Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Robin
but I don't care what qualifications you have, in case you are yet another creationist who purchased a qualification from an American diploma mill instead of spending years at a university like the rest of us have.
You can rest assured that I spent the best years of my youth in the University library ‘swatting’ away and chatting up the young women students – and I never even heard of an ‘American diploma mill’ – until you told me about it!!!!:D
Robin
So, instead of your "scientific credentials", I would like to read a scientific paper you have published in a peer-reviewed journal
So you DO want me to identify myself then!!!!
Scofflaw
…the problem that I have is giving you any credibility as a scientist.
Thankfully, my credibility as a scientist doesn’t rest on your ‘say so’!!!!
It is grounded upon my innate abilities and my EARNED conventional qualifications!!!!!:eek:
Scofflaw
You are simply hiding. Why not come clean?
Perhaps the following exchange some time back on this thread may help explain my reluctance, as a conventional scientist, to identify myself on this forum:-
Originally Posted by J C
The Materialist (Evolutionists) have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science
Wicknight
Yes, you won't get a job.
Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry
Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.
Sangre
I call shenanigans on your qualifications JC.
stevejazzx
seconded
Two other good reasons not to identify myself!!!!!:eek:
……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them IF I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!:D 0 -
J C wrote:Scofflaw
…the problem that I have is giving you any credibility as a scientist.
Thankfully, my credibility as a scientist doesn’t rest on your ‘say so’!!!!
Not in general, no - but as far as I am concerned, yes.J C wrote:It is grounded upon my innate abilities and my EARNED conventional qualifications!!!!!:eek:
Unidentified as they are.J C wrote:Scofflaw
You are simply hiding. Why not come clean?
Perhaps the following exchange some time back on this thread may help explain my reluctance, as a conventional scientist, to identify myself on this forum:-
Originally Posted by J C
The Materialist (Evolutionists) have also labelled ID as ‘non-science’ and it’s proponents as ‘morons’. They have BANNED all discussion about it within Evolutionist peer review – with the OVERT pronouncement (repeated many times on this thread) of dire consequences for the career prospects of any scientist who shows any sympathetic interest towards Intelligent Design or Creation Science
Wicknight
Yes, you won't get a job.
Originally Posted by J C
CONVENTIONALLY QUALIFIED Biologists who are Creationists are eminently
> qualified to work in the Biotech industry
Robin
Indeed! But thankfully, they are all so inanely incompetent that they're functionally unemployable as real biologists.
Sangre
I call shenanigans on your qualifications JC.
stevejazzx
seconded
Two other good reasons not to identify myself!!!!!:eek:
I'm not asking you to identify yourself, JC. I am asking you to identify your qualifications. Just the qualifications. Unless you are the only person anywhere who holds such a qualification, that will not identify you.J C wrote:……and as I have said before, the fact that I have roundly defeated the evolutionists on every substantive scientific point made by them, is even MORE embarrassing for them IF I'm not a qualified scientist!!!!!:D
As I said, I'm sure that would be the case.
Frankly, the problem here is that, while I know you have your own unique take on truth, I think you're unwilling to lie outright. Therefore, I don't doubt that you have some qualification, and some claim to be a scientist, but am equally willing to bet that they won't support the weight of the claims you have piled on them.
You are therefore evading the question by pretending that it is ill-intentioned and dangerous - neither of which are at all true. You cannot be identified, out of the hundred thousand other conventionally qualified scientists in the country, by your primary qualification alone.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Advertisement
-
-
BA (Mod).Scofflaw wrote:Unless.....? I am sure I am leaving out some things (BMod, MSc etc), but enlighten away!
cordially,
Scofflaw
The Oxbridgetrin Triangle. A much maligned minority.
0 -
-
J C wrote:Why this fixation with my scientific credentials????
JC, allow me to clarify the issue as I see it:
You have claimed multiple times to be a 'creation scientist.' Your thoughts, as you have laid them out, are not supported by science or the scientific method. You generally don't come across as someone who reaches their conclusions objectively i.e. using facts and logic. This is why people are questioning your scientific credentials - not some kind of attempt to expose you.
A further issue is that people want to be clear on what grounds you call yourself a 'scientist.' Some may object to you using this title to give your non-scientific opinions credibility. Others may wish you to realize that what you consider to be a 'scientist' is not what people generally take it to mean and hence, it is misleading to identify yourself as such. You have been deliberately vague on how you earned your title. Simple elaboration on this issue, or at least an honest and unequivocal refusal to reveal even this information would likely result in the line of questioning being dropped.
A further point of my own that may help explain robindh's question is that a true scientist is one who works in science - someone who performs research and presents their results in peer-reviewed publications. A science teacher for example is not a scientist, he/she is a teacher. Your degree does not make you a scientist - merely someone who is qualified to be a scientist. This is further complicated by the fact that not all science degrees are equal (political science/social science are radically different from chemistry or physics, for example). Similarly, understanding science itself does not make one a scientist. With this in mind, evidence of your publication record would be a more accurate assessment of your stated role as a scientist.
It boils down to this:
1). the views you have expressed on this thread are not consistent with your claim to be a scientist.
2). You are using the title of scientist to lend credibility to your views, which is unacceptable whether you are a scientist or not.
3). to resolve this issue you must clarify what you think is adequate to be considered a scientist, and explain (protecting your anonymity, if you wish) how you have met those criteria.
OR
Recognize that you don't want to elaborate any further, and desist from using your title of scientist to support your opinions, though, inevitably, people will draw their own conclusion from this approach.0 -
Scofflaw wrote:Unless.....? I am sure I am leaving out some things (BMod, MSc etc), but enlighten away!
cordially,
Scofflaw
I'm a scientist then... cool 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
2Scoops
You have claimed multiple times to be a 'creation scientist.'
…..and so I am (a conventionally qualified scientist who has an interest in the scientific study of the evidence for Creation).
2Scoops
Your thoughts, as you have laid them out, are not supported by science or the scientific method. You generally don't come across as someone who reaches their conclusions objectively i.e. using facts and logic.
Such allegations by Evolutionists are routinely made against ALL Creationists who are scientists – often with the added recommendation that Creationists shouldn’t be employed in conventional science endeavours – even when they have first class conventional qualifications!!!!!:eek:
2Scoops
A further issue is that people want to be clear on what grounds you call yourself a 'scientist.'
I am a conventionally qualified scientist with EARNED science qualifications from a top Irish University – and this means that I am, both legally and academically, a scientist.
In addition, I am a WORKING conventional scientist which means that I have all three possible grounds to call myself a scientist !!!
Which part of the word ‘scientist’ do you not understand????
2Scoops
Some may object to you using this title to give your non-scientific opinions credibility.
I’m sure that ‘some’ may object to a doctor using his/her medical qualifications to give his/her medical opinions credibility!!!!
However, such objections don’t invalidate either the medical opinions or the qualifications of the doctor who is providing them!!!!
2Scoops
Others may wish you to realize that what you consider to be a 'scientist' is not what people generally take it to mean and hence, it is misleading to identify yourself as such.
I am a conventionally qualified scientist – which is what most people take the word ‘scientist’ to mean and thus, I am NOT misleading anybody.
2Scoops
You have been deliberately vague on how you earned your title. Simple elaboration on this issue, or at least an honest and unequivocal refusal to reveal even this information would likely result in the line of questioning being dropped.
I think that because of the emotions, that the ‘origins question’ raises on the part of Evolutionists, it is prudent for me not to identify myself at this stage.
Ireland is a small place – and the Academic World is even smaller – so identification could be easily achieved with relatively little information.
Could I declare ‘an honest and unequivocal refusal’ to reveal any further information about myself and could I ask that this line of questioning be dropped.
I promise that I will not question your claimed qualifications, and I would ask that you extend the same basic courtesy to me as well.:D
2Scoops
A further point of my own that may help explain robindh's question is that a true scientist is one who works in science - someone who performs research and presents their results in peer-reviewed publications. A science teacher for example is not a scientist, he/she is a teacher. Your degree does not make you a scientist - merely someone who is qualified to be a scientist.
As a general point, a scientist is somebody qualified to degree status by a conventional internationally recognised University……
…… what a scientist decides to do after their qualification is their own personal business – and it doesn’t have any effect on the validity of their science degree or their status as a scientist!!!!:D
2Scoops
This is further complicated by the fact that not all science degrees are equal (political science/social science are radically different from chemistry or physics, for example).
I can confirm that I am NOT a social scientist (of any type).
2Scoops
Similarly, understanding science itself does not make one a scientist.
Fair point.
I understand, I practise AND I am a qualified scientist!!!
What more do you want???
2Scoops
With this in mind, evidence of your publication record would be a more accurate assessment of your stated role as a scientist.
Can I refer you to the past 270 plus pages on this thread for a sample of my ‘publication record’.
Few peer-reviewed scientists that I have known, have had their writings subjected to such minute scrutiny by so many scientists !!!!:D
2Scoops
It boils down to this:
1). the views you have expressed on this thread are not consistent with your claim to be a scientist.
…..and I suppose that the Evolutionist ‘stories’ about the ‘emergence’ of Mankind from primeval slime, by processes unknown and unobserved, somehow counts as a ‘scientific’ account????:eek:
2Scoops
2). You are using the title of scientist to lend credibility to your views, which is unacceptable whether you are a scientist or not.
Evolutionists, who are scientists, ALSO use their scientific titles to lend credibility to their views on the ‘origins question’. :eek:
Unfortunately, as this thread has shown, the evidence for Evolution is so poor and illogical, that it’s credibility cannot be established, even by the high academic qualifications, of some of it’s proponents.:D
My defeat of the Evolutionists on this thread on every substantive scientific point raised by them was easy - because Creation actually happened.
On the other hand, the Evolutionists faced an uphill struggle, because Evolution never actually happened.
It is important to state that the defeat of Evolution on this thread WASN’T due to any deficiency on the part of the Evolutionists engaged in this debate.
I would go so far as to say that most of the Evolutionists on this thread are very gifted and intelligent people – and their primary problem was that they were trying to objectively prove the existence of something (Evolution) that objectively doesn’t exist!!!!:D
2Scoops
3). to resolve this issue you must clarify what you think is adequate to be considered a scientist, and explain (protecting your anonymity, if you wish) how you have met those criteria……
See above!!!
2Scoops
OR
Recognize that you don't want to elaborate any further, and desist from using your title of scientist to support your opinions, though, inevitably, people will draw their own conclusion from this approach.
My arguments stand on their OWN merits – and they DON’T actually rely on the fact that I am a scientist.
Common courtesy would suggest that we recognise each others earned conventional qualifications – and could I suggest that we concentrate on attacking the arguments made rather than engaging in the futile questioning of the qualifications of the person making them!!!!!
Bluewolf
I'm a scientist then... cool
….wonders will never cease!!!!:D
Wicknight
I find that very hard to believe considering your shocking lack of understanding of even the most basic scientific theories
- Children grown as the mutate
Groan!!!!!
My point was that children DON’T grow by a process of mutation!!!!
In fact, I used the phenomenon of children growing from a foetus to an adult, and ‘changing’ dramatically as they do so, as an example of radical biological change using pre-existing, pre-programmed genetic information – and not mutagenesis…..
…….. just like speciation and Natural Selection can ALSO produce radical rapid change using pre-existing genetic information – and not mutagenesis!!!
Wicknight
- Galaxies are made of dust
I have always accepted that Galaxies contain both stars and dust – you are the guys claiming that ‘nothing’ blew up in the Big Bang!!!
Wicknight
Muck spontaneously turned into humans
That IS effectively what the Materialistic Evolutionist claims!!!!:D
Wicknight
A mutation can only kill an organism
What I have said is that mutations always REDUCE genetic information.
Sometimes this DOES kill an organism – but most of the time it just debilitates them (or has no effect)!!!!
Mutations are a bit like 'Russian Roulette' in that they can cause damage or have no effect - but they NEVER produce new Complex Specified Information!!!!
Wicknight
The big bang explains how the universe came into existence
I certainly DON’T believe that the Big Bang explains how the universe came into existence.
In fact, I don’t believe that the Big Bang ever happened!!!!
Wicknight
- Science proves things beyond reasonable doubt
Probability Theory and the use of statistical calculations are ROUTINELY used to ‘judge’ where the boundaries of reasonable doubt are crossed – and therefore whether a particular hypothesis is scientifically proven.
Science DOES indeed exist, in part, to prove certain phenomena beyond a reasonable doubt.
In fact, a science that didn’t do so would be a pretty useless activity indeed.
People expect answers from science to questions like :-
…..Does this drug really work?……
…..If I use this chemical will it give me a predictable effect every time?….
…..Is this really the cause of this environmental effect???…..
…..etc., etc.
A controlled experiment is carried out to test each hypothesis and a statistical evaluation is carried out on the data generated by each experiment.
Most experiments use a 99% probability as the point where something is said to be scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt – in other words less than a 1% chance that the phenomenon measured isn’t valid.
I am actually amazed that you, as a scientist, would claim that science DOESN’T prove things beyond a reasonable doubt!!!
I think that you may be confusing the fact that science cannot prove anything beyond ALL doubt, with the fact that science is eminently capable of proving it’s results beyond a REASONABLE doubt.
Indeed, if science WASN’T capable of proving it’s results beyond REASONABLE doubt – it would largely become an irrelevant collection of ‘old wives tales’ with little or no objective validity!!!!
……and you guys accuse me of not understanding the Scientific Method???!!!:)
Wicknight
I understand that lay people who aren't interested in science could be excused for a certain level of ignorance when it comes to these things, but the idea that a trained professional scientists who has studied these areas such as evolution would be so completely ignorant of these things is laughable
Quite!!!
Here is your hat – lightly seasoned with salt and a hint of Garlic!!!!!
Bon Appetit!!! 0 -
-
J C wrote:I am a conventionally qualified scientist with EARNED science qualifications from a top Irish University – and this means that I am, both legally and academically, a scientist.
In addition, I am a WORKING conventional scientist which means that I have all three possible grounds to call myself a scientist !!!
Which part of the word ‘scientist’ do you not understand????
You're legally a scientist? What does that even mean?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement