[_ Old Earth _] What Is Science?

[Pard]

I know what science is, but what this topic is about is this:

Should we only believe the scientists who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Should we only believe the scientists who believe that God's Word is the truth?
Should we accept scientists who believe in Darwin's theory and scientists who believe in God's Word?

In another topic of mine (kind of got hijacked by people who didn't want to discuss the actually point of the topic) an issue arose. The Issue is laid out for you above.

Some people, the atheist crowd (Barb included, but he is kind of an unknown, frankly), asserted that we can not believe scientists who believe in creation, as spelled out in Genesis. They continued to say that the only reliable scientist is the evolutionary scientist (and I need not remind you that these people who argue this point are... evolutionists)

On the other hand we had people who argued this is a ridiculous point and that just because you believe int he trut... I mean creation doesn't mean you are not a real scientist.

I added the middle question because I frankly believe that evolution is a scam and a theology that is corrupt, for did the Lord not say to be wary of those who come spewing false doctrines?

...let the blood bath commence.

 

[jasoncran]

in the book written by secular humanist,what darwin got wrong. the statement is made, i paraphrase.

it's either faith in God or faith in Darwin, if one wants to be a secular humanist you would better believe in the latter.

they go on to why they dont accept the theory of natural selection and also state that want evolution very much to be the truth. but they see flaws in that theory. they also add that one of the contributors to the book asked them not to go public with that as that helps the forces of darkness. hmm i wonder who that refers to?

when i have read more of this book i will post more, i barely started.

 

[Pard]

Another example of refusing to give creationists any room is in virtually every college campus in this country. Creationist professors get no funds, usually get fired before they make it and are shut down by the admin..

The equivalent would be profess that slavery is moral and good, and never once consult a slave or an abolitionist.

Now I am not saying evolution is slavery (actually its worse than physical bondage, it's mental bondage), I am just making an example.

 

[jasoncran]

uh that isnt the case in all colleges, i listen to a creationist who teaches at a local college and he teaches chemistry as adjunct professor.

tom de rosa. i have talked to him via the phone on a special broadcast on the mention reachfm. and he sent me good info on some things.

http://www.creationstudies.org/derosa_bio.html

take note what he has done for the state of florida and also the local schools.

 

[Pard]

uh that isnt the case in all colleges, i listen to a creationist who teaches at a local college and he teaches chemistry as adjunct professor.

tom de rosa. i have talked to him via the phone on a special broadcast on the mention reachfm. and he sent me good info on some things.

http://www.creationstudies.org/derosa_bio.html

take note what he has done for the state of florida and also the local schools.

I said virtually. The percentage of schools that actually allow and accept and embrace creationists is so small its ridiculous. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. Christian colleges (some of them...), colleges afraid of the Religious Right, and colleges who have admin. with half a brain!

 

[jasoncran]

i can see that possibiblity. i have a friend that is a creationist and was subjected to ridicule for his belief. he taught healthscience , he got a degree in biology in the early 70's.

he admits that biology doenst need the concept of evolution to work with the things around us(ie cells, and suchlike). his professor , some, didnt accept the toe. and taught the basic and important things in biology, though they did teach what the toe was. but they didnt accept it.

they were required to use texts that supported the toe.

 

[Pard]

Although Ben Stein's movie has some alleged faults to it, as I am sure Barb will be more than happy to point out to you, if you watch the beginning of it you will see a few specific incidents with some prof. who even mentioned the word creation in class and got fired...

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hey, you got the jump on me Pard!
I was going to start this thread.

Ya, this is a real issue with evolutionists. They do not understand that the term "science" is not synonymous with "evolution"
Evolution is a conclusion based on presuppositions and assumption but not on any empirical scientific facts.

Darwinian evolution ascribes in goo to you.
I have known some evolutionists such as Barb, who have tried to tell me that Darwinian evolution does not say life began unaided and by fluke, random chance, into so called simple single celled life forms, and through a series of fluke, random chance happenstance mutations responding to enviornmental changes, regardless of how convenient that may appear, we arrive at all the various life forms we know of today.

However, we know the truth, Darwin did write that he believed life began as simple cells and through a series of beneficial mutations, life became more and more complex and split off into different groups and eventually became what we know today.
I can understand why some evolutionists are trying to distance themselves from this theory/hypothesis, but the fact is that this is exactly what evolution requires.

Now the question - can creationists be "real" scientists is a simple one to answer - yes.
Just as evolutionists can be "real" scientists as well, in spite of the fact that there is zero corroborating evidence to back up their faith based beliefs.

What we will see happening quite a lot is evolutionists will become more and more desperate and they will inevitably attempt to take the debate into a propaganda battle, where they attack our sources.
I have fallen victim to this method myself. It is tricky and catches you off guard at times, however, we must remain solid in our efforts to ignore these attempts and stick to the scientific facts.
This in my opinion is the very best way to defeat and deflate the evolutionists.

Once we force them to confront the actual scientific facts, they very soon begin to crack, and make revealing statements such as "evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis†or “evolution has nothing to do with astrophysics†or “evolution doesn’t say life started out as simple cells and mutated into all life we know today†They do seem to be unbelievably ignorant of their own branches of study!

John

 

[Evointrinsic]

Some people, the atheist crowd (Barb included, but he is kind of an unknown, frankly), asserted that we can not believe scientists who believe in creation, as spelled out in Genesis. They continued to say that the only reliable scientist is the evolutionary scientist (and I need not remind you that these people who argue this point are... evolutionists)

If this is all you got out of all those posts, then you aren't paying much attention are you?

If you haven't noticed (and I assume your addressing what both The Barbarian and I have said), we have never said that the only reliable scientist is the evolutionary scientist, in fact, i would really enjoy seeing a quote from either of us that says we do believe this.

this is a paragraph you seem to have missed. and I can assure you that The Barbarian would agree 100% with this statement. Keep in mind that this is in the topic that you are referring to, and it clearly shows how we could care less what your beliefs are.

You don't seem to understand how I have no problem with having a Christian scientist present information in a scientific debate. However, the source you got your information from has a consistent record of incorrect statements and information as well as straight out lies. Because of this, and this only, that specific source cannot be used as credible evidence. By all means, use any other scientist who has a good track record and place up a new argument. I have no problem with this what so ever, regardless if that scientist is a christian, Muslim, atheist or even Scientology. As long as this individual has a good track record, then it is a good source of information. This isn't about belief, this is about credibility.

On the other hand we had people who argued this is a ridiculous point and that just because you believe int he trut... I mean creation doesn't mean you are not a real scientist.

It's strange that the only time this (as in creation isnt science) was ever brought up was from a creationist. The very creationist that was vice president of the source given in the the topic as proof.

To address your questions...

Should we only believe the scientists who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution?
Absolutely not. Science is only based on the evidence provided. If other evidence outweighs the original in the sense that it disqualifies whatever theory as false, or simply a part of it, the theory get's changed. Not only that, but i put my entire trust in many christian scientists on their field of work. The belief or disbelief in The theory of evolution has no effect on whether the scientist himself/herself can produce valuable evidence.

However, the sources given in the topic were sources which I and others have proven have a invaluable track record, and are often deceitful. Even the quotes from the source themselves proved that point in their demonstration of their lack of scientific knowledge.

It is not a statement that all Creationists cannot produce scientific information. It is obvious that anyone can do this.

So i'll state again. It absolutely does not matter who produces evidence. But we can take in to account if the persons who have produced the evidence are credible or not. If you haven't noticed (that's rhetorical, i know you haven't), the original post that brings it up says "I'm not quite sure we can simply quote [This source]". it doesn't say anything how all of the people of this sources general beliefs are incapable of anything to do with science.



Should we only believe the scientists who believe that God's Word is the truth?
Absolutely not. It has no effect one what the scientists belief systems are. Science judges on the evidence provided.


Should we accept scientists who believe in Darwin's theory and scientists who believe in God's Word?
I honestly do not understand how after multiple times by multiple people, you still cannot grasp that we do not think this! Yes, we should accept ANY scientist. If their evidence is factual, then it is acceptable.

 

[Pard]

If this is all you got out of all those posts, then you aren't paying much attention are you?

Dude, I didn't read a darn thing you goes wrote! I just wanted you to stop hijacking my thread for your debate and I started a topic for you to move it to...

Your welcome

 

[jasoncran]

then why the hostility to the professor friend who didnt accept it? are dissenting opinions not allowed.?

he to my knowledge never presented the counterargument just didnt accept it. the department head of biology couldnt fathom a scientist not accepting the toe. rather then make fun of him, shouldnt that be funded and allowed and encourage provided evidence and the scientific method is used.

from that book, it implies otherwise.

 

[Evointrinsic]

And I thank you for starting a new topic about it. However, if you "didn't read a darn thing [us guys] wrote" then why exactly are you making statements such as...

Some people, the atheist crowd (Barb included, but he is kind of an unknown, frankly), asserted that we can not believe scientists who believe in creation, as spelled out in Genesis. They continued to say that the only reliable scientist is the evolutionary scientist (and I need not remind you that these people who argue this point are... evolutionists)

and

On the other hand we had people who argued this is a ridiculous point and that just because you believe int he trut... I mean creation doesn't mean you are not a real scientist.

If you never read a thing than you cannot possibly make these claims with validity.

 

[Pard]

And I thank you for starting a new topic about it. However, if you "didn't read a darn thing [us guys] wrote" then why exactly are you making statements such as...

Some people, the atheist crowd (Barb included, but he is kind of an unknown, frankly), asserted that we can not believe scientists who believe in creation, as spelled out in Genesis. They continued to say that the only reliable scientist is the evolutionary scientist (and I need not remind you that these people who argue this point are... evolutionists)

and

[quote:2ln8n41u]On the other hand we had people who argued this is a ridiculous point and that just because you believe int he trut... I mean creation doesn't mean you are not a real scientist.

If you never read a thing than you cannot possibly make these claims with validity.[/quote:2ln8n41u]

Because that is a) what I gleaned from the conversation that I did see and b) because that is a generalization of many atheists I know personally... and I have seen Barb say that somewhere (or seen someone quote him in saying that)... Never added your name, "atheist crowd" doesn't mean the atheists on this here board...

 

[jasoncran]

evo pard is claiming that the bible account in genesis is written as a literal event. if you take it not and as hebrew poetry, then what its the meaning of all the references to the in the beggining?

such and such lived and died doenst seem poetic in the hebrew style as most hebrew poetry is in psalms,proverbs and the song of solomon and job.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Oh good, so then i've answered your questions then? out of curiosity, what do you make of them? (either Pard or jason)

 

[jasoncran]

Oh good, so then i've answered your questions then? out of curiosity, what do you make of them? (either Pard or jason)

of the creationist or evolutionist scientist.
i dont doubt the degrees just disagree with the conclusions of the later,as the toe is also a world view to some(naturalism).

just with the example of the synthetic life, some evolutionist may point that as supportive of the toe. and it really isnt. just that we can make hybrids.

 

[Evointrinsic]

of the creationist or evolutionist scientist.

all three answers.

i dont doubt the degrees just disagree with the conclusions of the later,as the toe is also a world view to some(naturalism).

This doesn't really address the answers I gave earlier.

just with the example of the synthetic life, some evolutionist may point that as supportive of the toe. and it really isnt. just that we can make hybrids.

Actually, any evolutionary biologist will point out that it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. I am one that agrees. The creation of synthetic life has absolutely nothing to do with the support or opposite of the theory of evolution. Why? Because evolution has nothing to do with how life started. I seem to be a broken record with this statement...

 

[jasoncran]

i know that but the news and other athiest claim that it does. a scientist in all honeslty should write that sources and correct them, has that been done?

 

[Pard]

Because evolution has nothing to do with how life started. I seem to be a broken record with this statement...

Oh really? Maybe you are right, I just can't get past the title of Darwin's book (On the Origin of Species)...

 

[Evointrinsic]

Jason, would you be able to send a link to these claims that atheists are making? The initial creation of a synthetic cell isn't evolution, if however the cell were to reproduce in some manner and have some form of genetic change through the generations, then yes, that would be what evolution describes.

Pard: You have just gotten a TON of respect from me. I have honestly never seen a creationist (you are a creationist right?) ever state that information other than theirs may possibly be correct.

The "Title Origin of species" doesn't necessarily mean origin of life. It is referencing the occurrence of genetic drift rather than the first thing created Tell me, do you believe in Microevolution? just out of curiosity.