16 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…OR could the layers be laid down much faster than WE believe they
"…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? … "
OR could the layers be laid down much faster than we believe they
were?
This is a lie? A que ...[text shortened]... give no credit to any question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you.
Kelly
were? … (my emphasis)
Just to make absolutely sure the record is put straight: the “WE” in the above excludes all credible scientists.
… you should just stop worrying about creationist…
I am not so much worrying about creationists themselves as I am worrying about their misrepresentation of science.
…you give no credit to ANY question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you…. (my emphasis)
Nop, not all the questions; just the questions that insinuate lies.
16 Aug 08
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, are you on the back foot here? You were initially posting reasonable comments but that one is just petty.
"…The issues in question are:
* How did the tree survive during multiple catastrophes without rotting or being knocked down?
* How can anyone reasonably believe that a tree could stand for the length of time it takes to build up the additional layers? … "
OR could the layers be laid down much faster than we believe they
were?
This is a lie? A que ...[text shortened]... give no credit to any question brought up,
and even questions are called lies by you.
Kelly
I am sure you are aware the 'lie' was not the question but the implication that there is claim of tree fossils being found "standing erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years".
This is the question I am asking: Have any such fossils actually been found? So far nobody has suggested an example. You said you would look for it. Have you had any luck yet? I have failed in my search so far. Note that the claim contains the word "often" so we should easily be able to find references to them.
You also said you remembered a plane found embedded in million year old ice. I have failed to find that either. Have you had any more luck?
So far, I am reasonably happy with Andrews answer, unless someone can find an example of the kind of fossil being claimed by YECs.
--- Penguin.
16 Aug 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydthere are Christian scientists
An observation: there are Christian scientists, and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility. These are not necessarily the same people, but both groups do exist.
True. There are many scientists who are christians.
and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility.
There are very few, if any, well respected scientists who think the evidence points to a young earth.
The existence of a group doesn't mean their views are legitimate or legitimate science though.
There is a group of people who are christians and they claim to be expressing true scientific opinions and they claim that the earth is stationary and the sun revolves around it. They exist too.
I'm not sure what your real point is.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by PenguinI found a plane story, have not gotten around to posting, but the
Kelly, are you on the back foot here? You were initially posting reasonable comments but that one is just petty.
I am sure you are aware the 'lie' was not the question but the implication that there is claim of tree fossils being found "standing erect through geological layers representing millions and often hundreds of millions of years".
This is the ...[text shortened]... s someone can find an example of the kind of fossil being claimed by YECs.
--- Penguin.
example was a weak one nonetheless as I read about it. It seems
there are several ways to count age using ice, and according to just
one of the ways it showed thousands of years. If this was the same I
one I was thinking about I don't know, I recalled hearing about it, but
didn't really go into it at the time.
I'll review my other posts later.
Kelly
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnJust what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.
there are Christian scientists
True. There are many scientists who are christians.
and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility.
There are very few, if any, well respected scientists who think the evidence points to a young earth.
The existence of a group doesn't mean their views are legitimate or ...[text shortened]... ry and the sun revolves around it. They exist too.
I'm not sure what your real point is.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThere is no such thing as a creationist scientist.
Just what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.
You can't dismiss scientific observations when you at the same time call yourself a scientist. No way.
It's as dumb as being an atheistic christian.
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are so full of your own opinion you completely reject that others
There is no such thing as a creationist scientist.
You can't dismiss scientific observations when you at the same time call yourself a scientist. No way.
It's as dumb as being an atheistic christian.
with degrees as good as or better than yours who can work in the
various fields can hold different opinions it isn't even funny. It is the
height of arrogance on your part to hold such a narrow minded opinion.
It seems if people do not agree with the way you view things they are
some how something less.
Kelly
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd atheistic christian or a creationist scientist? What's the difference? Oxymorons both of them. Or perhaps just morons.
You are so full of your own opinion you completely reject that others
with degrees as good as or better than yours who can work in the
various fields can hold different opinions it isn't even funny. It is the
height of arrogance on your part to hold such a narrow minded opinion.
It seems if people do not agree with the way you view things they are
some how something less.
Kelly
17 Aug 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThe point of calling the term creation scientist an oxymoron is that to try and support the claim that the earth was created 6000 years ago you have to ignore scientific evidence, and a lot of it.
Just what I said--it's an observation. Several posters have claimed that these people don't exist, or that you can't be a scientist and believe in a relatively young earth, or that "creation scientist" is an oxymoron. I'm just pointing out that they do exist, and I believe in more numbers than many realize. I don't agree with all of them, but that doesn't mean they're not entitled to the degrees they've earned, as well as their beliefs.
The point is that just because someone calls themselves a scientist doesn't mean they're actually doing real or good science.
17 Aug 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PinkFloydMost scientists who take YEC seriously are not in relevant fields. They don't understand the science that shows the extreme unlikelihood of that model.
An observation: there are Christian scientists, and there are scientists who do not discount a "young earth" possibility. These are not necessarily the same people, but both groups do exist.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungCorrect, but at least you can see that they are, nevertheless, scientists. There are plenty of them teaching biology, chemistry, and physics at Christian schools like Liberty and Bob Jones University. I don't happen to agree with them, but I am not so arrogant as to call them morons.
Most scientists who take YEC seriously are not in relevant fields. They don't understand the science that shows the extreme unlikelihood of that model.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydThat somewhat raises the question as to what the true standards of Liberty and Bob Jones universities are.
Correct, but at least you can see that they are, nevertheless, scientists. There are plenty of them teaching biology, chemistry, and physics at Christian schools like Liberty and Bob Jones University. I don't happen to agree with them, but I am not so arrogant as to call them morons.
18 Aug 08
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYou can be sure of one thing: these christian u's will not be making an honest effort to teach evolution, it will get short shrift if not forbidden to be taught completely.
That somewhat raises the question as to what the true standards of Liberty and Bob Jones universities are.