Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As I have said before - I approach any and all sources equally, as any student is meant to. If they don't pass muster then I will say as much.

I can give a long list of scientists who were hot stuff originally, mainly due to them not facing the criteria a researcher has to today - and now when they are looked at they get labeled with "pseudoscience" - because it is justified.

This coming from the person who can blindly go on and on about something but when a hard question is asked suddenly say "I don't think I should answer"? You walk a tightrope trying to ignore the valid problems that have been raised with your religion. It isn't denial I have - it is an open mind. It is being prepared to look at what is being presented, use my mind, and ask questions if questions need to be asked.

I'm not the one quoting a scientist simply because he has "Christian" in his resume. I'm not the one refusing to give equal time to other scinetists simply because there views don't support the Biblical claim. It is you who are in denial, to scared to actually look at the data on offer as you fear it might cause you to doubt.

True strength isn't running from a challenge, it is facing it or finding a way around it.

Above - tell me. I have done a lot of research. If I approach a source, and find fault with it, am I being unreasonable saying as much?

You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not? Are you going to disagree with them, you with no doctorate letters beside your name?

As above again. It is not being biased to not support a person with an obvious agenda who has utilised a scientific theory that has been opposed in a valid and convincing manner by many other scientists.

Understand this - I am not simply going to accept his claim because he has "doctorate letters" by his name. Especially when there are many other far more reputable scientists, both Christian and otherwise, who disagree with him and do not possess that massive agenda.

And once again - You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not?

Says the man who enjoys posting absurd links about the teaching of evolution being attributed to crime and refuses to support it when the multitude of holes in the theory are pointed out.

Says the man who doesn't give equal respect to scientific theories put forward by scientists who aren;t supporting the Bible.

Says the person who enjoys Chick tracts with their multitude of inaccuracies, absurdancies and downright mistruths.

You critique of my research style would carry far more weight if it didn't reflect so much on your own style. As I have said - I will approach every "expert" you present in the same manner as I have been taught through my studies. I will applaud them when they deserve it and question them when they say something questionable.

I don't care if they are Christian, Muslim or Atheist. The content they present matters, as does the agenda they might have in presenting it as they do. The man we are speaking of here has some serious problems, and he isn't even well supported through publishing. I am being far more open minded in questioning such claims as you are in simply accepting them because a Christian is making them.

You can present your champion here - but tell me, if I give a list of scientists who don't agree with him are you going to admit they may have a point or not?

Let the quoting games begin. Show proof of what you assert in terms of there being,

"far more reputable scientists, both Christian and otherwise, who disagree with him and do not possess that massive agenda."

I am all ears. Oh and why do you keep referring to Dr. DeWitt as "my champion?" Deep down do you subconsciously regard him as such a formidable opponent? I think that you do which is why I surmise that you tried immediately to discredit him from the beginning. You wasted no time in attempting to do this. Your insecurity in Dr. DeWitt's laurels has you on shaky ground right now. I would at least have said something to the effect that,

"Dr. DeWitt is respectable and reputable in his field. I may not agree with everything that he says but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as I can find fault with what he affirms. I mean after all, I have no axe to grind or bone to pick with the man, he has not done me any harm. Moreover, he is no threat to what I believe."

But did you do that? No, you sought to discredit and discount the man's intellectual/scientific credibility from the gate. That is not the mark of a person worthy of debating with.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Let the quoting games begin. Show proof of what you assert in terms of there being,

"far more reputable scientists, both Christian and otherwise, who disagree with him and do not possess that massive agenda."

I am all ears.

And I mean that in terms of the fact the theories they present do not agree with his, and find far more support in the mainstream scientific community. His "Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?" opposition does not actually present itself as an objection to evolutionary theory and is no where even near the level a theory must be to be presented as fact to the scientific community. And even then it is not actually proof of what you think it is.

As such we look at this "other works" from a creationist perspective - I am finding it funny, the more I read of Dr. DeWitt, the fact his views have so failed to disrupt the standard scientific theory that few people seem to have actually debated with him of him outside the Christian science community. Now lets, see, just off the top of my head evolutionary theorists whose work doesn't seem to fit in with DeWitt...

So the following are scientists who have links to evolutionary theory in recent years and whom don't appear appear to be near anything DeWitt says throughout their careers. Have you read any works by the following?

Richard Dawkins
Neil Campbell
George Williams
John Maynard Smith
Stephen J. Gould
Robert Trivers
Michael J. Benton
Jared Diamond

If you want me to find some specific figures associated with macro-evolution you will have to wait till tomorrow when I have access to the university data-base, but still the above are a very broad and interesting selection (ok, some I included just because I like them as authors, and I am enjoying Richard Dawkins new book.)

Dr. DeWitt is respectable and reputable in his field. I may not agree with everything that he says but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until such time as I can find fault with what he affirms. I mean after all, I have no axe to grind or bone to pick with the man, he has not done me any harm. Moreover, he is no threat to what I believe."

Uh huh. So basically I am just meant to agree with what you say until I get a docterate in something? It doesn't work that way - when you fail to present something I have valid reason to support I wont support it. I have read the works of plenty of other scientists and if I find them more evidenced and better formulated I will say so. What I have been able to see of DeWitt on the web does not fill me with awe, especially when I have read other, more reputable scientists works which differ.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And I mean that in terms of the fact the theories they present do not agree with his, and find far more support in the mainstream scientific community. His "Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?" opposition does not actually present itself as an objection to evolutionary theory and is no where even near the level a theory must be to be presented as fact to the scientific community. And even then it is not actually proof of what you think it is.

As such we look at this "other works" from a creationist perspective - I am finding it funny, the more I read of Dr. DeWitt, the fact his views have so failed to disrupt the standard scientific theory that few people seem to have actually debated with him of him outside the Christian science community. Now lets, see, just off the top of my head evolutionary theorists whose work doesn't seem to fit in with DeWitt...

So the following are scientists who have links to evolutionary theory in recent years and whom don't appear appear to be near anything DeWitt says throughout their careers. Have you read any works by the following?

Richard Dawkins
Neil Campbell
George Williams
John Maynard Smith
Stephen J. Gould
Robert Trivers
Michael J. Benton
Jared Diamond

If you want me to find some specific figures associated with macro-evolution you will have to wait till tomorrow when I have access to the university data-base, but still the above are a very broad and interesting selection (ok, some I included just because I like them as authors, and I am enjoying Richard Dawkins new book.)

Uh huh. So basically I am just meant to agree with what you say until I get a docterate in something? It doesn't work that way - when you fail to present something I have valid reason to support I wont support it. I have read the works of plenty of other scientists and if I find them more evidenced and better formulated I will say so. What I have been able to see of DeWitt on the web does not fill me with awe, especially when I have read other, more reputable scientists works which differ.

Tell me something that I don't already know. It is because of your bias that Dr. DeWitt is not credible or renowned enough in your estimation. If he was arguing in your favor (or on your team as it were) he would definitely be included in your list (he would probably be listed first). That is the only thing that I can see wrong with your whole outlook and modus operandi, you are devoid of objectivity and impartiality. You play favorites when those favored are in your corner so to speak. On the other hand if a scientist just pantomimes the phrase, "I am a Christian," you rush to eliminate them from contention. In your world, a creationist (not necessarily even a Christian just a creationist) is irrational, illogical, gullible, naive, intellectually deficient, inept, etc. Friend, pal, buddy, you have even admitted it yourself in this selfsame post that your biased, and I quote

"...(ok, some I included just because I like them as authors, and I am enjoying Richard Dawkins new book.)...."

But this man (Dr. DeWitt a biochemist and neuroscientist who is laden with accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards) seems to not be worthy of even second-rate mention in your estimation. I am almost nonplused by your behavior Samura.

The Jury announces their decision: We the jury find Imperial_Samura (arguably one of the most intelligent persons on this forum) guilty of bias, prejudice, rush to judgment against creationist scientists, partiality, discrimination, and the like.

The Honorable Judge JesusIsAlive presides: Imperial_Samura, I find your intolerance repugnable and exceedingly despicable. I hereby sentence you to read the Gospel According to John from beginning to end (this has to be the worst form of punishment that I could consign you too because I have asked you repeatedly if you have read it, but I have not received any answer yet).

When Dr DeWitt publishes a single peer-reviewed article on evolutionary theory in a reputable journal and miraculously wins a Crafoord Prize, then maybe just maybe he can put himself on the bottom of a long list next to a long list next to a list with John Maynard Smith (who published 234 peer-reviewed journal articles in his lifetime 40 of them in Nature) on it. Top of the list. Laughable.

If he is indeed so "laden with accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards" perhaps you'd like to share some of his scientific accomplishments?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
When Dr DeWitt publishes a single peer-reviewed article on evolutionary theory in a reputable journal and miraculously wins a Crafoord Prize, then maybe just maybe he can put himself on the bottom of a long list next to a long list next to a list with John Maynard Smith (who published 234 peer-reviewed journal articles in his lifetime 40 of them in Nature) on it. Top of the list. Laughable.

If he is indeed so "laden with accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards" perhaps you'd like to share some of his scientific accomplishments?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You obviously care enough to keep on responding to me. I have already informed you that you are under no obligation to reply to my posts or even look at them. I don't know why you waste your time to be quite frank. I only respond back to you because you first respond to me (it is never the other way around that I can recall).

I won't even dignify your reply to me with a real response. I will let my last post to you do the talking for me.

I forever rest my case (in love though, good Christian love because if I didn't have Christian love for you I would have said something else). Remember, I am trying to eliminate strife between us by trying not to have any communication with you at all. But you just keep on responding to me (why, I do not know).

Dr David DeWitt
Creationist Biochemist and Neuroscientist
(USA)

Dr David A. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University. Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is active in teaching and research. Liberty University recognized Dr DeWitt with the 2000-2001 President's Award for Teaching Excellence. He teaches upper level biology courses in cell biology and biochemistry as well as ‘History of Life.’ The latter is a required course on the creation/evolution controversy. His primary research efforts have been to understand the mechanisms causing cellular damage in Alzheimer's disease. He has authored and co-authored articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Brain Research and Experimental Neurology.

Dr DeWitt is also associate director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California where he has taught graduate level cell biology. Dr DeWitt served on the board of directors of the Alexandra Foundation and currently is their Director of Creation Education. He has written articles and given many presentations on creation/evolution issues. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, the Creation Research Society, and is currently chair of the biology section of the Virginia Academy of Sciences. He lives in Lynchburg, Virginia with his wife Marci and his three daughters.

Publications
The Origin of Life: A Problem for Evolution
Stem Cell Decision not the End of Ethical Dilemmas

At minimum, at least match what Dr. DeWitt has accomplished academically and scientifically then come back to this forum and demean and belittle him and his achievments.

Error.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I won't even dignify your reply to me with a real response. I will let my last post to you do the talking for me.

I forever rest my case (in love though, good Christian love because if I didn't have Christian love for you I would have said something else). Remember, I am trying to eliminate strife between us by trying not to have any communication with you at all. But you just keep on responding to me (why, I do not know).

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[B]Dr David DeWitt
Creationist Biochemist and Neuroscientist
(USA)

Dr David A. DeWitt received a B.S. in biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University. Currently an associate professor of biology at Liberty University, he is active in teaching and research. Liberty University recognized Dr DeWitt with the 2000-2001 President's Award for Teaching Excellence. He teaches upper level biology courses in cell biology and biochemistry as well as ‘History of Life.’ The latter is a required course on the creation/evolution controversy. His primary research efforts have been to understand the mechanisms causing cellular damage in Alzheimer's disease. He has authored and co-authored articles that have appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Brain Research and Experimental Neurology.

Dr DeWitt is also associate director of the Center for Creation Studies at Liberty University and an adjunct faculty member of the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California where he has taught graduate level cell biology. Dr DeWitt served on the board of directors of the Alexandra Foundation and currently is their Director of Creation Education. He has written articles and given many presentations on creation/evolution issues. He is a member of the Society for Neuroscience, the Creation Research Society, and is currently chair of the biology section of the Virginia Academy of Sciences. He lives in Lynchburg, Virginia with his wife Marci and his three daughters.

Publications
The Origin of Life: A Problem for Evolution
Stem Cell Decision not the End of Ethical Dilemmas

At minimum, at least match what Dr. DeWitt has accomplished academically and scientifically then come back to this forum and demean and belittle him and his achievments. [/B]

How about you publish 230 articles, at least a dozen of them in Nature, win a Crafoord Prize, and become a Fellow of the Royal Society. Then you can post your view denying, the work of Maynard Smith, that evolution isn't true.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Error.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Hmm for one thing I distinctly remember you already saying you were going to ignore my posts a while ago when I stated the bible is a work of fiction. Therefore everytime you post you're on record as a liar and that makes baby Jesus cry. For another your constant attempt at feigning some kind of moral high ground is laughable. Everyone on here knows you for what you are, a smug fundamentalist troll. And for a third, debate generally involves back and forth between posters. Of course you're not really interested in debate are you now? You're here to preach.
(Notwithstanding that I intend to have a publication in Neuroscience by year's end and in doing so at the age of 21 would have an article published in a journal of higher impact than 6/7 of the papers the ICR site lists)
He has a few interesting papers on Alzheimer's mostly as a co-author. He has no peer-reviewed publications on evolution. The two "publications" in that biography you keep posting list are not scientific publications. Where exactly do you derive that he is "laden with accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards"? Where do you derive that he would go to the top of a list of scholars based on his achievements?

How about you publish 230 articles, at least a dozen of them in Nature, win a Crafoord Prize, and become a Fellow of the Royal Society. Then you can post your view denying, the work of Maynard Smith, that evolution isn't true.
Yes. Yes, you are.

You will never again get a reply from me. God bless.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You will never again get a reply from me. God bless.

I'm just going to take this as another instance exemplifying your incredible ineptitude in debate and your inability to withstand being confronted by established fact that contradicts your supernatural religious views.

It's alright though. I still love you. The kind of love that involves hot passionate jackrabbit sex, not the Christian one.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive

That is rank nonsense.

I will listen to you when you get your B.S. in biochemistry and a Ph.D. in neuroscience just like Dr. DeWitt. Until such time who are you to call this man's honesty into question?

http://theunjustmedia.com/darwinism%20refuted%20true_origin_of_species.htm

Haha... Hypocrite to the core... He's not being completely honest when he ignores the whole picture and only dissects part of the equation.

But on the note of qualifications; who are you to preach about salvation? Are you an ordained priest or preacher?

Ermm, JIA, I respect that you are religious and all but, you have to learn what science is, and that religion shouldn't be treated as the same, for religion is fiction. Science is based on facts.

That is the big difference.

JIA, you need to stop attacking our claims, and defend your own.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Ermm, JIA, I respect that you are religious and all but, you have to learn what science is, and that religion shouldn't be treated as the same, for religion is fiction. Science is based on facts.

That is the big difference.

Yes.

Originally posted by ~Flamboyant~
JIA, you need to stop attacking our claims, and defend your own.

He never defends his claim, just goes into dodge/attack mode.

There are three logical ways to read that.

1. His point is completely unsubstantiated.

2. He is not intelligent enough to actually understand the concepts and make a debate (copy paste mode).

3. He's just here to annoy and be unproductive.

JIA, you keep telling us that we must keep an open mind and understand that our view that god doesn’t exist could be wrong but you do know follow what you ask of us, you do and will never entertain the thought that god doesn’t exist so how do you expect anyone to. Most atheist that I know do think that they “could” be wrong and if shown real proof or evidence then they would believe, most atheist are very open minded.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[COLOR=darkblue]Tell me something that I don't already know. It is because of your bias that Dr. DeWitt is not credible or renowned enough in your estimation.

You ask me to provide some reputable scientists whose views don't match DeWitt's - but that isn't good enough for you?

Do you know what a scientist has to do to be considered an authority on something? The importance of publishing and academic debate? DeWitt is not, as you seem to make out, a scientific God bestriding the scientific community. I am at uni - I have tried to look up things he has published - and there is virtually nothing. His book isn't even in the catalogue, which is massive.

If he was arguing in your favor (or on your team as it were) he would definitely be included in your list (he would probably be listed first).

Look at my list - there are thousands upon thousands of scientists who I could have listed. However they are names from one of my essay bibliographies - as in they were relevant to a topic I was writing about. As in they were sufficiently evidenced and published to be able to do something with.

Understand this - it is not about which side they represent, it is how they make their arguments, how well evidenced and supported those arguments are. If you want to attack them do it based on the argument, not on the "they aren't creationists - they are bad men" - that is hypocritical.

That is the only thing that I can see wrong with your whole outlook and modus operandi, you are devoid of objectivity and impartiality.

Ah huh, so because I can provide names and if need be works, of numerous evolutionary theorists, biologists and so on this is somehow biased? Let me get this straight - because I can support my case with reputable, published scientists whose theories have stood the test of time I am lacking an open mind.

Essentially to be considered impartial by you I would have to simply accept DeWitt's claims despite the fact they are not represented or even really recognised by the scientific community and his has so far totally failed to defend them?

You play favorites when those favored are in your corner so to speak. On the other hand if a scientist just pantomimes the phrase, "I am a Christian," you rush to eliminate them from contention. In your world, a creationist (not necessarily even a Christian just a creationist) is irrational, illogical, gullible, naive, intellectually deficient, inept, etc.

Funny, I don't remember saying any such thing. I believe I said I approach any source the way I have been trained to, be it Christian or otherwise. Present a good Christian scientist (and they do exist, but not in the Internet hovels you trawl for support) and I will say so. Find a poorly presented Atheist scholar (and God there are a lot of them, you should have read my attacks on the postmodern historians) and I will say so.

Don't try and imply the fact I won't support your poor quality sources here somehow means I am biased, you the person who operates solely on the fact he is a Christian. You who enjoys starting threads claiming Atheism and evolution have led men to insanity.

Friend, pal, buddy, you have even admitted it yourself in this selfsame post that your biased, and I quote

"...(ok, some I included just because I [b]like them as authors, and I am enjoying Richard Dawkins new book.)...." [/b]

Funny, the from the person who says "I like Chick tracts" - the difference being the person I just said was good is a well defined, published and evidenced scientist, where as Jack Chick has been shown again and again to base his works on falsity and mistruths.

And woe - I like the works of a well defined, published and evidenced scientist. How terrible.

But this man (Dr. DeWitt a biochemist and neuroscientist who is laden with accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards) seems to not be worthy of even second-rate mention in your estimation. I am almost nonplused by your behavior Samura.

You must have to work hard to create you own conclusions from other peoples posts. Care to make a big nice list of all those "accolades, honorable citations, tributes, and awards" - care to list the ones from scientific institutes and figures? Not ones by priests and religious people saying "this man is a credit to science."

And since we seem to be having a "my scientist is better then yours competition" - care to actually look at the names I listed and compare them to your guy? Look at the quality of work, the number of publications, the impact and acceptance of those publications and theories, the evidence they utilise and so on? Do you want to know what you will find? DeWitt is not in the A-Class of scientists. He has not presented theories that have been found as well evidenced. He is operating from a view that science has to fit in a religious frame work - a fault those I mention are mostly free of.

The Jury announces their decision: We the jury find Imperial_Samura (arguably one of the most intelligent persons on this forum) guilty of bias, prejudice, rush to judgment against creationist scientists, partiality, discrimination, and the like.

The Honorable Judge JesusIsAlive presides: Imperial_Samura, I find your intolerance repugnable and exceedingly despicable. I hereby sentence you to read the Gospel According to John from beginning to end (this has to be the worst form of punishment that I could consign you too because I have asked you repeatedly if you have read it, but I have not received any answer yet).

Irony, Irony, Irony. My final words to the court? I advise the jury to address the fact I provided JIA with a 8 scientists to make my point in countering to his 1 not very widely recognised champion. If you will look at his response you will notice he totally and completely failed to address a single one of them, their theories or what I stated. I believe, if you review your notes, you will find it is in fact JIA who is guilty of the crimes he just listed, simply change "Creationist Scientist" to "any scientist who doesn't agree with him."

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You will never again get a reply from me. God bless.

Well, if that isn't the biggest dodge ever.

xmarksthespot was correct in what was said - you didn't even try and defend your stance - once again you simply said "I don't like this anymore, I'm taking my ball and bat and going home.)

And xmarksthespot is saying the same thing as I am, though with specific reference to the things Smith has achieved, are you going to ignore me?

Put more money were you mouth is - you accused me or all sorts of bias because I look at experts, any expert, in a rational way and look at achievements, the evidence and the like. How are you doing this? You are claiming DeWitt deserves to be at the top of the list I put down (which wasn't in order by the way) - when you refuse to give a single second of your time to the people I listed.

How, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are you being open minded JIA?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You will never again get a reply from me. God bless.

YES!!!!!! 💃 💃 💃 💃