Skip to comments.
"You Creationists are Not Qualified to Discuss Such Matters!"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=4546 ^
| 2012 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
| Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
Posted on 04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT by kimtom
"..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy..."
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creationists; sourcetitlenoturl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
""..A common quibble laid at the feet of the creationist is that he/she is not qualified to speak about scientific matters relating to the creation/evolution controversy. For instance, Mark Isaak, the editor of The Index to Creationist Claims, stated that for every creationist who claims one thing, there are dozens of scientists (probably more), all with far greater professional qualifications, who say the opposite (2005, emp. added). Others assert that creationists make the elementary mistake of trying to discuss a highly specialized field
in which they have little or no training (Holloway, 2010). Do these assertions have any merit?
First, such assertions are ironic in light of other statements by some in the evolutionary community. For example, in the General Tips section of the article, How to Debate a Creationist, the Creationism versus Science Web site tells its followers, .. { Please see entire article}
1
posted on
04/11/2013 7:38:52 AM PDT
by
kimtom
To: kimtom
Funny... this was the final “argument” from a libinlaw, regarding evolution -
“It must be true because so many learned people believe it.”
2
posted on
04/11/2013 7:40:17 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: MrB
My response: I don’t want to be in your stupid club anyway. You might want to buy a flame retardant suit for later though, libtard.
To: kimtom
Creationists to everyone else: You are not qualified to go to heaven.
4
posted on
04/11/2013 7:43:13 AM PDT
by
DManA
To: DManA
>>Creationists to everyone else: You are not qualified to go to heaven.<<
I’ll tell Pope Francis and the billions of Catholics you have spoken for God on this matter.
5
posted on
04/11/2013 7:44:27 AM PDT
by
freedumb2003
(LBJ declared war on poverty and lost. Barack Obama declared war on prosperity and won. /csmusaret)
To: freedumb2003
No one is qualified to go to Heaven.
That's why we now have Jesus to speak for us.
6
posted on
04/11/2013 7:45:49 AM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: kimtom
Well it is amusing that even after years debating evolution so few creationists can even define it or show even a rudimentary knowledge of what it is and the evidence for it.
Many creationists believe that every present day species descended from those few “kinds” that could fit on a boat of known dimensions a few thousand years ago. This is evolution, and semi-common descent of species, at a speed never proposed or observed by any evolutionary biologist.
7
posted on
04/11/2013 7:46:32 AM PDT
by
allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
To: ShadowAce
Yep, I’ll listen to the Ultimate Eyewitness...
God created everything through him, and nothing was created except through him.
8
posted on
04/11/2013 7:47:41 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: MrB
I hear this indirectly even here on FR.
And “they know who They are”.
“..It must be true because so many learned.......”
A Good point, because I found the “intellectuals” amongst us cannot take criticism.
The smarter they are the harder they fall.
Even Apostle Paul was accused...”.... too much learning has driven you mad..”
But those with strong Common Sense, seem not to be so affected..
Thanks!
9
posted on
04/11/2013 7:47:43 AM PDT
by
kimtom
(USA ; Freedom is not Free)
To: kimtom
Most ‘creationists’ need to take a Geology I course. Then we can talk.
10
posted on
04/11/2013 7:48:12 AM PDT
by
onedoug
To: kimtom
This is more prevalent among liberals, but it is the same sense of imputed self worth -
I’m smart because I believe the same things that smart people believe.
11
posted on
04/11/2013 7:48:58 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: DManA
12
posted on
04/11/2013 7:49:13 AM PDT
by
kimtom
(USA ; Freedom is not Free)
To: kimtom
Natural selection alters specific species over time, no question. But one species begating another species, i see no evidence of that.
13
posted on
04/11/2013 7:50:19 AM PDT
by
central_va
(I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
To: allmendream
There is a difference in macro and micro-evolution.
14
posted on
04/11/2013 7:51:45 AM PDT
by
kimtom
(USA ; Freedom is not Free)
To: onedoug
There’s plenty that you can talk to, then.
Just look up “affiliation of Christian geologists” and I’m sure one can “talk” with you.
What do you make of the evidence exposed at Mt St Helens?
15
posted on
04/11/2013 7:51:51 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: MrB
The “learned” majority used to believe that the Earth was a flat surface with edges and that the entire universe revolved around it.
16
posted on
04/11/2013 7:52:43 AM PDT
by
reg45
(Barack 0bama: Implementing class warfare by having no class.)
To: central_va
-— But one species begating another species, i see no evidence of that. -—
Since when does science require evidence? /s
To: kimtom
Define micro and macro evolution.
What mechanism stops micro evolution from becoming macro evolution over time?
Would the difference between a mouse and a rat be a micro change or a macro change?
18
posted on
04/11/2013 7:53:22 AM PDT
by
allmendream
(Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
To: kimtom
The assumption is where the adaptive information comes from.
If you assume it was there to begin with, you come to one conclusions.
If you assume that it wasn’t there and beneficial information was added by random mutations, you’ll come to another conclusion.
19
posted on
04/11/2013 7:53:24 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
It requires an assumption and interpretation of all evidence through that assumption to prove that assumption.
20
posted on
04/11/2013 7:54:11 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-226 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson