Why does "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure confuse the meaning of "evolution?

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I don't think Skarl meant that there were were not any scientists that were creationists.
Assuming you're correct; perhaps Skarl could have been a little more accurate with his word choices, eh?

It would have saved me some typing.
 
Upvote 0

Jamin4422

Member
Jul 5, 2012
2,957
17
✟3,349.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
In Relationship
[/list]
no creationist or group of creationists, scientists or not, have ever presented any original research to a scientific journal about creationism.
You must be talking about some man made theory of creationism. Because real Science uses the Bible all the time as a standard of truth to guide and lead them into all truth. If their Science does not line up with the Bible then sooner or later that Science will fail and be falsified. Any carpenter can tell you that there is a standard you have to follow when your are building. The more you get away from the standard the more you are at risk for failure.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bzzzz.

"What is...NOT Christian Science, Alex?"

"We were looking for Science, but our judges will accept your answer. Please select the next category."


Obviously, "creation scientists" and "scientists who are creationists" are NOT the same thing!
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Really? then where did the following come from?

  • Antiseptic Surgery
  • Bacteriology
  • Calculus
  • Celestial Mechanics
  • Chemistry
  • Comparative Anatomy
  • Computer Science
  • Dimensional Analysis
  • Dynamics
  • Electrodynamics
  • Electromagnetics
  • Electronics
  • Energetics
  • Entomology of Living Insects
  • Field Theory
  • Fluid Mechanics
  • Galactic Astronomy
  • Gas Dynamics
  • Genetics
  • Glacial Geology
  • Gynecology
  • Hydraulics
  • Hydrography
  • Hydrostatics
  • Ichthyology
  • Isotopic Chemistry
  • Model Analysis
  • Natural History
  • Non-Euclidean Geometry
  • Oceanography
  • Optical Mineralogy
  • Paleontology
  • Pathology
  • Physical Astronomy
  • Reversible Thermodynamics
  • Statistical Thermodynamics
  • Stratigraphy
  • Systematic Biology
  • Thermodynamics
  • Thermokinetics
  • Vertebrate Paleontology
As well as:

  • Absolute Temperature Scale
  • Actuarial Tables
  • Barometer
  • Biogenesis Law
  • Calculating Machine
  • Chloroform
  • Classification System
  • Double Stars
  • Electric Generator
  • Electric Motor
  • Ephemeris Tables
  • Fermentation Control
  • Galvanometer
  • Global Star Catalog
  • Inert Gas
  • Kaleidoscope
  • Law of Gravity
  • Mine Safety Lamp
  • Pasteurization
  • Reflecting Telescope
  • Scientific Method
  • Self-Induction
  • Telegraph
  • Thermionic Valve
  • Trans-Atlantic Cable
  • Vaccination & Immunization
One more time. "Creation Science" is not "any science that happens to have been done by a scientist who at the time he began his research believed the Genesis creation story to be to some degree or another literally true." And that is the only thing that these achievements have in common with a belief in Creationism.

"Creation Science" is the crap that comes out of YEC self-styled "institutes." These "Institutes are responsible for none of these. The only thing they are responsible for is swtealing the money of Christian believers whom they lie to.
 
Upvote 0

verysincere

Exegete/Linguist
Jan 18, 2012
2,461
87
Haiti
✟18,146.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
One more time. "Creation Science" is not "any science that happens to have been done by a scientist who at the time he began his research believed the Genesis creation story to be to some degree or another literally true." And that is the only thing that these achievements have in common with a belief in Creationism.


And every discovery on the list was made by a devout GRAVITATIONALIST.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
And yet again, he said ...

Do you see the difference?


Yes, we did. Newton was not a "Creation" scientist. He may have believed in creationism, but he also had many other false beliefs. That does not affect his work in basic physics. Newton was a physicist and a mathematician.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KWCrazy

Newbie
Apr 13, 2009
7,229
1,993
Bowling Green, KY
✟82,877.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, we did. Newton was not a "Creation" scientist. He may have believed in creationism, but he also had many other false beliefs. That does not affect his work in basic physics. Newton was a physicist and a mathematician.
I'm quite sure that Newton didn't consider his belief in God a false belief.
 
Upvote 0

Subduction Zone

Regular Member
Dec 17, 2012
32,628
12,068
✟230,461.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
But he was a scientist who believed in creation; and that's all that counts.

Two points. One, no, it does not matter what he believed. It matters what subjects he worked on. He was a physicist and not a creation scientist. Show his work in creation science.

Second. I would not be too sure that he even believed in creation. Do you have evidence that he believed so? There is some controversy about his Christianity, and that was in a time where belief was mandatory.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Two points. One, no, it does not matter what he believed.
Yes, it does matter what he believed. If we're addressing the fact that there are scientists who 1) believed in creation, and 2) made these contributions I posted, then I've made my point.
Second. I would not be too sure that he even believed in creation. Do you have evidence that he believed so? There is some controversy about his Christianity, and that was in a time where belief was mandatory.
He could have been Muslim, and my point still stands. He was a creationist, and a scientist who made contributions to the scientific world.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
But he was a scientist who believed in creation; and that's all that counts.

No it does not. We are talking about those who identify themselves as, "creation scientists." Ken Ham, Duane Gish, and Kent Hovind are all examples.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Why does the "15 Questions for Evolutionists" brochure from Creation.com confuse the meaning of "evolution"?
Perhaps it just reveals the meaning of evolution to already be confusing?
Why would a Young Earth Creationist ministry wish to expose their "science knowledge" in this way?
Maybe they aren't afraid to put what they know or don't know up in the storefront window for you guys' perusal?
Most of the questions deal with topics which have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
So? are they obligated to?

It's "15 Questions for Evolutionists," not "15 Questions pertaining to Evolution."
Why what?
Is it scientific ignorance?
Is what 'scientific ignorance'?
Or dishonesty?
Is what 'dishonesty'?
Very shrewd propaganda technique?
Is what a 'very shrewd propaganda technique'?
Can you do better?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,667
51,418
Guam
✟4,896,437.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are there any anti-evolution people here who are fans of the "15 Questions" brochure?
I'm not a fan of the brochure, per se; but I'm anti-evolution.
Do you consider the brochure honest and accurate?
Beats me.

It's 15 questions.

Do you consider questions asked in court 'honest and accurate'?

Is there such a thing as a dishonest or inaccurate question?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟83,873.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I'm not a fan of the brochure, per se; but I'm anti-evolution.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-evolution. There is plenty wrong with backing that position with pseudo-science, misrepresented science, and out right lies.

Is there such a thing as a dishonest or inaccurate question?
Absolutely! One such example is, "Were you there?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums