How much science do you reject? (Creationist)

[Matthewj1985]

In my short time here I have seen many people who reject "evolution". Many of them lump the Big Bang Theory in with "evolution" and I have seen many other fields also lumped in. "Evolutionist" has come to mean "accepter of modern science". To my surprise, I have also seen a few who deny such things as gravity. This is not really set up as a debate, more just to see where everyone stands. I know we have everything from old earth non-evolutionist to those who believe in "embedded age". I am not here to question your beliefs, just to find out what creation account you believe in.


Example:


My name is Chuck and I believe in a literal, 6 day creation. I do not believe in evolution, the big bang and I am not real sure about electricity either.

 

[busterdog]

I reject it all to the extent that it presumes to be the final answer to anything.

Wrong forum for this, though, i think.

 

[laptoppop]

For this forum I think the better question would be:
How much truth do you accept?

 

[Biblewriter]

I do not reject any science.

But I reject everything that falls under the scriptural classification of "science falsely so called."

In my science teaching days we taught what was called "the scientific method."

One critical step in "the scientific method " as it was taught in the old days (yep, I´m old) was to design an experiment to test whether or not your therory is correct. No one has ever devised a test for either evolution or the big bang. So neither one is, or ever can be, science.

I am an old earth creationist. I believe that the Bible not only allows for the earth to be older than the creation of Adam, but that if properly understood it actually teaches that the earth is older than our present Adamic creation. Thus I believe that the big bang theory might possibly be correct, although it has in no way been proven. But evolution directly contradicts the Bible, so it cannot possibly be correct.

 

[Ave Maria]

I reject all of the theory of evolution and the big bang theory as well.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I don't know. First you'll have to show me the place where "Science" dwells and what books his followers have canonized as absolute inspired unchangable truth, and you'll have to give me the testimonies of those who have met him and know his word to be true, so that I can form an opinion.

 

[BobRyan]

I do not reject any science.

But I reject everything that falls under the scriptural classification of "science falsely so called."

In my science teaching days we taught what was called "the scientific method."

One critical step in "the scientific method " as it was taught in the old days (yep, I´m old) was to design an experiment to test whether or not your therory is correct. No one has ever devised a test for either evolution or the big bang. So neither one is, or ever can be, science.

I am an old earth creationist. I believe that the Bible not only allows for the earth to be older than the creation of Adam, but that if properly understood it actually teaches that the earth is older than our present Adamic creation. Thus I believe that the big bang theory might possibly be correct, although it has in no way been proven. But evolution directly contradicts the Bible, so it cannot possibly be correct.

Well said!!

Bottom line... I reject "junk-science" like Simpson's fraudulent horse series imagined by Othaniel Marsh in the 19th century and published by Simpson in the 1950's.

I reject Ernst Haeckle's fraudulent props-and-displays dishonestly foisting the myth that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

I reject Osborn's dishonest arguments about "Nebraska man" based on a pig's tooth.

I reject the recent fraudlent Neanderthal dating claims -- shown to be without merrit and now discredited -- and in fact shown to be applied to individuals who died less than 400 years ago!!

I reject the 50 year long fraud used to prop up Darwinism that we call "Piltdown man"

I reject the idea that "THE UNIVERSE POPPED out of NOTHING" in about 3 minutes of time without the requirement of a "Creator" to make that happen.

I do accept electricity and physics and chemistry and math - by contrast to the junk science story telling of evolutionism.

Colin Patterson - senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural history in the 20th century observed "STORIES about how one thing came from another are stories EASY ENOUGH TO MAKE UP but they are NOT SCIENCE".

The problem with evolutionism is the NOT-SCIENCE of it.

The argument that Creationists make is -- "give us SCIENCE INSTEAD of evolutionism".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[archaeologist2]

i am a creationist. i do not believe in nor support intelligent design, i reject all theories like evolution, theistic evolution, progressive creationists as one has to tailor the science after the truth not the truth after the science.

in other words, one has to realize that creation was a one time supernatural act, thus it will not fit secular science's ideas or methods. which means that secular science has to change NOT the origin of the world or life.

this change does not mean we do NOT get to do science, it just means we have to do it correctly. which means one does not design science to find only natural answers and omit other possibilities. it also means that the deck is not stacked to ensure a desired result and it does scence honestly discover things like photosynthesis, or evaporation and how God created them to work and how they are influenced by the fall of man.

take genetics for an example. people continue to say that there are mutations and that evolution is responsible, yet they cannot even prove that evolution actually is. these changes that occur are the result of God's design under the influence of corruption and sin and has nothing to do with an evolutionary idea or process.

one of darwin's big errors when he study the finches was that he studied them all at the same time not over the time span he said was needed and drew conclusions he could not possibly support or prove. he had NO data other than his conjecture.

man still cannot study life long enough to prove the evolutionary theory true, they have to rely on conjecture and conjecture is not fact it is not truth.

one thing that is also forgotten by those who accept evolution as their belief, is that all changes come from genetic information subtraction NOT genetic informaion addition. there are NOT 4 races as darwin said because the gene pool LOST information as people separated.

the different color of the world's people prove the disporia at babel not the evolutionary tree and the rise of man. thus when a white marries a black person the resulting children are not 'evolving' but show the results of the genetic mixture & interaction, they have received form their parents.

such is NOT evolution at work, but God's creation functioning as designed to do under the circumstances.

one only has to toss out the science that disagrees with God, the Bible and the truth. it does not mean they have to give up genetic research, they just have to apply the information received to the correct source and function.

when one looks at the things of the world, or does science, they are seeing what God did not what some imaginary 'process' accomplished.

 

[busterdog]

This is why they have been termed THEORIES, if they were proven it would be the Big Bang LAW. Now Scientists even give a probability that this is not true, but it is certainly better than assuming that people who thought the world consisted of a flat piece of land, spanning the size of one ocean to the othe have better theories than scientists who have a better knowledge of the universe.

\

Except that speaking about creationism is not just breaking the theory, its breaking the law in many places. Its all nice and convenient to call it a theory, but lets see it act like a theory, which would mean allowing meaningful dissent. Breaking the theory gets you fired. So, I dont accept your choice of terms.

 

[laptoppop]

Echo, this is posted in the wrong forum.

But please consider this - the Bible is not just words written by men. The people who wrote the Bible down were inspired by the infinite God. This same God wanted you to know it, so He had them write things that they could not have known. For example, hundreds of years before Jesus came, they wrote down when He would be born, where He would be born, what family he would come from, how He would die, and hundreds of other details. The Bible goes way beyond mere human knowledge.

The same God who inspired the Bible loves you, and wants a personal relationship with you. But He is perfect, and you are not. You can never be good enough to fellowship with perfection, so He paid the price Himself, out of love, to make it possible. Amazingly, He offers this gift for free -- all we have to do is to take it.

 

[busterdog]

You have no right to preach about life, because you do not expirience anything outside of a small book written by men who were trying to explain then unanswerable questions. Albiet there is some truth in the bible, but don't take it for fact. Consider it.

This is you.

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish2]

In my short time here I have seen many people who reject "evolution". Many of them lump the Big Bang Theory in with "evolution" and I have seen many other fields also lumped in. "Evolutionist" has come to mean "accepter of modern science". To my surprise, I have also seen a few who deny such things as gravity. This is not really set up as a debate, more just to see where everyone stands. I know we have everything from old earth non-evolutionist to those who believe in "embedded age". I am not here to question your beliefs, just to find out what creation account you believe in.


Example:


My name is Chuck and I believe in a literal, 6 day creation. I do not believe in evolution, the big bang and I am not real sure about electricity either.

The usual insulting/patronising red-neck evolutionist idiocy..

 

[vossler]

I do not reject any science.

But I reject everything that falls under the scriptural classification of "science falsely so called."

In my science teaching days we taught what was called "the scientific method."

One critical step in "the scientific method " as it was taught in the old days (yep, I´m old) was to design an experiment to test whether or not your therory is correct. No one has ever devised a test for either evolution or the big bang. So neither one is, or ever can be, science.

This states exactly how I feel. Well said.

 

[BobRyan]

Working Definition for Intelligent Design;

Intelligent Design;

The Academic freedom to "follow the data where it leads" - experiment by experiment. EVEN if that data leads to a conclusion in favor of design that does not pander to the dogmatic dictates of atheist evolutionist doctrines chanting their montra-like anthem "There is no god...there is no god".


A working definition for Creationism.


Creationism;

The intellectual honesty to admit that the Bible clearly states that all life on earth was created in the first week on planet earth with our atmosphere created in 1 day, dry land in 1 day and all life on earth created in 3 days as well as both the sun and the moon created in a single day - all of which comprise the first 6 days of that first 7 day week on earth.

The intellectual honesty to admit that Moses was NOT a darwinist - nor was he "Teaching evolutionim" to the freed egyptian slaves at Sinai. It is the honest that admits that no evolutionist educational programs EVER state their belief about origins using the phrase "FOR IN SIX days the Lord Created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that are in them".

Creationism is the Christian integrity that chooses to actually believe the Bible for what it actually says (hint - exegesis) - not for what evolutionists "wish it had said".



in Christ,

Bob

 

[avra34v2]

I don't reject any.

evolution doesn't follow the scientific method, it's logic is skimpy and inconclusive, and believe it or not..... is still a theory!

(read the first chapter from ANY science textbook and you'll see that in the field of science, it can only be considered a theory, whether it is fact or not. I don't have to reject science to reject evolution as a fact.)

 

[BobRyan]

In my short time here I have seen many people who reject "evolution". Many of them lump the Big Bang Theory in with "evolution" and I have seen many other fields also lumped in. "Evolutionist" has come to mean "accepter of modern science". To my surprise, I have also seen a few who deny such things as gravity. This is not really set up as a debate, more just to see where everyone stands. I know we have everything from old earth non-evolutionist to those who believe in "embedded age". I am not here to question your beliefs, just to find out what creation account you believe in.


Example:


My name is Chuck and I believe in a literal, 6 day creation. I do not believe in evolution, the big bang and I am not real sure about electricity either.

I agree that I have never seen any Creationist say that -- perhaps you can provide a link.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Biblewriter]

MatthewJ1985 said "To my surprise, I have also seen a few who deny such things as gravity."

I am aware of extensive physical evidence for gravity. This evidence is so profound that gravity is callea a "law" and not a "theory."

Gravity can be quantified. Near the surface of the earth it accelerates objects at approximately 9.8 meteres per second per second. (32 feet per second per second)

Bur what is gravity? No one knows. I remember a few years ago a call forapers with a huge reward for the best explanation of the nature of gravity. I do not remember any giving of the award, for no one has yet produced any explanation that makes sense to the scientific community as a whole.

Gravity is science, but what makes it work is not science. A few have advanced theories, but none of them have been widely accepted, and few of them are widely understood.

But I am certain that there is no scriptural evidence to challange the law of gravity. So anyone who questions gravity comes rightfully under the classification of a whacko, and not of a religious zealot. Any supposed scriptural evidence for questioning gravity has to be based on a wrested statement in the Bible, for it does not exist if the Bible is read in its ordinary sense.

And I have never heard any reverent Christian question gravity.

 

[avra34v2]

wow, exaggerate your claims to the point of lying to make a point? I DARE you to give one example of a creationist rejecting gravity.


and ironically, the claim that I usually hear from evolutionists is 'we have more proof for evolution than we have for gravity'

 

[Mallon]

wow, exaggerate your claims to the point of lying to make a point? I DARE you to give one example of a creationist rejecting gravity.

Our own yeshuasavedme rejects gravity. And heliocentrism. On the basis of a literal reading of the Bible.

 

[busterdog]

MatthewJ1985 said "To my surprise, I have also seen a few who deny such things as gravity."

I am aware of extensive physical evidence for gravity. This evidence is so profound that gravity is callea a "law" and not a "theory."

Gravity can be quantified. Near the surface of the earth it accelerates objects at approximately 9.8 meteres per second per second. (32 feet per second per second)

Bur what is gravity? No one knows. I remember a few years ago a call forapers with a huge reward for the best explanation of the nature of gravity. I do not remember any giving of the award, for no one has yet produced any explanation that makes sense to the scientific community as a whole.

Gravity is science, but what makes it work is not science. A few have advanced theories, but none of them have been widely accepted, and few of them are widely understood.

But I am certain that there is no scriptural evidence to challange the law of gravity. So anyone who questions gravity comes rightfully under the classification of a whacko, and not of a religious zealot. Any supposed scriptural evidence for questioning gravity has to be based on a wrested statement in the Bible, for it does not exist if the Bible is read in its ordinary sense.

And I have never heard any reverent Christian question gravity.

I think you are making a pretty good analogy.

No one denies that things fall. That is not gravity. That is just a tendency of things to fall.

No one denies that creatures exist in phyla. That is not evolution, it is just a fact of how things are organized.

Now, there is no proven mechanism for gravity (ie, we have theories of gravitons, but no clear view to the process) just as there is no proven mechanism for the creation of life (ie, we dont know how exactly God engineered the first kinds anymore than we can prove why things seem to "self-organize", and of course random mutation and selection is a dead letter).

Is not believing in gravitons the same as not believing that things have a tendency to fall?

So, the smarmy OP sort of backed into a nice analogy. And, today my name is Chuck and I know more science than you (whoever you are).