is no actual evidence of a worldwide flood
, but the point was that your analogy was weak (as in false) because it was based on the notion that I was referring to Noah's flood being true because all I had to do was believe it to be true without facts and evidence.
I was actually asserting the point that if Noah's worldwide flood was true based on the physical evidence (which there is plenty of) and the ToE being falsified, then the validity of the creation account goes up by 20 to 45% give-or-take.
I disagree. Telling kids (or let's say the future generations) what to decide on what is "good" and what is "bad" despite seemingly good intentions, is still indoctrinating them to adhere to the biases of the evolutionist teachers, or Steven Anderson-type pastors, or the Islamic stewards, etc.
Good and bad become relative to the currently accepted paradigm in certain environments. Being objective on the facts rather than predetermining what is good and bad allows much more space to experiment and test what is accurate and what is dogmatic assertions.
I'm sorry, it's really not and I'll explain why.
Microevolution is observed to only involve in the changes through colouring, size and shape, or minor genetic alterations caused by a few mutations. These observable changes never involve an increase in complexity as the theory of evolution relies on. Macroevolution requires thousands if not millions of "successful" mutations through countless trials and errors. (micro + time ≠ macro).
The key differences here is that microevolution can be thought of as a "horizontal" (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an "upward" beneficial change in complexity.
When you think about it, a gradual accumulation of small changes on a body part defies logic and basic biology.
If they are not, or were not scientists, then their views upon the geometry of the Earth are irrelevant. That makes your observation regarding such a faulty belief irrelevant. Thus, I hope we can agree that ignorance on the part of sections of the general public about scientific matters, have no relevance in regard to the accuracy scientific observations, hyptheses or theories. Do you agree? Please confirm.i didnt said they are scientists. but many scientists do believe in creation rather then evolution.
Right. Another faithful believer in Christ sent to hell for not believing in a literal and inerrant Genesis as well.Jesus is -- and that's all that counts.
And as for Lyell, he's in aitch.
Then let's get logical.Blind faith is "faith", but it is the weakest kind. Those that cling to glaringly illogical doctrines such as creationism invest their faith in tenants that cannot be sustained. God desires that we seek the truth wherever we can find it, cultivating a "logical faith" that is indestructible.
Who said anything about Hell?Right. Another faithful believer in Christ sent to hell for not believing in a literal and inerrant Genesis as well.
Assuming you mean a 6,000 year old Earth, we should have DNA for far more fossils than we actually do, since DNA can last for millions of years.Then let's get logical.
Theo-logical.
Question: God creates the earth ex nihilo. What evidence would that leave behind?
An ion trail? plasma? time crystals?
What exactly?
Forget a 6000-year-old earth.Assuming you mean a 6,000 year old Earth, we should have DNA for far more fossils than we actually do, since DNA can last for millions of years.
We both know that a creationist account like yours doesn't assert that fossils were put into the ground ex nihilo, because that would be an intentional deception. So, all fossils should be 6000 years old or less. So, why don't we have DNA from Cambrian creatures?Forget a 6000-year-old earth.
Let's say an apple or loaf of raisin bread.
A nail, a tin can, a marble, an atom, a Venus fly trap, a drop of water, a blade of grass, a toothpick, a wallet, a shoe, a clipboard ... a anything.
You don't understand what I'm asking, do you?We both know that a creationist account like yours doesn't assert that fossils were put into the ground ex nihilo, because that would be an intentional deception. So, all fossils should be 6000 years old or less. So, why don't we have DNA from Cambrian creatures?
You don't know that your question is irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if today, I created a T. rex, that T. rex wouldn't produce a fossil in 6,000 years that appeared the same as one many millions of years old.You don't understand what I'm asking, do you?
what? i only need to show that there are biologists who reject evolution and thats it. therefore the claim that many biologists reject evolution is true. clear and simple.Ok, so let's evaluate this list. I will list all the names that are biologists, as well as geneticists. Also, I will only be using names that the site itself provides links for, because many have names too generic for a Google search to easily find them (which means they probably aren't particularly prominent in their scientific field or in creationist circles). I also won't bother mentioning books people participated in, because those aren't published research:
Dr. Jim Allen : his primary work is in dairy cattle breeding. All his mentioned work in terms of evolution is vague and difficult to find. Not exactly the best example, so we move on. The website link incorrectly calls him James Allan.
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin: He's the director of research for the very biased Probe Ministries. And that's it, his academic career is rather lacking.
Dr Kenneth B. Cumming: Dean of a religious university.
Dr David DeWitt: Neat guy, but his research is in Alzheimer's disease, not evolutionary biology.
Dr André Eggen: I am not kidding, this guy's research is in cattle also. Plus, from what I can find, he's a creationist because he was raised that way, not due to anything challenging the theory itself.
Carl B. Fliermans: Used to be a great researcher in fungal diseases, which he even won awards for in the early 1990s (making him the best in terms of scientific career thus far, but alas, no evolution here). Now he belongs to Answers in Genesis, so not exactly without bias.
Robert H. Franks: There is a biology professor with this name, but for the life of me, I can't find anything that shows he's actually a creationist. No statements or interviews or bios, nothing, that state that he's a creationist. The most famous individual with this name is actually an economist. This seems like a bust, probably should just mentally cross him off the list.
Maciej Giertych: Denial that benign mutations exist (even though plenty have been recorded, such as one in humans that results in bones so thick that it was discovered because a family had a strange history of very few injuries despite being involved in accidents that should have crushed bones or even killed them). I see a lot of empty claims, but no published articles from him finding evidence to back his claims. Weird one, but I'll say this guy definitely counts thanks to his active work in relevant fields and his lack of biases based on who he works for. So, we have 1 that counts so far.
Dr Pierre Gunnar Jerlström: Hired by a ministry, and his academic accomplishments are unrelated to evolution. Mostly studies protein functions.
Arthur Jones: Nice for him to want to standardize "kinds" rather than just using whatever definition is convenient. He counts as number 2. Sad that his name is generic so it makes looking up his work rather difficult.
Dr Lane P. Lester: Biased based on who he works for, since he makes money off of writing articles for a creationist magazine. Lackluster scientific career.
Yeesh, long list to get through, might have to finish later, but I was about 1/3rd the way through, and only found 2 on this list with careers relevant to evolution that didn't have huge biases that would encourage their disagreement with evolution. For example, it is not uncommon for those that work at religious universities to have to state that they are creationists in order to work there.
But you fail to realize that biology is a broad subject, and it is entirely possible for a biologist to be ignorant about evolution. Plus, at least 1 person I found on that list has no record of being a creationist at all, so that list is rather suspicious.what? i only need to show that there are biologists who reject evolution and thats it. therefore the claim that many biologists reject evolution is true. clear and simple.
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?