|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 1, 2017 16:45:46 GMT
This material universe was made by the mechanical elves of the Bardo Plane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 16:51:46 GMT
Ther are few more: Jason Lisle (Astrophysicist) Andrew Snelling (Geologist) Danny Faulkner (Astrologist) David A. DeWitt (Biologist) Jeffrey Tomkins (Biologist) Hugh Ross (Astrophysicist) Nathaniel Jeanson (Biologist) Russell Humphreys (Physicist) I don't think it's fair to lump Hugh Ross in with the others since he's actually an Old Earth Creationist who has a very different interpretation of the bible than the others (all of whom are Young Earth Creationists). Similarly, Guillermo Gonzalez (the only other astrophysicist mentioned) is also an Old Earth Creationist. As far as I know, nobody in the field of astronomy believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 16:58:35 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. Dr Jason Lisle has more knowledge about biology and evolution in his little finger than you and your hero Ruth combined.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 17:03:18 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. Dr Jason Lisle has more knowledge about biology and evolution in his little finger than you and your hero Ruth combined. Richard Dawkins is a well respected biologist, does that mean I get to tout atheism as being true because of him? You do realize how silly and absurd your argument is, right?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 1, 2017 17:04:32 GMT
It's amazing what people can claim about science when they include sociologists, psychologists and a few fringe biologists who have abandoned their profession to the point they actually go to work for the Discovery Institute. It's like basing an opinion on vaccines by quoting Andrew Wakefield. Dr Jason Lisle has more knowledge about biology and evolution in his little finger than you and your hero Ruth combined. Institute for Creation Research, LOFL! Link his published articles about creationism/intelligent design. Just give the journal, issue and page number and I'll find it myself. Goddamn, you're a fucking moron.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:17:33 GMT
More:
Michael Behe (Biochemist) Ralph Seelke (Microbiologist) Scott Minnich (Microbiologist) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Geneticist) Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in Philosophy of science) Douglas D. Axe (Biologist)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:24:14 GMT
Dr Jason Lisle has more knowledge about biology and evolution in his little finger than you and your hero Ruth combined. Richard Dawkins is a well respected biologist, does that mean I get to tout atheism as being true because of him? You do realize how silly and absurd your argument is, right? What argument? That there are plenty of PhD scientists out there who support intelligent design? What exactly is absurd about merely stating facts?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 17:25:19 GMT
More: Michael Behe (Biochemist) Ralph Seelke (Microbiologist) Scott Minnich (Microbiologist) Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig (Geneticist) Stephen C. Meyer (PhD in Philosophy of science) Douglas D. Axe (Biologist) Behe? The guy that basically lied about scientific evidence for evolution and lost the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial? Oooh, good choice.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 1, 2017 17:27:34 GMT
Somebody really loves promoting the quacks at the Discovery Institute and ICR. But that same somebody doesn't seem to be able to link to any published articles by any of these quacks relevant to the claims of ID/creationism. That's telling.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 1, 2017 17:28:02 GMT
So?
Let them jump off a cliff and see what gets them first, the Hand of Apollo, or gravity.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 17:30:40 GMT
I don't think it's fair to lump Hugh Ross in with the others since he's actually an Old Earth Creationist who has a very different interpretation of the bible than the others (all of whom are Young Earth Creationists). Similarly, Guillermo Gonzalez (the only other astrophysicist mentioned) is also an Old Earth Creationist. As far as I know, nobody in the field of astronomy believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You do know the difference between intelligent design and YEC/OEC, right? Both YEC and OEC believe's in ID. Is that what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 17:33:26 GMT
Richard Dawkins is a well respected biologist, does that mean I get to tout atheism as being true because of him? You do realize how silly and absurd your argument is, right? What argument? That there are plenty of PhD scientists out there who support intelligent design? What exactly is absurd about merely stating facts? Your essentially saying there are scientists that believe in ID, therefore it must have some validity (appeal to authority fallacy). Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 1, 2017 17:36:14 GMT
What argument? That there are plenty of PhD scientists out there who support intelligent design? What exactly is absurd about merely stating facts? Your essentially saying there are scientists that believe in ID, therefore it must have some validity (appeal to authority fallacy). Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. What I don't get about these vague swipes is that, if the 1/10 figure (which I've not seen supported) indicates there is some form of weight and validity to the argument then the other 9/10 must mean....? The natural conclusion seems to escape the 1/10 crowd.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:38:04 GMT
Somebody really loves promoting the quacks at the Discovery Institute and ICR. But that same somebody doesn't seem to be able to link to any published articles by any of these quacks relevant to the claims of ID/creationism. That's telling. 👆🏻Triggered. Plenty of qualified PhD scientists(certainly more qualified than some hillbilly living somewhere in the sticks of Mississippi like you) support I.D. This evidently seems to bother you. And not only you but a number of other atheists/agnostics here. I'm wondering why exactly that is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:42:06 GMT
What argument? That there are plenty of PhD scientists out there who support intelligent design? What exactly is absurd about merely stating facts? Your essentially saying there are scientists that believe in ID, therefore it must have some validity (appeal to authority fallacy). Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. I've made no specific claims one way or the other. OP listed scientists who support I.D and i merely added more names to the list. You seem to be taking this personally.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Jun 1, 2017 17:42:19 GMT
Somebody really loves promoting the quacks at the Discovery Institute and ICR. But that same somebody doesn't seem to be able to link to any published articles by any of these quacks relevant to the claims of ID/creationism. That's telling. 👆🏻Triggered. Plenty of qualified PhD scientists(certainly more qualified than some hillbilly living somewhere in the sticks of Mississippi like you) support I.D. This evidently seems to bother you. And not only you but a number of other atheists/agnostics here. I'm wondering why exactly that is? How can I be bothered by evidence that must not exist since you keep avoiding the act of supplying such evidence? I'm not even wondering why that is because the answer is obvious - you're a dishonest, uneducated fuckwit.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 1, 2017 17:44:00 GMT
tpfkar The banana handle is all you need to see. Does a banana have a brain and organs too? Yet it shares roughly the same % of DNA to us as a Fruit Fly. The evidence discredits itself.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 1, 2017 17:47:43 GMT
Your essentially saying there are scientists that believe in ID, therefore it must have some validity (appeal to authority fallacy). Don't pretend like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. You're barking up the wrong tree my friend. I've made no specific claims one way or the other. OP listed scientists who support I.D and i merely added more names to the list. You seem to be taking this personally. Moral coward. Gotcha.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2017 17:48:47 GMT
👆🏻Triggered. Plenty of qualified PhD scientists(certainly more qualified than some hillbilly living somewhere in the sticks of Mississippi like you) support I.D. This evidently seems to bother you. And not only you but a number of other atheists/agnostics here. I'm wondering why exactly that is? How can I be bothered by evidence that must not exist since you keep avoiding the act of supplying such evidence? I'm not even wondering why that is because the answer is obvious - you're a dishonest, uneducated fuckwit. No dishonesty on my part. OP made a thread listing I.D advocating Scientists and I merely expanded on the list. You're coming across very insecure here, Storm. Don't worry little buddy over 80% of scientists are still on your side.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jun 1, 2017 17:48:54 GMT
10% of scientists believe in intelligent design. Source? You do realize even if that's true that still doesn't help your argument any more than if 10% of scientists believed in a flat earth. Exactly. And another problem here is the misleading use of the term "scientist". Technically, a computer engineer, a psychologist, and a mathematician are all "scientists". But that doesn't mean they have any expertise in determining the reasonableness of intelligent design from a scientific standpoint. As such, it doesn't really matter what those scientists believe in this regard. Astronomers, physicists, geologists, and biologists (in that order) have much more relevant credentials. Lumping in all "scientists" together doesn't actually tell you anything about what the experts who are well versed in the design of the universe think.
|
|