Do you believe the Earth was only created a few thousand years ago? Options

[totes4totes]

Well I Googled it and found this article on “Why 50 Scientists Believe in Creation”. I didn’t read over it, but I think it gives 50 scientists’ stories. Evidently there really are scientists who agree with the things on this website, so I stick with my original statement that it never hurts to explore all sides of an issue.

A lot of those sciences (well I am starting to read through them and it is a lot of sh*t I can tell you that) aren't that well received. I will go through a couple of them:

Jerry R. Bergman. Northwest State College is a community college. He does not do any current research. When you google him, you are more likely to find his opinions on God than about Biology.

John K.G. Kramer is a lipid biochemist. His "evidence" completely ignores the fact that a lot of Archaebacter live in environments today that are similar to the environments they would have lived in 100 million years ago. He also jumps to conclusions about evolution that are false. Archaebacter are in a different kingdom than Eubacters not because they are old but because they still live in those same environments so they are almost completely different.

Arthur Jones. Does not do biology research. He teaches religion courses. It straight up says he works for Christian schools.

Paul Giem has an M.A. in religion and an M.D. And I don't know what kind of f*cking Carbon Dating research he is doing, but you can prove it in a college level chemistry lab that the half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years. And it is only accurate to about 50-60K years. So he is doing some sh*tty science if he is trying to radiodate fossils with Carbon 14. And furthermore, it is obvious with his experiments that he is trying to bend data to fit his hypothesis that he came in with. I believe hundreds of other scientists over his experiments for his book.

I got pretty tired after randomly choosing these four. But just quickly skimming some educational backgrounds, I saw that there were multiple people who obtained degrees (like their PhD) from a 7th Day Adventist institution that specifically works to integrate Christianity and Science, which makes me even less likely to really respect their opinions regarding evolution and creationism.

[leee]

A lot of those sciences (well I am starting to read through them and it is a lot of sh*t I can tell you that) aren't that well received. I will go through a couple of them:

Jerry R. Bergman. Northwest State College is a community college. He does not do any current research. When you google him, you are more likely to find his opinions on God than about Biology.

John K.G. Kramer is a lipid biochemist. His "evidence" completely ignores the fact that a lot of Archaebacter live in environments today that are similar to the environments they would have lived in 100 million years ago. He also jumps to conclusions about evolution that are false. Archaebacter are in a different kingdom than Eubacters not because they are old but because they still live in those same environments so they are almost completely different.

Arthur Jones. Does not do biology research. He teaches religion courses. It straight up says he works for Christian schools.

Paul Giem has an M.A. in religion and an M.D. And I don't know what kind of f*cking Carbon Dating research he is doing, but you can prove it in a college level chemistry lab that the half life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years. And it is only accurate to about 50-60K years. So he is doing some sh*tty science if he is trying to radiodate fossils with Carbon 14. And furthermore, it is obvious with his experiments that he is trying to bend data to fit his hypothesis that he came in with. I believe hundreds of other scientists over his experiments for his book.

I got pretty tired after randomly choosing these four. But just quickly skimming some educational backgrounds, I saw that there were multiple people who obtained degrees (like their PhD) from a 7th Day Adventist institution that specifically works to integrate Christianity and Science, which makes me even less likely to really respect their opinions regarding evolution and creationism.

You are when you suffer no fools and ball as hard as this.

This post has been edited by leee: Dec 21st 2012, 2:47 PM

[adamsmo]

Well I Googled it and found this article on “Why 50 Scientists Believe in Creation”. I didn’t read over it, but I think it gives 50 scientists’ stories. Evidently there really are scientists who agree with the things on this website, so I stick with my original statement that it never hurts to explore all sides of an issue.

None of their opinions are actually in their studied expertise. Not a one.

It's not that there are 'other sides'. You have a side - science, empiricism, etc. Then you have magical evangelical 20th-century thinking that did not even exist before then that you apparently embrace.

[Idol101]

None of their opinions are actually in their studied expertise. Not a one.

It's not that there are 'other sides'. You have a side - science, empiricism, etc. Then you have magical evangelical 20th-century thinking that did not even exist before then that you apparently embrace.

You said that "literally no scientist" would believe those things, so I did a quick Google search and found that. Like I said, I didn't read any of them. So you read all 50 of them?

And I'm really not trying to prove anything, except that people should respect each other despite their different opinions. Everyone has a reason for believing the things that they believe.

This post has been edited by Idol101: Dec 25th 2012, 7:46 PM

[totes4totes]

You said that "literally no scientist" would believe those things, so I did a quick Google search and found that. Like I said, I didn't read any of them. So you read all 50 of them?

And I'm really not trying to prove anything, except that people should respect each other despite their different opinions. Everyone has a reason for believing the things that they believe.

I randomly chose four and they all turned up to be crap. I feel like that is a pretty good sampling. But if you want me to go through 50 I can. Just don't expect it all at once.

When a person believes on faulty reasoning I am not going to respect their beliefs.

This post has been edited by totes4totes: Dec 25th 2012, 10:17 PM

[Idol101]

When a person believes on faulty reasoning I am not going to respect their beliefs.

I'm not saying that people should necessarily respect beliefs that they don't agree with. I'm saying that people should respect people regardless of their beliefs.

This post has been edited by Idol101: Dec 29th 2012, 2:39 PM

[leee]

When one is advocating something that passes itself as science while completely ignoring the precepts and methods of science and then demands to be taken seriously as science, the kind way of putting the matter is having one's cake and eating it, too. I'm not sure you want to know my less bowdlerized opinion.

[RWG]

Respecting someone's right to voice his or her opinion is not the same as respecting the opinion itself. It is not so much the opinion that the world is 6,000 years old with which I hold issue, but rather the notion that we're told to allow pretty much any opinion to sit on the same shelf as one that is grounded in literally millions of hours of research.

All I can say is that if I had a PhD in biology, astronomy, earth science, philosophy, etc. and someone explained to me how I had it all wrong on the basis of his or her faith, I'd probably feel really offended.

This post has been edited by RWG: Dec 30th 2012, 8:59 PM

[adamsmo]

A lot of those sciences (well I am starting to read through them and it is a lot of sh*t I can tell you that) aren't that well received. I will go through a couple of them:

I'm just going to succinctly sum this up (presumably part of your point)...

None of the scientists who sign those 'creationist' pledges are actually educated in any relevant fields.

Isn't the only scientist with a biological background who opposes evolution Michael Behe? Out of the tens of thousands of reputable, accomplished biologists?

You said that "literally no scientist" would believe those things, so I did a quick Google search and found that. Like I said, I didn't read any of them. So you read all 50 of them?

And I'm really not trying to prove anything, except that people should respect each other despite their different opinions. Everyone has a reason for believing the things that they believe.

See above. Among biologists, there is literally no support for creationism. Even Behe is part of the 'intelligent design' movement, and accepts microevolution (evolution within a species).

This post has been edited by adamsmo: Jan 2nd 2013, 4:28 PM

[ButterflyEffect]

Respecting someone's right to voice his or her opinion is not the same as respecting the opinion itself. It is not so much the opinion that the world is 6,000 years old with which I hold issue, but rather the notion that we're told to allow pretty much any opinion to sit on the same shelf as one that is grounded in literally millions of hours of research.

All I can say is that if I had a PhD in biology, astronomy, earth science, philosophy, etc. and someone explained to me how I had it all wrong on the basis of his or her faith, I'd probably feel really offended.

Truth. I actually had someone try to convince me everything I was learning in school was false and that the only explanation to the chemical world was happening at "the hand of God when he wished to do so". Absolutely disgusting. People have worked too hard to prove these difficult concepts just to have someone shut it down because it doesn't fall in line with what it says in a mysterious book that has close to zero scientific credibility.

As if God was standing by my beaker making my reactions happen. If that were the case he would have done a better job with it.

This post has been edited by ButterflyEffect: Jan 5th 2013, 11:12 PM