Quote:Peeb, above question was to you based on your reply to me.

As to your question, pls show us all right here 1 or 2 instances of this alleged quote mining and we'll examine it right here. If allegedly there are numerous such examples, you should be able to show that. I do not necessarily agree with each and every Creation Scientist, but saying they are not Scientists or not well-qualified or highly accomplished is clearly incorrect imo.

There are no qualified  creationists there are liars who happen to have degrees but they don't deserve the title of scientist

(July 26, 2023 at 5:11 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Peeb, above question was to you based on your reply to me.

As to your question, pls show us all right here 1 or 2 instances of this alleged quote mining and we'll examine it right here. If allegedly there are numerous such examples, you should be able to show that. I do not necessarily agree with each and every Creation Scientist, but saying they are not Scientists or not well-qualified or highly accomplished is clearly incorrect imo.

Here ya go -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/m...oject.html

Similarly - 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

On the subject of creation 'scientists', here's the tip o' the iceberg -

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Boru

For an intelligent designer that knows everything, why is it so stupid?

Why is the design so flawed?

Quote:Abiogenesis ("Chemical Evolution")

Abiogenesis is about the origin of life, its a scientific theory, based on observations.
Evolution is an observed fact.
"Evolution by random mutation and natural selection" is also a scientific theory, based on observations.
Creationism or "intelligent design" is quackery.

Get your terms straight before you leave the kiddie table, if you want to talk with adults.

My terminology is correct. Evolutionists sometimes refer to Abiogenesis as Chemical Evolution, see this for e.g.: "Chemical evolution may refer to: Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_evolution Hence, I mentioned it in the OP Thread Title after reading their writings and put it in "quotes" to indicate that was how they called it. 

We also should distinguish Particles-to-People Evolution from mutations within species. Even Apes-to-Men evolution is not proven just by the fact that apes develop certain mutations in time.

Brian, ok, will peruse your links and get back in time.

Quote:My terminology is correct. Evolutionists sometimes refer to Abiogenesis as Chemical Evolution, see this for e.g.: "Chemical evolution may refer to: Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems"  Hence, I mentioned it in the OP Thread Title after reading their writings and put it in "quotes" to indicate that was how they called it. 

Which is totally distinct from the theory of evolution and there is no such thing as an Evolutionists that's a made-up creationist term 

Quote:We also should distinguish Particles-to-People Evolution from mutations within species. 

There is no "Particles-to-People Evolution" those are distinct and separate theories and evolution within species and between species is more than demonstrated 

Quote:Even Apes-to-Men evolution is not proven just by the fact that apes develop certain mutations in time.

There is no Ape to Men evolution because Men are apes and yes that does prove it beyond reasonable doubt. 

Quote:Brian, ok, will peruse your links and get back in time

And all you will do is make excuses for the liars

Creationists can only hide on their little fringe sites and pseudoscience circle jerk.

Deleted post.

(July 26, 2023 at 5:11 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Peeb, above question was to you based on your reply to me.

As to your question, pls show us all right here 1 or 2 instances of this alleged quote mining and we'll examine it right here. If allegedly there are numerous such examples, you should be able to show that. I do not necessarily agree with each and every Creation Scientist, but saying they are not Scientists or not well-qualified or highly accomplished is clearly incorrect imo.

Oh goody. This will be fun.

Example (1)




Example (2)



Posted simply as examples wherein people explain and point out the behaviour of Creationists.

You may respond when ready Mr Gridley.

(July 26, 2023 at 6:55 am)Peebothuhlu Wrote:

(July 26, 2023 at 5:06 am)Nishant Xavier Wrote: Who said this? "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

Ah, so now you are the one seemingly quote-mining?

So, since you'd rather slide away from my comments, let's start at the top with this one.

Firstly. A colloquial term thrown out into a crowd is in no way a 'Scholarly' work.
Secondly, if you want to try and find an actual quote from within the field of physics or cosmology, that'd be both nice and actually on point.

Finally, when Lawrence Crouse talks to 'The average Joe' (Or Neil Degrass Tyson or any other scholar for that matter), they simply have to render the proper terms down into common vernacular such that the people whose professions are outside of the actual field of study can have a ghost of a chance at understanding the basics. A book written for popular consumption is not actually a 'Scholarly' thesis. However, it can contain information relating to such.

Indeed when scientists say nothing they are not referring to the colloquial definition of nothing it's just an easy shortcut in language to explain it to lay people. Hawkings sure as heck wasn't saying a universe just popped out of nowhere. Also, we need to point out this isn't an atheist position as there is no atheist position on where the universe came from and frankly if it's even possible to know where it came from.