Evolution is a Lie

[AV1611VET]

Right. Morris is the guy that gave that great and well established scientific theory that the craters on the moon were caused during a war between Satan and the armies of the archangel Michael. A fine example of a creation science for sure.

Nevertheless, 'Henry M. Morris' is an effective answer to the question.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nevertheless, 'Henry M. Morris' is an effective answer to the question.

Far more effective as an example at seeing just how far "Creation Science" has sunk into the mud over the years.

 

[AV1611VET]

Far more effective as an example at seeing just how far "Creation Science" has sunk into the mud over the years.

Whatever -- the question was asked, the question was answered.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Whatever -- the question was asked, the question was answered.

No, it was not. The point was not to "name a modern scientist who is a Creationist". Those people exist. It was to "name a modern scientist who has made large and respected contributions to science who is a Creationist". Because the whole point of that list of famous scientists was to pin Creationism onto brilliant minds. Because it has been shown that those scientists didn't have an option to look at the modern theory of evolution, calling them "Creationists" does not put any feathers in the cap of Creationism.

 

[rjc34]

You mean like [the late] Henry M. Morris?

Would that really matter?

Because, as was pointed out, a man with a PhD in Civil Engineering is definitely qualified to be an authority in any scientific field.

You guys would just pull out that Steve's list argument -- or whatever it is.

Steve's list? Oh, you mean Project Steve. That was specifically created as a humorous counterpoint to the Discovery Institute's 'Dissent from Darwin' petition which included about...wait for it... 150 actual biologists of any kind. (That includes the ones who simply had a bachelors). Basically we were able to fine 1100+ scientists just named Steve that supported the Theory of Evolution.

 

[Hespera]

No, it was not. The point was not to "name a modern scientist who is a Creationist". Those people exist. It was to "name a modern scientist who has made large and respected contributions to science who is a Creationist". Because the whole point of that list of famous scientists was to pin Creationism onto brilliant minds. Because it has been shown that those scientists didn't have an option to look at the modern theory of evolution, calling them "Creationists" does not put any feathers in the cap of Creationism.

.

More to the point really is, not if a creationist can do good science in some field but....does he have any data about "creation" or is it just his religious views

Nobody can come up with a scientist, mystic, mailman, soldier or preacher who has one single solitary data point for creationism or against evolution.

So this naming scientists is no better than naming baseball players who eat corn flakes.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Nevertheless, 'Henry M. Morris' is an effective answer to the question.

Wow. I'd rate that pretty low on the 'effective' scale then.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it was not. The point was not to "name a modern scientist who is a Creationist". Those people exist. It was to "name a modern scientist who has made large and respected contributions to science who is a Creationist".

Link please? or are you on the Arab phone?

 

[AV1611VET]

Wow. I'd rate that pretty low on the 'effective' scale then.

Except it's not about degrees, is it?

The answer is binary -- either 1 or 0.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whatever -- the question was asked, the question was answered.

And the quality of the answer doesn't bother you? Doesn't feel in the least like scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Creation "science" might have produced somethng useful once -- now it's just sad.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Except it's not about degrees, is it?

The answer is binary -- either 1 or 0.

And you call science myopic -- you're funny, AV.

 

[rjc34]

Except it's not about degrees, is it?

The answer is binary -- either 1 or 0.

And since it was my question, you get a 0. You failed to answer my question in any way shape or form. You gave me an engineer who wrote some pseudoscience and apologetics. Not even close to good enough.

Try again?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Link please? or are you on the Arab phone?

What are you talking about...

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Except it's not about degrees, is it?

The answer is binary -- either 1 or 0.

For a creationist I suppose not.

 

[sandwiches]

Nor do you: 1

Precisely. Evolution has evidence for, none against. Creationism has nothing.

 

[rjc34]

What are you talking about...

Has he gone off the deep end?

 

[AV1611VET]

And the quality of the answer doesn't bother you?

109

 

[sandwiches]

And the quality of the answer doesn't bother you?

Remember that most Christians cannot see things in degrees. Everything is binary. Good or evil. Black or white. 1 or 0. Man or ape.

 

[AV1611VET]

And since it was my question, you get a 0.

Care to repeat the question as you wrote it; then highlight anything in my answer that was wrong?

Here it is again: 96

 

[Nathan Poe]

109

111