popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 More scientists who do not buy into evolution (or full scale macro-evolution, to be more precise). For more information on any of them just click on their name: [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/gish.html"]Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/cumming.html"]Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/pnason.html"]Patricia Lynnea Gathman Nason, Ph.D. [/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/dewitt.html"]David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience [/url] Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wood.html"]Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics[/url] Robert Franks, M.D. [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/eckel.html"]Robert H. Eckel, M.D.[/url] Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board) [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/damadian.html"]Raymond V. Damadian, M.D.[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/fliermans.html"]Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology[/url]
Iacobus Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Intresting... I haven't looked at any names, but I am so happy you didn't put "Dr. Dino" up there. He is ummm rather abusrd. I would look them up with some of my freinds, Alpha soup is normally nice, but sometimes they can still be a bit nuts, but I have acadmic bowl this afternoon.
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Author Posted January 20, 2005 More: [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/tantcheva.html"]Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Pharmacology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/macreadie.html"]Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/eggen.html"]Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal and Molecular Genetics[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/veith.html"]Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/kramer.html"]John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/aaron.html"]Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D.[/url] [url="http://http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/bullock.html"]Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine[/url] John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/gillen.html"]Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/brewer.html"]Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/sanders.html"]Roger W. Sanders, Ph.D. Botany[/url] Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/odaniel.html"]Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/wolfrom.html"]Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/armitage.html"]Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology[/url] [url="http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/lumsden.html"]Richrad D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (R.I.P.)[/url] David A. Demick, M.D. Randy Guliuzza, M.D. Keith Swenson, M.D. George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology Inis J. Bardella, M.D. Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M. Those that don't have links have their bio available if anyone should want to see their credentials. Just ask, I'll post them.
popestpiusx Posted January 20, 2005 Author Posted January 20, 2005 I forgot to post the challenge. Here it is (this is not a joke): The Life Science Prize $1000 Reward for finding an evolutionist that completes a Life Science Prize trial. $10,000 Reward if the evolutionist proves evolution is science. Evidence must be scientific, that is, objective, valid, reliable and calibrated. The preponderance of evidence prevails. The judge is a superior court judge. The venue is a courthouse. For further details: [url="http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html"]http://www.csulb.edu/~jmastrop/prize.html[/url]
SirMyztiq Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 What are you trying to prove? Why do humans keep asking question to which they will never know the answer to? Evolution is a very possible hypothesis and so is the big bang. Why must you insist on proving them? Prove to me that I came from mud and that my girlfriend came from a rib. Prove to me that all this was created in 7 days. You can't. But you choose to believe it. There is no point to trying to prove another hypothesis wrong simply because the answer isn't known.
Catalyst Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 if your pro evolution. Where did the planet that the big bang come from? Who created every little cell. Who created the time that it took that rock and water to become a living organism....
spathariossa Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 [quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Jan 21 2005, 09:37 PM'] What are you trying to prove? Why do humans keep asking question to which they will never know the answer to? Evolution is a very possible hypothesis and so is the big bang. Why must you insist on proving them? Prove to me that I came from mud and that my girlfriend came from a rib. Prove to me that all this was created in 7 days. You can't. But you choose to believe it. There is no point to trying to prove another hypothesis wrong simply because the answer isn't known. [/quote] Catholicism doesn't take Genesis literally. We aren't fundies.
kjvail Posted January 23, 2005 Posted January 23, 2005 I'm currently enrolled in a general survey of geology class for my degree. The class is on the internet exclusively and for an assignment we are to post two messages on the topic of "Science and Religion". The lecture accompanying the section was about as anti-religious as you can get so I have stressed over this for days. I could not and would not just post some inane nonsense in order to appease the instructor who obviously has a deliberate bias. So I prayed about it and did my homework. This is what I ended up posting for my first message: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. <p> It's funny how these things work, this is an issue that has been front and center in my life the past few weeks as I study the Catholic faith for my upcoming baptism at the Easter vigil.<p> I am not opposed to science, I am opposed to the philosophy of <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10713a.htm" > naturalism </a> which generally asserts "all events... find their adequate explanation within nature itself." It is this view together with postmodernist relativism which holds religion is solely a matter of opinion and the truth can only be ascertained thru the scientific method. Unfortunately naturalism is the dominant philosophy in many scientific circles and in the culture at large.<p> Science has it's place in the world as a tool of reason. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" <a href="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm"> (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 159)</a>. <p> Its purpose should be to help mankind better understand the natural world, in this it is a way in which we can grow closer to God. It strays from this purpose when men try to use science as an idealogy to replace religion.<p> I see no conflict with science in matters concerning the creation or development of the physical world. God frequently acts thru secondary causes. The Bible is intended to be "an instruction manual on how to go to heaven, not on how the heavens go". (source unknown) <p> The conflict occurs when scientists that hold to the philsophy of naturalism make assertions not supported by the evidence or, conversely, when theologians deny the evidence to support their own exegesis.<p> When science intrudes in the domain of theology the consequences can be grave. Polygenism, for example, the hypothesis which asserts that man evolved in multiple places on the Earth from multiple progenitors, has the effect of denying original sin - no original sin then no need for a savior, therefore no Jesus Christ. Polygenism also gives support to theories of race which always end in the assertion that humanity is not one, but several and that one particular group is somehow "biologically superior". Since there is no evidence of polygenism, this is not only pseudo-science, it's very dangerous pseudo-science.<p> I noticed other posters were Catholic, here is a link for the magestiarial document <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12HUMAN.HTM> Humani Generis (On Human Origin) </a> promolgated by Pius XII in 1950.<p> I'd appreciate feedback.
SirMyztiq Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 [quote name='Catalyst' date='Jan 23 2005, 12:28 AM'] if your pro evolution. Where did the planet that the big bang come from? Who created every little cell. Who created the time that it took that rock and water to become a living organism.... [/quote] It came from outer-space. Where did outer-space come from?! I don't know. I think it was here way before that and it's just like asking where did the sun come from? I think Evolution might be on the right track to something. We have already many studies that show that we are all genetically linked one way or another. Nature. If anything, we owe everything to Nature. Who created Nature? What is Nature? Why is it called Mother nature? Who's "father" nature? God?
DojoGrant Posted January 24, 2005 Posted January 24, 2005 [quote name='spathariossa' date='Jan 23 2005, 12:31 AM'] Catholicism doesn't take Genesis literally. We aren't fundies. [/quote] You need to qualify that statement. Genesis isn't literal? No Noah? No Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Joseph wasn't in Egypt? Or are you speaking of Creation? Are you saying Adam and Eve are figurative and not real people? Because the Church believes all of the above. And the Church has never stated that the creation story is metaphorical. She simply doesn't say (although she DOES say that at minimum, some parts are quite literal).
popestpiusx Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='DojoGrant' date='Jan 24 2005, 10:29 AM'] You need to qualify that statement. Genesis isn't literal? No Noah? No Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Joseph wasn't in Egypt? Or are you speaking of Creation? Are you saying Adam and Eve are figurative and not real people? Because the Church believes all of the above. And the Church has never stated that the creation story is metaphorical. She simply doesn't say (although she DOES say that at minimum, some parts are quite literal). [/quote] Exactly.
Socrates Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='SirMyztiq' date='Jan 24 2005, 12:52 AM'] It came from outer-space. Where did outer-space come from?! [/quote] They laughed at the horseless carriage, they laughed at the telephone, they laughed at the airplane. And now there are some that laugh at Outer Space! God help us in the future! On your way home tonight, someone may pass you on the street, and you will never know it . . . for he will be from Outer Space! ~ Plan 9 From Outer Space
cathqat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='crusader1234' date='Jan 23 2005, 01:52 AM'] Hahahhaa 'fundies' soiunds like undies. [/quote] I would just like to register my total and complete support for the trivialization of this thread
popestpiusx Posted January 25, 2005 Author Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 25 2005, 04:58 PM'] I would just like to register my total and complete support for the trivialization of this thread [/quote] Of course. That's the easiest way to address it.
cathqat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='kjvail' date='Jan 23 2005, 04:14 PM'] This is what I ended up posting for my first message....I'd appreciate feedback. [/quote] Looks like one of your sources may have been Catholics United for the Faith's [url="http://www.cuf.org/nonmemb/evolution.pdf"]"Evolution" Faith Fact[/url].
cathqat Posted January 25, 2005 Posted January 25, 2005 [quote name='DojoGrant' date='Jan 24 2005, 09:29 AM'] And the Church has never stated that the creation story is metaphorical. She simply doesn't say (although she DOES say that at minimum, some parts are quite literal). [/quote] Every verse in scripture has a literal sense or literal meaning, i.e. the meaning(s) intended by the original author(s). The literal sense of a text may include metaphor or figurative speech. "Literal" and "metaphorical" are not mututally exclusive terms when used correctly.
God Conquers Posted January 26, 2005 Posted January 26, 2005 I'm going to quote some articles by my favorite journalist/commentator/small-time pundit David Warren (www.davidwarrenonline.com) In the words of the late Czeslaw Milosz, which I quoted a few months ago: "A true opium of the people is a belief in nothingness after death -- the huge solace of thinking that for our betrayals, greed, cowardice, murders, we are not going to be judged." Science cannot now explain, and probably will never be able to explain, the origin of any species in nature -- least of all man. It can assemble the succession of species in the fossil record; it can catalogue resemblances between species in space and time; it can begin to show the fine adaptations of each to its environment; and the workings of "natural selection" when the environment changes; it can even look into the mechanism by which heritable traits are passed along from individual to individual within a species (thanks, incidentally, to a line of intellectual descent not from Charles Darwin, but from an Augustinian monk named Gregor Mendel). But science cannot even tell you how a species is defined, let alone how life emerged from the lifeless sterility of the "primordial swamp". We are taught that the force of gravity is one of the constants throughout the universe. But this theory compels us to postulate that most of the universe must consist of some utterly unobservable "dark matter". If you ask me, or you ask my friend, that suggests we're going to find a problem with constant-G. I doubt "macro-evolution" will be defeated like that. I expect it will be more like, "live by the pinprick, die by the pinprick". It will gradually dissolve from a thousand little cuts from Occam's Razor. For the "God" of evolutionary biology -- incremental change by natural selection -- is not sufficiently inspiring to sustain the immense priesthood that has collected around it. And by the way, it would be no skin off my nose if every aspect of Darwinism were by some miracle demonstrated to be true. I would then have to accept it as a genuine insight into "how" God works. I am agnostic on that point at the moment; my Christian faith is not in the "how", but in He Who Hows. This is not an article... just quotes from a few articles... don't expect continuity.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now