100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Creatures That
|
|
A Look at the Past and Present of Darwin's Theory In 1800, over 99 percent of all people believed in some sort of creationism theory to explain life on this planet. In 1930, the scientific basis for Darwin's Theory began to take hold and show some support in favor of it. In 2005, A Research Center looked at American beliefs and found that 50 percent of Americans still favored Creationism as the most acceptable explanation for life, while the other roughly 50 percent, preferred some form of the evolutionary theory instead. Thats 50% not 2% Wrong......A British poll featuring the viewpoints of some 2,060 folks of multiple ages who were asked to express their beliefs on the subject of the evolution of the world. Once again the results were quite shocking. Only 25 percent of all participants believed Darwin's Evolutionary Theory was without a doubt the most logical explanation to life on this earth, while the other 75 percent either said they were either unsure if the theory was acceptable, outright rejected it in favor of creation or intelligent design, or had beliefs which consisted of a combination of popular/unpopular theories. so 2% please......get a grip I said EVANGELICALS. This number is from 2003 4,984,925 Those were the "Loose Canons" I mentioned that take the bible literally. Now would you like me to list all of the denominations of Christianity that do accept the Theory of Evolution like the Roman Catholics? Religions do not believe in evolution - individuals do. Just because someone who is a Catholic believes that Evoluiton exists - does not mean it represets christendom. Your premise also presumes that Catholicism is equated with christainity. This is only so on an individualistic level - not the group as a whole. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Creatures That
|
|
The evolution/creation argument will go on forever. God works in mysterious ways.
Only in laymen's circles. In science there is no argument. Evolution is scientific fact. The masses always take their good old time before accepting scientific fact. There are still a lot of people who don't like the idea that they evolved from monkeys. But they'll get over it eventually. 
When you say that "Evolutiob is cientific fact" - are you refering to Macro, micro, or both? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He could have done 16 different types of baptismal procedure. You can only go by what is actually stated and in this case, it was contradictory yet most scholars seem to feel that the contradiction was caused by a later insertion. That would be the only way to explain it to my satisfaction. I didn't say anything about "procedures". Procedures are just different ways of exevuting one type of Baptism - there are two different and distinct types of baptism's in the bible. (Not manners in which it was done - types.) Again - do you know which one Jesus did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A passage of the Gospel of John (John 3:22-30) explicitly states that Jesus did baptize. According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, this passage confirms the central place of baptism in Jesus' message. The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news". A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion. Of course you know that there are two kinds of Baptism's in the New Testament, do you know which one Jesus used? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.
Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away) Now... The video. I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated. The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE". The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant? What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not? Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance. Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.
Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What does proselytizing mean? I might be guilty of it too. I have gotten in heated discussion trying to convert Christians into born-again atheists and humanists! Well cut it out! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay said: I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.
I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again. I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"? You do realize I am a degree holder myself from a 4 year institution? Bachelor of Science. And you? I have a degree in Directing/Design (B.A.) and a Dual Degree in Mathematics (emphasis on Logic) I also have a degree in Computer Programming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Atheism Weak or Strong
|
|
I wasn't directing it towards you specifically but the comment was meant as a general response. Anyway, I am waiting to hear back from Eljay on my points. Good day to you. Hmmm... Missed this one Krimsa. Sorry - I am in class all week-end so I may not get to it till monday, butI will respond. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this to be interesting, concerning this topic. http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html I almost posted it in a GRF, but decided to first try and get fellow Christian's feedback first... Blessings to all
I just read this. It's great! Go for it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Fri 02/06/09 01:51 PM
|
|
I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"? Eljay, Did you read my earlier reply to you? Science counts on scientists to remain 'objective' throughout their scientific work. That specifically requires scientists, each one of them, to be responsible not to let 'their World View' interfere with their objective scientific work. When some forget that simple oath, they become fair targets for a serious conflict of interest: that would be mixing their 'biblical-exclusive' beliefs and religious interests, at the expense of their scientific objectivity!!! Since a lot of 'scientists' claim dissent against evolution without ever being capable of demonstrating scientific 'disproof' to te scientific community as a whole (not us), that would be IMO, what would explain Krimsa's distrust of those 'bible-specific-compromised-scientists'. Not a popularity contest, nor a proselytizing exercise, this scientific community. Unlike the church-faith, no-need-for-proof domain, science deals in HARD facts, not convincing strories. We're in agreement here Voile. But let's ask this question. If a scientist is examining a fossil and attempting to determine it's age, what difference does it make to this scientist if the flood is fact or fiction? Plenty. If there was in fact a world flood - uniformality goes right out the window, and accuracy is flawed due to the atmospheric and environmental effects that occured with this fossil. You can see where the final analysis is going to be quite varied. However - no matter what the scientist thinks about the flood - he is going to observe what he observes as to the chemical make-up of the fossil, and if possible - will map the DNA if it is not corrupted. More often than not - they are accurate at this, but in far too many circumstances - they extrapolate their findings into "theories" about just how old the fossil is. What we end up with - is their extrapolation. When you are told that a fossil is 10,000years old, do you know how they arrived at that number? Most people don't care - they just take it for granted that they're not being lied to. If the science were explaimed to them - they wouldn't understand it in the first place. Yet - many do. Granted - usually just scientists. But there is much disagreement on the validity of dating methods because of the unproval parameters that are established in dating anything. They are educated guesses at best - because there's no way to go back into the past to get accurate dterminiations of environmental influences. It's the nature of the beast. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay said: I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.
I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again. I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"? When someone is referred to, or refers to themselves as a "Christian Scientist" I do question their legitimacy as a scientist. Mainly because how are they going about their "theories"? As a Scientist? or as a Christian? If the Scientist is referred to, or refers to themselves as a Scientist who happens to be(or who is) Christian, I don't have a problem with it. For example, I don't have a problem with the Scientist in the youtube link that voileazur posted, not because I agree with his science(which I do) but because he keeps his science and his faith(he is christian, I believe) separate. Hmmm... I hope I have not misrepresented my point. When I refer to a "Christain Scientist", I am not refering to an Adherant of Mary Baker Eddy. I mean a scientist who is a christain. I don't thik because one has a world view of believing in the bible that they can perform the job of a scientist any less than one who is an Atheist, and vice versa. All a scientist can do is represent the facts or "scientific theory" as it were, and let the reader determine what that represents. The difficulty comes in the extrapolation back in time and what is presumed, based on the observations of today. That is where world view comes into play. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.
Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And that first "scientist." I took his name and plugged it in and it brought up that horrendous website. Give me a break. And the second guy on the list is a psychologist? WTF? What contributing interest does he have in Evolution? Or he just wants to stick his name on a list? This list is tiny compared to the scientists who support evolution, the NCSE produced a list of scientists who supported evolution with over 800 names, and they are all called Steve (there are only 4 Steves on your list): http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/article... b) Project Steve is a joke inteded to poke fun at such lists. Science is not decided by a vote count, bullsh*t is bullsh*t no matter how many people believe it. c) You have to look at the credentials of the scientists not just their names. Where are their PhDs from (how many went to Bible Universities which don't give a good education - e.g. Liberty University)? How many peer reviewed papers have they published? What is their reputation in the academic community? d) All the scientists on your list who lived before Darwin can be discounted, as there was no other theory around at the time. e) A linguistics expert or an electrical engineer (there are many with similar positions on your list) are only marginally more qualified to discuss evolution than the average person on the street, how many on the list are involved in Life Sciences? Edit: I understand that you want to show that some creationists are intelligent. But even supposedly intelligent people can hold stupid beliefs, and when 50% of americans believe the creation story (thats 150 million) the laws of statistics state that some will be scientists (does it not worry you that in the scientific community your viewpoint is very very severely under represented, 50% of americans vs. approx. 0.1% scientists?). Thanks Seamonster for finding "Project Steve." I had a dead link there. 
So Eljay, explain again what I need to "get myself out of?" 
Edited by Krimsa on Thu 02/05/09 03:15 PM Why is Darwin needed to demonstrate that the biblical flood did not occur? Let's revisit the argument. Your premise is that there is scientific evidence to show that the biblical flood did not occur (though I've asked you to state it - but that's never going to happen) - AND that the "Scientific community accepts this as fact". My point, is that only the scientific community that shares your wolrd view accepts this. That's a select group of people. I claim that you are wrong. That there are numerous members of the "scientific community" who do not believe there is evidence to disprove the flood. Now you want to "qualify" your terms of "Scientific community"? Why am I not surprised. Say what you mean and mean what you say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.
Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. What I'm curious about is the animal that has all of the DNA from a Human AND a chimpanzee from which we evolved. Where's that animal today? And if it went extinct - where's are fossils to corroberate this claim? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay said: I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.
I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again. I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well then show those statements to be fallacious if you don’t mind. I am not familiar with this guy and you seem to be. I am at the mercy of what is stated here which would appear to be an accurate account of the debate. Bushido posted a youtube playlist in one of his threads(it may have been his evolution thread over in the Science section, where Hovind's "theories" are completely discredited, using nothing more than basic scientific fact. Hovind is a looney. Have you watched any of his video's or even read his information - or are you relying on the opinion of somene you read on the net, who you know absolutely nothing about. I'm sure you did not reached this "informed" opinion by the extensive reasearch you've done. Polly want a cracker? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 02/05/09 09:55 PM
|
|
Eljay: These are just some that dissagree with you and I can list about 900 more with just the first name of steve. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen J. Anderson***** Commercial Officer, U.S. Export Assistance Center, Baltimore, U.S. Department of Commerce Ph.D., Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Robert Anderson Professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science, Yale University Ph.D., Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven C. Anderson****** Emeritus Professor of Biology, University of the Pacific Ph.D., Biology, Stanford University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven D. Anisman***** Fellow, Cardiovascular Disease, Worcester Medical Center M.D., University of Vermont Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine; Member, American College of Cardiology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Anschel****** Director, Local Public Health Sales, Netsmart Technologies, Inc. Ph.D., Zoology, University of Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve J. Aplin***** Calorimeter Coordinator, HERA experiment H1, Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron Ph.D., Particle Physics, University of Portsmouth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen W. Arch L. N. Ruben Professor of Biology, Reed College Ph.D., Biology, University of Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Archer**** Professor of Rangeland and Forest Resources, University of Arizona Ph.D., Rangeland Ecosystem Science, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Steven Arnold* Medical Director, Intensive Care and Sleep Medicine, St. Mary's Hospital Medical Director, Respiratory Care and Sleep Medicine, Decatur Memorial Hospital M.D., Pritzker School of Medicine, University of Chicago -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stevan J. Arnold Professor of Zoology, Oregon State University Ph.D., Zoology, University of Michigan Past President, Society for the Study of Evolution -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven E. Arnold***** Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Auburn University, Montgomery Ph.D., Chemistry, Louisiana State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Arthur**** Research Biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Ph.D., Wildlife Biology, University of Maine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven N. Austad Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Idaho Ph.D., Zoology?, Purdue University Author, Why We Age -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen J. Aves****** Associate Professor of Molecular Biology, University of Exeter Ph.D., Biochemistry, University of Bristol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Azevedo* Deputy Division Leader, Electronics Engineering Technologies Division, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Ph.D., Electrical Engineering and Computing Science, University of California, Davis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven L. Bachtel****** Principal Geologist, ConocoPhillips Adjunct Professor, Department of Geology, University of Texas, Austin Ph.D., Geology, Texas A&M University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stefano Bagnasco****** Physicist, Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare Ph.D., Physics, University of Genova -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Charles Bain* Reader in Diabetic Medicine and Honorary Consultant Physician, University of Birmingham & Birmingham Heartlands Hospital M.D., University of Birmingham Member of the Human Genetics Commission -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Baird Professor of Clinical Pathology, University of California, San Diego School of Medicine M.D., Stanford University School of Medicine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven C. Bakker****** Psychiatrist, University Medical Center Utrecht Ph.D., Molecular Genetics, Utrecht University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven A. Balbus Professor of Astronomy, University of Virginia Ph.D., Physics, University of California, Berkeley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven D. Balsley****** Unit Head, Safeguards Analytical Laboratory, International Atomic Energy Agency Ph.D., Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven C. Bankes*** Chief Technology Officer, Evolving Logic; Professor of Information Science, RAND Graduate School Ph.D., Computer Science, University of Colorado Member, Center for the Study of the Origin and Evolution of Life, UCLA -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven M. Banks*** Control Systems Engineer, Australian Synchrotron Project Ph.D., Physics, University of Melbourne -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven W. Barger* Associate Professor of Geriatrics, Anatomy & Neurobiology, and Internal Medicine University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences Research Health Scientist, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System Ph.D., Cell Biology, Vanderbilt University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen John Barnett* Research Scientist, South Australian Research and Development Institute Ph.D., Microbial Ecology, University of Adelaide -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Barrett Board Chairman, Quackwatch M.D., Columbia University Recipient of the 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Barrett****** Senior Lecturer in Physics, University of Liverpool Ph.D., Physics, University of East Anglia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen S. Barshay***** Fellow Scientist, Westinghouse Electric Company Ph.D., Chemistry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven W. Barwick**** Professor of Physics, University of California, Irvine Ph.D., Physics, University of California, Berkeley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven J. Baskauf* Senior Lecturer, Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Ph.D., Biology, Vanderbilt University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven M. Bass**** Software Architect, Practical Engineering Inc. Ph.D., Chemistry, University of Rochester -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Bates****** Lecturer in Molecular Microbiology, University of Exeter Ph.D., Molecular Biology, University of Leicester -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Battersby* Consultant, New Scientist magazine Ph.D., Astrophysics, Imperial College -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven C. Beadle* Senior Associate Geologist, LFR Levine-Fricke Ph.D., Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University Certified Engineering Geologist, State of California -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephane A. Beaudin****** Research Associate, Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University Ph.D., Neuroscience, University of Montreal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven K. Beckendorf Professor of Genetics and Development, University of California, Berkeley Ph.D., ?, California Institute of Technology -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen M. Becker**** Postdoctoral Fellow, Virginia Commonwealth University; Visiting Assistant Professor, Mary Washington University Ph.D., Immunology, Virginia Commonwealth University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen P. Becker****** Postdoctoral Fellow, Bureau of Economic Geology, University of Texas at Austin Ph.D., Geochemistry, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Beckerman Associate Professor of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University Ph.D., Anthropology, University of New Mexico -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Bedhomme****** Post-doctoral Associate Researcher, Animal Evolutionary Ecology Group, Institute for Evolution and Biodiversity, University of Muenster Ph.D., Evolutionary Biology, University of Montpellier Lead author, "Prevalence-dependent costs of parasite virulence," PLoS Biology 2005; 3: e262. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven R. Beissinger Chair and Professor of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley Ph.D., Natural Resource Ecology, University of Michigan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen P. Bell****** Professor, Department of Biology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Ph.D., Biochemistry, University of California, Berkeley Coauthor, Molecular Biology of the Gene, 5th ed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Bell*** Key Skills Manager, Coleg Sir Gar / Carmarthenshire College Ph.D., Molecular Biology, University of Wales, Swansea -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven M. Bellovin* AT&T Fellow, Network Services Research Lab at AT&T Labs Research Ph.D., Computer Science, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Member, National Academy of Engineering -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie J. Belovich Chair, Basic Sciences Department, Ohio College of Podiatric Medicine Ph.D., Biomedical Sciences -- Biological Anthropology, Kent State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve G. Belovich* Chief Executive Officer, SmartData, Inc. Ph.D., Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cleveland State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen P. Bentivenga* Associate Professor of Biology, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh Ph.D., Plant Pathology, Kansas State University Author, "Ecology and evolution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi," McIlvainea (1997) 13: 30-39 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Bergman* Faculty Associate, Department of Geosciences, University of Texas, Dallas Ph.D., Geology, Princeton University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve P. Bernier****** Postdoctoral Fellow, Institut Pasteur Ph.D., Microbiology, University of Calgary Now you were saying? I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW. Are any of these "Steve's" Christians? How many? Here - let me questimate.... Less than 5 per cent? If so - you've made my point. Oh yes, and in case you didn't know this - you cannot get hired in a Secular university if you are a Creation Scientist. You're not going to find too many of them if your going to list College Professors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you told me that my statement was incorrect yet you can not prove this...so. 
Krimsa said: The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.
Here's a partial list of the scientific community that disagree's with you.: Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist Dr. Bob Compton, DVM Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry Dr. George F. Howe, Botany Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy George T. Javor, Biochemistry Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist Dr. Alan Love, Chemist Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist: Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist Dr. John McEwan, Chemist Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics Dr. David Menton, Anatomist Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist Colin W. Mitchell, Geography Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher Prof. John Oller, Linguistics Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology) Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon Prof. Richard Porter Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D. Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist: Dr. Ian Scott, Educator Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist: Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology) Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology Now - you were saying.......... Hey Eljay, are you serious??? Are you suggesting you would be willing to match the scientific credibility of your list of anonymous names here, with the 72 Nobels, whom were invited to testify in front of the Supreme Court (those 'robes' you referred to earlier), and whose authority helped the court reach verdicts against your anonymous ones??? None of your 'friends' were invited to testify from looking at the 72 Nobels. What's your gameplan here friend??? Hara-Kiri?!?!? Voile; It's a joy to hear from you again my friend. Hmmm... let's see. Nobel prize. That's the SAG award of science. And you're proving my point - the scientific community is split along world view as to the validity of whether or not science can disprove the flood. One's determination of who is winning the argument is dependent solely on one's world view. As I said - name me one member of the scientific community who feels the biblical flood did not happen because science proves it - I will name a member of that community who will refute it. That's all I'm saying. Krimsa's claim is the the bibleical flood has been proven not to have occured, and that, and I quote ...do not have any standing in the scientific community The list is there to demonstrate to her that these members of the scientific community - though not household names - worthy qualified members none-the-less, prove her statement wrong. It's what she asked to do - so I did. Her response is that they're christains, and therefore not considered part of the scientific community. And by the way - it's a partial list of fairly current scientists. I didn't bother to list the numerous scientists who over the past two centuries, believed in Genesis as more than a fairytale, who are responsible for some of the greatest discoveries in science that we have - as well as being the Professors who have educated the scientist today. So what it boils down to - is your right - the argument is pontless, as it is making assertions that can't be supported - like the one by Krimsa in the beginning of this post. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay we have all seen this copied and pasted list oh like at least 20 times posted on forum. First name on the list I did a search for and guess what site he is located on? http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science These guys are ALL creationist "scientists”. When I was referring to the scientific community I meant actual accredited scientists in their prospective fields or areas of discipline. That was the “scientific community” I was referring to. My statement still stands as valid. These people do not impress me. I myself am a bachelor of the science degree holder from a 4 year university. Excuse me - but would you like to determine which one of these scientists are not "accredited" and what your criteria for being accredited is? Each one of these people are a part of the "Scientific Community" and I'm S-O-O-O-O looking forward to you trying to get out of this one. Do you think that you are not biased based on your World View? I told you before - you need to sue that college for fraud, because they didn't teach you how to learn about anything. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
