Creationism in School

[purnhart]

As said above, you clearly do not understand what a scientific theory is; and this is an issue. You also must go against your own ideas of learning both sides, because you would know what a scientific theory is if you looked at evolution or other scientific theories.

The fact is that evolution and the big bang are accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists, whereas creationism is not.

It is only accepted as fact because the evolutionists refuse to accept creation science as science. But here's the rub; there are many bone fide scientists who reject evolution.

A few of the post-Darwin creationists who have benefited society are Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, G.W. Carver, the Wright brothers, Werner von Braun and R.V. Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner. Dr. J. Baumgardner's supercomputer model at Sandia National Laboratory, designed for studying earth-mantle dynamics, has been the world's best for more than a decade.
Good predictions, are the life-blood of science. Dr. R. Humphries, a creationist physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is the only scientist to correctly predict: 1) the size of the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune; 2) that Mars would have no magnetic field but would have
remnant magnetism from an ancient field; and 3) that lava flows on Earth would be found that captured a magnetic field reversal in the time it took for them to cool.

And another scientist who rejected evolution; my father, who was a geologist.

 

[mulimulix]

It is only accepted as fact because the evolutionists refuse to accept creation science as science. But here's the rub; Darwin himself rejected his theory of evolution. And there are many bone fide scientists who reject evolution as well.

A few of the post-Darwin creationists who have benefited society are Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, G.W. Carver, the Wright brothers, Werner von Braun and R.V. Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner. Dr. J. Baumgardner's supercomputer model at Sandia National Laboratory, designed for studying earth-mantle dynamics, has been the world's best for more than a decade.
Good predictions, are the life-blood of science. Dr. R. Humphries, a creationist physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is the only scientist to correctly predict: 1) the size of the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune; 2) that Mars would have no magnetic field but would have
remnant magnetism from an ancient field; and 3) that lava flows on Earth would be found that captured a magnetic field reversal in the time it took for them to cool.

And another scientist who rejected evolution; my father, who was a geologist.

Ummm...

Can you source where you read that Darwin rejected evolution? Because he said it had flaws, but never said he rejected it.

Sure, plenty of creationists have been valuable to humanity in the past 100 or so years, so what? I could name a lot more scientists who haven't rejected evolution - as shown before, up to 95% of scientists reject creationism.

Also, can you explain what science is behind creationism?

 

[purnhart]

You see the point I am trying to make though? I'll rephrase what I am saying: We should accept evolution because pretty much all experts on it do. That isn't a logical fallacy.

Ohhh, all experts in evolution accept evolution, therefore we should accept evolution because the experts in evolution accept it. That is most definitely a logical fallacy. They are experts in evolution because they accepted it as true before they became experts in it. Creationist scientists, and they are there, are experts in creationism science and they accept it as true. So, since the experts in creationism science accept is as true, you must accept is as true, also. Because they are the experts and they should know.

 

[mulimulix]

Ohhh, all experts in evolution accept evolution, therefore we should accept evolution because the experts in evolution accept it. That is most definitely a logical fallacy. They are experts in evolution because they accepted it as true before they became experts in it. Creationist scientists, and they are there, are experts in creationism science and they accept it as true. So, since the experts in creationism science accept is as true, you must accept is as true, also. Because they are the experts and they should know.

I don't think a scientists ONLY specialises in evolution. These scientists specialise in fields such as biology (including subdivisions), archaeology, paleontology etc.

Who are these creationist scientists and what science do they use?

 

[purnhart]

Ummm...

Can you source where you read that Darwin rejected evolution? Because he said it had flaws, but never said he rejected it.

Sure, plenty of creationists have been valuable to humanity in the past 100 or so years, so what? I could name a lot more scientists who haven't rejected evolution - as shown before, up to 95% of scientists reject creationism.

Also, can you explain what science is behind creationism?

I looked it up; Darwin didn't reject it. I guess that would be called an old wive's tale.

Science was started by Christians. They said, God created the universe. God is an orderly God. therefore, we need to go out and discover the order of His universe.

Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians. Stark believes that the Enlightenmenthttp://www.conservapedia.com/Enlightenment was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science.

I cannot put in a link, but this came from a site called conservapedia dot com.

 

[purnhart]

I don't think a scientists ONLY specialises in evolution. These scientists specialise in fields such as biology (including subdivisions), archaeology, paleontology etc.

Who are these creationist scientists and what science do they use?

If you google creationist scientist alive today you will find creation dot com. There they have a list of scientists alive today who are creationists. They include:

Dr. James Allen, geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, geologist
Dr. Raymond Bohlin, biologist
Dr. Harold Coffin, palaeontologist
Dr. Ken Cumming, biologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

And the list goes on and on.

 

[Incariol]

I looked it up; Darwin didn't reject it. I guess that would be called an old wive's tale.

Science was started by Christians. They said, God created the universe. God is an orderly God. therefore, we need to go out and discover the order of His universe.

Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians. Stark believes that the Enlightenment was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science.

I cannot put in a link, but this came from a site called conservapedia dot com.

You do realize that conservapedia is run by a bunch of buffoons. The best thing they ever did for us was make fools of themselves in the national news by attempting to call out a cell biologist. The biologist, Lenski, neatly shredded them and the Western world had laughed at them.

So no, Conservapedia is a joke.

 

[mulimulix]

I looked it up; Darwin didn't reject it. I guess that would be called an old wive's tale.

Science was started by Christians. They said, God created the universe. God is an orderly God. therefore, we need to go out and discover the order of His universe.

Sociologist Rodney Stark investigated the individuals who made the most significant scientific contributions between 1543 and 1680 A.D., the time of the Scientific Revolution. In Stark's list of 52 top scientific contributors,[only one (Edmund Halley) was a skeptic and another (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 of whom could be characterized as being devout Christians. Stark believes that the Enlightenmenthttp://www.conservapedia.com/Enlightenment was a ploy by "militant atheists" to claim credit for the rise of science.

I cannot put in a link, but this came from a site called conservapedia dot com.

I'm sure that is right, too. The Enlightenment wasn't about becoming non-religious, it was simply about not being under the restraint of the Church; there is a difference. In the 1700s in England, I bet 99% of all people were Christian. What the Enlightenment brought was freedom to practise what you want, how you want without getting punished for it. Even 60 years ago, probably 95% of English people were Christian.

If you google creationist scientist alive today you will find creation dot com. There they have a list of scientists alive today who are creationists. They include:

Dr. James Allen, geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, geologist
Dr. Raymond Bohlin, biologist
Dr. Harold Coffin, palaeontologist
Dr. Ken Cumming, biologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

And the list goes on and on.

But what science to they put behind creationism?

 

[purnhart]

Many you say? There is more "evolutionists" with just the name Steve, then there are those that reject it. You consider that many? You consider less then 1% many?

Where do you get the figure of less than 1%?

 

[mulimulix]

Where do you get the figure of less than 1%?

Whether it is 1% or 5% (which is the stat wiki says), it makes little difference.

 

[novembermike]

It is only accepted as fact because the evolutionists refuse to accept creation science as science. But here's the rub; there are many bone fide scientists who reject evolution.

A few of the post-Darwin creationists who have benefited society are Louis Pasteur, Gregor Mendel, G.W. Carver, the Wright brothers, Werner von Braun and R.V. Damadian, inventor of the MRI scanner. Dr. J. Baumgardner's supercomputer model at Sandia National Laboratory, designed for studying earth-mantle dynamics, has been the world's best for more than a decade.
Good predictions, are the life-blood of science. Dr. R. Humphries, a creationist physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is the only scientist to correctly predict: 1) the size of the magnetic moments of Uranus and Neptune; 2) that Mars would have no magnetic field but would have
remnant magnetism from an ancient field; and 3) that lava flows on Earth would be found that captured a magnetic field reversal in the time it took for them to cool.

And another scientist who rejected evolution; my father, who was a geologist.

And? The people are insignificant, it's the idea that's important. If there was one scientist saying X and a thousand scientists saying Y, the "correct" side would be the side that had the stronger proof. I've seen evolutionary scientists send their work off to third parties and have it corroborated and I've yet to see the same from creationist scientists.

It's absolutely useful to be skeptical about evolution, but skepticism should be based in reason.

I cannot put in a link, but this came from a site called conservapedia dot com.

Conservapedia is terrible. They're trying to rewrite the bible with the intent that fitting the modern conservative ideologies is more important than what Jesus actually thought, and they do next to no fact checking. A friend put up a Battlestar Galactica quote on George Washington's page ("There's no such thing as coincidence. God wills the universe according to his design", I think it was) and there are actually conservative groups attributing it back to George Washington.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up. If you notice a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember this part of the Exploring Christianity FSG:

Exploring Christianity Forum
This is a forum where non-Christians are encouraged to ask questions about those aspects of the Christian faith which seem hard to understand or accept, and where Christians can enter into discussion with them on these questions.

We recognize that real seekers are looking for real answers, and the first reply given may be insufficient to achieve this. It is acceptable for the Original Poster (OP) to probe the answers given, and to continue the discussion on lines which help to clarify their understanding of the Christian faith. If another non-Christian seeker wishes to ask questions about the Christian faith, they may start their own thread. No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.

All Original Posts (OPs) -- the posts that start a new thread -- must contain an identifiable question about the Christian faith. Questions and statements that are direct flames or that imply a flame against Christianity, Christians, or any other group are inappropriate to this site, and will be removed.

The following guidelines apply, in addition to, or as clarification of, Christian Forums rules.

All NC posts that are not the OP were removed along with the replies that came from those posts. If you notice a NC posting in the EC forum threads and they are not the OP please report the post and do not reply to them.

Documentation of thread clean up is HERE for staff only!

~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~