The same can be said for evolutionist scientists, who believing by faith, for there is no evidence of macroevolution, expecting to see that evolution has cause concludes that it does without empirical evidence. Evolutionist scientists already believe that evolution is true before they graduate college. They are indoctrinated in school to the faith. Then they go about seeking the cause of what they already believe in.
The difference between them is conviction. A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists. Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction, which the world demonstrates is often weak when passions come into play.
46 comments
...for there is no evidence of macroevolution...
The same can be said for evolutionist scientists, who believing by faith, for there is no evidence of macroevolution [...] It happens all the time. It's been observed over and over.Evolutionist scientists already believe that evolution is true before they graduate college. They are indoctrinated in school to the faith. I loathe it with a passion when religious people try to drag rationality down to their level.
Then they go about seeking the cause of what they already believe in. They know the cause, friend. It's mutations and natural selection.
The difference between them is conviction. A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. Don't make me laugh. Religion is all about having faith in unproven deities, and about not looking into and accepting competitive mythologies and scientific facts. Any person who applies rationality to religion ends up atheistic.
For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. No. On the contrary, presenting evolution honestly, as a scientific fact, would be a sin, as evolution disagrees with the Book of Genesis.
However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists. Here we go with the "no religion, no morals" idiocy again.
Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction, which the world demonstrates is often weak when passions come into play. Passions such as... religion?
For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists.
Sure there is. Scientists are very competitive. No scientist would conspire with others to maintain a false theory. There's nothing a scientist would like more than to prove his colleagues wrong. He'd probably win a Nobel Prize for it.
Well evolutionary biologists will believe evolution is true before they graduate from college. That's why they they chose to study evolutionary biology, dickeyes. No one is going to study something they think is a crock of shit (as evidenced by the fact none of you fundies know anything about science), which is why I don't have a degree in homeopathy and alternative medicine.
There is plenty of evidence for "macro-evolution," fossils, geologic column, DNA, anatomy, etc..
A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. TruthTM firmly established in their own minds and try to find evidence to fit their version of the story.
I'll stick to listening to real scientists.
Hmmm... he seems to be implying that a religious agenda and preconcieved notions about truths make one better able to give unbiased scientific judgements.
ah, I applaud you, IronOne. For me at least, though i admit i am no expert, this is a new twist on the atheists being immoral, ammoral lying bastards.
A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction
I'll take human intelligence over religious faith any day of the week. It has proven to be a lot more useful to people over the years.
For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin.
The fear of sin is a safeguard against "false witness" by creationists?
"A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin."
Ahh, the TV Generation speaks. First it was Bert&Ernie with the ABC's, now it's Kent Hovind et al, paid professional hucksters, with the easy teenage low-IQ version of reality.
Hey, let's call evolution a religion. Then we can actually have religious conviction, which, by this standard, is infallible.
"For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin."
- So what do you say to that Paul?
" For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23, KJV)
- Hmm, so Paul seems to be saying that creation scientists are prone to sinning, just like the rest of us. Unless you are prepared to say that Paul was wrong, we're going to have to let the objective evidence decide the issue of creation versus evolution.
Good luck with that.
"The difference between them is conviction. A creationist scientist is bound by religious conviction to be honest with himself and others about the evidences of science. For a creationist scientist, lying about or intentionally misrepresenting evidence for or against evolution would be a serious sin. However, there is no such safeguard for evolutionist scientists. Without religious conviction, they are left with only intellectual conviction, which the world demonstrates is often weak when passions come into play."
'Creationist Scientists' Such as, say... Michael Behe; a [i]Professor[/i] of Biochemistry, no less :
[img]http://s23.postimg.org/3mq65vbzr/cdesign_proponentsists.jpg[/img]
Yeah. Even a copypasta howler of unimaginable proportions - certainly agenda-annihilating legal/socio-educational repercussions - didn't put off Conservative [i]Christian[/i] Judge John E. Jones III in finding for the [i]defence[/i] in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, nosiree! [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm]
'Conviction'? Whilst not subject to jail, suspended sentence or so much as a fine, post-Kitzmiller vs. Dover he's now considered a laughingstock by the rest of the scientific community; certainly others of his ilk daren't speak out of their 'pet' theories, least of all in scientific journals. Two words: Peer Review.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
