Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
that's a bunch of compolete bull and you know it- and as for the 'creationism articles' Creation scientists don't present 'creationism articles' they present scientific fact which conveniently get ignored due to the affiliation of their faith and the ostracisation of anyone that doesn't toe the evolution line and that is fact- Many former secular scientists have been ostracised when they have started to suggest that there might be other explanations and you know it. to claim otherwise is a willful ignorance of the situation.
As well,the articles presented don't 'advocate creationism' they advocate science so yes, it's not surprising that only 18 were found to advocate creationism.
As stated, your attempt to villify the factual science of Christians is dishonest and disingenuous. Creationists WELCOME debate because the facts are on their side- what a load of rubbish.
afraid of peer review eh? Funny- several Christian science sites put out peer reviewed magazines- odd- you mentioned something about htem being afraid of having their work examined and scrutinized? And you might better check into the forum review assertion of yours as well- Christian scientists are constantly presenting hteir evidences and holding them up to scrutiny in peer review forums and gatherings.
http://www.trueorigin.org/links.asp
http://nwcreation.net/journalcreation.html
And this refutation of your rediculous assertions:
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:zryjAtBJFeoJ:www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php%3Fcommand%3Dview%26id%3D2640+creation+science+in+peer+review&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6
Relgious propoganda? Hardly fella!
Considering that those supporting 'creation science' were unable, in a court of law, to present a single example of a scholarly article which was denied publication because of its pro-creation content, I am dubious about your assertion that it is a "fact".
I am not seeking to villify the science done by Christians, when Christians and creationists do good science it gets published and recognized.
However, the facts are not on the side of either a literal reading of Genesis, or the more recent child of that story, ID.
There are no known serious problems with the theory of evolution. Claims that there are fall into two (overlapping) categories;
1) Some supposed problems are questions about details about the mechanisms of evolution. There are, and always will be, unanswered details in every field of science and evolution is no exception. Creationists take controversies about details out of context to falsly imply controversy about evolution as a whole.
2) Some supposed problems are misunderstandings, ignorance, or fradulent claims about what science says.
Man, I don't miss those days at all. If I cut and paste the entire transcript of every Art Bell episode it doesn't make UFO's a fact, and those old Evolution spam posts were just as silly.
Why is THIS thread -->
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768502/posts
locked up and this one we are on isn't?
I saw nothing CLOSE to 'bad behavior' on it, yet THIS one REEKS!
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no
one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.If
Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the
one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.Are we to believe that the
one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this? 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Timothy 2:13
If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
That is always the case. Creationists make their claims and want people to disprove it, rather than take the time to try to prove it. That is usually the litmus test between serious science and belief based "science". Creationists don't submit their "research", its like trying to submit a velvet Elvis painting to the Louvre. Ask CottShop to back up his claim that Darwin refuted all his findings before he died, he won't. Doesn't stop him from making the claim, however, when asked to back it up, he won't.
Thunderous golf clap!
He was the poster boy for Atheist arm-chair wannabe scientists. A perfect example of what you get when you have too much time on your hands - a limited scientific education - a disdain for God and religion, plus a loyal following. I think he is right at home with the other whacko's over at DC (e.g., CG-man, A2K, B-rog and a few others). I do miss some of the more educated folks that left, though, like RWP and some of the other real scientists/educators.
RWP didn't just "leave" RWP was banned.
You are calling Ichneumon ignorant?
This coming from someone who does not even know the reason for the Challenger failure?
(Hull integrity? Ya been watching way too much Star Trek)
This is a categorically false statement. State the line number in the transcript that you have interpreted to render this lie.
"That is always the case"
It is never the case.
"Creationists make their claims and want people to disprove it, rather than take the time to try to prove it."
Nonsense. Creationists offer far more in proof than secularists ever do, and their proofs tend to be more logical, and understandable than the feeling oriented secularist assertions.
"Creationists don't submit their 'research' "
Submit it to whom? They publish their research, just as the secularists do. Is there now some government approved board to which all research must be submitted for approval?
"its like trying to submit a velvet Elvis painting to the Louvre"
Really poor analogy. Nobody 'submits' any work to the Louvre; the Louvre purchases the works that they deem to be worthy of display. It's a free enterprise system, and an expression of subjective opinion. Are you telling us that the secularists are subjective? We already knew that; save your breath.
What "peer reviewed findings" are you referring to? Be specific.
Wrong. It is easy to spot by looking at a posters history.
I categorically, definitively, conclusively, unequivocally DENY being anti-science, or harboring hatred towards scientists.
I call bullshit here.
You parade your ignorance, yet you come back dumb-as-a-stump on thread after thread after your misconceptions have been answered ad nauseam!
I do not "hate" Dan Rather or any of the various other media heads that perpetuate(ed) fraud in an attempt to sway the election. But such things have taught me/us to maintain a healthy level of skepticism, to challenge rigorously, to inspect thoroughly. Something evolutionists seek to suppress by removing any challenges to Darwinism, though it be a tiny sticker on a book cover.
Get off of "Silver", learn real science and get back to us in a few years. At that point you will realize just how absurd this statement was.
Science is the kind of thing that invents the remote control, the MRI, the cordless nose hair trimmer. These are the inventions of science. Medicine is one of the most practical and lifesaving fields in which science is most applicable.
Ummm... no. This is engineering.
Believing that human beings originated in a pot of percolating primordial poo does not influence the research, discovery or development of the things in this practical arena of science. If you disagree, state for me a recent study in a reputable medical journal demonstrating how evolution affects the study of medicine or other practical, operational, applicable fields. If you do not know of any, I can make a few suggestions.
I call bullshit again. E.G, just one example: Ever hear of all the advancements in drug design because we understand evolution?
I am skeptical of interpretations or conclusions made by scientists to fit their preconceived framework. As I have said before, I am not anti-science because I oppose embryonic stem cell research ("science!") or because I'm skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Just as I am not anti-science for doubting old-earth evolution claims.
You are "skeptical to a fault" because your ignorance is astounding!
Now once again, I look back and realize I have A) given your mindlessly repetitive accusations more of a response than they are worth and B) sunk to your level of making this discussion about ME and how I feel personally about science and scientists.
No. You have tried to set yourself up as the "voice of creation science".
Unfortunately you haven't the first clue what a scientist is, does, or worse yet, you are clueless what science is in general. You I had hope for. Most of the cretards on this board are pig ignorant and will be so for life. - I pity them. You are being ignorant on purpose. That truly disgusts me.
Bwahahahaha! OMG, you actually made me laugh out loud.
Oh, my. That was stupid, Dave.
Plagiarize: to take and use (another person's ieas or writings or inventions) as one's own. - Oxford American Dictionary, c.1979, 1980
see also:Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary: PLAGIARIZE
plagiarize
One entry found for plagiarize.
Main Entry: pla·gia·rize
Pronunciation: 'plA-j&-"rIz also -jE-&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -rized; -riz·ing
Etymology: plagiary
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
- pla·gia·riz·er noun
One of the signature characteristics of an Ichneumon post is obsessive use of source citation. I cannot assert with surety that Ichneumon *always* cited *100%* of his sources, but he surely did so with more than enough regularity and specificity to satisfy the legal requirements of "due diligence".
Hell, Ichneumon often went so far as to track down and cite the sources of the creationist's talking points he was engaged in eviscerating - which citations creationists often fail to provide.
DaveLoneRanger, you have just issued a demonstrably false charge of illegal conduct in the course of an ad hominem attack specifically designed to slur the reputation of Ichneumon.
This is a textbook case of actionable libel.
Last time I checked, JimRob did not find such foolishness acceptable.
Good, maybe it'll improve your disposition.
Someday you may even figure out why you wish you could laugh.
Looks like you're trying to go the same route to doom as Right Wing Professor.
You: "This is a categorically false statement. State the line number in the transcript that you have interpreted to render this lie."
From the Decision by U.S. District Court Judge William R. Overton in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education:
The scientific community consists of individuals and groups, nationally and internationally, who work independently in such varied fields as biology, paleontology, geology, and astronomy. Their work is published and subject to review and testing by their peers. The journals for publication are both numerous and varied. There is, however, not one recognized scientific journal which has published an article espousing the creation science theory described in Section 4(a). Some of the State's witnesses suggested that the scientific community was ``close-minded'' on the subject of creationism and that explained the lack of acceptance of the creation science arguments. Yet no witness produced a scientific article for which publication has been refused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.