₦airaland Forum

Deicide:
Am not talking about maths only in maths you only need to know it secrete then it becomes simple

plaetton:
I use math as an example because the reason math skills are normally used to measure intelligence is because understanding numbers and their relationships mproves logical reasoning, rationality , and of course, self awareness.

PastorAIO:
Of course 'rebuttals' can go back and forth till the day of judgment, but I think the crux of Ken Ham, or is it Dan Arel is here:



A rebuttal to end all rebuttals would be to simple provide the real scientific journal in which their discoveries were presented and the acceptance of the scientific community.

DoctorAlien:
AiG publishes its findings in Answers Research Journal(ARJ), a professional peer-reviewed journal.

PastorAIO:
I asked about Science Journals. Anybody can publish something and invite his friends/peers to come and review.

For example is it a Journal referenced by the members of the Royal Society. https://royalsociety.org/

DoctorAlien:
ARJ not scientific enough? Nobody cares.

There is no particular person or group of persons that has to sanction an idea before it is accepted as truth.

PastorAIO:
I'm instead talking about the conflict between a body of people who follow a certain methodology called the scientific method and who present ideas to each other for scrutiny , versus another body of people who are pushing a religious agenda and have been found in a court of law to be mendacious and prone to manipulating data to serve their ends.

By calling an idea scientific they blatantly seek to give themselves the prestige that has been gained by scientists such as are members of the Royal Society, individuals like Sir Isaac Newton etc, over the course of centuries.

DoctorAlien:
AiG scientists follow the scientific method. Moreover, people in the latter group also ignore, distort, and even discard data that negate their dogmas such as that of billions of years.

Answers in Genesis, the group that last year shelled out $27 million to open the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky., is at it again. This time, the intelligently designed group has established its own journal for creationist scholars who want their work reviewed by fellow biblical literalists—without the scientific worldview sticking its monkey nose in. According to its Web site, Answers Research Journal exists "for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework."

Creationists Fight Back with Laughable Faux-Science “Journal”

Answers in Genesis, the folks who brought us the Creation Museum, just launched a “professional, peer-reviewed technical journal,” Answers Research Journal. Because after all, peer-reviewed journals are where real scientists publish their work, right? Splendid. Let’s pop inside and take a peek at how peer review works for creationists!

VIII. Paper Review Process
The following criteria will be used in judging papers:

Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

Remark: The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.

In other words, they’ll happily publish your paper, just as long as it sticks to their script and doesn’t rock the ark with any pesky details like evidence to the contrary!

Contrast the criteria above with the guidelines for peer review at highly-respected journals like Science (where the rules begin with “reviews should be objective evaluations of the research,”) or Nature (where the first priority for a paper is that it “provides strong evidence for its conclusions”).

The editors of Answers might benefit from a reading of the nifty booklet on “Science, Evolution and Creationism” recently published by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes a handy section on How Science Works. One of the core ideas is: “Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light.” I’m not sure how to politely describe the activities of a so-called “journal” whose policy is to sweep inconvenient evidence under the rug, but it sure ain’t science.

You know that Isaac Newton did not believe in the dogma of billions of years promoted by your "scientists" today?

PastorAIO:
I'm instead talking about the conflict between a body of people who follow a certain methodology called the scientific method and who present ideas to each other for scrutiny , versus another body of people who are pushing a religious agenda and have been found in a court of law to be mendacious and prone to manipulating data to serve their ends.

By calling an idea scientific they blatantly seek to give themselves the prestige that has been gained by scientists such as are members of the Royal Society, individuals like Sir Isaac Newton etc, over the course of centuries.

If you were to call creationism a religious truth I would have no beef with that but you're purposely trying to get creationism conflated with science and that is why I'm in this conversation.

PastorAIO:
But I note that you dodged many of my salient points

I'll repeat my point in condensed form, as a question.


Why do you (and your ilk) feel the need to claim Scientific Authority?

DoctorAlien:
We don't feel the need to claim "Scientific Authority" per se. We feel the need to poke holes in the pseudoscience based on unfounded assumptions being hawked around as science.

PastorAIO:
You want to poke holes in science but your religion cannot do for mankind what science has done for mankind in the last 500 years.

KingEbukasBlog:
From all sides ? The thing is history have revealed that people who believe in God have made and are making way more significant contributions to our understanding of nature than those who don't .

If you doubt me , we scanned through the medevial age(1000 years ) and discovered just three atheists who made meaningful contributions to the development of mankind

https://www.nairaland.com/3299993/what-prominent-achievements-made-atheists

Intelligent my arss

PastorAIO:
You want to poke holes in science but your religion cannot do for mankind what science has done for mankind in the last 500 years.

KingEbukasBlog:
The contributors in science were mostly from his religion . His religion provided the animus for most of those contributors to make their mark in science .

KingEbukasBlog:
The contributors in science were mostly from his religion . His religion provided the animus for most of those contributors to make their mark in science .

Sibe007:
What meaningful contribution has Religion made to Nigeria... Smh

Guy grow up oh. Its not a competition, just make sure u do ur kids proud.

KingEbukasBlog:
The contributors in science were mostly from his religion . His religion provided the animus for most of those contributors to make their mark in science .

KingEbukasBlog:
At least you are alive because Christianity brought health care and education for your ancestors .




Why do you think its a competition ? You are in a thread created by an ignorant atheist based on ignorance and you don't know which group thinks its a competition ? Jokes on you brother .

KingEbukasBlog:
At least you are alive because Christianity brought health care and education for your ancestors .

Why do you think its a competition ? You are in a thread created by an ignorant atheist based on ignorance and you don't know which group thinks its a competition ? Jokes on you brother .

PastorAIO:
Why do you guys just want to jump on science? Either by discrediting it, or by fake-ly trying claim it.

Did religion give you the Animus or the animosity, because here you are trying to call geology a pseudo science.

PastorAIO:
Oops, you weren't talking to me.

Are you smoking crack? Do you know how many pharmaceutical researchers go to africa and Amazon jungle to learn from herbalists and babalawos.You forget that Nigeria used to be called the white man's graveyard. Why didn't christianity keep those early imperialists alive? Maybe your ancestors didn't know how to bang each other and produce babies, or maybe they were gay, but my case is different. I'm here, alive, because my parents followed their natural instincts when they lay together.

After months of observation it has become clear to me that there is some sort of competition going on in your heads. I don't care about the rest of the thread. I care about the posts that I saw that caught my attention and provoked me to reply.

DoctorAlien:
Everybody on earth knows that the science that has made positive impact on the lives of people in this world has nothing to do with one-celled organisms becoming dinosaurs, and then man. Nor does it have anything to do with "nothing" suddenly expanding into "nothing" to bring about something.

Geology is the study of the Earth - how it works and its 4.5 billion-year history. Geologists study some of society's most important problems, such as energy, water, and mineral resources; the environment; climate change; and natural hazards like landslides, volcanoes, earthquakes, and floods.

PastorAIO:
The greatest early contributor to science is probably Sir Isaac Newton. Isaac Newton was an astrologer and an alchemist. His religious beliefs were closer to Arianism.

Are any of you Arians?

Are any of you Alchemists?

Are any of you Astrologers?

KingEbukasBlog:
Anyone can dispute anything in science . Its irrelevant if the dispute must have arisen due to religious beliefs . There are irreligious atheists who dispute scientific theories especially evolution . To know if a scientific theory is true , we should try to falsify it , innit ?

PastorAIO:
Anyone can dispute anything in or outside of science. You don't even have to be very intelligent to dispute.

However to Scientifically dispute something the disputation has to be done with evidence.

KingEbukasBlog:
But this does not change the fact that the Catholic Church brought us improved health care , education , technology and other good things to better our lives . Are you saying this is not true ?

The atheists make it look like a competition when there isn't . What would prompt someone to think he is more intelligent than some groups of people simply because He believes there is no God ?

KingEbukasBlog:
But he was a Christian and we are all Christians (the argument was on religious affiliation remember ?) . Anyway sir , Nicole Oresme , Roger Bacon , John Buridan were Catholics and were the founders of modern science - this was achieved in the 13th century .

KingEbukasBlog:
But he was a Christian and we are all Christians (the argument was on religious affiliation remember ?) . Anyway sir , Nicole Oresme , Roger Bacon , John Buridan were Catholics and were the founders of modern science - this was achieved in the 13th century .

KingEbukasBlog:
True . But you can just point out flaws and even inanities as a way of disputing it right ?

PastorAIO:
Every time two cultures meet there are exchanges many of which are beneficial and many of which are detrimental. Catholic church certainly brought education to Eastern nigeria, I don't doubt that. We also gave them many beneficial things.

And by the way, just in case you are still at this level, Mungo Park didn't discover any river Niger. We, the inhabitants of nigeria, na we show am the way.

What would prompt a born again christian to think that he is superior to a muslim just because he doesn't believe in his version of God? I'm sorry but the arrogance started first from your side. You bully and then when you receive just a small taste of your own medicine you start to cry. It' s pathetic.

PastorAIO:
And where did they draw their inspiration from? The bible? NO!!!

Aristotle? YES!!! Aristotle Aristotle Aristotle all the way.