Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?

On 19 May, 10:15, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Wombat" <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:81e8f4f3-131b-4117-9034-7205beff36a6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 18 May, 00:43, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> "Wombat" <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b1a8f67e-2fb4-42be-9527-70d62ba3eb08@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 15 May, 08:06, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:> "Wombat"
<tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:642fd75f-b8ba-457c-969a-d4c2a439869a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 13 May, 08:20, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Wombat" <tri...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:7b7d7c16-dc39-4b9d-a8b1-d23213f1537b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 12 May, 05:42, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

(Snip for brevity only)

Don't you imagine that NASA scientists are "true"
scientists though, and don't you acknowledge that
among them are also Creationists? And of course,

among them have to be scientists who have a great
knowledge of bacteria, biological environments
in order to keep the astronauts as safe as possbile,
not to mention the necessity of the best health care
and nutrition? And your usage of the word
"evolutinary" with the word "biologists" sounds
like an unreasonable union for people who may
not believe in evolution, but rather in creation.

The only people who  'believe' that evolution is 'wrong' are those
with religious blinders on.
I don't 'believe' in evolution, I merely accept it as the best
theory
explaining  the proliferation of life on earth.

OK, you are stating your opinion about people's
beliefs about evolution. However, the earlier
statements that I was posting my information to,
had to do with someone's statement that the only
"true" scientists were the ones that believe in
evolution. This is an opinionated idea and does
not have anything to do with whether or not a
person is a true scientist. There are true scientists
who do not believe in evolution. I can see that you
accept evolution as the best theory explaining the
proliferation of life on earth. It's OK by me if you
believe what you wish to believe. But I don't think
your considering that the best theory would phase
whether or not you are a true scientist. True
scientists can have many different opinions.

So now we are into the "True Scientist" routine.


You are not telling the truth about Von Braun. People
don't need to vindicate him over and over and over and
over again. He was threatened with the extermination of
his parents if he didn't join. He was young, and very
smart
and they promised him literally the moon, and lied about
it to him. The story is well known, and well documented.
The then comedian Mort Sahl made a joke of it, doing a
spoof of something Von Braun had said and instead
turning it into "I aim for the stars, but I hit London."

Please supply a credible reference that shows that von
Braun's
family
was at risk or I shall know that it is you who is not
telling
the
truth.

A lot has been written about Wernher Von Braun but much
of these kinds of things were in the papers over 50 years
ago when he came to America. Of people today, one might
look into what someone such as Michael J. Neufeld might
have to say about the pressure that the Nazi's put on Von
Braun
to get him to join. I don't remember where I read it, but the
Nazis that put pressure on him then left him alone to decide
and what I read was that when he contemplated all the issues,
he was under so much pressure that he actually threw up. He
did not want to join them.

You still haven't produced evidence that the Nazis threatened to
kill
his family if he didn't help them. Do you not think it more
likely
that they told him that if he didn't build them rockets he
wouldn't
work in Gemany again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braunhintsat that,
though
they do admit they need more evidence.

Let me just defend something here...
Saying "You still haven't produced evidence..." does step over
what was originally challenged. Usually a person is not very
willing to go to step 2 with someone that doesn't even
acknowledge that they have answered step 1. : ) I've gone
futher and tried to answer what you asked. I can tell you
this about the pressure that was put on Von Braun...

If you are looking for positive verification of the story
that the SS put pressure on Von Braun, I can tell you
that he said himself that they put pressure on him, that
the SS arrested him. It is my understanding that the SS
hinted that his parents would be hurt if he didn't, but
I don't know that they outrightly said they would be
hurt. The story is that when they threatened him with
his need to continue in the Nazi work, he was then
given a length of time to "think about it," and during
that time, he either almost threw up, or threw up
as the pressure was so great. He may have exhibited
some reserve in outright naming what took place, in
order to still protect his family, or hasn't anyone
considered that, while they are wanting to find some
thing to blame against him? He is said to have told
that he only did wear the uniform they gave him, once.
I have previously referred you to the writings of
Michael J. Neufeld on the subject of Wernher Von Braun,
which he has researched considerably. You may find
something about this in his writings, if you are interested.
You should also consider that he was arrested in the first
place by the SS. Why do you think that they would do that,
unless he did not want to do the work that they demanded
that he do? Do you doubt that the SS arrested him in the
first place?

Until you supply evidence, what I do or don't believe is not
relevant.

I have supplied "evidence." I listed one person, which is
Dr. Wernher Von Braun, the Father of the Space Program
in the USA. His credentials at being a scientist are huge,
and very, very well-known throughout the entire world.
As a further statement, I said that many of the scientists
at NASA are also Creationists. This is also well-known.
Both of these are proofs. Demanding a further "list" is
just plain silly. The challenge has been answered and that
is all there is to it.

Not to me. Which of the personnel in NASA are creationists? What are
their qualifications? Are any of those qualifications in biology?
WVB was an engineer with a fine line in arguments from incredulity.
"I don't know how this happened so GODDIDIT" is a fine example re the
eye in the cite I gave.

If a person is following the thread, there was a
challenge that had been made, and I only answered
that challenge by supplying the name of a man who
was a true scientist, who also was a Creationist.

Yet you supplied an engineer with a phD in physics to comment on
biology.

No. I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation.
If you are hipped up on the subject that he is an engineer,
he was a mechanical engineer, as well. But his Ph.D is in
Physics, which is a SCIENCE, a true SCIENCE. And he
therefore IS A SCIENTIST, if he got a Ph.D. in PHYSICS.

Rocketry, which was his professional life, is a technology.

A small way upthread is a letter attributed to WVB in which he
shows
he is master of the argument from incredulity.  That it is only
attributed is quite telling, also.
just in case you can't be bothered to check, here it is:-
http://www.disf.org/en/documentation/04-vonBraun.asp

I have already given this example. He conveyed a good
case that scientists should go outside of their shells in
order to hear an alternative view, which is a design by
a Creator.

WVB was an engineer with a fine line in arguments from incredulity.
"I don't know how this happened so GODDIDIT" is a fine example re the
eye in the cite I gave.

I once asked an Christian/ID web site who was the designer.
That's
where the nudge-nudge wink-wink attitude came from as they tried
not
to answer it. They also had a large quote-mine section, which
says
a
lot for their lack of honesty.

I see. So you have encountered others who have not given
you the answers that you wanted to know about and you
think, I suppose that I am like they are (whoever they might
be, that is). I have been answering you.

They were mealy mouthed and dishonest and you haven't really
answered
substantively either.  You bring up an engineer and attribute all
sorts of things to him, without any cites and expect everyone to
take
your word.

No, I mentioned a scientist who has two degrees. One
is in Mechanical Engineering, a Master's Degree, in fact.
The other is in PHYSICS, and is a Ph.D doctorate degree.
I was also a student in one of his guest lectures on the
half-life of uranium 235 in the cyclotron, which was a
Physics class.

Who? When? Does he have any expertise in biology?

What good would a list do for you since you don't accept the
first one named? Hello? There is a good reason that God said
"It is impossible to please me without faith." Without faith
of
any kind at all, it's like playing Tic Tac Toe with the
person
who starts the game.

I've seen some of those lists. They are usually crammed with
people
who know very little outside their own speciality and deny the
fact
and theory of evolution based on their religious views.

It doesn't matter. The scientists on those lists were truely
scientists, and truly did believe God is the Creator. It has
nothing to do with any specialty. Most scientists have to
take biology, anyway and do have a good general idea of
what biology is all about.

That last sentence is bunk.  I got an 'O' level in biology which did
NOT have anything to do with evolution.  In fact, I have just
rediscovered my textbook "Introduction to Biology" by DG Mackean,
which does not mention Darwin, his theory of evolution or anything.
Upon leaving school well versed in chemistry and physics, I did a
three year course in science at the University of Manchester.

Oh. OK. I guess it's possible that you do not understand
what others might be going through with their own
school systems. Many are being home schooled as a
result of it.

Note that I left my grammar school with zero knowledge of evolution.
Subsequent reading confirmed in my mind that evolution happens and the
TOE explains it. Of course, the dishonesty I first noted from Henry
Morris and from just about every creationist since then merely shows
the moral bankruptcy of the creationist position.

Of the people that have died that may be on someone's list,
to say that you know all of what they knew is a stretch,
seeing as how many of them might fall into the genius type
of category, of people that know much about many things.
Not only that, but I find that people with expertise often
have ties in other fields of science that overlap into their
field. Yet it's true that an ear doctor is not going to
perform a foot operation as a rule. But that certainly does
not mean that he knows nothing about the workings of a
foot.

Yes, but would he know enough about evolutionary biology to say
why
it
is totally false, or would he be following his religious
prejudices.

The title of the classroom subject is biology, and
not "evolutionary" biology. You seem to be
assuming that if someone really knew biology,
they could not help but be an evolutionist. I do not
agree with that statement. I studied it and I am not
an evolutionist.

To what level did you study it.  I hope you didn't use the same text
book that I did.

It was over 46 years ago that I studied it in college,
but it was called "Biology" and not "Evolutionary
Biology." But where they pushed evolution was in
the high school. It easily could have been the teachers
more than the texts. But now the texts have things in
them that get brought before the school boards as
genuine concerns. Haven't you heard of this?

Yes, it's yet more attempts to get creationism in science classes by
the back door. Every time in the recent past (last 50 years)
creationists have tried to force creationism into science classrooms
in the States they have been struck down by the courts, up to and
including your Supreme Court.

I once heard on the radio an aeroplane designer rail
against
evolution. I wonder what his reaction would be if an
evolutionary
biologist started telling him how to design aircraft!

This has nothing to do with Von Braun or any other scientist
who does not believe that life began randomly, but does
believe God is the Creator. You need to admit that there are
scientists who do not hold your viewpoint.

But it does. An aeroplane designer, or a rocket engineer, is
unlikely
to know enough evolutionary biology to successfully refute a
theory
that has withstood all challenges for 150 years.
Why do you not supply the name of a scientist who rejects
evolution
on
its merits, and not because of his religion.

Because....what I answered originally was involved with
a statement saying that no true scientist is a Creationist.
That begged the question, "Is there any true scientist who
also believes the Creation account?" And yes there are
scientists who do believe the Creation account. All that
I had to do then was supply one name, and that would
then show that there indeed are true scientists who do
believe there is a Creator. It's just that simple.

You bought up a Lutheran rocket engineer. Did he say he believes
in
your peculiar interpretation of Genesis, or was he merely
following
Lutheran teachings.

I "brought up" the name of a true scientist that did believe
in Creation, period. As for what the Lutherans believe, the
the Lutheran churches that I know of taught that the Bible
is telling the truth.

WVB is an engineer well versed in rocketry and physics, who in a
letter merely attributed to him showed a liking for the logical
fallacy of the argument from incredulity.

His argument was that alternative views should be
allowed, and the alternative view he spoke about
was Creationism. If you look at the bottom of the
page, it tells that it was reprinted in a Christian
periodical.

WVB was an engineer with a fine line in arguments from incredulity.
"I don't know how this happened so GODDIDIT" is a fine example re the
eye in the cite I gave.

It is no good producing doctors and aeronautical engineers who
may
be
very erudite regarding their own subject but know squat
regarding
evolution, yet condemn it based on religious prejudices.

I feel that you are going far out on a limb. The challenge
that I answered did not have all these stipulations on it
that you are now placing on it. My answers have not been
prejudiced and they have been straight forward. If you
believe that the original challenge meant all these other
things you are attributing to it, then it should have been
phrased in a different way in English than the manner in
which it was stated as being.

 The point of WHY they have a problem with evolution is
quite central.

I get the impression that you do not understand the
issue from another's point of view. You see, if a
subject tells the children of a people that they should
believe something that is against what the Bible teaches,
that is interfering with the personal religious beliefs of
people. That is the controversy that it seems to be
unconstitutional to do that, since, as I mentioned
earlier that the Constitution insures freedom OF
religion, and not freedom FROM religion.

Pity your Supreme Court doesn't agree with you.

One person did raise the question about what Von Braun
meant by the word "Creation." Some of you may not be
aware of the fact, though, that he spoke at churches prior
to his death, about his belief that God is the Creator and
about his having placed his trust in the finished work of
Christ on the cross to be the payment for his sins, and that
he accepted him as his savior. Not only did he place his
faith in the Lord, but he also from a scientific viewpoint
in his own field of specialty, he spoke as though he saw
the hand of a great intelligence in the order of things that
he observed.

But did he believe in a six day creation, a seventh day of rest etc.
about 6,000 years ago?

Dr. Von Braun accepted the Bible on faith. He believed
that God created the universe and everything in it, and that
he did so by planning it out. That he accepted it all as
having been created by the Lord,  means that he is a
Creationist, pure and simple. The details do not matter in
this challenge that had been spoken earlier, in which I
supplied his name.

You side stepped the question. Not very honest.
I'll try again: "But did he believe in a six day creation, a seventh
day of rest etc.
about 6,000 years ago?"

In fact, is that your position?
Remember that most Christians can reconcile their faith with a 14
billion year old universe, a 4.55 billion year old Earth and God
using
evolution as his tool to shape His Creation.  He is not the
bungling,
incompetent demigod your theology makes Him out to be.



First of all, Jesus is not a demigod. When he was on the
earth, he was still fully God and at the same time he was
fully man. That is why he was called "Immanuel," because
it means "God with us." My theology is not bungling or
incompetent, and it does not make the Lord out to be a
demigod. You demonstrate, though, that you don't know
what I believe.

Who's talking about Jesus. Wasn't it Jehovah who was the creator in
Genesis?
Anyway, you worship a deity that loses his cool and drowns the world,
orders his chosen people to exterminate a Canaanite tribe - twice and
admits he can't help in a battle because the opposition have iron
chariots! Shades of "Quatermass and the Pit" there.
But you again side stepped the question. Not very honest of you.
I'll try again: "In fact, is that your position?
Remember that most Christians can reconcile their faith with a 14
billion year old universe, a 4.55 billion year old Earth and God
using
evolution as his tool to shape His Creation. He is not the
bungling,
incompetent demigod your theology makes Him out to be.

I had a conversation with your Aussie counterpart a month or so ago.
I found the same level of ignorance, sheer dishonesty and
unwillingness to give straight answers from her as I find from you.
The two of you ought to get together, you'd get on well together.

I do not accept your criticism of "ignorance, sheer
dishonest and unwillingness to give straight answers."
I find that you are dishonest about the answers that I
gave, which kept the  main thing being the main thing,
and which did not allow any deviation from the original
challenge, which was to give an example of a scientist
who did believe also in creation and not in evolution.
Even in this post, you are trying to discredit that he is
a scientist, saying that he is an engineer. He is both. He
has a double degree. You seem to be unwilling to admit
that he is a scientist, even though he has a doctorate
degree in Physics. You are talking to someone that was
a student in one of his guest lectures in the field of
Physics, not in the field of mechanics. I can verify that
what he taught was science.

WVB was an engineer with a fine line in arguments from incredulity.
"I don't know how this happened so GODDIDIT" is a fine example re the
eye in the cite I gave.

You also ask my position about the length of time
that it took to create the universe by the Lord?
I've tried to explain this many times. Where the
Bible says in Genesis, chapter 1, "the evening and
the morning were the first day...." then "...the second
day," and so on, I believe this shows one complete
revolution of the earth, from the time that God
created it, just as it says in the Bible. Now, when
it comes to the length of time as we know of a day,
I am not  sure how long a day was in creation. Most
people who want it to be a long, long time, are
trying to fit into it all the billions of years that
scientists say that the earth is old. But, since the
Bible says that God dwells in "unapproachable
light," that sounds like it means he lives in an
energy environment that is so above what we
can imagine, that we can't believe how fast he
can act. So, rather than believe that each day of
creation may have been billions of years long,
I choose to believe that God can, in the space of
our kind of 24 hours, accomplish all the things
that from our point of view would take billions
of years.

Another sentence in the Bible says "a day with
the Lord is as a thousand years." I don't think this
means that a day with him is thousands of years
long, but maybe that in heaven people live at such
a high energy level that it can seem as a thousand
years because of all you could do if you lived in such
a realm of energy. You see, words sort of fail in
an attempt to describe what must be there.

I see people on earth that have trouble believing
on faith as having the trouble because they are
putting things only on their level of understanding.

Now, about this kind of faith. A person may not
understand how electricity works to turn on a
light bulb, but that should not keep him from
turning on a light switch if he wants an overhead
light on at night in his house. In fact, he just opts
to trust that the light will come on, rather than
beating himself up about how it works. So it can
be easier to accept things on faith, than to keep on
trying to always understand everything and how it
works. Nothing wrong with trying to understand
something, of course but there is a point at which
a person will remain in darkness rather than just
accepting by faith that the light will come on, if
I just turn on the switch. It's kind of like when
you were a child and your parent or guardian told
you to do something. You might've said "Why," and
they said,"Just Because." You didn't like "Because"
as an answer, but it made you feel secure in another
way to know that there is a  because even though
you don't understand what it was.

If you are a YEC why not just say it.
Please tell me how long in your universe an Angular Unconformity takes
to form?
If your purpose in posting is somehow to discredit the TOE you are
failing - very badly, BTW.

Wombat

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... scientists though, ... The only people who 'believe' that evolution is 'wrong' are those ... I suppled a SCIENTIST who believes in the Creation. ... then show that there indeed are true scientists who do ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... There are also examples of Darwinian evolution being used to justify ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... some concern amongst both scientists and non scientists, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Grade My Work
    ... entitled "Science And Technology In Science" a final year module ... scientists are not in doubt - the ... deserving of special rights due to a uniqueness of our creation ... evolution of man. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Reasonable Minority
    ... Trying to redefine evolution as a "word game" is.... ... For over a decade Michael Ruse has been a prominent figure in the ... It is the belief in that doctrine that permits scientists ... publication of The Genesis Flood and the Creation Research Society's ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?
    ... I said that many of the scientists ... Having qualifications in biology is not what the ... the Creation account, rather than evolution. ... are many "true scientists" who are not biologists. ...
    (talk.origins)