should creationists be allowed in science?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by steeven91, Jan 23, 2011.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Except cave blindness in cave organisms, the ability of bacteria to persist on new substrates, lizards being able to digest vegetable matter...and a whole host of other ones. But no biggie.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. PsychoTropicPuppy Bittersweet life? Valued Senior Member

    I don't see why not...unless it would badly affect their researches/work?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    I Believe everything was created and "Designed" Do i count as a Creationist?

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member


    All these guys, sooner or later, exaggerate their intellectual credentials. This is a serious temptation for the religious, because they put so much stock in authority.
  9. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    That's it I warned you Infidel Im Invading East Korea at the first beam of dawn. Im Mustering the Cavalry and sending out a scout contingent as we speak.

  10. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    I'm not certain Regent University really qualifies as a major university - but I'm not surpised at all you would fudge the typpe of researc that goes on there
  11. Saquist Banned Banned

    Wonderful that he are privileged enough to speak in his behest.
  12. Saquist Banned Banned


    Then it is foolishness to entertain the word from a scientific point of objectivity.

    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

    That's false.

    Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins > quotes

    See if your friends have read any of Richard Dawkins's books.
    Sign up »

    "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    — Richard Dawkins
    tags: atheism, philosophy
    744 people liked it
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."

    "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it (false) ; a petty (false) , unjust(false), unforgiving (false) control-freak; a vindictive, (false) bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser (false); a misogynistic, homophobic, (false) racist, (false) infanticidal (false), genocidal (false), filicidal (false), pestilential, megalomaniacal, (false) sadomasochistic, (false) capriciously malevolent bully." (false)

    "Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can F--- off.

    "Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time."

    Many people have never read the bible or read it for understanding.
    Dawkins isn't concerned with truth just his version of it. He doesn't bother to contain his contempt...he's proud of it and feels it makes him better. He is the last person (aside from the Pope) one should take advice on anything for one must constantly question his agenda. He clearly does not understand the damage he inflicting on society....he encourages war by his very posturing lack of tack and it WILL translate to you and everyone with horrific side effects.

    He is a Hitler, a Bin Laden, a George Bush, Mussolini. He is apart of the same system of inciting unrest and discouraging peace and understanding.

    If the variables are total.

    That's not true at all.
  13. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    I dont' think those Are mutations they are diversification of different genes. Tell me of a natural population with a mutation, and this mutation becomes dominant and if or are beneficial to the organism.
    Sickle Cell is a mutation dominant in some population, but God are those people sick!!!
  14. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Bad mutation bad....

    Quoting of your article "Plasminogen activator Inhibitor(PA-I-1) consitenly related to a POLYMORPHISM (46-5G) of the PAI-1. what this means is not a mutation of the gene It means this Gene have many forms to Express itself. And is going to express itself when the organism needs that gene protein for whatever. This is not mutation, the same Evolutionist abandoned Mutations as a the vehicle for their Evolution Theory, because they can not prove it and because mutation are not beneficial to the organism. Now they are mixing Diversification and specialization of an organism and calling it evolution but the reality since Darwin came up with the idea Not a single organism changed into a new organism or new life form not a single one. Darwin's finches's_finches. They are all finches, not a single one of them became something different.
    This is a typical polymorphic gene on these birds giving them different shape on their anatomy to adapt the organism whenever is needed.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  15. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Dawkins is a freak

    There are so many people out there thinking that Mr. Dawkins i the best thing after slice bread and this guy is just a freak, now a "scientist" defending alien design. But this is okey for the scientific community because this Freak made sence to them in other things like there is no God or is just a delution. Freak! Well I love God and I don't get satisfied I get curious, when we learn how God did it we can recreate the same. HELLO mr. Dawkins you are a FREAK>...

  16. Emil Valued Senior Member


    I am obliged to defend Empire East Korea.
    I was promised a post as governor, which I will return to old age, and where I will be able to admire the sunrise (or sunset) on the beach.
    By the way there on the beach, is sunrise or sunset?
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

  18. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Green boy is a religico, not a scientist. Like creationists everywhere, he takes scientific data, and "massages" it into something more acceptable to his religious beliefs.

    His statements about no evolution ever creating a new species is a good example. There are literally thousands of evolutionary changes that have been observed in the last 100 odd years by biologists. Some, like the cichlid fish I quoted, can be considered genuine new species, albeit closely related to the parent stock. Only minor changes can be observed over 100 years, since that is too short a time for greater change. More profound changes into widely different forms of life, are observable via the fossil record.

    Of course, religicos deny the facts of the fossil record, because they are inconvenient to their beliefs. For example ; those who try to say that the fossil Archaeopteryx is just a bird. A very strange bird, with dinosaur bones and a full set of teeth! But the creationists will keep insisting it is just a bird, since this is a more convenient interpretation for their particular nonsense.

    The transition of dinosaurs into birds is shown by a wide range of intermediate fossils, and I could lay these down in detail, except that Green boy and his wacko creationist friends will find some spurious way of denying each and every fossil.

    I quote :

    "Birds share a myriad of unique skeletal features with dinosaurs. Moreover, fossils of more than twenty species of dinosaur have been collected which preserve feathers. There are even very small dinosaurs, such as Microraptor and Anchiornis, which have long, vaned, arm and leg feathers forming wings. The Jurassic basal avialan Pedopenna also shows these long foot feathers. "

    I could go on and list a whole raft of intermediate stages between bird and dinosaur, except that I would be bashing my head against the brick wall of ignorance and pig headedness.
  19. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    Right Skeptical

    Don forget the coelacanth. For years the evolutionist used this FISH as an intermediate between the fishes kingdom and the amphibians, they even dared to said they were walking in the bottom of the sea and coming out to the surface "walking" Well the fish was not extinct and it use the fins for a completely different function. Another "mistake" from the evolutionists, they are getting desperate.

    I am nor religious or evolutionist. I am just going after the Truth but I am telling you instead of using the monies and the time to find how biologic systems works and biochemistry and other Science branches we just forced the actual biology and other science to fulfill the Theory of Evolution. Wasting time and money :bugeye:

    Hey Skeptical read the following article, this bird is alive and well in South American and his babies have claws in both wings, and he is not an intermediate form at all, is a bird. It is not changing into anything... Try again bro. evolution DO NOT EXIST. And those believing in evolution is like believing in a religion only by faith.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2011
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member


    Post 112.

    Try mistaken or a liar.
  21. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Really? I didn't know Dawkins was a freak. I guess I will have to revise my entire opinion of him.
  22. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You're also not much of a scientist:
    Kingdoms are at the top of the taxonomy of biology, and there are only six of them: animals, plants, fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea. (Archaea may turn out to be multiple kingdoms. They are incredibly small and have not been extensively studied until very recently.)

    Within the animal kingdom, chordates are a phylum of animals that includes vertebrates and a few very similar, closely-related animals like sharks and eels. Within the chordate phylum, fish and amphibians are two classes of chordates.

    Fish are a class, not a kingdom.
  23. greenboy Registered Senior Member

    MRSA is not a mutation

    Once again MRSA is based on "resistance" based on a preexistence of a gene. If you read description of sickness from hypocrates described in detail MRSA lesions which they probably were. MRSA is not a new sickness at all.

    and don't loose the point Yes Sickle Cell anemia people are alive but not well in areas where Malaria kills people. They died younger and sicker... so the mutation may help them to stay alive for a while but is not beneficial to the population... which is my point.


Share This Page