Posted on 11/19/2009 3:13:17 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Creationists are ‘liars' (?): Geologist Donald Prothero doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas on evolution.
I love the attitude some evolutionists have toward professional, scientific debate. Because creationist scientists do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.
The latest tirade from geologist Donald Prothero is in an opinion piece in NewScientist entitled ‘Evolution: What missing link?’1 I like that title.
His article was picked up by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK which reported, ‘Creationists “peddle lies about the fossil record”.’2
Lies? Are creationists really lying?
No!
It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas. It upsets him so much that he describes creationists in this way: ...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Well, if not having a degree in science is irrelevant to whether someone is called a scientist or not and Darwin can be considered a scientist with only a degree in theology, then there's no justification for the evos to reject any of the claims of being a scientist made by IDers or creationists, some of whom do actually hold actual degrees in science, something Darwin could never claim.
Thanks for the ping!
Well, I dare say, that "Evos" (as you so eloquently denigrate them) have far more proof regarding their position than do "Crea-os" (sp?).
Perhaps it would be wise to allow both positions to have their say - exclude neither.
Of course, that begs the question, what do we teach our young? Perhaps both, in an unbiased manner, and let them decide as they grow?
LOL no more than I would expect a Darwinist to admit evolution is a lie. See ignorance does carry some weight in the Heavenly Father's judgment.... But for those who know what they espouse is a LIE then that is a whole other story.
I’m tired of people’s calling other people “liars,” when they mean, “I disagree with their opinion,” or when they mean, “I think they have their facts wrong.”
<><><><><><>
Post of the millenia.
And neither side of this particular issue escapes that lightening bolt.
In their opinion they do. Creationists, OTOH, tend to consider that since the Bible is true and God is trustworthy, they have plenty of good reason for believing as they do in spite of what we are told the evidence is.
I don't know anyone who denies variation within species or that natural selection plays a role in that. Even the AiG and ICR don't deny that. Where the main area of disagreement is is in how MUCH change is possible.
Creationists say that it's limited. Evolutionists extrapolate and say that if it can go so far, it can go further.
The fossil record is what it is. It demonstrates that many forms of life existed that no longer exist. It can provide some evidence of what conditions were like at the time the creature died. Anything beyond that as far as evolution, is merely speculation and interpretation of the fossil record. Since no one was there to actually observe it, something that is considered a criteria for doing *ahem* "real" science, it really cannot technically fall into that category.
Of course, that begs the question, what do we teach our young? Perhaps both, in an unbiased manner, and let them decide as they grow?
That's what freedom is all about, isn't it?
That'd be my option. That's what I did with my kids.
You realize, though, that for all the years of having evolution taught in public schools, that the majority of people still believe in creation of some kind and prefer having it addressed in schools, alongside creation. And that for all the years of evolution being taught, it has not changed people's minds. They will still decide for themselves what they want to believe.
Mandating otherwise through government decree is far more dangerous with its resultant loss of freedom, than the risk of being wrong about an issue that, in reality, has very little impact on the day to day living of most people.
LOL! ;)
Kudos to you for raising your kids the right way. And for being thoughtful and cogent!
Likewise, I’m sure.
The bottom line is, whether they're lying or telling the truth, they're going to deny that they lie.
So far, that question has been treated as an opportunity to accuse "the evo's" of lying, rather than an exercise in reasoning.
Wow... that’s a great response and something I did not know.
So going to school to learn about God qualified him to pontificate on the alternate theories of the beginnings of life in a scientific light and be taken seriously? I am now a scientist (And a darn good one in my own estimation)
Just wow.
That's an interesting proposition. If you can't do it based on academic credentials, then you can't do it at all.
I think there's valid reasons other than academic credentials that might be applied. You're free to argue that there cannot be any other basis to make that determination, but I'll be skeptical of the objectivity of that argument.
I agree. The debate is short on precision of terminology.
Cladistics is nothing more than subjective classification, subjective because it's based upon the classifier's assumptions. Assumptions of evolutionary lineage, assumptions of characteristics lost or gained, seeing membership in a class defined by the classifier.
That and nothing more when all the mumbo-jumbo is stripped away.
I heard a preacher explain the Rich Man and Lazarus account. He showed from scripture that the lost will still not believe the truth after they die. I don’t known if it’ll extend to issues like creation, abortion, etc but the Rich Man still didn’t believe that salvation was by faith after he died. We know that because he wants Abraham to send Lazarus to tell his brothers; thinking that the shock of seeing one returned from the dead would be convincing enough to cause them trust Christ. He even argued with Abraham about it.
I kind of doubt they’ll come to any wise conclusion after they’re dead but will be even more darkened. They’ll bow, but I think that’ll be more like a sneeze.
Just a thought.
Yeah, and if we can just get those guys out of our party we could win and stuff.
Since all profs are upright, utilitarian, objectivist with no agenda other than truth: Since Columbia does naught be teach traceable facts: We should believe the prof. We should believe the leftist elitist. Obama has a law degree which qualifies him to call all those, who disagree with redistribution, liars.
It’s the ToE Litmus Test.
What it gets down to every time credentials are debated is that if someone is a avid supporter of the FRevo version of the ToE, he’s a *real scientist* regardless of his (lack of) credentials.
If someone questions the assumptions made that support the ToE and doubt the conclusions hard core evos have come to, then no amount of education in the sciences will earn the recognition that the person is a scientist and knows what he is talking about.
Here you’re willing to give Darwin a pass on the lack of science degree, but rather having a degree in theology because....... Why?
Why is there death? Why is there sin? Why did Jesus have to die?
Why does one need to accept Jesus? Sin. If Theistic evolution is true, death and decay is not caused by sin, but by a sadist God. If you believe in one, you can’t believe in the other. The god who created imperfect matter that keeps getting better = death is good. The God who created all things good = death is bad.
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.