Other Post Not all scientists are atheist

[RobertKLR]

And just to show you the differences between belief and science, i do believe that there is extraplanetary life somewhere. But even if there are strong arguments for it, there are no proofs so far. So it is just an opinion or belief, not a science fact. Evolution is a fact, no matter how much people believing in a mongrel book made of gospels arbitrarily pulled together during the Nicea council in 325 AD say the contrary....

Where do the Gospels address evolution or any science at all?

 

[Mordoror]

Where do the Gospels address evolution or any science at all?

Ask the ones saying that Gospels tell the literral truth about how Man and world were created, thus that evolution, paleontology, geology, astronomy and a bunch of other sciences are false

 

[Yevgeny]

RobertKLR is right - New Testament says nothing about Creation. You confusing New Testament with Old Testament.

 

[Mordoror]

RobertKLR is right - New Testament says nothing about Creation. You confusing New Testament with Old Testament.

Well sorry then it s a lost in translation case here. I do not used the word gospels (with a small g) the way you have the habit to understand it when it is with a big G.

 

[Grazhdanochka]

And that ends this thread... that just means no matter what is placed in front you, you simply will ignore it since "it's what the scriptures say." You are pushing a personal agenda which is based on one website. To be honest if you are so sure in your belief, you dont need a website or go through with a discussion.

Website is just E-Scripture

 

[RobertKLR]

Ask the ones saying that Gospels tell the literral truth about how Man and world were created, thus that evolution, paleontology, geology, astronomy and a bunch of other sciences are false

This is Ryan Reeves, Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. I think he can clarify some things better than I can. He's not a preacher, he's a real collegiate professor. If you can spare 25 minutes ... there's no preaching, just history.

creeds and councils, what are they?

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Buster23]

Dude, belief=/=science. That's where the discussion will end. Believing in Creation is one (your) personal opinion and a personal opinion has nothing to do with a science paradigm/demonstration.
BTW the amount of lack of knowledge you diplayed in the various fields we discussed before (like mutations) is also hurting your credibility in these fields of discussion.


That you believe in scriptures, that' s your personal rights. I wont go against. But avoid to walk in fields you have poor understanding about....

On the contrary, none of these creationists are saying that belief=science, what they are actually saying is that the historical facts written in the Bible are supported by science through their research and studies, and these studies were conducted using the same scientific methods being employed by secular scientists.

I never claimed expertise in the field of science (or in mutations for that matter), that is the reason why my rebuttals are quoted from or have links with articles from creationists who did the study themselves. And it is not my intention to promote my credibility here in this forum, I am just presenting the side of these Christian scientists who spent their precious time, resources and energy (despite all the persecutions and hostility from their secular peers) conducting scientific study and research to validate the truth that is written in the Bible, I guess for the benefit of the believers to strengthen their faith further.

 

[Buster23]

And that ends this thread... that just means no matter what is placed in front you, you simply will ignore it since "it's what the scriptures say." You are pushing a personal agenda which is based on one website. To be honest if you are so sure in your belief, you dont need a website or go through with a discussion.

As I said on my reply to mordoror, my main purpose of this thread is to present the side of these Christian scientists who have conducted scientific studies and research to validate the truth that is written in the Bible, for the benefit of the believers (in this forum) to strengthen their faith further, and it is not just about one website, I could cite ICR, CRS, AIG and any other apologetic website as well if I need to. I am aware that this will attract the other side of the fence and their reactions/comments, and it is all fine, we can always have a civilized discussion (sans ad hominem), this is what this forum is for, right?

 

[Buster23]

That's like the perfect example of unscientific. If your theory/model doesn't work out you refine it or look for a new one - you don't fall back to the god of the gaps - i.e. "I haven't figured this part out, therefore it was god".


Science doesn't care - either a theory works independent of who puts it to the test or it doesn't.
Science isn't biased - it's goal is to find facts, not to support some particular ideology.
Your source on the other hand - similar to religious sects, conspiracy theorists etc. - preys on the ignorance of it's victims and on the fact that the victims want to believe something and look for confirmation, rather than proper validation of their point of view. You can make any kind of stuff up and they'll believe it without checking themselves or expecting some kind of peer review process.

"Science doesn't care" - Yes, I agree because science does not have feelings, but scientists do.

"Science isn't biased" - Yes it is not biased but scientists are.

Regarding my "source", it does give proper validation of my/our point of view, their studies are scientific conducted through the same scientific methods the secular scientists also employ, but unfortunately none from secular science journals would published it and give it proper peer review especially if it is against the secular science ideology/religion which is the evolution theory.

 

[Xaito]

"Science doesn't care" - Yes, I agree because science does not have feelings, but scientists do.

"Science isn't biased" - Yes it is not biased but scientists are.

Regarding my "source", it does give proper validation of my/our point of view, their studies are scientific conducted through the same scientific methods the secular scientists also employ, but unfortunately none from secular science journals would published it and give it proper peer review especially if it is against the secular science ideology/religion which is the evolution theory.

It doesn't matter what feelings, opinions or beliefs scientists have - if they work scientifically, they'll pursue verifiable facts - otherwise they're a sham.
And that's exactly what your sources are - a sham. They may try to make their texts look like proper scientific papers, but if you can spot BS at the first glance, you don't waste your or other people's time by publishing it in science journals - because they don't tend to have a comedic relief section, which is the only fitting place for such papers.

 

[Mordoror]

On the contrary, none of these creationists are saying that belief=science, what they are actually saying is that the historical facts written in the Bible are supported by science through their research and studies, and these studies were conducted using the same scientific methods being employed by secular scientists.

I never claimed expertise in the field of science (or in mutations for that matter), that is the reason why my rebuttals are quoted from or have links with articles from creationists who did the study themselves. And it is not my intention to promote my credibility here in this forum, I am just presenting the side of these Christian scientists who spent their precious time, resources and energy (despite all the persecutions and hostility from their secular peers) conducting scientific study and research to validate the truth that is written in the Bible, I guess for the benefit of the believers to strengthen their faith further.

Few points : there are few studies from few scholars trying to see if what is written in the Bible has historical basis and it is done by science methods: a few examples
Trying to see if the Divine flood happened. Yes a massive flood happened at the same period of the writing of few religious texts that served as basis for the Talmud which itself served as basis for the Bible.
Other example: the plagues of Egypt probably linked to the massive eruption of Thera.
Or experimental archeology that tried to reconstitute the Noah arch.
For all those there are physical evidences.

For the Creation i.e a superior being creating man as his image, there are none.
Because the presupposition there is a superior being cannot be demonstrated, no matter you wrap your demonstration with "science" methods which in fact are not science but a way to push a personal agenda.

Again and for the last time, evolution is a fact, continental drift is a fact, the age of Earth is a fact and existence of various Homo species branch is a fact. All those fact are in contradiction if you believe literaly in what is written in the Bible.
That's definitively the difference between belief and scientificaly proven facts

Now of course some scientists believe in God and this is not incompatible if you accept that what is written in the Bible is figured, not literal.
But for those believing literaly inthe texts, they cannot be called scientists because go against hundred of scientific facts in several fields like geology, paleontology, biology, astronomy etc....

 

[RobertKLR]

There are far more atheists that think Christians believe the world is 6,000 years old than there are Christians believing that so accusing all modern Christians of "literally" interpreting Genesis is ignorant.

Consider this, if you removed all of the space between the atoms of the Earth it would shrink to the size of a golf ball. If you then removed all of the space between the particles of the atoms it would shrink to a size smaller than a pinhead. If you extracted all of the remaining space between the particles you would find there is really nothing there. So how is it that we see and feel a solid Earth when literally, scientifically speaking, there is NOTHING there? There is no solidity, it is all created in the mind but how can that be? Doesn't that premise sound silly? Yet it is the prevailing scientific view.

 

[Mordoror]

Oh God (pun intended)
Do they teach you something in school beside some silly things ?
Like gravitational forces, electrostatic forces, magnetic forces.
I am done, there is no point discussing with people that dont have the slightest basis about science and the slightest clue about things they are questioning and criticizing
Go educate yourself outside creationnist sites about how the matter is made and held, that would be an improvment.
Over and out

 

[RobertKLR]

Oh God (pun intended)
Do they teach you something in school beside some silly things ?
Like gravitational forces, electrostatic forces, magnetic forces.
I am done, there is no point discussing with people that dont have the slightest basis about science and the slightest clue about things they are questioning and criticizing
Go educate yourself outside creationnist sites about how the matter is made and held, that would be an improvment.
Over and out

Mordoror, you came up pretty short on your knowledge of religion and I didn't see much of any deep science education from you either. Sleep on it, maybe tomorrow you'll feel better.

 

[BCNTM]

It doesn't matter what feelings, opinions or beliefs scientists have - if they work scientifically, they'll pursue verifiable facts - otherwise they're a sham.
And that's exactly what your sources are - a sham. They may try to make their texts look like proper scientific papers, but if you can spot BS at the first glance, you don't waste your or other people's time by publishing it in science journals - because they don't tend to have a comedic relief section, which is the only fitting place for such papers.

Produce 'god' for inspection, testing and measuring or its just a case of my imaginary friend.........

Faith is just some women I met a long time ago?

 

[Marsch]

@RobertKLR: Mordoror actually is a scientist you numbnut and it's no wonder that he doesn't wants to write lengthy posts when he has to deal with persons like you here. Sleep on it, maybe tomorrow you'll be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Buster23]

It doesn't matter what feelings, opinions or beliefs scientists have - if they work scientifically, they'll pursue verifiable facts - otherwise they're a sham.
And that's exactly what your sources are - a sham. They may try to make their texts look like proper scientific papers, but if you can spot BS at the first glance, you don't waste your or other people's time by publishing it in science journals - because they don't tend to have a comedic relief section, which is the only fitting place for such papers.

I suspect that you haven't really read any of their scientific papers and you have just jumped to conclusion as their secular scientists/evolutionists peers would do. So you are saying that these people (to name a few) below are sham and a joke because they are part of my sources and they believe in creation?

Dr. John Sanford - A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Author of the groundbreaking book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

Dr. John Baumgardner - Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA. Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. -Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use. The last decade at Sandia saw greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab–scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory.

 

[digrar]

Religion and politics. No faster way to see good manners go South.

If you feel the urge to take a shot at someone, resist. Be prepared for not being able to change someones mind. Don't resort to calling them a f***ing peanut when your powers of persuasion have failed. Even if they are a peanut.

I've handed a few warnings out. Pick your battles.

 

[Xaito]

I suspect that you haven't really read any of their scientific papers and you have just jumped to conclusion as their secular scientists/evolutionists peers would do. So you are saying that these people (to name a few) below are sham and a joke because they are part of my sources and they believe in creation?

Why should I waste my time?
There is not a single shred of evidence for creation. It's based on faith and ignorance. "I don't understand how the universe/earth got created, so it must have been god". Especially the literal biblical creationist theory is easily debunked, because radioisotope dating an show you the earth was not created a couple thousands of years ago in one week.
If you wanna change my mind, you'll have to do so with specific arguments -not "go and read everything over there". Did you yourself read the stuff you try to peddle or did you just glance over it and read the authors names?

Dr. John Sanford - A Cornell University Professor for more than 25 years, John has been semi-retired since 1998. His Ph.D. was in plant breeding and plant genetics. John has published over 80 scientific publications and has been granted over 30 patents. His most significant scientific contributions involve three inventions, the biolistic (“gene gun”) process, pathogen-derived resistance, and genetic immunization. A large fraction of the transgenic crops (in terms of numbers and acreage) grown in the world today were genetically engineered using the gene gun technology developed by John and his collaborators. Author of the groundbreaking book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome.

Dr. John Baumgardner - Upon completing his Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics, he accepted a position as a staff scientist in the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he continued his research in planetary mantle dynamics, including the potential for catastrophic mantle overturn. His Ph.D. thesis research involved the development of a 3-D spherical-shell finite-element model for the earth’s mantle, a program now known as TERRA. Dr Baumgardner’s technical work at Los Alamos included development of a new global ocean model for investigating climate change.

Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. -Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia’s ‘Particle Beam Fusion Project’, and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered ‘Rimfire’ high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use. The last decade at Sandia saw greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world’s first lab–scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining two other U.S. patents, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion–fusion target theory.

Don't care who they are. That's an argument from authority.
There are enough examples of intelligent people falling prey to irrational beliefs - look at the former Aum Shinrikyo sect, scientology etc.
There are also examples of scientists selling out, writing bogus papers for profit.

 

[Buster23]

Again and for the last time, evolution is a fact, continental drift is a fact, the age of Earth is a fact and existence of various Homo species branch is a fact. All those fact are in contradiction if you believe literaly in what is written in the Bible.
That's definitively the difference between belief and scientificaly proven facts

Nope, evolution is not a fact, until now there still no evidence that inorganic matter became organic organisms and then ultimately became man/animals/plants today, even other secular scientists do not believe in evolution as propagated by Darwin and his followers > https://dissentfromdarwin.org/faq/

Continental drift - creationists do not dispute this, and this is supported by the historical account of the Scriptures on Noah's Flood, there were rapid and catastrophic plate tectonics movements during the flood that created the continents we have today > https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter11.pdf

The radiometric dating methods used in measuring the age of the earth as billions of years are flawed and are based only on assumptions and interpretations, it does not give consistent results > https://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies.

If the Earth is really billions of years old, then why there are still carbon-14 present on alluvial diamonds? https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

Real found fossils of "homo species" (not some fake 'missing link fossils') may actually are all human kind as "Differences in skeletal anatomy may simply reflect a greater genetic diversity within the human kind in the past. " > https://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-1-the-genus-homo