Calling all young earth creationists!

[sandy whitelinger]

It says that the day and night were seperated before the sun and moon were placed and that gives us the morning and evening that we need to call the days normal 24 hour days.

I missed that part where it says that. So you are surmising that when God made the light that it was a focused source?

 

[Man of Faith]

I missed that part where it says that. So you are surmising that when God made the light that it was a focused source?

Not really, I try not to surmise or interpret anything when it comes to the Bible, it says what it says and I accept it. Now I will try to understand it if there is some question in my mind about the meaning. Not knowing whether the light was a focused source or not doesn’t bother me to the point of not accepting the creation narrative as written. You don’t think that evolutionists or abiogenesists know everything about what they accept before they accept it?

1 John 1:5 says that God is light and there is no darkness in him, so it could have been the light of God himself that was there, I don't know and it doesn't bother me that I don't know or can't explain or understand some things about God, the Bible or the reality and existence that we find ourselves in.

 

[ArcNinja]

Even still, plants need sunlight to survive.

 

[Man of Faith]

Well, first off, I'd most likely already be dead because it takes a hell of a long time for a star to die and we'd freeze to death before it would actually go out completely. If the sun were to burn out where do you think we'd get our heat? We'd freeze to death, period. We'd be dead. Forget flashlights. The sun is what not only provides the Earth light, but the warmth to sustain life itself.

Good point, but maybe you are in your home with the heat set at 80 degrees and lots of gas for now.

 

[Man of Faith]

Even still, plants need sunlight to survive.

No necessarily, there are plants that grow indoors in dark rooms that are only lit by grow lamps, so some light is all that is required.

 

[ArcNinja]

No necessarily, there are plants that grow indoors in dark rooms that are only lit by grow lamps, so some light is all that is required.

Yes, some light. Some natural sunlight. But I highly doubt that every single plant that was around at the beginning of time needed no light.

 

[Draka]

Good point, but maybe you are in your home with the heat set at 80 degrees and lots of gas for now.

You don't understand do you? The Arctic and Antarctic regions benefit from the warmth of the sun and you'd freeze from exposure there as is. Sure, you might be able to have some heat there now, but just how long do you think that would last without any warmth from the sun? The very gas pipes and heating elements would freeze. Now imagine, if at all possible for you, the whole planet like that. Ice ball anyone? Without the sun, this system...dead. Not to mention exactly HOW the star burns out and what it takes with it and so on.

Likewise, before the sun, here, nothing. There was no gravity to pull anything together, no warmth for anything to survive, nothing. So, no, in this system, Earth simply did not come before the sun.

 

[Youtellme]

When you talk about "both sides" you have to realize that 99.9% of all biological scientists (people with scientific degrees in a relevant field and are working in that field in some way) accept the theory of evolution and common descent as facts. The two sides are not equal, far from it. If you are getting you information from the internet you could get the impression that the two sides are more or less equal, but this is not the case. Among those who have seriously studied the evidence there is near 100% consensus. Even Michael Behe who you mention accepts the theory of evolution and common descent.

Tell me, from your research on the internet and youtube can you name three people who have a degree in biology and reject evolution? Can you name one?

The same is true for the age of the earth. 99.9% of all geologists will tell you that the earth is on the order of 4.5 billion years old. It is only uneducated people who have not studied the evidence who will give you a different answer.

99.9% of all physicists and cosmologists will tell you that the universe is also billions of years old.

Hey,

I was wondering what you thought of those two scientists I listed of belive in a creator.

Also, on your first point. Perhaps there are more non believing scientists than believing but have you considered the possibility that a lot of them are perhaps not being 100% honest about this, for fear of being kicked out of the club or being ridiculed or losing funding etc. Also, as a group, non-believing scientists are far outnumbered by believers, educated people of all walks of life with various backgrounds right around the world.

 

[fantome profane]

Hey,

I was wondering what you thought of those two scientists I listed of belive in a creator.

Also, on your first point. Perhaps there are more non believing scientists than believing but have you considered the possibility that a lot of them are perhaps not being 100% honest about this, for fear of being kicked out of the club or being ridiculed or losing funding etc. Also, as a group, non-believing scientists are far outnumbered by believers, educated people of all walks of life with various backgrounds right around the world.

This lady. Paola Chiozzi
Articles by Paola P Chiozzi - Expression of P2X7 Receptor Increases In Vivo Tumor Growth. | Pubget

And this guy, although, I don't know if he has a degree in biology.
Biometrics 2011 - The Lecturers - Tistarelli (bio)




That's all fine by me.

Sorry for not getting back to you.

About these two names you give, one is not a biologist as far as I can tell so does not count.

As for Paola Chiozzi, yes she seems to qualify as a biological scientist. I have skimmed the link you gave, and tried to find some other information about her position but I have not seen anything that tells me what she believes concerning evolution or common descent. Could you give me a quote from her that shows that she rejects evolution?

If you can show that the you have one name. Still I hope you understand that for every one you can come up with there are easily hundreds of thousands of biological scientists who accept evolution as scientific fact.


Now as for your suggestion that perhaps more scientists are afraid to admit to rejecting evolution, I find it difficult to believe this is a major factor. When you think about what motivates a person to become a scientist it is a passion to uncover the truth. When you read what a scientist feels about their work there is almost always a deep desire to discover something new, to add to the human understanding of the world. And let's face it no one gets famous for proving somebody else's idea is right. If Ken Miller find data that confirms Darwin's theory of evolution it will still be Darwin's theory of evolution. But if Behe proves irreducible complexity he will be famous for all time for Behe's theory of irreducible complexity. I think in science there is great motivation and encouragement to overturn the applecart, not to maintain the status quo.

And you say non-believing scientist outnumber believing scientists. Well the statistics I have seen from many studies over many decades indicate that among biological scientists about 40% say they believe in a personal "God". That may be a minority, but it is not a tiny minority. Don't be fooled by creationists who want to pretend that evolution is an atheist conspiracy. When I tell you that 99.9 percent of biological scientist accept evolution this includes scientists who are Christian, who are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, as well as Atheists and Agnostics. Of course it also includes Americans, Chinese, Russians and people from all countries in the world. People from all cultural and religious backgrounds.

I find the idea that such huge and diverse group of people, personally and passionately dedicated to finding new discoveries have been cowed by atheistic oppression for over a hundred years to be absurd.

 

[Skwim]

This lady. Paola Chiozzi
Articles by Paola P Chiozzi - Expression of P2X7 Receptor Increases In Vivo Tumor Growth. | Pubget

And this guy, although, I don't know if he has a degree in biology.
Biometrics 2011 - The Lecturers - Tistarelli (bio)

Paola Chiozzi is one of eleven scientists to sign off on an article titled:

Trophic activity of a naturally occurring truncated isoform of the P2X7 receptor

Elena Adinolfi * ,
Maria Cirillo * ,
Ronja Woltersdorf † ,
Simonetta Falzoni * ,
Paola Chiozzi * ,
Patrizia Pellegatti * ,
Maria Giulia Callegari * ,
Doriana Sandonà ‡ ,
Fritz Markwardt § ,
Günther Schmalzing † and
Francesco Di Virgilio * , 1


'In the P2X receptor subfamily, P2X7A (the full-length P2X7 receptor subunit) stands out for its size. Six of the 7 members of this family are comprised within 362 (mouse P2X6 short isoform) and 472 aa (P2X2), while P2X7A is 595 aa long. Without the long COOH tail (over 200 aa), P2X7 subunits would be within the size of the other P2X subunits, and the P2X7 receptor would also share the same ion permeability properties. Therefore it is tempting to hypothesize that P2X7B appeared earlier in evolution, may be by duplication of the p2x4 gene, and that P2X7A arose later as a result of acquisition by the p2x4 gene of the exons encoding the “pore-forming” tail. This hypothesis is supported by the close chromosomal location of the human p2x7 and p2x4 genes (12q24 and 12q24.32, respectively), and the high identity and similarity between P2X7B and P2X4 (45 and 71%, respectively).
source
​

So she can be eliminated. As can Massimo Tistarelli who is an electronic engineer, not a biologist.

 

[painted wolf]

Hey,

I was wondering what you thought of those two scientists I listed of belive in a creator.

Also, on your first point. Perhaps there are more non believing scientists than believing but have you considered the possibility that a lot of them are perhaps not being 100% honest about this, for fear of being kicked out of the club or being ridiculed or losing funding etc. Also, as a group, non-believing scientists are far outnumbered by believers, educated people of all walks of life with various backgrounds right around the world.

Hate to break it to you... but being a person of faith doesn't get you "kicked out of the club" or cause you to loose funding.

There are several prominent scientists studying evolution and biology that are people of faith.

wa:do

 

[Youtellme]

Hate to break it to you... but being a person of faith doesn't get you "kicked out of the club" or cause you to loose funding.

There are several prominent scientists studying evolution and biology that are people of faith.

wa:do

You're not braking anything to me, I knew that already. Perhaps my wording wasn't very clear. I thought someone else in this debate was saying that most scientists weren't religious, but I now see his point.

 

[Youtellme]

Sorry for not getting back to you.

About these two names you give, one is not a biologist as far as I can tell so does not count.

No worries! Anyway, if a scientist doesn't have a degree in biology but studies in a field of science that is related to biology in some way, why do you think their opinions on evolution do not count?

As for Paola Chiozzi, yes she seems to qualify as a biological scientist. I have skimmed the link you gave, and tried to find some other information about her position but I have not seen anything that tells me what she believes concerning evolution or common descent. Could you give me a quote from her that shows that she rejects evolution?

Here's an interview with her. Interview | A Biochemist Explains Her Faith

 

[fantome profane]

Here's an interview with her. Interview | A Biochemist Explains Her Faith

I don't see any direct references to evolution in that article. The only indication I have seen is what Skwim found (thank you Skwim) indicates that she accepts the theory of evolution. So you have named one of the many many biological scientists who accept evolution, and as I say virtually all of them do.

If your point is that she believes in "God" I concede the point. There are many biological scientist who believe in "God" and are making invaluable contributions to the advancement of science. And virtually all of them accept the theory of evolution.

No worries! Anyway, if a scientist doesn't have a degree in biology but studies in a field of science that is related to biology in some way, why do you think their opinions on evolution do not count?

Their opinions are not "expert opinions". They may be intelligent insightful people, but they are not experts on evolution. And more to the point the question I asked you is can you name three biological scientists who reject evolution. So naming an electrical engineer does not count, anymore than a automechanic or a dentist.

But for what it is worth I am pretty sure that the majority of people who hold advanced degrees in non-biological fields also accept the theory of evolution. People like Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Steven Weinberg, Lawrence Krauss. These are all experts in physics, and I am sure they all accept the theory of evolution.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not really, I try not to surmise or interpret anything when it comes to the Bible, it says what it says and I accept it. Now I will try to understand it if there is some question in my mind about the meaning. Not knowing whether the light was a focused source or not doesn’t bother me to the point of not accepting the creation narrative as written.

Yet that clarity is important in understanding the meaning of the "the morning and the evening."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Anyway, if a scientist doesn't have a degree in biology but studies in a field of science that is related to biology in some way, why do you think their opinions on evolution do not count?]

You see no difference between opinion and expert opinion? I sure hope you never find yourself needing to make a serious decision.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You see no difference between opinion and expert opinion? I sure hope you never find yourself needing to make a serious decision.

You have to take what you can get when your goal is to find only opinions that match yours.

 

[Skwim]

But for what it is worth I am pretty sure that the majority of people who hold advanced degrees in non-biological fields also accept the theory of evolution. People like Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Steven Weinberg, Lawrence Krauss. These are all experts in physics, and I am sure they all accept the theory of evolution.

Then there's NCSE's "Project Steve", which just welcomed the 1,248 "Steve."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Then there's NCSE's "Project Steve", which just welcomed the 1,248 "Steve."

From roughly 8 years ago: Evolution, ID, and "Steve" ?

(makes me feel old)

 

[Youtellme]

I don't see any direct references to evolution in that article. The only indication I have seen is what Skwim found (thank you Skwim) indicates that she accepts the theory of evolution. So you have named one of the many many biological scientists who accept evolution, and as I say virtually all of them do.

She's a JW and belief in evolution is not really accepted.
And I'll get to your second point later if that ok?