Hahaha. Sure it is. To suggest that mountains are eroding too fast, and thus should no longer exist, doesn't make any sense. New mountains are building up all the time, such as the current day growth of the himilayas.
OK We will remove those 3 from the list just to please you..
Now you only have 98 to go!! You have work to do!!! LOL
There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "
scientific".
Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.
On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "
Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like
religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question the truth of their sacred theory must be either stupid, insane or evil.
At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of
Naturalism.
Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of
natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.
However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing
philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God
really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place. This philosophical bias is neither objective nor scientific, but amounts to
religious prejudice. We should never forget that
any statement about God is inherently
religious, whether it be the theist's
affirmation or the atheist's
denial.
When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a
religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a
religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.
Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its
unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design, (2) whitewashes this philosophical/religious dogma with spurious claims of supporting
scientific evidence, and then (3)
markets this lie to the world as though it were a
proven fact, accepted by all "
reputable scientists", and which
must be taught to impressionable schoolchildren lest our society fall into collapse and ruin.
This is clearly a recipe for deceiving the masses into denying God, or marginalizing those who continue to believe in a Creator, and this is one of the greatest challenges of our day for those who love the truth.
When it is suggested that the public schools should present, not only the evidence
for Evolution, but also the evidence
against Evolution, Darwinists become enraged. This was the case a few years ago in the Hemet, California, Unified School District.
[3] Surely this is a strange response for those who claim to be "
scientists"! After all, one of the chief characteristics of a true scientist is his willingness to consider
all the evidence in an open, fair-minded way. Why, then, the venom? Is it possible that Evolution is based on something other than an objective investigation of the facts of the case?
When a scientist dares to suggest that Creationism is a viable alternative, he is viewed as a non-scientist or a religious propagandist, and there are some who advocate stripping such a person of his scientific credentials altogether. Henry Morris writes...
A third rule of this game of evolutionary science seems to be to insist that all scientists, by definition, are evolutionists. Even though there are today thousands of creationists with post-graduate degrees in science who are pursuing careers in science, these are commonly ignored or ridiculed or even denied status as scientists at all by the evolutionary establishment. The ploy is that, no matter what scientific credentials they might have, scientists cannot become creationists without forfeiting their status as scientists.
In fact, many think it would be better not ever to let creationists become scientists at all. Many years ago, when I was an engineering department chairman at Virginia Tech, I asked the biology professor there in charge of the doctoral program in that department whether a creationist student could get a Ph.D. degree in his department. The answer was—flat out—"NO!" No matter how outstanding his grades or his dissertation or even his knowledge of evolutionary theory might be, if he did not believe in evolution, he could not get the degree. That is the rule of the game!
This commitment to the rules has been expressed most starkly by two liberal Iowa professors:
... as a matter-of-fact: creationism should be discriminated against.... No advocate of such propaganda should be trusted to teach science classes or administer science programs anywhere or under any circumstances. Moreover, if any are now doing so, they should be dismissed. That "liberal" opinion was written by an Iowa State University engineering professor and published by the main national organization dedicated to fighting creationism wherever it surfaces—an organization whose establishment was funded by the Carnegie Foundation. An even more "liberal" sentiment was expressed by another Iowa professor who said that any professor should have the right to
fail any student in his class, no matter what the grade record indicates if that professor discovers the student is a creationist. Furthermore, the student's department should have the right of
retracting grades and possibly even degrees if the student becomes a creationist later Donald Gould, former editor of the
New Scientist magazine, describes this behavior quite graphically ... The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade.We see then that the behavior of pro-Evolution "scientists" is often very
un-scientific, displaying a shocking degree of bigotry and prejudice. Where there ought to be calm, reasoned discussion of the issues, there are only threats, abusive name-calling and academic intimidation. Are these strong-arm tactics warranted? Who is the
true scientist in such surreal confrontations?
We should never forget that many of the greatest scientists of history believed in a Creator. Rather than being an obstacle to scientific inquiry, their confidence in the God-inspired design and order of the universe prompted them to seek out the scientific principles that govern the physical sciences, and to explore the biological structures and systems that are necessary for the functioning of living things.
Garbage in—Garbage Out.
It is illegitimate to claim that science must be prejudiced against supernatural causes. Any line of reasoning that begins with a false assumption cannot be trusted to provide reliable answers. If you begin with the unfounded
assumption that God was not involved in the origin of life, then you may very well arrive at the
conclusion that God was not involved in the origin of life. But you will not have proved anything by this shell game of misapplied logic!
It is not
science, much less
scientific evidence that produces the conclusion that God was uninvolved in the origin of life. Rather it is an unsupportable philosophical
presupposition that leads to this conclusion. Science cannot pretend to
determine whether life came about purely by naturalistic causes if Naturalism is arbitrarily assumed at the outset and is beyond the scope of consideration or debate.
