|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2007 : 08:45:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
So, your saying creationists have come up with some actual science of their own that is worthy of consideration?
Name it.
|
There propbably is not room for over 1600 examples so I offered the link:
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
This collection presents over 1600 mini-biographies of scientists of the Christian faith-including scholars, mathematicians, and theologians who advanced the cause of science. These Christians pioneered disciplines ranging from oceanography to astronomy, geology to biology, rocket science to genetics. The mini-biographies are presented in alphabetical order. Beginning March 2007 for ease of reference we are dividing each letter of the alphabet into its ownb separate page. Links to online websites are provided for those wishing to research a particular scientist. Researchers are invited to order the biographies by clicking on the hypertext, as well as check out the biographies published by Gale.
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was an English scientist and mathematician. He made major contributions in mathematics and theoretical and experimental physics and achieved a remarkable synthesis of the work of his predecessors on the laws of motion, especially the law of universal gravitation. Lunar Crater Newton named in his honor.
Isaac Newton, from Query 31 of Opticks (London, 1704): "All these things being consider'd, it seems probable to me, that God in the Beginning form'd Matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable Particles, of such Sizes and Figures, and with such other Properties, and in such Proportion to Space, as most conduced to the End for which he form'd them; and that these primitive Particles being Solids, are incomparably harder than any porous Bodies compounded of them; even so very hard, as never to wear or break in pieces; no ordinary Power being able to divide what God himself made one in the first Creation."
Newton, what an imbecile in the eyes of H.H.
H.H., what an imbecile in the eyes of Bill scott.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 07/24/2007 09:02:36 |
 |
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 08:55:01 [Permalink]
|
| M, how interesting, not a single biologist... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:03:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Siberia
M, how interesting, not a single biologist...
|
Look again...
You looked through 1600 bio's in 3 minutes? |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:03:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Siberia
Y'know, what amuses me most about people who yammer against science in general, is how readily they're up to use its benefits - whether by using a computer, driving a car or taking antibiotics...
|
You know what amuses me? The fact that the materialist and atheist have diluted themselves to the point where they actually believe that creationists cannot be scientists and scientist can not be creationists. Boy, they sure don't know their history.
http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm
|
I never said that. Let me repeat in bold: I never said that. I will never say that. Because it's not true. I say that people who dismiss science as useless bunk conveniently ignore when it's good for them. What I do say, is that there isn't a single, and I repeat that, there isn't a single creationist, qualified to study evolution (not a random mathematician who thinks he knows biology, by the way), who has succeeded in proving it wrong.
Let me prove this in a practical way: would you allow a philosopher to, say, extract a teeth from your mouth, Bill, since said philosopher has no dentistry qualification? Since he knows jack shit about dentistry, other than what he's proclaimed he knows - without any study, mind you? He may be an excellent philosopher, but he isn't a dentist.
Edit: or even, more so. Would you want a cardiologist to operate your brain, Bill? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/24/2007 09:07:16 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:04:13 [Permalink]
|
Newton - also studied/believed in alchemy. Alchemy seemed "probable" also.
Once again, great minds do make mistakes and can be misled. This doesn't detract from the good stuff Newton is responsible for, of course.
This is why the scientific method is the best tool we have to finding the truth. Mistakes get made, and they get corrected. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 07/24/2007 09:05:19 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:05:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Siberia
M, how interesting, not a single biologist...
|
Look again...
You looked through 1600 bio's in 3 minutes?
|
Neither do I care to see it. I'm not the one with a problem of delusion here, Bill. I'm sure there are people with enough time and patience to go over this aaaaaaaaaaall over again - which has already been done.
How many of them are called Steve, I wonder... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:36:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Newton, what an imbecile in the eyes of H.H.
H.H., what an imbecile in the eyes of Bill scott. |
Newton was a very smart man, but he lived in unenlightened times. I don't blame Newton for not subscribing to the Theory of Evolution any more than I would fault him for not knowing how to use a microwave oven, because neither had been invented yet. He didn't have the overwhelming evidence available to him that you have, bill. Therefore, Newton's ignorance is quite excusable, while yours is not. In short, Newton was a smart man who could not have known better. You are a very dim man who should know better.
You can't really have believed that pointing out the ignorance of a mathematician who lived more than 300 years ago excuses your own, could you, bill? You can't be that stupid, right? Right?
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 07/24/2007 09:39:37 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:42:26 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Siberia |
| I never said that. Let me repeat in bold: I never said that. I will never say that. Because it's not true. I say that people who dismiss science as useless bunk conveniently ignore when it's good for them. |
Let me repeat in bold: I never said that science was useless bunk!
| What I do say, is that there isn't a single, and I repeat that, there isn't a single creationist, qualified to study evolution |
How would you even know? You, admittedly, refuse to even look at the list of over 1600 scientist I provided. Let me guess, someone told you that no creationist is qualified? *sigh* Nor has evolution ever been proven true. It's just a theory, and a shaky theory at that
| Let me prove this in a practical way: would you allow a philosopher to, say, extract a teeth from your mouth, Bill, since said philosopher has no dentistry qualification? Since he knows jack shit about dentistry, other than what he's proclaimed he knows - without any study, mind you? He may be an excellent philosopher, but he isn't a dentist. |
I was never asked to get a dentists thoughts on philosophy or versa vica. I was asked to come up with some examples of creationists making worthy contributions to science. I provided a list of over 1600 and you refused to address it. Other then to say no biologist was the list, even though you admitted you did not look at it. *sigh*
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 09:45:22 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by pleco |
Newton - also studied/believed in alchemy. Alchemy seemed "probable" also.
Once again, great minds do make mistakes and can be misled. This doesn't detract from the good stuff Newton is responsible for, of course. |
I was not asked to name a creationist who made worthy contributions to science who never made a mistake in his/her life. I was told to name where "creationists have come up with some actual science of their own that is worthy of consideration." I provided a list of over 1600 of them. Newton probably being the most recognizable name of the bunch.
This is why the scientific method is the best tool we have to finding the truth. Mistakes get made, and they get corrected. |
I would agree. But to pretend that atheist/materialist/humanist holds exclusivity on science, in light of the over 1600 scientists I listed who subscribe to a creation account, is moronic.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:00:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
|
| Newton was a very smart man, |
And a creationist.
| but he lived in unenlightened times. |
People in the future will think the same of you.
| I don't blame Newton for not subscribing to the Theory of Evolution |
Me either.
| He didn't have the overwhelming evidence available to him that you have, bill. |
He still had the very creation itself, which is a smoking gun in making a case for a creator. If we had no creation then I would agree, it would be hard to build a case for a creator. But we have the creation itself, H.H.
| Therefore, Newton's ignorance is quite excusable, |
And one day so will yours be.
| In short, Newton was a smart man who could not have known better. You are a very dim man who should know better. |
Yet you say this in the face of all the scientists still alive today who reject ToE and/or subscribe to a creation account. Your arogance is a byproduct of your sloth, IMO. Your happy being feed rather then feeding yourself as this is the easy (sloth) way to go about life.
| You can't really have believed that pointing out the ignorance of a mathematician who lived more than 300 years ago excuses your own, could you, bill? You can't be that stupid, right? Right? |
Look numb-nuts, for the last time, I was asked to come up with some examples of creationists making worthy contributions to science. I provided a list of over 1600 with Newton being a well know example. If you don't like it that I provided such a detailed list then that is a you problem. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:08:17 [Permalink]
|
Wow , Ive seen some worthless arguements in my time but this one is just so new and special.
He didnt have the choice of being an evolutionist. Boy he sure was a moron for not subscribing to quantum theory, don't you think?!? I bet he didnt even have the internet!
Edit: I was a bit too insulting. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 07/24/2007 10:12:09 |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:13:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| What I do say, is that there isn't a single, and I repeat that, there isn't a single creationist, qualified to study evolution |
How would you even know? You, admittedly, refuse to even look at the list of over 1600 scientist I provided. Let me guess, someone told you that no creationist is qualified? *sigh* Nor has evolution ever been proven true. It's just a theory, and a shaky theory at that
|
Actually, not really. If someone had done something that big (which they haven't, mind you, outside of the mental framesat of people who want desperately for it to be true), it'd be all over the news. Even the news of non-fundamentalist-haunted countries, such as mine.
As for the just a theory... gravity's 'just a theory' too, ya know. I don't see the likes of you complaining about it's shaky theory-ness.
The rest, I'll let more competent people reply. I may be more rude than I'm already being, as I'm highly intolerant of willfull (or whatever you spell that) blindness. It's useless, anyway. The blinkers are firmly set in place... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:13:57 [Permalink]
|
| Clearly it was a poor remark from Kil, he should have said important contributions to evolutionary studies. The point stands though. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:16:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Nor has evolution ever been proven true. It's just a theory, and a shaky theory at that
|
Well, I'm certainly surprised, Bill, to see you resort to this argument. 
This accusation demonstrates a basic ignorance of the methods and principles of science.
|
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2007 : 10:18:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Let me prove this in a practical way: would you allow a philosopher to, say, extract a teeth from your mouth, Bill, since said philosopher has no dentistry qualification? Since he knows jack shit about dentistry, other than what he's proclaimed he knows - without any study, mind you? He may be an excellent philosopher, but he isn't a dentist. |
I was never asked to get a dentists thoughts on philosophy or versa vica. I was asked to come up with some examples of creationists making worthy contributions to science. I provided a list of over 1600 and you refused to address it. Other then to say no biologist was the list, even though you admitted you did not look at it. *sigh*
|
Yep, I admitted that, and I still won't check it anytime soon. We've been over this already. But I wasn't referring to the full list, only yours, on the matter of not having any biologists on it - sorry if I left that ambiguous. And frankly, I doubt you'll find any biologists, if there is any, who are qualified to give opinions on evolution - just like the cardiologist/neurologist situation. |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
| Edited by - Siberia on 07/24/2007 10:20:28 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
www.notjustatheory.com
Topic Locked
