ex-robot

I'm curious as to if you can provide one quote from a yec scientist who does this. I already have one by Dr. John Kramer. I find it hard to believe that a yec who believes that he should do all to the glory of *** would keep him out of their work. It would be easier to believe if you speculated about scientists who were theistic evolutionists in this way.
Huh??? What are you talking about here? Who does that? I can see it now. Dr. Ian Macreadie is being featured on his research orgnization's website saying "Well, I really didn't do anything in regards to using yeast to fight aids, malaria, and other diseases or write all those papers that have been published. I just prayed and fasted. God did it all!"
Your are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that a scientist who contributed to having canola oil approved by the FDA for human consumption "says" he invoked the supernatural.

xr

lpetrich

Using "goddidit" as the explanation for everything you discuss in your publications. Why makes the planets move in orbits around the Sun? Goddidit. Why is water electrically conductive? Goddidit. Why do embryos tend to look very similar? Goddidit.

Ex-robot, would you like it if that scientist stated that he had reached that conclusion with any of:

• Reading Tarot cards
• Consulting a Ouija board
• Watching the flight of birds
• Studying the livers of sacrificed animals, and I do NOT mean laboratory rats that had been fed Canola Oil
• Interpreting dreams
• Consulting someone's ghost (necromancy, spiritualism, channeling)
• Smoking marijuana
• Eating hallucinogenic mushrooms

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Stephen T-B

The Creationists lost a big one when they lost Charles Darwin.
He and his precursor (who's name I've forgotten) started off as Creationists because there was nothing else to be except, perhaps, non-believers. And we know Darwin wasn't one of them because he had anticipated taking Holy Orders.
So was he possessed by satan when he embarked on the work which led to The Origin of Species, or by innocent curiosity? And am I right to assume that Creationists think they amount to the same thing?
After all, if curiosity could lead to the evil Theory of Evolution, doesn't it suggest something satanic was going on?
And what greater evils will ensue if it continues to be given free reign in our research institutions?

GeoTheo

Dude, Chill. I don't live on line O.K. I don't even know what post you are talking about. Which thread?

GeoTheo

All the evolutionists seemed to misunderstand my point.I guess because I used exageration. My point was simply:
Assuming evolution is true,in day to day life, people do not run into evolution happening around them. Except on a small scale as in the case of viruses and things like that. Or if they do encounter it it is happening almost imperceptably slow. So in studying natural processes as they occur in everyday life,questions of origins do not play a big part. So I don't see how differing opinions on origins would have that big of an effect on science.

lpetrich

That's not my problem, GeoTheo.

And people do not run into special creation happening around them, so we can forget about creationism.

In some parts, that is correct, but there are areas in which the question of evolution becomes very significant, unless one is a card-carrying member of the Philip Gosse Fan Club.

Try doing comparative genomics without using evolution. Or selection of model systems without using evolution.

ex-robot

Huh? What are you talking about? More mindless ranting. Which creation scientist does this?
I wouldn't care. I love canola oil! But the fact remains that he invoked G*D and didn't stop doing science despite absurd fantasies about shutting off your mind when bringing g*d into the picture.

xr

Mageth

I'm curious as to if you can provide one quote from a yec scientist who does this. I already have one by Dr. John Kramer. I find it hard to believe that a yec who believes that he should do all to the glory of *** would keep him out of their work. It would be easier to believe if you speculated about scientists who were theistic evolutionists in this way.

The scientist can believe he or she is doing science for whaterver purpose satisfies them, but when they're performing science they'd best be looking for natural explanations, not supernatural explanations. Otherwise they're not doing science.

Huh??? What are you talking about here? Who does that? I can see it now. Dr. Ian Macreadie is being featured on his research orgnization's website saying "Well, I really didn't do anything in regards to using yeast to fight aids, malaria, and other diseases or write all those papers that have been published. I just prayed and fasted. God did it all!"

No, I'm talking more about something along the lines of "and then chemical A combines with chemical B to form compound C. The combination of A with B is due to goddidit."

Your are entitled to your opinion, but it doesn't change the fact that a scientist who contributed to having canola oil approved by the FDA for human consumption "says" he invoked the supernatural.

What the hell are you talking about? Invoked the supernatural for what? Care to post a link or something?

GeoTheo

There is a Straw man being put forth here on the part of the evolutionists. Creationists believe they have true revelation from God, with respect to origins. There is a distinction between believing that and believing that one has exhaustive revelation from God on all things.
Belief in having exhaustive revelation on all things would halt all scientific inquiry.
But that is not the case. Neither is it the case that creationists invoke the supernatural to explain all unknown phenomena. Creationists believe the Universe is a physical thing apart from God. So there is no reason to believe that it operates in some spooky supernatuaral way and not through physical laws. We just don't believe in a closed system. We believe that the Creation of the Universe was a supernatural event, not that the Universe is supernatural itself. It is a thing.

scigirl

Ok that's fair enough.

But what about this: if we did indeed evolve from chimp-like primates (instead of being made in God's image), than perhaps many of our behaviors (and problems) can be, in part, explained by evolutionary theory. I just read a book called <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679763996/qid=1026749284/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">The Moral Animal</a> by Robert Wright, and he speculates about why humans are rampant adulterers, and territorial, among other things. It's not the best book in the world, but it sure makes you think about the origins of our behavior (and ways that we can possibly improve it).

I firmly believe that studying human cultures, through the lens of evolutionary biology, may explain why we are the way we are. Let's face it - the YEC explanation has been around for thousands of years, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't contributed much to understanding anything. Let's give science a try.

Also - many YECS claim that the theory of evolution hasn't done a lot for us (like cured cancer). Well if they would stop fighting the theory, and let their kids actually learn it, maybe it will someday!!!

scigirl

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>