Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd be interested to hear their problems with the science presented there. I agree though about the theology presented there. but again, they have a purpose, get people in there. It's a marketing ploy to use the theology they decided to portray.
Two things...One, It is in no way a museum, but a fantasy amusement park...There is not a single artifact in the place.....Two, it has nothing to do with any science. On the third point (marketing ploy) you are correct. I wish I were closer so I could visit....Laughter is good for your health.
There have been a lot of scientists that have accepted a creation point of view. So are you saying that anyone who accepts creationism is not a scientist?
I don't understand the point of posting that link....Neanderthals died out about 28,000 years ago...Your apologist site can't even spell their name right.
There have been a lot of scientists that have accepted a creation point of view. So are you saying that anyone who accepts creationism is not a scientist?
When they are defending creationism, they are not doing science. Although they may be perfectly good scientists in another field.
There have been a lot of scientists that have accepted a creation point of view. So are you saying that anyone who accepts creationism is not a scientist?
No what is said is the "creationist scientists" are not scientists it is a pseudoscience. Read the article again. Please tell me the scientists that accept creation.
Ok guys, what in your opinion is the BEST evidence for evolution? Is there one "slam-dunk, case closed, cincher" or is it a multitude of combined evidences?
I'm curious about your thoughts.
Oh, definitely a combination. There are those who say that the living evidence for speciation adaptation is the best evidence, others point to DNA. And of course the fossil record of a gradual development of simple to complex has its adherents.
"To be able to predict that not only did these things happen but that such a vast amount of supporting evidence would coincide with those predictions (even 150 years after one's death) is simply amazin"
That he could see the way it would all fit together, to me, constitutes all three of the miracles he would need for sainthood, " St. Charles the wanderer ", has a good ring to it, doncha think?
Very good - as is Troop's point. Science makes predictions. If these pan out then it is compelling evidence for a correct theory.
Transitional fossils (there are so many now that the whole fossil record is now beginning to be thought of as transitionals) filled in one gap. DNA has filled in a lot of others about how natural selection works and I think it is the code for instinct. The unexplained areas are dwindling remarkably fast.
I understand your perspective, but I think that discussing the compelling evidence for evolution in the atheism forum only reinforces their belief that evolution is just another religion, that an understanding of evolution and their belief in god are somehow mutually exclusive, irreconcilable positions.
I'm not campaigning to move the thread or anything, I am just dismayed that evolution is still so inextricably bound up with atheism in the eyes of fundies that even atheists tend to think about it as a counter to religion instead of what it really is - a very well-supported model of speciation that is being constantly refined.
I would love to read a dry evolution thread in the science section where the religious aspects could be completely ignored.
I sympathise with your views and it's been well said that evolution doesn't disprove 'god'. Nevertheless I have had to agree that Darwin's theory removed a big chunk of the rationale for God's existence. Dawkins comes across very uncompromisingly but he has the scientific right of it. Evolution doesn't disprove God but it pretty much demolished any good reason to believe it. As a scientist he is pretty impatient with believing things on faith.
No what is said is the "creationist scientists" are not scientists it is a pseudoscience. Read the article again. Please tell me the scientists that accept creation.
Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Sam Morse, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Robert Boyle (Boyle's Law), Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein (firmly denied Atheism, though adopted no religion), Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Matthew Maury
A lot of scientific discplines were founded by Scientists that believed in God and accepted creation.
Johannes Kepler, Isaac Newton, Galileo, Sam Morse, Lord Kelvin, James Joule, Robert Boyle (Boyle's Law), Michael Faraday, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein (firmly denied Atheism, though adopted no religion), Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, Matthew Maury
A lot of scientific discplines were founded by Scientists that believed in God and accepted creation.
Have to pop in again.
It is true that a lot of scientists believed in God. That's because before the 19th century there was no information to suggest anything else. They may have had their doubts about the Bible. In the 18th century, Deism had quite a following, but, as I say, there was no alternative explanation.
Galileo, Newton and the others saw their science as showing how God worked. Agreed
However, the work they did was as scientists, not as believers. they worked on experimentation and results, not on faith and what the Bible said. They were everything Creationists are not.
Their work, perhaps unintentionally, provided the evidence that has closed the gaps for God and belief in a god is much more a faith matter than a science matter. Creationism is called 'science', but it isn't, of course. It isn't even poor science. It works by dismissing science and relying on religious faith.
Einstein used the term 'God'. As you say, he adopted no religion, but it was more than that: he rejected the idea of a personal god. He took the view that the universe had order and there was some - intelligence, perhaps we can say? - behind it. He may not have been atheist exactly but he was not that far off.
I think he was wrong. His view of an ordered universe led him to the famous quote 'God does not play dice'. Perhaps I should say 'notorious quote' as it was the reason that he never touched on quantum mechanics and 'his theory of everything' never worked. If he had just made that one step from Faith and asked 'what if there is no 'god' and nature does play dice?'
He'd have made a discovery that would have put relativity in the shade.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
