Dissecting ID

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:

Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s in this century, but apples didn’t suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. …" – Stephen J. Gould

Whoops! You screwed up by using a quote that mentions Newton and Einstein. Both believed in I.D. and special creation.[/quote]

Which has nothing to do with the argument or weakens Gould’s statement on factual evidence in evolution.

The supporters of evolution science theory and fact have posted evidence and articles and even definitions of scientific terms so it can be easily understood. Once again, the rebuttals we get back are basically “No it’s not” and not supported with any evidence. And this is the kind of thinking ID supporters want in a classroom? The kids will have no idea how to debate.

262

Dude, I didn’t just ‘say’ evolution is a fact, I provided evidence backed by centuries of research and both biological and antrhopological evidence to support that claim. We’ve shown you observed evolution, the link I provided shows transitions from one species to another, all of the recent advances in DNA research have confirmed the previous studies speculating at common descent, you’ve been provided with the fossil record, which is a great deal more complete than you make it out to be and you blanketly reject all of the evidence based solely on faith. The people you wrongly accuse of being fanatics are simply stating that if you want to challenge the most complete and logical interpretation of all of the data we’ve collected or the last couple centuries in favor of superstition then do it on your own and don’t try to use a science class as a religious indoctrination center.

Evolution does not contradict most religious sects, remember that thread where dozens of folks here on these boards stepped up and made their statements of faith? And yet, out of all of those folks only two seem to be so entrenched in their own dogma that they can’t reconcile the real world with their faith.

I know that the ‘evolution camp’ does have it’s fanatics, there are a small minority of folks in any group that will take an idea and run to extremes with it though it does tend to happen a lot more often when that belief revolves around the Big Bearded One on the Golden Thone but the only zealots I see here are throttle and push, who’s arguement against evolution amounts to “I know you are but what am I?” Can’t really take this discussion seriously anymore, it’s like trying to convince a 3 year old the moon isn’t made of green cheese.

263

Thanks guys for the debate. Seriously.

We have probably hit a dead end and it is to be expected. Each of us has essentially accused the other of the same sins here. Impasse, I guess. But it still was lively. See ya next time. (Maybe we can get along on the Ass Worship Thread?)

264

You know what they say about religion and politics :slight_smile: But a nice ass is universal, lol.

265

[quote]Xvim wrote:
Dude, I didn’t just ‘say’ evolution is a fact, I provided evidence backed by centuries of research and both biological and antrhopological evidence to support that claim. We’ve shown you observed evolution, the link I provided shows transitions from one species to another, all of the recent advances in DNA research have confirmed the previous studies speculating at common descent, you’ve been provided with the fossil record, which is a great deal more complete than you make it out to be and you blanketly reject all of the evidence based solely on faith. The people you wrongly accuse of being fanatics are simply stating that if you want to challenge the most complete and logical interpretation of all of the data we’ve collected or the last couple centuries in favor of superstition then do it on your own and don’t try to use a science class as a religious indoctrination center.

Evolution does not contradict most religious sects, remember that thread where dozens of folks here on these boards stepped up and made their statements of faith? And yet, out of all of those folks only two seem to be so entrenched in their own dogma that they can’t reconcile the real world with their faith.

I know that the ‘evolution camp’ does have it’s fanatics, there are a small minority of folks in any group that will take an idea and run to extremes with it though it does tend to happen a lot more often when that belief revolves around the Big Bearded One on the Golden Thone but the only zealots I see here are throttle and push, who’s arguement against evolution amounts to “I know you are but what am I?” Can’t really take this discussion seriously anymore, it’s like trying to convince a 3 year old the moon isn’t made of green cheese.[/quote]

Perfect. Well said.

266

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Whoops! You screwed up by using a quote that mentions Newton and Einstein. Both believed in I.D. and special creation.[/quote]

Let’s see who’s screwing up by bringing in Newton and Einstein for support…

It would’ve been difficult for Newton to support the Theory of Evolution, since he’d been dead for over a century when Darwin published it. Will you claim every person dead before 1859 as supporters of I.D.?

As for Einstein, Bible thumpers should be careful when using him to support their childlike view of the world. Atheists too, for that matter, as he wasn’t much interested in philosophical debates, preferring to let Physics show the truth of the universe.

Einstein often used the term “God” to refer to the Laws of Nature. When he said “God” he didn’t mean the character from the Bible.

Relevant quotes:

From a correspondence between Ensign Guy H. Raner and Albert Einstein in 1945 and 1949. Einstein responds to the accusation that he was converted by a Jesuit priest: “I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life. I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.” “I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from religious indoctrination received in youth.”

  • Freethought Today, November 2004

Many other Einstein quotes and writings show that rather than being agnostic, his views seem to be more of the deist conviction. He was atheist towards the God of Christianity; but from what I’ve read of Einstein, I think he did believe in a higher power, but of the kind that sets the universe in motion and nothing more.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

  • From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954. It is included in Albert Einstein: The Human Side

He also pronounced himself on what he thought of the possibility for afterlife:

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own – a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism.

  • Albert Einstein

His view on religions:

“During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world… The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes… In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.”

  • Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium

In all fairness, Einstein did, at one point in his life, believe faithfully in the Bible:

“Thus I came…to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true…Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience…an attitude which has never left me.”

  • The Quotable Einstein

So, at age 12, young Albert figured out that the Bible was just a book of stories, much of which couldn’t be true.

At least Newton was well known for loving his Bible. Unfortunately, he never heard of Darwin. Any debate about Newton vs. the theory of evolution would come down to whether he loved his Bible more than Science. Flip a coin.

You might want to actually learn something of the names you throw around to support your kiddy fantasies, it would give you a modicum of credibility and allow you to at least pretend to know what you’re talking about.

Right now, ID is being killed by ID supporters more than by scientists, as the latter at least strive for intellectual honesty.

267

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Thanks guys for the debate. Seriously.

We have probably hit a dead end and it is to be expected. Each of us has essentially accused the other of the same sins here. Impasse, I guess. But it still was lively. See ya next time. (Maybe we can get along on the Ass Worship Thread?)[/quote]

The only dead end we hit was the one you made. This has not been a debate. This has been those understanding science and the theory of evolution along with the place of ID, and those clasping their hands to their ears and saying “nah nah nah nah nah.”

268

LOL That sucks to get owned by pookie.

Y’all got any more? Maybe a link to some discovery or something by some ID “scientists” which supports their “theory”?

Oh wait, that’s right – you guys CAN’T do that… ever. Because ID ain’t science.

269

Albert Einstein, was a jew, so no suprise he did not believe in the bible past the age of 12. It’s also of no consequence that he does not believe in any existence after death, as this is also common among those of the Jewish faith.

270

Doggone it! I thought we had put this thread to rest but I couldn’t resist a lil more. Too many blind accusations that real scientists don’t support creation/I.D.

Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation? Here are a few.

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

Dr Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr James Allan, Geneticist
Dr Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr Bob Compton, DVM
Dr Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr Andr? Eggen, Geneticist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr George F. Howe, Botany
Dr Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr Pierre Jerlstr?m, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Prof. John Lennox, Mathematics
Dr John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr Alan Love, Chemist
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
Dr John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr David Menton, Anatomist
Dr Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr Henry M. Morris, Hydrologist
Dr John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
Dr Ian Scott, Educator
Dr Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
Dr Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist
Dr Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr Henry Zuill, Biology

271

More on the subject…

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?
Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early
Francis Bacon (1561?1626) Scientific method. However, see also
Culture Wars:

Part 1: Bacon vs Ham
Part 2: Ham vs Bacon
Galileo Galilei (1564?1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ?twist? and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?
Johann Kepler (1571?1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601?1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614?1672)
Walter Charleton (1619?1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623?1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 ?1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627?1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627?1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630?1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631?1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635?1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639?1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641?1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
Isaac Newton (1642?1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it?s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity?See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57?80, 1997)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646?1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646?1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy
William Derham (1657?1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662?1727) Physician
John Harris (1666?1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665?1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667?1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674?1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703?1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707?1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727?1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733?1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738?1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)
James Parkinson (1755?1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766?1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775?1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752?1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759?1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761?1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766?1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766?1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769?1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770?1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774?1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775?1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778?1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779?1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779?1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780?1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781?1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784?1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785?1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785?1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791?1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791?1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792?1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793?1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794?1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797?1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

Richard Owen (1804?1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806?1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807?1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808?1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809?1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810?1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810?1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811?1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813?1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817?1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818?1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819?1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819?1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819?1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820?1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821?1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822?1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822?1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
Henri Fabre (1823?1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824?1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824?1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826?1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827?1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828?1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831?1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831?1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834?1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842?1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843?1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844?1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845?1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849?1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864?1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890?1960) Geology; Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875?1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858?1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878?1940) Geology
Dr Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851?1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851?1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852?1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882?1954) Organic Chemist
Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (1885?1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892?1979) Surgeon
Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915?1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

272

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
Doggone it! I thought we had put this thread to rest but I couldn’t resist a lil more. Too many blind accusations that real scientists don’t support creation/I.D.
[/quote]
I just search some of the recent posts here and can’t find the ones stating that real scientists don’t support creation/I.D. Seriously, maybe I’m doing something wrong. Could you point them out? And then could you tell us what that has to do with anything?

273

Here’s something from that website where you got the list you forgot to quote:

“As far as we know, the scientists of the past listed here believed in a literal Genesis unless otherwise stated. The ones who did not are nevertheless included in the list below, because of their general belief in the creator God of the Bible and opposition to evolution. But because the idea that the earth is ‘millions of years’ old has been disastrous in the long run, no present day ‘long-agers’ are included intentionally, because they should know better.”

And…

"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not!

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years."

So this list includes those that believe the earth is a few thousand years old, because they know better.

274

LOL, nice post Iago, that was hilarious.

275

[quote]IagoMB wrote:

"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not!

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years."

So this list includes those that believe the earth is a few thousand years old, because they know better.

[/quote]

I agree…and your point is? (your apparently hilarious one, that is)

276

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:

"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not!

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years."

So this list includes those that believe the earth is a few thousand years old, because they know better.

I agree…and your point is? (your apparently hilarious one, that is)[/quote]

That the purpose of the site is to promote the Bible as literal truth, even in the face of contradicting evidence. The Catholic Church in England has just come out saying that only in spiritual aspects is the Bible true. Secondly, having a list of people with advanced degrees that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible doesn’t make it true, or erase the contradicting factual evidence as in the Gould quote I posted earlier.

It’s a variation on the Appeal to Belief fallacy in debating and logic. Having advanced degrees in a scientific field does nothing to add legitimacy to a belief.

278

[quote]IagoMB wrote:
throttle132 wrote:
IagoMB wrote:

"Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: ‘If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?’ The answer from this scholar? Absolutely not!

Let’s be honest. Take out your Bible and look through it. You can’t find any hint at all for millions or billions of years."

So this list includes those that believe the earth is a few thousand years old, because they know better.

I agree…and your point is? (your apparently hilarious one, that is)

That the purpose of the site is to promote the Bible as literal truth, even in the face of contradicting evidence. The Catholic Church in England has just come out saying that only in spiritual aspects is the Bible true. Secondly, having a list of people with advanced degrees that believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible doesn’t make it true, or erase the contradicting factual evidence as in the Gould quote I posted earlier.

It’s a variation on the Appeal to Belief fallacy in debating and logic. Having advanced degrees in a scientific field does nothing to add legitimacy to a belief. [/quote]

C’mon, Iago. I think you’re bright enough to understand the purpose of my previous two posts. It wasn’t that I suggested that ID claimed instant credibility because of the names listed but rather a counterpoint to several earlier posts that only stupid, religious fanatics who don’t understand true science would believe in I.D./special creation.

It is a myth that most scientists have an unwavering committment to the cult of uniformitarianism and macroevolution. The fact is there is a pretty good size cross-section of diversity of opinions out there in the world of scientists. The drumbeats from the Na na na na na (as someone put it earlier) evolutionists does often mislead the general public into thinking that only fools and non-scientists would believe in the I.D./special creation theory but objectively, that is just not the truth.

279

[quote]pushharder wrote:
IagoMB wrote:
… Having advanced degrees in a scientific field does nothing to add legitimacy to a belief.

Very true. Remember your own words here.[/quote]

I have never just used my degrees to claim anything. I’ve backed up my posts here with references and actual evidence.

280

[quote]throttle132 wrote:

C’mon, Iago. I think you’re bright enough to understand the purpose of my previous two posts. It wasn’t that I suggested that ID claimed instant credibility because of the names listed but rather a counterpoint to several earlier posts that only stupid, religious fanatics who don’t understand true science would believe in I.D./special creation.
[/quote]

However, that is what the site you pulled the names from is using them for. And it doesn’t mean anything.

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
It is a myth that most scientists have an unwavering committment to the cult of uniformitarianism and macroevolution. The fact is there is a pretty good size cross-section of diversity of opinions out there in the world of scientists.
[/quote]

Opinions yes. However, as recent testimony in the Dover trials states, there is no controversy in the factual evidence of evolution in the scientific community. There is no unwavering commitment and there is no cult.

[quote]throttle132 wrote:
The drumbeats from the Na na na na na (as someone put it earlier) evolutionists does often mislead the general public into thinking that only fools and non-scientists would believe in the I.D./special creation theory but objectively, that is just not the truth.
[/quote]

That was me and you’re twisting what I wrote. I wrote that supporters of evolution have backed it up with factual evidence and multiple references posted here. In response we’re getting something like “see, smart people believe in creationism” So what?