Posted on 06/01/2009 9:56:17 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
So then the dinosaurs were not around when God told Noah to gather up 7 pair of each clean animal “kind” and one pair of each unclean animal “kind”.....because Noah was told to gather ‘em up and he did not get ONE “kind” of dinosaur. Or did Noah just ignore God’s will and take it upon himself to condemn all of God’s created dinosaurs to extinction on a whim?
Hint: It means the dinosaurs were not killed during the Great Flood.....because if they were, Noah would’ve gathered some up as God ordered.
Hell, he even gathered polar bears and I bet those were hard to find where Noah lived......but NOT ONE DINOSAUR?
and yet you claim to not be anti-science? You claim to be scientifically trained?
You are absolutely anti-science, condemned by your own words. You think “scientists” lack credibility. And you think “scientists” say the world was created without God. And yet you claim to have nothing against science and scientists?
Laughably inept.
Since when is it “Anti-Science” to point out FACTS abotu scientists lacking credibility? Seems some on htis htread want to avert the discussion AWAY from the topic of htis thread by FALSELY accusing Creationists with lame petty insults about ‘being anti-science’- Would it be an act of ‘anti-Surgeon” bias to research a surgeon’s past performances and discover they are hacks that are inept and deceitful about hteir past performances? Of course not- but apparently, poin ting out glaring ineptnesses in scientists statements makes one ‘anti-science’? Lol- talk about being ‘laughably inept’ (Quick- hide the fact that sciwentists aren’t being forthcoming and honest by attcking Creationists! Make a lot of noise before someone finds out hte TRUTH of the matter!
For someone who claims to have so much education, you sure have a lot of trouble making yourself clear. Noah was told to gather up male and femal pairs of every air breathing animal (to include “creeping things”)...that would include dinos. Thus, those dinos that were brought on board the Ark would not have perished in the Flood.
Well, we can start with definitions, although that will probably not do much good since they aren’t evo definitions.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study *the science of theology* b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge *have it down to a science*
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientist
1: a person learned in science and especially natural science : a scientific investigator
Do you think that you can distinguish between the two now? Science is a great and useful tool for finding out about the physical world around us to improve the lot of mankind. It is a methodology which is morally neutral.
A scientist is one who practices science, a person subject to all the normal human foibles the rest of the human race is subject to. Scientists, like all human beings, have moral character.
It isn’t the science that lacks the credibility , but the scientist who twists it and uses it to advance his own personal agenda. Scientists lack credibility when they engage in fraud as too often happens, whether it be for power, money, position, whatever.
It doesn’t help AT ALL when other scientists refuse to acknowledge what is patently obvious to others.
Instead of attacking as *anti-science* people who point out the obvious, the more mature and responsible approach would be to acknowledge the problem exists, condemn said practices, and work towards correcting it. All that denial of the problem does is convince others how out of touch the rest of the scientific community is with reality.
The links I’ve posted are more than clear that science is rife with fraud and manipulation. But the credibility of scientists is never going to be restored if the rest of scientists defend them. All that will do is convince people that all scientists are involved in it.
It is you who has lost all credibility, as your venom against scientists and your gross generalizations against them cannot help but spill out.
Scientist is one of the most respected professions in America.
Creation “scientists” are not.
You can attempt to slander scientists and science all you want, that will not change that science is valued by US commerce and creationism is not; it will not change that scientists and respected by the American public and creation “scientists” are not.
“I know not everyone with HIV develops AIDS.....but that doesn't mean HIV does not cause AIDS)”
Of course this wasn't what you stated earlier, is it?
Your challenge is silly as any objective professional would agree.
“THAT means that either......God told Noah to not collect dinosaurs for the Ark.....OR....that God did tell him to collect dinosaurs, and Noah ignored the will of God.”
I'll let GGG speak to his own views on dinosaurs but you try to create a false dichotomy where none exists.
You're simply unable to be objective in the way you claim you are because creationists here get under your skin, isn't THAT what is behind the stridency?
Quick! Stomp your foot- make a lot of noise- avoid the facts of the articles! Yell at Creationsits repeatedly! Bang the gong! Light the firecrackers! Creationists are butt ugly science haters! Stomp! Stomp! Stomp!
Since when is it “Anti-Science” to point out FACTS abotu scientists lacking credibility? Seems some on htis htread want to avert the discussion AWAY from the topic of htis thread by FALSELY accusing Creationists with lame petty insults about ‘being anti-science’- Would it be an act of ‘anti-Surgeon” bias to research a surgeon’s past performances and discover they are hacks that are inept and deceitful about hteir past performances? Of course not- but apparently, poin ting out glaring ineptnesses in scientists statements makes one ‘anti-science’? Lol- talk about being ‘laughably inept’ (Quick- hide the fact that sciwentists aren’t being forthcoming and honest by attcking Creationists! Make a lot of noise before someone finds out hte TRUTH of the matter!
It’s a gotcha game with idealists.
When an outlier is used to define the mean statistics lose meaning.
In all fields there are pressures to “fudge.” That’s where peer review and repeat comes in to weed out the bad work. I agree with you that gross generalizations grate against my nerves.
Great job of misdirection!!!
Every time I think an Evolutionist might pop up and take the blame for bad science and maybe be a little honest, one sticks his dishonest mug in and blames the opposition.
Way to go!
Who would have thought that an evo, masters of gross generalizations, would be bothered by that.
The realists, OTOH, see what's going on and try to open the eyes of the idealists but the idealists refuse to see.
Most scientists opinion of themselves as objective is a subjective evaluation. They are so enamored with the thoughts of their objectivity, that they do not see how subjective they are.
With the Piltdown Man, archaeoraptor, and other frauds in science, instead of condemning it as wrong, they brush it off and then try to paint themselves are heroes for uncovering the fraud.
It shows a real disconnect from reality for a couple reasons.
First of all, excusing it does nothing to convince the rest of the world that they are serious about fraud in science. That leaves people to believe that they are blinded to the facts (not able to be truly objective) or approving of the fraud. Excusing bad behavior in someone ALWAYS leads to suspicion of what the connection is.
Second, they are so proud of proving to be a fraud, what nobody else believed was real to begin with.
Creationists hold that man was created and did not evolve so that any *missing link* that is found would not be genuine because it never could have existed. So then scientists act like they are the heroes for uncovering the fraud and “proving” to be true, what creationists knew all along.
Riiiiggghht.....
David Copperfield could take a lesson... they make facts appear and disappear with amazing dexterity and sleight of hand.
You couldn’t be more correct.
I think you’ve aptly described part of the thing that drives their steroid-enhanced egos. “Blowhard” proved it with his first post (post 3).
LOL! All good finds, Metmom. It would appear that Allmendream can’t handle certain truths about either science or Christianity. That’s what happens when you try to serve masters. Although, I would say his science master definitely has the stronger hold on him because he has no problem denouncing those who believe in a straightforward reading of the Bible, but heaven forbid if anyone doubts Darwood’s materialist creation myth about the unobservable, unrepeatable past!
That was rude and accusative. I expect better from you. Still, I am opposed to gross generalizations since by definition they cannot be proven in every case.
Who are the realists?
“Creationists hold that man was created and did not evolve so that any *missing link* that is found would not be genuine because it never could have existed.”
So any evidence is false? Without question?
Having non-evos crammed into a literalist, 6 day, 6,000 year box whenever they question the ToE is a pretty sweeping generalization.
So is being called anti-science every time one disagrees with, or even questions, the latest pronouncement by the scientific community.
So you’re right, gross generalizations are grating.
That’s a generalization.
No. Just the ones mentioned.
I’d be suspicious of anything that was declared a missing link because I don’t believe that man evolved.
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.