Juliod:
Isn't it amazing how creationist arguments survive falsification? I mean, I go to the trouble of looking up one of these "creation scientists" and Swatch (did he change names on us?) doesn't even try to understand what I have done.
Yes, I changed names - I like the short version better. You went to the trouble of looking him up, but you came back inconclusive and jumped to conclusions. Since it seemed difficult to pin down took the liberty of providing you with a few that I know will be easy to find info on.
I've looked up this guys papers. He has published not a jot of evidence or experiment in support of creationism. As far as science is concerned, he is not a creationist.
Like I said, you don't even understand what a Creation Scientist is. Not every evolutionist writers papers showing evidence of evolution either but they are still evolutionists. The point for that the evidence they find to be consistent with their axioms.
But this is the best howler from Swatch's reply:
Quote:
Developed resistance is not an evolutionary topic.
I think everyone here, even the YECs, will recognize that error.
There is no error in my statement. The error is your naive understanding of Creationism. Developed resistence is evolutionary only in your perception of it. Creationists don't reject Natural Selection, Speciation, Developed resistance, etc. You only think they do because you have never actually taken the time to read Creationist articles. Word of advice: know your enemy.
Special Questions for Swatch:
What's a "Pht"? What's are "Fads"?
Oh that... ya, that's my bad. I was very tired and during my spellcheck I pushed correct instead of ignore. I'll fix it.
USIncognito:
Swatchmaker wrote:
Lists of Creation scientists are not for the purpose of Argument from Authority, they are a direct response to the old evolutionist canard that there are no Creation scientists, are you yourself say.
Actually, yes they are solely Arguments from Authority.
Actually, no, they aren't arguments from authority. Maybe you didn't read the original thread in which this came up. My providing a list was, as I said, a direct response to Juliod saying there are no Creation Scientists. As I said, maybe you didn't read it, it doesn't matter how many Creation Scientists there are, it wouldn't make Creation any more true. In the same way, Evolutionists assert that all Scientists are evolutionists, which is an argument from authority since no one claims that all scientists are creationists.
My favorites, especially from the list I quoted above, are from people who died before Darwin published Origins and more saliently, before Watson and Crick discovered DNA. It's laughable to suggest that scientists who never had a chance to evalutate Darwin's theory, nor the fossil evidence uncovered since 1859, nor Watson and Crick's discovery of a mechanism for modification in the whole descent hypothesis would agree with a reactionary 6,000 year old Earth and immutable (and undefined) "kinds" descended from those that made it on to the Ark.
First, Darwin didn't come up with the idea of evolution or the idea of Natural Selection. Edward Blythe, a Creationist, published papers on Natural Selection 20 years before Darwin ever published his 'Origin of Species' (which I myself own and have read - have you?). "Blyth wrote three major articles on natural selection that were published in The Magazine of Natural History from 1835 to 1837.7 Charles was well aware of these. Not only was this one of the leading zoological journals of that time, in which his friends Henslow, Jenyns and Lyell had all published articles, but also it seems that the University of Cambridge, England, has Darwin’s own copies of the issues containing the Blyth articles, with Charles’s handwritten notes in the margins." (
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... nchild.asp)
The discovery of DNA did nothing for evolutionary science as it is supporting evidence for the complexity of life and, in fact, this pushed Crick to agree that DNA is the result of intelligent design. But since evidence is never enough for evolutionists to consider an alernative, he decided that aliens were the intelligence which seeded life on earth - which doesn't solve the issue of life evolving from non-living chemicals but rather pushes it out into space where it can't be tested.
Creationism was not the only option before Darwin, whose understanding of the Bible and Creation were as naive as your own - thinking that somehow the Bible taught the fixity of species, which is entirely false. I could same the same about Darwin. If only he had the chance to review the modern findings of science which again and again support a young earth and the Biblical account of Creation, despite the ignorance of evolutionary advocates.
Ironically just last night I was reading a Time editorial by Charles Krauthammer weighing in on the ID issue. He took offense to suggestions that Kepler would be considered a Creationist since he idea of Eliptical orbits went against God's perfect plan of Circular orbits and was considered a heretic.
I don't really care what Krauthammer finds offensive, facts are facts. A creationist is a creationist no matter when he lived and no matter how much you speculate about what he may have thought. And by the way, eliptical orbits do not go against God's perfect plan. No where does the Bible say anything about Circular orbits. In fact, this is another example of where the church had compromised with the popular secular view of Ptolemy, which you confuse with church doctrine. Kepler wasn't a heretic and he certainly wasn't an evolutionist. He went against the majority in his day. What makes you think he would go with the crowd today, as you have done?
I realize you're a newbie here Swatch, but have you never debated on-line before? Have you never taken the time to investigate whether Creationist claims hold water (wink, Flood reference)? Have you never heard of Google?
I have debated online and your ignorance is orthodoxy among evolutionists. In fact, I am obviously the only on between myself, Juliod and USIncognito who has taken the time to investigate the claims of Creationists (as well as Evolutionists). I do google, but I also read books. have you read Darwin's 'Origin of Species'? Johanson's 'The Beginnings of Humankind'? Futuyma's 'Science on trial: The Case for Evolution'? Have you ever actually read the articles written by Creation Scientists? Have you read Dr Sarfati's 'Refuting Evolution' or Philip Johnson's 'Darwin on Trial' or Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'? Do you read Scientific American or National Geographic? I wonder what you have read other than the sad straw man arguments of your fellow believers.
Actually there is no debate, the facts are well known. "...Dr Damadian had been awarded the United States’ National Medal of Technology. He has also been inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, alongside Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright brothers, where he was awarded the Lincoln-Edison medal.
(At the time, Dr Damadian’s patents on the MRI scanner invention had been infringed. A jury decision in his favour had been inexplicably overturned by the judge in favour of the companies that had exploited his ideas. However, three years later, the US Supreme Court overruled in his favour.)
In 2003, the Nobel Prize for Medicine went to the breakthrough field of diagnostic MRI scanning. It was shared by two scientists. But, to the stunned disbelief of virtually all who worked in that field, these did not include Raymond Damadian, even though the terms allow for up to three people to share the award. "
I suggest you do some actual research ratehr then just doing a 5 minute google search. But then you might not find the result you want so perhaps it's not such a good idea afterall. The only controversy on Dr Damadian is that evolutionists are so prjudiced against Creationists that they refused to acknowledge his research and award him the nobel prize. Lucky for yuo because it gives you an excuse, however a lame one, to reject him as the inventor of MRI. His awards say otherwise and so would your research if you actually did any.
Like I said, at least go beyond a 5 minute google search and then assume that you are correct without actually looking into the matter.
Wait! What? They publish papers? Creationist papers? In biology or geology journals? That actually survive peer review (unlike your citations)?
? Is this news to you? Wow, I knew you guys didn't do your homework but i had no idea it was this bad.
