Revelations

[All Else Failed]

Am I to understand that you are able to use scientists back to the ancients, but I am stuck using only information gathered in the last 25 years or so? If that's the case, I can probably work with that, I just need to be sure I know what you mean.

I had a very nice converstaion with an extreemly pleasent little birdy that was nice enough to deliver a list of scientists for your enjoyment. I can take no credit for the compilation of this list, but I'll dig through their work for some "facts" for you. Actually, at a glance, can you tell me for sure if all of these people are out of their minds, and have no credibility? I don't want to waste my time on the losers, and you seem to be a blood hound at picking them out.

Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)

• Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
• Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.)
• Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert)
• Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
• Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
• Thomas G. Barnes (physicist)
• Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
• Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
• David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
• Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist)
• Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
• Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
• Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
• Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy)
• Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
• Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
• Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer)
• Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
• Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist)
• Duane T. Gish (biochemist)
• John Grebe (chemist)
• Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
• William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
• George F. Howe (botanist)
• D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist)
• James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
• Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
• John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist)
• Leonid Korochkin (geneticist)
• Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist)
• Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
• Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
• Frank L. Marsh (biologist)
• Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
• James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
• Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
• Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
• Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
• Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist)
• Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
• Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
• William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
• John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
• Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
• Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
• James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
• Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
• George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
• Charles B. Thaxton (chemist)
• William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
• Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist)
• Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
• Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
• A.J. (Monty) White (chemist)
• A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert)
• John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
• A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

I know we've been over this a zillion times, but I can never get a straight answer from you. What do you consider an iron clad, indisputable fact? Yours are scattered, and from random places, but I haven't managed to stumble across one yet!! Help a brother out mang.

Out of how many hundreds of thousands of scientists there are in the world? Creationist scientists are in the extreme minority. Its no secret that most credible geologists, archaeologists, botanists and the like support evolution. Are you saying that they are wrong? Every single one of them who spent their lives doing actual field work and personal research on this subject? Creationist "scientists" are merely letting their personal beliefs hinder the scientific method by ignoring evidence that threatens their beliefs. They have credibility, but when it comes to facts, I think the shear number of people in the scientific community that have worked on the theory of evolution and support it bare whiteness to their inability to get their religious convictions behind them. They no doubt contributed in scientific discoveries as listed above, but they are just in the minority when it comes to evolution, thats all.

Why do you think the overwhelming majority of scientists (somewhere in the high 90 percentile) in the world support evolution? I want you to answer that.


Specific reasons why most scientists reject creation science





Fact is what we KNOW at the moment. If numerous people who are very experienced in their fields test it, research it, observe it, get second and third opinions, bring it up to the international scientific community and the majority agree on it BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE, then it is scientific fact for the time being.


You also come off in this debate as very competitive, like this is some sort of "one up each other" match. I don't get it.

 

[icecuban]

You're forgetting that god would know that Lucifer would rebel. If he didn't he's not all powerful like the bible states.


We have free will in the sense that we can do what we like in life, but in the end, God has seen what you will do and knows if you are going to hell or heaven. So quite literally, what you did in life doesn't really matter since he knew from the very beginning where you are going to do.

Fat people are responsible for being fat, not corporations. The food companies do not help, but at the end of the day, YOU are responsible for what you stuff in your mouth. (Except people with glandular problems, then the glans are the cause.)


Christianity ans science are not in the same "just through a different prism". Science is the study of actual data, religion is just "I believe because a book tells me so". There is very little wiggle room in religion for fact.


You seriously don't think dinos lived together with man...do you? Various forms of dating have been used on bones and set them back millions and millions of years. There's also passages in the bible where it describes unicorns and giants.

Since we're on the subject of creation, did you read that link I posted about the impossibility of the flood? It pretty much answers all of the question you are posting. Here it is: flood_predictions Please read. They provide actual data that dismantles the flood myth.


Look, I know what the creation story is, Ive read the bible cover to cover a few times before. If you take the creation story over actual data and numerous scientific studies, you're ignoring the evidence.

i think first, scientific data is always changing....most of what we have as "facts" today are disproven tomorrow. as for the point on religion being what a book says, i'll tell you this, before i knew anything about jesus and what he did and said and such, i had an idea of what it would mean to be a perfect person, of compasion and such, and when i read about jesus, it was like reading about the proto-typical human that i envisioned right there before me. perhaps the people who wrote the bible had the same idea, but created a person on paper, i cannot say. then we should praise the idea!! but there is no proof, which gives us the freedom to choose the best to our standards, and to me, he is what i would have chosen, even if he wasnt on the list. i mean, if nothing can be proven, and when you get down to the basics, not even those can be, then we are given the right to start clean, and choose the best! and who wouldnt choose the best, if choice is truely what we are given.

 

[Magic P]

Doing well, guys. I wish I have more time for this. I am having a huge burnout for my studies waaaaaa *cry* *punch* *pulling hair* *hitting the wall*...

 

[IntruderLS1]

Why do you think the overwhelming majority of scientists (somewhere in the high 90 percentile) in the world support evolution? I want you to answer that.

How do you know this?

Fact is what we KNOW at the moment. If numerous people who are very experienced in their fields test it, research it, observe it, get second and third opinions, bring it up to the international scientific community and the majority agree on it BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY HAVE, then it is scientific fact for the time being.

So basically, what you're saying, is that there is no human way for me to post proof, because majority oppinion overides? When did majority oppinion start to determin the factuality of a statement?

You also come off in this debate as very competitive, like this is some sort of "one up each other" match. I don't get it.

You never stop saying things that amaze me. You have posted 10 times the amount that I have in this debate. You insist on trying to end it with the words indisputable fact, and making fun of our "magic man in the sky" (how rude is that?) etc.... I have tried in the past couple of days to bring a little more humor into this, and I can see how you can think I was picking on you, but as far as the debate goes, all I've started doing is mimicking your style of argument, in the hopes of demonstrating some points I've been trying to convey.

What you call fact, your sources call theory. I've told you several times, that I HATE going to Google in debates. I tried for a long time to keep it friendly, but you were constantly posting links, and directly challenging me to refute them if I dare. I'm now doing that on a small scale, but you have a problem with that too.

If I respond to the question you have up there in the first quote from you, are you going to view that as one-upmanship?

I don't get you man. :confused

 

[All Else Failed]

How do you know this?



So basically, what you're saying, is that there is no human way for me to post proof, because majority oppinion overides? When did majority oppinion start to determin the factuality of a statement?



You never stop saying things that amaze me. You have posted 10 times the amount that I have in this debate. You insist on trying to end it with the words indisputable fact, etc.... I have tried in the past couple of days to bring a little more humor into this, and I can see you thinking I was picking on you, but as far as the debate goes, all I've started doing is mimicking your style of argument, in the hopes that you see how frustrating it is.

What you call fact, your sources call theory. I've told you several times, that I HATE going to Google in debates. I tried for a long time to keep it friendly, but you were constantly posting links, and directly challenging me to refute them if I dare. I'm now doing that on a small scale, but you have a problem with that too.

I don't get you man. :confused

Various polls and surveys that have been conducted observe that the majority of the world's scientists support evolution, especially outside the US. You can easily find them. Ever think that creationism is usually isolated in mass numbers in the US because of the great religious following in this country?


No, you can post your opinion, but I think its a testament to evolution that more educated minds agree on it rather than creationism. Now, why do you think that?


So, you're against me posting sources that back up my argument? Thats what people do in debates man. I don't get frustrated with your links or anything, I just wonder where you get your info, because there's A LOT of "christian science" websites out there that are not credible.


I didn't know you were just trying to be funny, If I misinterpreted your humor for insults I apologize.

 

[IntruderLS1]

That's weird. I knew I had poorly phrased something up there when I wrote it, so went in and changed it right away, but your quote shows the original version. That's crazy that we both see different things in the same link.

Frustration was completely the wrong word. I had actually removed it only a couple of seconds after hitting submit the first time. It's too bad it didn't update for everybody.

I never have a problem with people posting links to share some background on their views. What I was trying to say (and failed), was I feel like in the beginning of this discussion, you discounted everything we said because we never posted any links, but when I started posting links, you seem to be offended as if I'm trying to diss you. This is not the case.

I've actually thought of a better way to say this... Evolution and Creation are both theories based on observation, and neither is science. The science comes into play with the testing of said theories. To you, enough science has been done to prove out evolution, but to me there is a matching level of observable science that lends credence to creation. (This is the short version of that long post I used the pictures in up there.)

There are questions in both camps that the other side cannot answer. Neither side can say the other is patently false based on all available evidence. Which is another point I've been trying to drive home. It concerns me that you are so quick to discount everything that does not fit into your view. I realize many Christians are like this as well, but remember that it's one of the things you don't like about us.

I love science. It has always been one of my favorite subjects. I think science is a testament to the minds of man. From a purely scientific viewpoint though, we do not have the luxury of simply discounting something because "it's absurd." Most things are absurd before they're proven out. Look at airplanes, cell phones, Internet, cloning, walking on the moon, DNA evidence, etc....

I don't dislike you, and have tried to point out not only to you, but to others that you're a smart guy. We're just having some communication issues here. I feel that you're not listening to me, and I'm pretty sure you feel that I'm not listening to you. I've been slowly trying to modify my language so we can link up, but I'm obviously still pretty far off.

If the conversation continues though, I'm confident we'll get there.

 

[All Else Failed]

That's weird. I knew I had poorly phrased something up there when I wrote it, so went in and changed it right away, but your quote shows the original version. That's crazy that we both see different things in the same link.

Frustration was completely the wrong word. I had actually removed it only a couple of seconds after hitting submit the first time. It's too bad it didn't update for everybody.

I never have a problem with people posting links to share some background on their views. What I was trying to say (and failed), was I feel like in the beginning of this discussion, you discounted everything we said because we never posted any links, but when I started posting links, you seem to be offended as if I'm trying to diss you. This is not the case.

I've actually thought of a better way to say this... Evolution and Creation are both theories based on observation, and neither is science. The science comes into play with the testing of said theories. To you, enough science has been done to prove out evolution, but to me there is a matching level of observable science that lends credence to creation. (This is the short version of that long post I used the pictures in up there.)

There are questions in both camps that the other side cannot answer. Neither side can say the other is patently false based on all available evidence. Which is another point I've been trying to drive home. It concerns me that you are so quick to discount everything that does not fit into your view. I realize many Christians are like this as well, but remember that it's one of the things you don't like about us.

I love science. It has always been one of my favorite subjects. I think science is a testament to the minds of man. From a purely scientific viewpoint though, we do not have the luxury of simply discounting something because "it's absurd." Most things are absurd before they're proven out. Look at airplanes, cell phones, Internet, cloning, walking on the moon, DNA evidence, etc....

I don't dislike you, and have tried to point out not only to you, but to others that you're a smart guy. We're just having some communication issues here. I feel that you're not listening to me, and I'm pretty sure you feel that I'm not listening to you. I've been slowly trying to modify my language so we can link up, but I'm obviously still pretty far off.

If the conversation continues though, I'm confident we'll get there.

I do think there has been a mass miscommunication between us. :tongue:

Evolution is a theory yes, but it science though, since it has used science to ask various questions about us and the earth. Evolution is a vehicle of science. I'd go as far to say that Creationism isn't even a theory, creationism relies on a completely unfounded belief , not science, theory does not equal Theory. Evolution is a Theory, similar to oh lets say, the Theory of Gravity. Theory with a capital T is different.



Its important to see the different meanings of words, Like theory. I can believe whatever i want, maybe i think Zeus is god, i have a theory that Zeus is god. This belief is substantially less justified then the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity or the theory of atomic energy. There are more then one meaning to the word, a scientific theory has gone through actual scientific testing versus a theory which has in no way been proven.

We first have to understand the scientific definition of Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Creationism does not fit this definition and is why they are therefore not simply both theories.

 

[icecuban]

what about intelligent design? evolution and religion should be hand and hand. the creationist story is great when deciphered i believe.

 

[memento_mori]

what about intelligent design? evolution and religion should be hand and hand. the creationist story is great when deciphered i believe.

no

 

[icecuban]

why not? is it not possible, can it be disproven?

 

[icecuban]

i dont think a person can say something isnt true because it cant be prooven, but id like to see them say it isnt true after disproving it.

 

[memento_mori]

no because it has nothing to do with the book of revelations :tongue:

ill take you on in the all you atheists thread if you want

 

[All Else Failed]

what about intelligent design? evolution and religion should be hand and hand. the creationist story is great when deciphered i believe.

Why???

 

[IntruderLS1]

I do think there has been a mass miscommunication between us. :tongue:

Evolution is a theory yes, but it science though, since it has used science to ask various questions about us and the earth. Evolution is a vehicle of science. I'd go as far to say that Creationism isn't even a theory, creationism relies on a completely unfounded belief , not science, theory does not equal Theory. Evolution is a Theory, similar to oh lets say, the Theory of Gravity. Theory with a capital T is different.



Its important to see the different meanings of words, Like theory. I can believe whatever i want, maybe i think Zeus is god, i have a theory that Zeus is god. This belief is substantially less justified then the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity or the theory of atomic energy. There are more then one meaning to the word, a scientific theory has gone through actual scientific testing versus a theory which has in no way been proven.

We first have to understand the scientific definition of Theory:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

Creationism does not fit this definition and is why they are therefore not simply both theories.

I see where you're going with this. I do agree with you that the Bible is not a science book.

Let's look for some common ground real quick, and we'll go on from there.

I can admit, not only admit, but I can clearly see that there is evidence to support evolution.

Can you admit that there is "at least some" evidence that supports the idea of creation?

I admit and understand that there are observable items in nature that seem to be contrary to the idea of creation.

Can you admit that there are observable items in nature that support the Biblical account of the world?

 

[All Else Failed]

I see where you're going with this. I do agree with you that the Bible is not a science book.

Let's look for some common ground real quick, and we'll go on from there.

I can admit, not only admit, but I can clearly see that there is evidence to support evolution.

Can you admit that there is "at least some" evidence that supports the idea of creation?

I admit and understand that there are observable items in nature that seem to be contrary to the idea of creation.

Can you admit that there are observable items in nature that support the Biblical account of the world?

I haven't seen any credible evidence in nature that supports the biblical stories. There may be similarities, but I think they are just that. Believe me, if tomorrow they found an ark, I'd convert to Christianity! :tongue: But I, and the scientific community just haven't seen any hard proof that screams "The flood was real!" Or "The genesis account is now plausible!"

I by no means will ignore any evidence that would suggest so, either.

 

[IntruderLS1]

I haven't seen any credible evidence in nature that supports the biblical stories. There may be similarities, but I think they are just that. Believe me, if tomorrow they found an ark, I'd convert to Christianity! :tongue: But I, and the scientific community just haven't seen any hard proof that screams "The flood was real!" Or "The genesis account is now plausible!"

I by no means will ignore any evidence that would suggest so, either.

Please refer to post #54.

I could post literally hundreds of pages of observed nature that would support our theory, but if you're not willing to look or consider, then I don't think I should waste any more of anybodies time. For the most part though, what I'm hearing is that you have made up your mind that all things religious are fallacy, and you know the answers beyond any shadow of any doubt. ... ... I suppose congratulations are in order.

I wish you the best of luck friend.

If you ever do decide you're willing to look objectively at information from a different vantage point, I (and many like me) would consider myself blessed to have the opportunity to share.

Peace out. :cool

 

[All Else Failed]

Please refer to post #54.

I could post literally hundreds of pages of observed nature that would support our theory, but if you're not willing to look or consider, then I don't think I should waste any more of anybodies time. For the most part though, what I'm hearing is that you have made up your mind that all things religious are fallacy, and you know the answers beyond any shadow of any doubt. ... ... I suppose congratulations are in order.

I wish you the best of luck friend.

If you ever do decide you're willing to look objectively at information from a different vantage point, I (and many like me) would consider myself blessed to have the opportunity to share.

Peace out. :cool

Yeah, and how many of these evidence come from Christian websites? Usually Christians will take "evidence" from YEARS ago and post it as fact, while their evidence has been explained already by scientists but Christians still keep it as "fact". I'll totally solid evidence. I'm not biased when it comes to hard proof, at all. Like I said, If I found evidence that god existed I would convert that second.


Also, with the Grand Canyon thing you posted, is totally debunked by now. Like I said above, the creationist view of how the grand canyon flooded is an old theory that has been proven wrong time and time again. The physical data of the grand Canyon, and various other canyons DO NOT support them being created by a mass deluge.

A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project
CH581: Carving the Grand Canyon




Now, here is some actual data from sites that explain how the grand canyon was formed, that I have visited numerous times because I'm a fan of geology in some areas.

http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/education/Foos/grand.pdf
The Geology of the Grand Canyon
Origin and Formation of the Grand Canyon
Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








I have a question, do you believe in the ark story?

 

[All Else Failed]

Also, this is Kent Hovind. One of the "Christian scientists" that came up with some of the creationist beliefs that many Christians believe. Lets observe his evidence:

YouTube - Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Age of the Earth





If you have time, check out these videos as well:

YouTube - Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Garden of Eden

YouTube - Critical Analysis of Ken Ham's Do Animals Evolve?

YouTube - Critical Analysis of Kent Hovind's Dinosaurs and the Bible

 

[Tegan]

Nothing personal All Else Failed, but after reading this thread, you seem extremely scared of people with religious faith. Like somehow we are going to poison you with our thoughts. *shrugs*

That said, anyone who reads the Bible as a literal work is a fool and a sheep. It's been translated, interpreted and edited so many times, there is no way to tell what the original language and meaning was in a lot of versus and books. It doesn't help that the current Bible was largely molded by a church structure that had it's own benefit in mind, rather than the true meaning of the words (aka the Catholic church). How many books were kept out of the Bible that had valid words and proverbs because the Catholic church of the time felt they contradicted the fire and brimstone message of the church? We will never know.

All that said, having the book mistreated by men doesn't stop God from existing, nor does it stop the basic premise of the Christian faith from being true. When I hear non-believers say "Well, if it's the word of God it should be perfect!" I always wonder if they are serious or just fishing for a way to jab at our faith. Most reasonable Christians I know are well aware that many parts of the Bible have been bastardized, misinterpreted, mistranslated and any number of things. Many of us are also aware that God did not reach down from heaven with his giant fountain pen and write the Bible. It was written by men, through prophecies and miracles sent by God. Is there truth in the Bible? Absolutely. Is there contradiction in the Bible? Absolutely. Is the Bible a perfect book? Absolutely not. Should you be a sheep and take everything it says as literal, rather than learning to think for yourself? Absolutely not.

 

[All Else Failed]

Hahaha noooooo, I was VERY religious a few years back, so I'm not afraid of religion in the slightest, I just know the effects it can have on a person and society, from a first hand point of view.