Quote# 52132

Creation scientists do have a creation model. Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are. In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists. So without Creationists there would be no science.

fancier_rmv04, Yahoo Answers Religion and Spirituality 27 Comments [11/12/2008 2:21:43 PM]
Fundie Index: 4
Submitted By: gorgeoustxwoman

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom



OH SILLY

THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS!

11/12/2008 2:25:06 PM

willyho

apart from laughing my head off, you, fancier, are a liar

lying for jesus?

11/12/2008 2:27:10 PM

Mister Spak

"Creation scientists do have a creation model."

They do indeed. Although "goddiddit" is not a scientific theory.

11/12/2008 2:29:49 PM

Grigadil

"Creation scientists do have a creation model."

"goddidit" is not a model.

"Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are."

No.

"In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists."

Bullshit.

"So without Creationists there would be no science."

Horseshit.

11/12/2008 2:45:39 PM

Panz

cite the evidence used to support that model, no bible allowed

11/12/2008 2:49:57 PM

aaa

Sigh...

11/12/2008 2:51:28 PM

anonymous

Creation is serious business! :(

Why won't anyone take us cereal??

11/12/2008 3:01:34 PM

JohnTheAtheist

Creationism is not a science. Sorry. You are a douchebag. That is all.

11/12/2008 3:08:28 PM

Giveitaday

Creation scientists do have a creation model.

Genesis is not a scientific model, And creationism is not a scientific theory, It makes no predictions, has no experiments, and it cannot be falsified, all of which are required for something to be a scientific theory.

Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are

The difference between creation "scientists" and evolutionary biologists is that the biologist actually uses science to prove his theories, where all the creationist can do is quote the bible and write fanfic for the parts that the bible doesn't cover.

In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists.

No, they were not, while several branches of science where created by people who belived the creation story (And considering that Evo. Theory has only been around for about 200 years it's hardly suprising) But that does not make them "creation scientists". It's akin to saying that a physicist that happens to belive that unicorns are real is a "unicorn scientist".

So without Creationists there would be no science

The fundamental sciences existed long before your bible did, and were first described by pagan Greeks and Egyptians (i.e. people who had not even heard of your "creation myth") What you are doing is stealing credit and claiming for your religion, something that it had nothing to do with.

11/12/2008 3:17:58 PM

emau99

[Creation scientists do have a creation model.]

Yeah. That model says "we don't understand some things, so God must have done it." That's not logical, and it isn't scientific.

[Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are.]

Do they publish their work in independent, peer-reviewed journals?

[In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists.]

Name them, and cite their work.

[So without Creationists there would be no science.]

Were the Greeks Creationists?

11/12/2008 3:38:19 PM

Horsefeathers

"Creation scientists do have a creation model."

I'm afraid "Goddidit!" isn't a valid scientific model. Hasn't been for quite some time.

"Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are."

Some creationists may hold science degrees but I can't think of any off hand that do actual research, teach or write scientific papers that are peer reviewed except for Dr. Behe.

I strongly suspect the vast majority of them know they're peddling bullshit to the masses but the speaking engagements and book deals are far more lucrative than teaching for a living or doing research.

By the way, "Evolution" is a theory, not a person/people.

"In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists."

True, but they didn't use "Goddidit!" for their explanations. During the development of various sciences the people may have been Christian (among other religions) that believed a deity created everything but most had the view that in order to understand the "designer" you examine the "creation" and whatever you learned from it was the truth. Creationists now have abandoned this. They may examine the "creation" but if it doesn't match up with their Babble or preconceived ideas they abandon it immediately instead of following the evidence to its conclusion; even if that conclusion shows no evidence of design.

"So without Creationists there would be no science."

I'm sure there would be but the development would have been much slower. In fact, if it wasn't for the interference of the Church for a thousand years or so science would be much more advanced than it is today.

11/12/2008 3:41:27 PM

The L

Red herrings for Jesus!

11/12/2008 3:59:26 PM

Rusty_Professor

" So without Creationists there would be no science."
Hi, I'd like to introduce to my friend Galileo Galilei, your religion censored his achievements in science for hundreds of years because he had the gall to suggest that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

11/12/2008 4:08:06 PM

Freboy

If the ToE did not exist during their lifetime, they do not count as creationists. They were just believeing the general dogma.

11/12/2008 4:17:10 PM

Clown

How do you call this logical fallacy:
"Molly made some of this cakes therefore all of this cakes were made by Molly."?
Hasty generalisation?

11/12/2008 4:22:32 PM

a mind far far away

THE FAIL!!! IT BURNS, IT BURNS!!! What in the hell is this? It has the usual fundy grammar problems, the ranting about creationists being on the same level as evolution scientists, etc. But creationists creating science, and without creationists there would be no science? Someone needs to look into ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle would be pissed.

11/12/2008 4:33:51 PM

Evilutionist

"Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are."

True. But only because EVOLUTION ISN'T A SCIENTIST.

11/12/2008 4:46:16 PM

Pyroclasm

Creation scientists do have a creation model.

"Magic man dun it." Isn't a model. Nor is "Magic man done it in six days."

Creation scientists are a much scientists as Evolution are.

Nope.

In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists.

No, many branches of science were founded by creationists. Few of these were in biology, however.

So without Creationists there would be no science.

Disregarding that your last point was bullshit, how does this follow from it?

11/12/2008 4:47:44 PM



"Creation scientists do have a creation model."

Lets put this to the free market, how many oil companies search for deposits using global flood geology? I mean if YEC is such a respectable science it must be able to be applied practically right?

11/12/2008 4:54:13 PM

Darth Wang

@emau99: Yes, they were, actually. Just the polytheistic type.

11/12/2008 4:59:54 PM

Old Viking

Just sort of sad, really.

11/12/2008 9:40:58 PM

Shadoboy


11/13/2008 3:47:46 AM



@Darth Wang:

D'ough! I knew that. I'm not sure why I asked. Thanks for catching my mistake.

11/15/2008 12:40:11 AM

Slayer

"In fact, Many branches of science were founded by Creation scientists. So without Creationists there would be no science."

Just because someone was the first to think of X does not mean that X would not have been thought of at a later time by someone else.

11/15/2008 12:56:48 AM

Canadiest

wrong

history shows religion has resisted and villified science to further it's own agenda

Still doing it I see

11/15/2008 2:26:28 PM

1 2 | top: comments page