what gives credibility?

[Draka]

What makes you think that a scientist who is religious will ignore science so he can believe his faith. That's laughable if a scientist knows evolution is true and ignores it to follow the Bible then he can't really believe the bible fully and so isn't a true Christian or saved. You really think its that easy to ignore something that is s proven fact, if it were a proven fact, and instead imbrace a myth, if it is a myth.

That makes utterly no sense at all. Look, if someone wants to believe something enough they will ignore and rationalize and delude themselves to their hearts content. Fact is, one cannot accept literal Creation, from any mythology, and still call themself a scientist as in order to accept Creation one would have to abandon the scientific method entirely.

 

[Draka]

Most do not, which is precisely why most are not creationists.

I don't think he caught that bit I said about a scientist can be religious. Either that or he chose to ignore it so as to still argue.

 

[gseeker]

Oh I read what you wrote but I'm speaking of scientists who believe in creation if they have no credibility. I often hear people compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, okay do you think a scientist can not believe in gravity for religious reasons? You cannot just forget or ignore something you have learned if it is proven fact, and when that 'proven fact' shows the Bible to be a book of lies why would you ignore that truth, science, to embrace the lie, the Bible? Can you really see a highly intelligent and educated person doing that if evolution were in fact proven and if the 'evidence of evolution couldn't be interpreted to contradict evolution and point to the existence of a God.?

 

[Iti oj]

Options were too shallow

 

[gseeker]

Options were too shallow

I left the options shallow for two reasons. One. It makes people want to explain in detail their own points when it comes to the poll. Two. It gives more room for the conversation to evolve. "See, I do believe in evolution" lol

 

[mycorrhiza]

You cannot just forget or ignore something you have learned if it is proven fact, and when that 'proven fact' shows the Bible to be a book of lies why would you ignore that truth, science, to embrace the lie, the Bible? Can you really see a highly intelligent and educated person doing that if evolution were in fact proven and if the 'evidence of evolution couldn't be interpreted to contradict evolution and point to the existence of a God.?

Yes, I could very well see that. Faith is a powerful thing. However, most creationist scientists aren't the most well-read on evolution as they keep confusing it with abiogenesis or claim that it works in a completely different way than it does.

 

[Iti oj]

I left the options shallow for two reasons. One. It makes people want to explain in detail their own points when it comes to the poll. Two. It gives more room for the conversation to evolve. "See, I do believe in evolution" lol

Haha I more worried about it being a trap. But hmm. What gives a creationist scientists value is if the use science. Since no creationist use science their are no creationist.scientists

 

[Nakosis]

This is just to see who people think when it comes to the hot topic of evolution vs creation.

Depends on their field of expertise. Probably an evolutionary biologist would lose some credibility among his peers. However say a theoretical physicist might still have a lot of credibility in his field and be a creationist.

I imagine there is a lot of diversity among scientists. Just being a scientist doesn't make you an expert in everything.

 

[Sir Doom]

This poll is a bit too narrow. I don't judge credibility of a creationist based on anything more than the things they say and how they say them and how they respond to my inquiries. So that option isn't up there. Can you put it up there so I can vote?

 

[gseeker]

Depends on their field of expertise. Probably an evolutionary biologist would lose some credibility among his peers. However say a theoretical physicist might still have a lot of credibility in his field and be a creationist.

I imagine there is a lot of diversity among scientists. Just being a scientist doesn't make you an expert in everything.

Wow, that is the best answer I've seen so far to any argument relating to creation and evolution.
Shouldn't any science be considered a theoretical science though?

 

[gseeker]

Sir doom, always nice to hear from you sir, sorry for the limited poll, it is my first one and it is hard to write within the limited number of characters I can put down as a choice. If you are too specific you cannot post the possible answer because it would be too long. Just vote the best you can with the answers available any please follow my latest thread, it explains my motivations much better.

 

[Me Myself]

So your saying if the scientist is religious he has no credibility? That if he or she is Christian or Islamic that they must simply ignore scientific study and they choose to be ignorant so they can believe Scripture instead?

No.

I am saying that it is suspicious that only the scientists with religious agendas are the ones that argue against evolution.

If this was not something to be reckoned, then by all means cite me 3 non islamic non christian biologists of TODAY that scientifically refute evolution (and don´t make the most common mistake, I didn´t say refute details of evolution, but refute the fact that evolution happens)

 

[Me Myself]

Oh I read what you wrote but I'm speaking of scientists who believe in creation if they have no credibility. I often hear people compare the theory of evolution to the theory of gravity, okay do you think a scientist can not believe in gravity for religious reasons? You cannot just forget or ignore something you have learned if it is proven fact, and when that 'proven fact' shows the Bible to be a book of lies why would you ignore that truth, science, to embrace the lie, the Bible? Can you really see a highly intelligent and educated person doing that if evolution were in fact proven and if the 'evidence of evolution couldn't be interpreted to contradict evolution and point to the existence of a God.?

Inteligent people are twice as smart when decieving themselves.

Well, no not always, but they still do .

Truly, it is not the same to have a high IQ and to know when you are ************ yourself. Not the same at all.

denial is just that grave.

 

[Me Myself]

Sir doom, always nice to hear from you sir, sorry for the limited poll, it is my first one and it is hard to write within the limited number of characters I can put down as a choice. If you are too specific you cannot post the possible answer because it would be too long. Just vote the best you can with the answers available any please follow my latest thread, it explains my motivations much better.

If I posted the question:

What makes a evolutionist scientist credible?

-A scientist who has studied at the best colleges, in fields relating to inteligent design

-no credibility because he refuses the well known fact of the theory of inteilgent design.

Of course the obvious difference is that inteligent design is not a theory. I don´t think it even qualifies as a respectable hypothesis. And the best coolleges in fields refering to this hypothesis, can only be the ones telling you how far from science it actually is.

 

[gseeker]

No.

I am saying that it is suspicious that only the scientists with religious agendas are the ones that argue against evolution.

If this was not something to be reckoned, then by all means cite me 3 non islamic non christian biologists of TODAY that scientifically refute evolution (and don´t make the most common mistake, I didn´t say refute details of evolution, but refute the fact that evolution happens)

Do you distinguish between macro and micro?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you distinguish between macro and micro?

Damn! I just hate reruns ...

 

[Me Myself]

Do you distinguish between macro and micro?

Depends on the context.

You still haven´t answered my question by the way.

But okay, give me ONE BIOLOGIST that refutes evolution TODAY and IS NOT part of a religion that encourages disbelief in it.

 

[gseeker]

If I posted the question:

What makes a evolutionist scientist credible?

-A scientist who has studied at the best colleges, in fields relating to inteligent design

-no credibility because he refuses the well known fact of the theory of inteilgent design.

Of course the obvious difference is that inteligent design is not a theory. I don´t think it even qualifies as a respectable hypothesis. And the best coolleges in fields refering to this hypothesis, can only be the ones telling you how far from science it actually is.

I.Q. is the ability to reason and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence provided. People tend to forget that since today intelligence is considered to be the ability to remember information provided to them. Society seems to frown upon people who try to determine there own beliefs based upon evidence and instead expects them to conform.

Conformity is not your friend unless you think ignorance is bliss.

 

[Me Myself]

I.Q. is the ability to reason and come to a conclusion based upon the evidence provided. People tend to forget that since today intelligence is considered to be the ability to remember information provided to them. Society seems to frown upon people who try to determine there own beliefs based upon evidence and instead expects them to conform.

Conformity is not your friend unless you think ignorance is bliss.

So which of the two options you choose?

IQ may be good, but even people with very high IQ get it wrong. When religious fanatism gets involved, this is a lot more prone to happen.

 

[gseeker]

First if a biologist is not a Christian or a Muslim then they would have little reason to believe in creation as taught in Genesis. However many secular evolutionists have made many statements on how macro evolution is hard to prove and many have made negative remarks concerning macroevolutionary changes in an organism.