Prayer ... SERIOUSLY?!

[Statler Waldorf]

[Epimethean]

Side note, but related, Statler: Would you consider Newton a Christian if he was an Arian?

[Statler Waldorf]

Side note, but related, Statler: Would you consider Newton a Christian if he was an Arian?

Not up to me to decide. I have never seen a definite consensus that he espoused to Arianism, though it is possible. However, he seemed to exercise saving faith and trusted in Christ, not sure if that would even be possible apart from saving grace. Doesn't change the fact that he was a creationist and scientists though.

[Epimethean]

I owe you an answer regarding when creationism came to be considered pseudoscience. That required the full development of science as separate from religion, and it seems to have achieved that status around the time of the development of the science of geology, which came to be creationism's archnemesis, scientifically speaking. This came to pass in the late 1800's, but really was the result of Hutton's work 100 years earlier. So, we could say that creationism lost its scientific standing in the 1800's, or rather a while after most of that list of distinguished religious scientists you listed.

[Statler Waldorf]

I owe you an answer regarding when creationism came to be considered pseudoscience. That required the full development of science as separate from religion, and it seems to have achieved that status around the time of the development of the science of geology, which came to be creationism's archnemesis, scientifically speaking. This came to pass in the late 1800's, but really was the result of Hutton's work 100 years earlier. So, we could say that creationism lost its scientific standing in the 1800's, or rather a while after most of that list of distinguished religious scientists you listed.

Not all scientists agree with the concept of non-overlapping magisteria so I do not agree with you that is what made creationists not scientists. Von Braun was the head of NASA's Apollo program and a creationist, was he not a scientist because this was in the late 1960s? In fact there are still creationists working at NASA today and the MRI was invented by a young earth creationist, are they not scientists? I think you are taking a rather silly position, and I think you should just address the evidence and arguments rather than playing this game.

[Epimethean]

What is the evidence to which you seem to be elusively pointing?

[DaveD]

Most people in the 17th and 18 centuries were creationists. The men whose studies formed the basis for the science of geology were often upset to find that their discoveries kept contradicting the bible, but rather than try and twist the facts to fit their dogma, they decided that the dogma must not be literally true. In other words they were honest, in sharp contrast to modern creationists, who seem to believe everything in the bible without question, with the obvious exception of bearing false witness.
Whenever today's creationists claim those believers of previous centuries as kindred spirits, I just point and laugh.

[Statler Waldorf]

[The Grand Nudger]

Please propose a manner in which the theory of a worldwide flood ( as described in the bible) would be falsifiable.

Before you even ask...if you could present us with an example of an anatomically modern dog, fossilized next to a T-Rex, and dated to the same period in time (even if we dont accept the dates accuracy, its only important that they have similar dates associated) and I would concede that to me, that seems to suggest that a dog and a T-Rex may have been caught up in some sort of flood together.

[Statler Waldorf]