Do modern creation scientists accept Immutability Of Species

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, see it from this way if you want to see it from my view: I am tired. People are jerks.

I'll shake on that! Thank goodness we're not human!

I couldn't hope to compete with you, ruveyn. Cutting off the head of your enemy and pissing down his throat (as you have advocated several times) is the funniest concept of a urinal I could ever imagine. I prefer far less strenuous opportunities when my bladder requires emptying.

My latest version is to rip your enemies arm off and beat him over the head with it.

ruveyn

Although there's no beating that for convenience, it's close to that Murphy's law that when you need a hammer the nearest object becomes a hammer. I, of course, might have some difficulty, at the age of about 84, to rip off anybody's arm but a youngster of 72 like yourself should have no difficulty at all. Especially if you're a full grown gorilla, something I have suspected for some time. (A Jewish gorilla is, admittedly, an interesting concept.)

I am a barbarian, pop. A muscular Jew. The classical Jew has soft hands, studies Talmud wears funny black clothes and studies at a Y'shivah. A muscular Jew is one who does what it takes to make sure there are Jews thirty years from now.

ruveyn

If you are a barbarian that makes popping sounds I would recommend more of a bit of a growl. It's far more effective when arm tearing.

How the heck do you expect to be taken seriously when several scientists you use to support your argument believe in the cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans. I often get into tussles with 'aspie elitists' who like to claim that we 'aspies' have a far greater capacity for logic and reasoning than those 'shallow NT's'. Perhaps in the future I should cite some of your recent posts to defend my position.

You want to be taken seriously, what do you think gives you the right to expect this. Someone who helps proliferate the idea to kids and impressionable adults of a 6 thousand year old earth with dinosaurs and humans coexisting deserves nothing but ridicule.

Not really. Let's take a look at it.


You certainly aren't going to claim creationists don't do this? Even the creationist groups you cited maintain such lists. And Project Steve was in reaction to a particular list of "creationist" scientists which was compiled in an extremely dishonest manner, and thus includes a number of scientists who do not support the agenda for which their names are being used.


Again, you can't take issue with this. It's a simple statement of fact. The creationists are saying "Look, these scientific experts with all their intricate knowledge believe evolution is false!" They fail to provide the context that such scientists are an absurdly small minority, especially within the relevant disciplines. They will always refuse to provide such context because doing so undermines the purpose of their lists. The goal is for people to believe that scientists are rejecting evolution.


This is just honorable on the part of NCSE. They could, of course, have quite easily made a list of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of scientists who fully support evolution and blown the creationist lists out of the water. Instead they choose to emphasize the fact that majorities do not necessarily provide proof, even though they could easily "win" the debate by simply leaving this assumption untouched. They could have overwhelmingly beaten the creationists at their own game, but instead they chose to stress that that isn't how science works.

THANKYOU so much Sand, I missed this at first look. I have had a really hard day today and this had me laughing aloud for several minutes

No, fine, I'm not a human nor a parakeet, but I have the human form in the photo. The cockatiels sitting on me are my friends.

"Non psittacus sum, sed amici mei psittaci sunt"

Denials out of shame are not necessary. The frightful messes created out of human culture on this planet should make you proud to be a parakeet. One drop of parakeet blood (to refer to another thread) may indeed confer superiority of some sort. Birds, after all, are being considered for all sorts of worthy causes. The Republicans are valuing the output of a bird brain from Alaska for the next president now that the racial barrier has been broken. The species barrier must be next. (That guy on whose shoulder you are perched is obviously your typist). Once fetuses get the vote under Republican sponsorship birds are bound to be next. What proud American would not vote for a bald eagle for the prime executive after Clinton, G.W.Bush and now Obama are openly demonstrating the incompetence of humanity to rule itself? (Hairdressers, I have heard rumored, are just this minute devising feathered wigs for presidential bald eagles.) Seize the day!

The very title of this thread is totally nonsensical.

"Do modern creation scientists accept the immutability of species?"

It implies that immutability is being thrust upon them against their will!
(You told us the opposite in the other thread -that it was evolutionists who were the oppressors.)

In fact mainstream science IS based on the notion of MUTE-ability of species ( ie- evolution) not immutability.

So most readers would assume that the dissadent mnority rebeling against the mainstream would be ADVOCATES of immutability of species- especially since thats what they claim to be doing (ie crusading against evolution) not passive accepters.

So the proper way to state the question is "Do ..creation scientists accept some degree of evolution(not immutibility)of species despite the fact that they call themselves 'creationists'?"

Better yet (since how would we readers know what creation scientists think?) "what would your guess be as to what the attitude of modern creation scientists is towards evolution?"

A. totally hostile. or B. somewhat accepting of it.." Your surprise answer being B. Somewhat accepting.

Dont ya think that reads alot better?

In fact that IS surprising.

The bible says the world was created in seven days only a few thousand years ago so when was there time for even a modest horse-to-zebra, or lion-to-tiger type evolution?
So even modest evolution is not internally consistent in a theory that includes an Earth a few thousand years old. So the fact that creation scientists accept even modest evolution is indeed surprising, and even more baffling than then it would be if they just accepted no evolution at all.

The term "creation scientist" is an oxymoron.

Seeing as there are three people who have answered "yes" so far, that would suggest that there may be at least three people who lack reading comprehension skills.... or otherwise just argue by definition.

Perhaps by, even, reading the first post...