Honest opinions from Christians please

[starlite]

Science has proven beyond any doubt that we are at least 60, 000 years old for homo-sapiens, then we have all of the other variations of man prior.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]From time to time, new methods of dating are developed. How reliable are these? Regarding one known as thermoluminescence, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]New[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Encyclopædia[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Britannica[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 5, p. 509) says: “Hope rather than accomplishment mainly characterizes the status of thermoluminescence dating at the present time.” Also, [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Science[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] (August 28, 1981, p. 1003) reports that a skeleton showing an age of 70,000 years by amino acid racemization gave only 8,300 or 9,000 years by radioactive dating.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Popular[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Science[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] (November 1979, p. 81) reports that physicist Robert Gentry “believes that all of the dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” The article points out that his findings would lead to the conclusion that “man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Keep in mind that truly reliable evidence of man’s activity on earth is given, not in millions of years, but in thousands. For example, in [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Fate[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]of[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Earth[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] we read: “Only six or seven thousand years ago . . . civilization emerged, enabling us to build up a human world.”[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Last[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Two[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Million[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Years[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif] states: “In the Old World, most of the critical steps in the farming revolution were taken between 10,000 and 5000 BC.” It also says: “Only for the last 5000 years has man left written records.” The fact that the fossil record shows modern man suddenly appearing on earth, and that reliable historical records are admittedly recent, harmonizes with the Bible’s chronology for human life on earth.
Respectfully I ask...."What has science proven?"
[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

There is evidence of a global flood, there is also evidence against it. It matters on what you choose to believe. It is like asking how the dinosaurs died? Evidence for this and that exist, what do you believe.

You're mistaken. Maybe someone has been lying to you. The evidence is clear that there never has been, or could possibly be, a worldwide flood. It doesn't take much tought to figure out why. For starters, there's not enough water on earth to cover the entire planet. What makes the difference is whether you basically accept science, its methods and discoveries, or reject it. Because there is overwhelming consensus among geologists, biologists, antrhopologists and geographers that there has never been a world-wide flood.

Besides, if you believe all humans came out of Africa via evolution... then at one time we were all together. A regional flood of mass proportions (such as the making of the Mediteranean Sea), would have been viewed as a world wide event; as that was the known world. For many, many centuries (to most people) the world was only what they could see. The world was flat indeed.

Exactly. Because the Bible was written by people who never traveled more than ten miles from their home, a large flood was seen by them as global, when in fact it only covered a small fraction of the world. Now how again does this support the Bible as being true?

Either way, it is stated that these were the words of a man, listed above.... not of God.

Well the whole Bible is the words of men; duh. That's the point.

You said you had hundreds of examples of follies in the Bible, please list them or retort to my comments that address your OP.

Oh, you know, the sun standing still in the sky, talking snakes, all life on earth destroyed, people created out of earth, being able to see the entire earth from one spot, destruction of all life on the planet other than one human family and what they could take on a boat, a talking donkey, people rising from the dead, women getting pregnant without sex, all that mythological stuff.

 

[Autodidact]

Well said Comet, Im going to like you I know it, I can only add that we do not know the date of the flood, and to my mind the language of the Bible does state that the flood was global not local, however the statement earlier that there is not enough water on the earth to achieve such a thing is false, there is enough water, depending upon the nature of ones theology the flood ie main event last forty days but the waters took a year or so to go back to normal, as we do not know the date we cannot know the geography.

Please show your math. Be sure to include Mt. Everest in your calculations.

 

[Autodidact]

Question 1: 6000 years: this takes into account that everything was created in seven days and within 2000 years the flood happened and about 1000 years later egypt was around. the 60000 years of evolutionist ideology refers to homo inferior's like cavemen, and supposed java men which would be skipped if man was created instantly.

Question 2: global flood. 2 things first of all did you know that in almost every country the natives have a tale of the flood this makes it seem global. second in the bible it says the water came from above and below. this means that if there was subterrainian water it would have seeped up too. this process would make thecore samples and sediment layers uneven.

Question 3 that line was taken from a line of poetry from a common hebrew poem at the time. it is somewhat alike me quoting a movie reference. and furthermore. you cannot relly expect that a an observation means that i am denying a scientific fact. when i swing a ball on a string around i'm actually swinging it in a innumerable number of straight lines (centrifugal force vs Centrepital force) doesn't make me incorrect

It would be easier to respond if you wrote in complete sentences. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the earth is 6000 years old and there was a global flood 4000 years ago that destroyed virtually all life on the planet, is that right?

By "evolutionist ideology" you mean almost all of modern science, geology, biology, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology, physics, paleontology, archeology and more? It's all wrong, and the Bible is right?

 

[Autodidact]

Ocean trenches, fissures in the earths crust making boiling seas creating wild weather systems (one of the theories), God flooded the whole planet but not all exactly in the same second, hour or day.
It took forty days and a year to drain, there is enough water.

Would you be so kind as to try a sentence or two? It's hard to tell what you're saying.

 

[Autodidact]

The whole planet was never fully covered at exactly the same time, but over forty days the whole world saw flood, ie and to repeat the who world was not covered in a seemless pond of water, flood waters move, these flood waters moved via the hand of God and the whole land was flooded, not all exactly at the same time but over forty days.

As to your link I will read it but I will have to do it next evening as bed is a calling me, is it ok to quiz you on the facts of the link should I need too?

So if I understand you right, what you're saying is that one day California is underwater, then the water rushes over to say Hawaii, and a few days later to Japan, India and so forth, meanwhile draining from California and Hawaii, so that at some point within the 40 days every spot on earth is wet, but never all of it at once?

Before I start pointing out how scientifically ridiculous this hypothesis is, have you tracked it against the Bible at all?

For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth. 18 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and the entire human race. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; human beings and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark. 24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Does that sound like the sloshing process you're describing?

 

[starlite]

The sun goes up and down. The earth orbit the sun and may give this appearance to assuming people- but if the bible was the word of god then this literary error would not have occurred.

Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today. For example, the Bible mentions “the sunrising.” (Nu 2:3; 34:15) Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it. But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief. These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs. It is common to hear someone say, ‘it is sunrise,’ or ‘the sun has set,’ or ‘the sun traveled across the sky.’
​

Also, regarding the shape of the earth, the Hebrew word chugh translated “circle” may be rendered “sphere.” Interestingly, only a spherical object appears as a circle from every angle. Far ahead of his time, then, the prophet Isaiah recorded a statement that is scientifically sound and free from ancient myths. So, technically speaking, the earth is an oblate spheroid. It is slightly flattened at the poles.​

​

 

[starlite]

Where does the Bible, itself say this? Please quote me the verse, or do you jump to your own conclusions here? Perhaps you jump to the conclustions of Fundamentalists, which not all here are.

A little something to chew on.....Abraham was 75 years old when he entered Canaan in 1943 B.C.E. Now it is possible to date the stream of time farther back, to the days of Noah. This is done by use of the time periods supplied for us in Genesis 11:10 to 12:4. This reckoning, which gives a total of 427 years, is made as follows:

From the beginning of the
Deluge to Arpachshad’s birth 2 years

Then to the birth of Shelah 35 “

To the birth of Eber 30 “

To the birth of Peleg 34 “

To the birth of Reu 30 “

To the birth of Serug 32 “

To the birth of Nahor 30 “

To the birth of Terah 29 “

To the death of Terah, when
Abraham was 75 years old 205 “

Total 427 years

Adding 427 years to 1943 B.C.E. brings us to 2370 B.C.E. Thus the timetable of the Bible shows that the Deluge of Noah’s day began in 2370 B.C.E.

From 2370 B.C.E. to 4026 B.C.E. Going still farther back in the stream of time, we find that the Bible dates the period from the Deluge all the way to Adam’s creation. This is determined by Genesis 5:3-29 and 7:6, 11. The time count is summarized below:

From Adam’s creation to
the birth of Seth 130 years

Then to the birth of Enosh 105 “

To the birth of Kenan 90 “

To the birth of Mahalalel 70 “

To the birth of Jared 65 “

To the birth of Enoch 162 “

To the birth of Methuselah 65 “

To the birth of Lamech 187 “

To the birth of Noah 182 “

To the Deluge 600 “

Total 1,656 years

Adding 1,656 years to our previous date of 2370 B.C.E., we arrive at 4026 B.C.E. for the creation of Adam, perhaps in the fall, since it is in the fall that the year began on the most ancient calendars.

 

[Draka]

His post is accurate....the evidence is there...just open your mind and see it.

Look ma...no evidence!

If what he said is so accurate and the evidence is there, then you should have no problem presenting it. So go ahead. Give us this long list of accredited and respected scientists in the fields of geology, paleontology and biology that believe the bible holds more truth than factual science. Go on...educate us. :sarcastic

 

[starlite]

Look ma...no evidence!

If what he said is so accurate and the evidence is there, then you should have no problem presenting it. So go ahead. Give us this long list of accredited and respected scientists in the fields of geology, paleontology and biology that believe the bible holds more truth than factual science. Go on...educate us. :sarcastic

Here's a few.....

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
An extensive study was made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”[/FONT]​

 

[painted wolf]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Francis Hitching [/FONT]is a paranormal author and a dowser... not a scientist.
J. Francis Hitching - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John R. Durant[/FONT] wrote an opinion piece in the 1980's... pretty current for creationists, but still.
Other than that, I can't seem to find any information on him.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Niles Eldredge[/FONT] is often quote mined and cherry picked by creationists. To see his actual views on the subject one just needs to visit is website. Niles Eldredge - Let's keep evolving!

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] John N. Moore [/FONT]is a well known creationist. Founder of the Creation Research Society... hardly a non-biased source of information.

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Robert Jastrow [/FONT]is dead... its hard to tell what he would think of creationists using his words.

In response to lists of "scientists who reject evolution" I'd just like to point people to Project Steve.
All scientists, all named Steve (or a variation there of) all accepting evolution as the basis of Biology.
They just celebrated their 1000'th Steve! (now over 1060)
Project Steve | NCSE

wa:do

 

[McBell]

Here's a few.....

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
An extensive study was made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”[/FONT]​

You forgot to cite your source:
4um: Disagreements About Evolution—Why?

 

[Autodidact]

Here's a few.....

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif] You mean Robert Jastrow, the physicist? Why would you quote a physicist regarding Biology? Do you go to a plumber to get your teeth fixed? In any case, since Biology does not pretend to have solved the question of the origin of life, this is irrelevant to the discussion here.
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]

Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”

You mean Francis Hitching, the well-known liar and TV script writer with no scientific training or credentials? That Francis Hitching?
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]

John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”

John Durant, the sociologist of science, not a biologist? Have you been reading those old lying, dishonest creationists again? You really have to watch out for them, as they lie constantly.
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
[/FONT]

Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”

Do you know what the word "quote-mine" means? It's creationist for "lie." This is a quote mine.
​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

An extensive study was made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”

[/FONT]​

I have to call you on this one. I'm not buying it. What year is this supposed to have happened?

Are you trying to allege that there is some controversy within Biology about whether the Theory of Evolution is correct? Because there isn't. If you're not, what's your point?

 

[McBell]

I have to call you on this one. I'm not buying it. What year is this supposed to have happened?

Are you trying to allege that there is some controversy within Biology about whether the Theory of Evolution is correct? Because there isn't. If you're not, what's your point?

This is the only thing I could find:
Science in Christian Perspective

Well, I did find where this quote is copy/pasted into forums as "proof" that evolution is false...

However, it seems the above link is the source of the quote by Moore.
Interestingly enough, i have found absolutely nothing to confirm that [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the Geological Society of London OR the Palaeontological Association of England have ever even heard of him. A search of their site for his name reveals nothing....[/FONT]

 

[Autodidact]

This is the only thing I could find:
Science in Christian Perspective

Well, I did find where this quote is copy/pasted into forums as "proof" that evolution is false...

However, it seems the above link is the source of the quote by Moore.
Interestingly enough, i have found absolutely nothing to confirm that [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]the Geological Society of London OR the Palaeontological Association of England have ever even heard of him. A search of their site for his name reveals nothing....[/FONT]

Google tells me that John M. Moore has a degree in education, not science, that he is a creationist and founder of the Creation Research Society, but that he once team taught an introductory course in Natural Science at Michigan State University. He is most certainly NOT a scientist.

starlite: Does it bother you that these people lie to you all the time? What does that tell you about their position?

 

[Draka]

Here's a few.....


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Regarding the question of how life originated, astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”[/FONT]

That still doesn't say anything about the bible having more answers or that the bible has any answers does it? Truth is, Jastrow was agnostic. He never questioned that the earth was not billions of years old. He believed in the big bang. The thing about him that creationists like to pick and choose to hear from him is that he admits to the fact that we don't know the "why" things began as they did. The exact "how" and "why" of the big bang are not known. We know it happened, we just don't have answers beyond that. That certainly isn't saying the bible has the answers though...so Fail #1.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”Then Hitching concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”[/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Francis Hitching isn't even a scientist. He's an author about the paranormal. :sarcastic Fail #2.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]John R. Durant, a biologist, wrote in The Guardian of London: “Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, . . . over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. . . . But the tendency to be dogmatic persists, and it does no service to the cause of science.”[/FONT]

[/FONT]​

And this is supposed to mean the bible has more truth than science? Now, I'm still combing around trying to find the original article, searching not only the general net, but went right to the Gaurdian, but I'm not having much luck. I have, however, gotten the good doctor's phone number, so if anything I can just give him a ring and ask him myself. How does that sound? Either way, since this is still not evidence for your claim...so far...still...Fail #3.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.”[/FONT]

[/FONT]

That also doesn't say one thing about the bible having better answers does it? Here is a quote from him as well: ​

The creationists of the day got into the act as well. In a clear demonstration of how thoroughly political the creationist movement has always been in the United States, Ronald Reagan told reporters, after addressing a throng ofChristian ministers during the 1980 presidential campaign, that evolution “is a theory, a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science and is not yet believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was believed.” The creationist who managed to get to Reagan’s handlers later bragged to me that those scientists in question were none other than Gould and me. The syllogism ran something like this: (1) Darwin said that evolution is slow, steady, and gradual; (2) some scientists say that evolution consists of rapid bursts of change interrupting vastly longer periods of evolutionary stagnation; ergo, (3) some scientists don’t follow Darwin, meaning (4) some scientists oppose evolution. Then, as now, at least in the public domain, “Darwin” is code for “evolution.” The two are virtual synonyms. ​

I take being called anti-Darwinian very personally. It has always hurt, for I have always thought of myself as more or less a knee-jerk neo-Darwinian, someone who thinks the basic mechanism underlying evolutionary change, including the origin, modification, and maintenance of adaptations, resides squarely in the domain of natural selection. And I have always felt that, with one or two major exceptions, my version of how the evolutionary process works lines up very well with Darwin’s.​

I think that makes this...Fail #4.​

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]

An extensive study was made by the Geological Society of London and the Palaeontological Association of England. Professor of natural science John N. Moore reported on the results: “Some 120 scientists, all specialists, prepared 30 chapters in a monumental work of over 800 pages to present the fossil record for plants and animals divided into about 2,500 groups. . . . Each major form or kind of plant and animal is shown to have a separate and distinct history from all the other forms or kinds! Groups of both plants and animals appear suddenly in the fossil record. . . . Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor.” Moore added: “No transitional forms have been found in the fossil record very probably because no transitional forms exist in fossil stage at all. Very likely, transitions between animal kinds and/or transitions between plant kinds have never occurred.”

[/FONT]​

So here you decide to go back to 1972 and quote a "scientist" who other scientists adamently critique as wrong. He may have been a professor, but he was also the "Managing Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly" . So here you have someone who obviously got into the whole field with the full intent of trying to discredit it. My goodness, the man also edited a creationist textbook titled: Biology: A Search For Order in Complexity.​

Since you had to delve back almost 40 years to find a rogue "scientist" who supported your statement, I guess I'll let you have this one. ​

All in all though, you have been unable to prove your point. Ultimate Fail.​

 

[herushura]

I can explain Noah and Adam in astrology easy enough.

Adam is Aries, repressenting the fist born lambs, and the growth of life of spring,
eve repressents two things taurus and virgo, Taurus is right next to Aries, or by the side of aries, thus taurus(eve) came from adams rib(interchangable with the word Side).
Eve is a Cow, in egypt she is called "Mary Hathor" who gave birth to Horus, and her symbol is a cow, cow symbolizes Mother and life and Eve or chavvah litterly means "Mother of all living things"

the second personification of Eve is Virgo, when Aries*adam rises - virgo sets in west, thus Eve, as entered the underword and started to be tempted by maat, the tree of good and evil this repressent the scales of ma'at or Libra the star sign, she takes the apple, the scales become unbalance, reason is that libra sign begins on the autumn equinox and the day and night are equal, she takes the apple, the symbol of autumn, and after which night become longer, the serpants repressents scorpio, scorpio in hebrew symbolises evil.

Cain and Abel are the twins, the gemini, now in the greek story of Pollux and Castor, whom is also gemini, they both quarrel and castor gets killed.
Seth=Cancer / enos=leo / cancer=virgo / mahalalel=libra / jared=scorpio / enok = saggitarius
methuselah=capricorn / lamach = Aquarius / Noah=Pisces.

Now Aquarius, the man holding the Bowl, he is the one who floods the earth, but Noah the
fish also nnu/nun/deucalion survived in the Ark of the fish, after the flood finished.
Man/Aries begin to flourish again, if you read the first part of genesis, it stated the the earth was created from water, after which man and life emerged from it. thus a water/adam/water/noah-man is a cycle

 

[Jose Fly]

Getting creationists to investigate and justify the material they copy and paste is damn near impossible. Typically, their "analysis" into this material consists of "It says evolution is wrong and the Bible is right, so it must be accurate".

 

[challupa]

Getting creationists to investigate and justify the material they copy and paste is damn near impossible. Typically, their "analysis" into this material consists of "It says evolution is wrong and the Bible is right, so it must be accurate".

That's true. At a book signing the other day I had a fundamentalist approach me and I was told that all we needed to know to understand everything was the book of Genesis. When I asked if there was no room for evolution the reply was it didn't matter how old the earth was because we were created and all that was needed was to believe in what God said in Genesis. It's a done deal for them, signed sealed and delivered by God. What the heck would we know! Mere men and women of the earth...

 

[starlite]

Google tells me that John M. Moore has a degree in education, not science, that he is a creationist and founder of the Creation Research Society, but that he once team taught an introductory course in Natural Science at Michigan State University. He is most certainly NOT a scientist.

starlite: Does it bother you that these people lie to you all the time? What does that tell you about their position?

More to rant about......
Scientist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about the profession. For other uses, see Scientist (disambiguation).
A scientist, in the broadest sense, refers to any person that engages in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge or an individual that engages in such practices and traditions that are linked to schools of thought or philosophy. In a more restricted sense, scientist refers to individuals who use the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word.

Types of scientists

Archeologists Astronomers astrophysicists Biologists astrobiologists, botanists, entomologists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists, geneticists, herpetologists, ichthyologists, immunologists, lepidopterists, microbiologists, neuroscientists, ornithologists, paleontologists, pathologists, pharmacologists, physiologists,and zoologists Chemists biochemists Computer scientists Engineers though this field handles in technology, the uses of math and science (physics) is involved. Geographers geologists, mineralogists, seismologists, volcanologists, hydrologists, glaciologists, limnologists, meteorologists, and oceanographers Educational psychologists Library scientists Management scientists Mathematicians Medical scientists Military scientists Philosophers Physicists Psychologists Social scientists anthropologists, demographers, economists, geographers, political economists, political scientists, and sociologists Technological and agricultural scientists