why creation "science" isn't science

Let us also remember that the phylogenic tree of life, which has been built over 150 years, matches the genetic tree of life, which was begun much more recently.IOW, the closer an organism is to another organism on the tree of life, the closer they are, genetically, to one another. And vice versa. It is really quite easy to see.Baraminology, the Biblically-based classification system that Creation "scientists" use, seems to completely ignore all of this genetic evidence. Why? They claim that Chimps and humans are not related at all, but that my tabby cat and a Bengal tiger are closely related (the same "kind").Kind of takes the terms, "intellectual dishonesty" and "willful ignorance" to a new level, doesn't it?------------------
"Never trust something that thinks for itself if you can't see where it keeps it's brain"--Mr. Weasley

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"Do you now understand why there is a difference between a theory & a scientific theory? Do you understand the necessity for drawing a distinction?"

​

Actually, I have understood the difference for a long time. And this is not the first time that a story like this was used in attempt to make me realize how stupid my idea is. However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree. If you were to post your own theory of evolution I may be able to show you what I mean.

​

By the way; what does falsified mean? Does it mean disproven completely or made to seem unlikely. Please verify.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!I love you, cobrasnake!First, you say in a authoritative, definitive manner:

quote:

---

However, the point I am trying to make is that the ToE is very similar to the Theory of Creation in that they are both involve inferences from the past, and neither can be falsified to any reasonable degree.

---

And THEN, just several lines later, you ask:

quote:

---

By the way; what does falsified mean?

---

You have given me a REALLy good laugh tonight, thank you!(mopping the tears up)P.S. Here is a very good essay on what science is and how it is done. It deals well with falsification: http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"Do you fault scientists as biased for overwhelmingly accepting the evidence for the Germ Theory of Disease, or the Atomic Theory of Matter, or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System? The ToE has at least as much evidence, and in some cases MORE evidence, to support it than any of these theories."
--The ToE does not have the evidence that a Heliocentric Solar system has, as we cannot observe 'E'volution. All we see is bacteria today and bacteria tomorrow, cats today, and cats tomorrow, they seem to be gaining nothing, if my assertion is wrong, I would be most interested in seeing it as so.[/QUOTE]OK, I am starting to become annoyed.We have observed evolution. We have observed speciation. I have linked to specific evidence. I have posted specific evidence. (goatsbeard) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlNow, address these SPECIFIC evidences or STOP saying that we do not observe evolution.WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence.

quote:

---

"Do you think that scientists "believe" in these theories just to keep their jobs? You must have a very low opinion of the integrity of scientists, then. As my husband is a scientist and many of my friends are, as well, I take issue with your baseless characterization."
--I sertainly don't, as many scientist out there are 'seakers of truth' and arent just evolutionists ready to make creationists look bad whenever they can.

---

Um, I hate to break it to you, TC, but most Biologists pay little attention to Creationists. Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes.

quote:

---

But this does not mean bias is out there, in some it is very negative, some think that creationism has already been refuted so,

---

Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago.

quote:

---

interen, evolution is the right-of-way. I would not use the word 'belief' as many scientists may not believe in evolution and some may even be creatinists, but they work in that area and they would like to keep their Jobs. I would not assert your friends and your husband as being bias against anything creationists have to say or provide, I would simply say that it is out there.

---

Now, wait a minute. You first said that scientists believe in what they do just to keep their jobs. Now you are saying that some scientists are forced to keep quiet their Creationist leanings in order to keep their jobs.Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence.It has been explained to you several times that bias in favor of the evidence is something that is developed in scientists, yet you continue to misuse the word. Please stop doing so.

quote:

---

"Also, the ToE could be completely falsified tomorrow, but it wouldn't make Creationism correct IN THE SLIGHTEST."
--I would agree it would not make Creationism correct in the slightest, I never proposed this to be the case. But take for instance, the age of the earth has been reduced to 50,000 years maximum, Evolution if not completely abandoned would have to be absolutely and utterly refined to even be a guess. I think most people would agree that if everything is only 50,000 years old, there would have to have been a creation, thus a creator.

---

Nope, it doesn't say that at all.What you propose is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion.ID does not explain anything.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"There is bias against BAD WORK, yes. All peer review does is to check the logic, methodology, and mathematical accuracy of a paper. If all the numbers, logic, and methods checked out on a paper, it might well be published. The people reviewing the paper don't always agree with the premise or conclusions of the paper, and this is not a reason to reject it for publication. IOW, there are "out there" ideas that get published as long as the work is good."
--There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work, as it speeks for itself when adiquatelly refuted, showing bias against lowers you to a lower level. If I created an extreamly popular creation magazine and refused to higher you as an evolutionist, would you not say I am being biased?[/QUOTE]You still don't understand what peer review is all about.Peer review is part of the refutation process.There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once.You know all of those references that you see in the middle of scientific papers that look something like /Futyama, 1999/? They, reference the past, peer-reviewed work of this person as support of the current work.In this way, past work is used to support the work, or also past work is used to show how your own work could be wrong. In addition, past work pointed out to be wrong, according to your new evidence. all of this happens over many papers and much work from many people.Even the best papers by the most gifted scholars are generally returned from the review committee at least once for revisions.Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense.Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?

quote:

---

"Oh, and one does not have to be a professional scientist to publish papers in scientific journals. Anyone who follows correct methodology and has relevent data to put forth may publish. OTOH, there are several people with advanced science degrees which work at the ICR and CRS. They rarely even bother to submit work to peer-reviewed journals."
--Yes I am aware of that, and I would even be honored myself to be published in say CRS or ICR's peer reviewed technical literature, though I would be weary from my experience, though it is much, it seems unadiquate as I discover new things every day.

---

They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review.

quote:

---

I have already explained that this is exactly what we see, speciation! My word for speciation being variation.

---

Variation is not the same as speciation. "Variation" is the word biologists use to describe the differences between individuals, not species. You cannot use them interchangeably, because they mean different things.

quote:

---

This is what we do see, and THIS is the Fact of evolution, this is the only implication that we can 'directly' observe and thus claim it as Fact.

---

No, wrong, incorrect.There are MANY, MANY, MANY things which are considered fact in science which have never been directly observed. I have already pointed these out to you, but you seen to want to ignore them, so I'll try again Some are:We have never directly observed electrons, yet their existence is considered fact.
We have never directly obseved black holes, yet their existence is considered fact.
We have never directly observed the structure of a water molecule, yet it is considered a fact that the molecular structure is H2O.
We have never directly observed the center of the Earth, yet it is considered a fact that it is hot.Etcetera.

quote:

---

We do not see bacteria becomeing, anything but bacteria, we do not see dogs becomeing non-dogs, or cats producing non-cats,

---

All science is inference. See above.What is the barrier between micro and macro evolution. Be specific.Also, can you explain to me how to tell one "kind" from another?

quote:

---

this is what we cannot observe, and is why a Heliocentric solar system ismore suportive by 'observation'.

---

Did Copernicus directly observe a heliocentric solar system, or was he just fooling himself?

quote:

---

WHAT'S MORE, we cannot observe a heliocentric solar system, either. We infer it from the evidence."
--Now what is that evidence Schrafinator?

---

Huh? My point was that you are claiming that we have to be able to DIRECTLY observe a phenomena to consider it a fact, and I provided an example which clearly shows this notion to be wrong.

quote:

---

Creationists do a fine job of making themselves look bad all by their lonesomes."
--By what means? This would be an often portrayed assertion that is in great need of back-up, what is it creationist do 'a fine job of making themselves look bad'?

---

Uh, remember our discussion about Kent Hovind, and the whacked-out ideas he has? Let's not forget that he got his "PhD" from a diploma
mill housed in a suburban split-level.Here's some other nifty things creationists have done to make themselves look silly, or worse; dishonest: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-whoppers.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/gish-exposed.html
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/gish.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

quote:

---

A: Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."
--You mean back in the day when they would claim as evidence for evolution that there were hundreds of vastiges in your body?

---

No, I mean YEC; the idea that the Earth is 6,000-10,000 years old, and that everything was specially-created by God, Noah's Flood etc. etc.The idea that the Earth was 6-10K years old was rejected about 200 years ago, by Creationists, BTW, Before Origin of Species was published.

quote:

---

"Second, my husband and friends ARE biased against Creationism because they are biased IN FAVOR OF positive evidence."
--Then they don't know the chain that Creationism and positive evidence have. And you have been unable to show me that this is true.

---

I think, as others have said to you, that you don't even know enoug about what you have already rejected to know what it is you are talking about. This is clear.Did I read somewhere on this forum that you are a teenager?

quote:

---

-How am I misusing the word? Bias should not be involved in the way scientists portray their ideas, evidence, and conclusions.

---

OK, now try hard to understand here.If we did not develop bias TOWARDS the evidence, then we could never make any conclusions AT ALL.You are using only the common, perjorative definition of "bias", and you are not making any effort to learn that there are other definitions, even though it has been explained several times.Here is an example:When I woke up this morning, the sun had risen. In fact, the sun has risen every single morning for as long as I can remember, and as long as any human can remember. Therefore, I am BIASED towards the idea that it will rise again tomorrow morning. There is nothing BAD about having this bias. In fact, it would be silly and rather stupid to not hold it; to wonder, every night, if the sun would rise the next morning. We ALL have lots of biases which are perfectly logical and based upon past experience. This is also what science does.In contrast, I am biased AGAINST the idea that the moon is made of cheese. If someone proposed that idea to me, I would be likely to dismiss it out of hand. It is not BAD that I hold this bias against this notion. I reject an unlikely or unsupported idea in favor of a well-supported and logical idea; that the moon is rocky.Get it now?

quote:

---

--Would you propose a feasable theory that evolution would be able to cooperate with 50,000 years from nothing to explain today's phenomena? Just the basic main Idea is what I would need.

---

This is irrelevant, and was my point the first time.Like I have said over and over again, if the ToE was found to be completely falsified tomorrow, it doesn not mean that Creationism is correct. A true scientific theory does not live or die by the life or death of a different theory.What you are proposing is replacing a falsified scientific theory with an unscientific religious notion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[b]"You still don't understand what peer review is all about.

​

Peer review is part of the refutation process. "
--I didn't make relevance toward peer reviewed literature?[/QUOTE]

​

Sorry, what does the phrase "make relevance toward peer-reviewed literature" mean?

​

quote:

---

"There are certain basic standards of competancy that a paper must possess before it is deemed worthy of publication in a professional journal. Some journals have very high standards, so getting your work into the more prestigious ones, like Nature and Science, which cover all fields, is a serious boost to a scientist's career, even if they only get in once."
--Science magazine refuses to higher Creationists, this is simmilar to the question I am asking you.

---

​

First of all, scientific peer-review isn't done by any "employees" of the journal, so I don't know why you are talking about a professional scientific journal "hiring" anyone. It is done by other scientists who do work in the same field that you do; if I am a Bacteriologist studying Anthrax, when I submit my paper to a peer-reviewed jounal, it would be sent to several other Bacteriologists who also study Anthrax.

​

They would critically review the paper for logical, mathematical, statistical, and methodological errors, and they would also critique any conclusions made in the paper and then they would reccomend revisions, further work or experiments that were needed, point out weaknesses or inconsistencies with other research, etc. Then, if I have done solid research, It is sent back with a note saying that they are interested in the paper after the revisions are completed.

​

This is what happens to the GOOD papers.

​

Most scientists do their turn at peer-review. It is unpaid and usually anonymous. The editors of the journals are paid, but not the "peers" that do the reviewing.

​

The journal, "Science", rejects most papers, not just Creationist papers. The work has to be truly exceptional and the subject matter rather new or exciting to get into "Science."

​

As far as I know, no Creationist has ever gotten their creationist work published in a legitimate (meaning non-religiously-based) scientific journal. They may do other work that doesn not mention Creationist stuff and have published.

​

The thing is, very few Creationists even submit to the lowliest, least-read, least prestigious journals. If it was good quality work, surely one of the hundreds of professional journals would publish it.

​

Hardly any creationists actually DO any research on creation.

​

quote:

---

Letting in all papers, regardless of how poor the quality, would be like a publisher of a professional culinary journal letting anybody who wanted to submit recipes and techniques for publication without ever testing them to see if the recipes or techniques were any good or made sense."
--Ok, what makes this relevant to this discussion?

---

​

What makes this relevant?! YOU said that all work should be let in to a jounal regardless of quality, and THAT is why it is relevant!

​

quote:

---

You said: There should be no bias, period, especially against bad work,

---

​

quote:

---

"Do you think, for example, that the Theory of the Galactic Goat should be published in a scientific journal?"
--Ofcourse not.

---

​

Excellent! Then you agree that one should be biased against poor work being published in journals.

​

[QUOTE]"They may have something the call peer review, but it certainly isn't scientific peer review."
--So your one of the peer reviewers? You would have to be or know one of them to have this claim be true.[/b]

---

*sigh*Look, I have just explained to you all about the process of peer-review. It can't be scientific peer review because Creationism isn't scientific.And please, do not go off now about how I can't use the ICR or CRS as examples of what Creation "science" is. If you are willing to say that they are doing scientific peer-review journals, then you should accept them as defining what Creation "science" is.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 01-29-2002]

quote:

---

"Young Earth Creationism HAS been refuted about 200 years ago."

​

That's a pretty bold statement and it's also a baseless assertion.

---

Be careful. I do not generally assert that which I cannot back up. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6040/flood21.htm"By 1831, six years before Louis Agassiz presented his ideas on ice ages, geologists had been forced by the evidence to abandon their ideas that the deposits they had called "drift" had been formed by an earthwide flood. Almost to a man these geologists were deeply committed Christians, and they had called the deposits drift specifically because of their belief that they had drifted to their final resting places in the Flood. Science and Creationism explains
this in more detail:[275]Flood geology was considered and tested by early-nineteenth-century geologists. They never believed that a single flood had produced all
fossil-bearing strata, but they did accept and then disprove a claim that the uppermost strata contained evidence for a single, catastrophic, worldwide inundation. The science of geology arose in nations that were glaciated during the great ice ages, and glacial deposits are similar to the products of floods. During the 1820s, British geologists carried out an extensive empirical program to test whether these deposits represented the action of a single flood. The work was led by two ministers, the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (who taught Darwin his geology) and the Reverend William Buckland. Buckland initially decided that all the "superficial gravels" (as these deposits were called) represented a single event, and he published his Reliquiae diluvianae (Relics of the Flood) in 1824. However, Buckland’s subsequent field work proved that the superficial gravels were not contemporaneous but represented several different events (multiple ice ages, as we now know). Geology proclaimed no worldwide flood but rather a long sequence of local events. In one of the great statements in the history of science, Sedgwick, who was Buckland’s close colleague in both science and theology, publicly abandoned flood geology and upheld empirical science in his presidential address to the Geological Society of London in 1831.‘Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.... ‘There is, I think, one great negative conclusion now incontestably established that the vast masses of diluvial gravel, scattered almost over the surface of the earth, do not belong to one violent and transitory period....‘We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.... In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in giving them a simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we had discovered, but by those we expected hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths.’

[QUOTE]Originally posted by TrueCreation:
[B]"But the point is that creation "science" cannot exist by itself."
--But it does, and this baseless assertion gives no releveance untill someone can prove it right, which no one has done.[/QUOTE]Please provide an operational Theory of Creation, complete with positive evidence, testable hypotheses potential falsifications that have not already been falsified.We can do all of these things with the ToE, but I have never seen anything remotely like it from the Creation "science" camp.

quote:

---

--The Flood of Noah does not at all have to be a result of divine intervention, or a spiritual being, ie God.

---

Why are flowering plants, trees & grasses found ONLY in the topmost layers, if all the fossils were laid down by the flood? Did they run for high ground?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]I haven't read through this whole topic but anyway, here's my two cents.

​

My grade 8 science teacher told me that science is the study of everything. This is the best definition I've ever had of science.[/QUOTE]

​

No disrespect to your 8th grade teacher, but this is not the best definition of science. Adequate for 8th-graders, maybe...

​

Here is a better one, and I suggest that you read the whole excerpt at the web site. Then you will learn something and will not continue to say uneducated, rather absurd things about what constitutes a scientific theory and what doesn't:

​

http://www.skepdic.com/science.html

​

"Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them. We think we understand empirical phenomena when we have a satisfactory theory which explains how the phenomena work, what regular patterns they follow, or why they appear to us as they do. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural phenomena rather than supernatural phenomena, although science itself requires neither the acceptance nor the rejection of the supernatural."

​

(FYI, 'emperical' means 'testable')

​

quote:

---

However, when taking part in science, this, as you all probably know do. You conceive a hypothesis (it doesn't have to be testable, the big bang is not testable, only on computer screens where by the results are designed, not tested. This isn't a real big bang!)

---

​

The Big Bang is not testable, but the predictions of what we will find in nature which are based upon the Big Bang theory are testable, and the results have tended to suport the validity of the theory.

​

quote:

---

You then get evidence to support your hypothesis then it becomes a theory. Simple! If the evidence contradicts the theory, get a new hypothesis. Creationist propose the Bible as there hypothesis, they then go out and gain evidence to make it a valid theory. Creation and ToE are the two best theories, if you dissaprove of one, jump ship and take on the other theory. Don't sit back and claim one of them isn't science.

---

​

Your definition of science is too simplistic and yet is what I thought science was when I was 14 years old, too.

​

There is no scientific "Theory of Creation", unless you would like to provide one.

​

I have been involved in these debates for years, and I have probably read a great deal more scientific, and also Creationist, literature and writing than you have, and I have never been shown a "Scientific Theory of Creation", no matter how long I have searched or how many Creationists I have asked for one.

​

quote:

---

I don't see how creation isn't science. It follows the best definition I've ever been given of science and also abides with the workings of a scientific model. What is so hard to undertand?

---

​

From:

​

http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

​

Creation science is not science but pseudoscience. It is religious dogma masquerading as scientific theory. Creation science is put forth as being absolutely certain and unchangeable. It assumes that the world must conform to its understanding of the Bible. Where creation science differs from creationism in general is in its notion that once it has interpreted the Bible to mean something, no evidence can be allowed to change that interpretation. Instead, the evidence must be refuted.

​

Creation scientists are not scientists because they assume that their
interpretation of the Bible cannot be in error. They put forth their views as irrefutable. Hence, when the evidence contradicts their reading of the Bible, they assume that the evidence is false. The only scientific investigation they do is aimed at proving some evolutionary claim is false. Creation scientists see no need to test their theory, since God has revealed it. Infallible certainty is not the hallmark of science. Scientific theories are fallible. Claims of infallibility and the demand for absolute certainty characterize not science but pseudoscience."

​

[QUOTE]Everything in science starts of with a belief, no matter how straight forward (such as gravity) it seems, it is still just a belief.[/b]

---

A falsifiable, testable "belief" based upon observation, rather than a belief based solely upon religious faith.

No, you miss my point.The arguments that YEC use to this day to explain the Noachian flood were refuted 200 years ago by Creationist Geologists.The difference being that the Creationist Geologists of 200 years ago had intellectual integrity enough to acknowlegde all of the evidence, and realize that it did not support the idea of a worldwide flood.Since we are talking about Flood geology, and not evolution, why do you bring evolution up at all?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
"And BTW Cobra,there is nothing that evolutionists "dont want you to know"...i'm growing tired of hearing about this "evolution" conspiracy nonsense."

​

I wasn't saying it is a conspiracy. I'm just saying a source like Talkorigins will not be too quick to provide information on something that is not good for evolution. I expect the same from a Creationist source.

---

That is completely false.You must not have read anything on talkorigins (despite being directed there for more information several times), or looked at it closely enough to read an actual article, because there are a LOT of links to creationist rebuttals, sites, and information there.Almost every article has a gray box at the top with the title "Other Links", and if a creationist rebuttal or critique to the article exists, it is linked to there.Also, here is a LONG list of creationist sites which talkorigins provides. It is not buried or hard to find. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-cre.htmlThe point is, there are LOTS of links to opposing opinions on talkorigins.It is PRECISELY the fact that talkorigins includes a lot of Creationist links and information and WELCOMES responses from people who disagree that demonstrates that it is a trustworthy site that is interested in the evaluation and discussion of ideas on their relative merits, rather than attempting to further a dogma.Creationists sites, as you have mentioned, do not tend to link to scientific sites, because they are not interested in an open and free discussion of the evidence. They are interested in preaching their ministry, as it were. It is in their best interests to keep people from learning anything about science or the evidence.

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by toff:
I have a question...do the creationists who frequent message boards like this ever actually READ within the field? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I, like (no doubt) most of them, am a busy person, trying to fit a family, work, etc., into my life - yet, because I am interested in the field, I do my best to keep up with current literature, even if only via the popular books of people like Gould, Dawkins, etc. If they're pasting to these boards, presumably they, too, have an interest in the topic. So why do they constantly ask questions that have been exhaustively dealt with in easily accessible, simple to read books on the subject? KingPenguin's last question has been dealt with by authors such as Dawkins, Dennet, Gould...at far more length, and with far more detail and accuracy than any answer he is likely to get here. In sum: why don't you guys read the books, if you want to find out the information?

---

The short anwer to your question is, no, they don't read Gould or Dawkins or Dennet.The longer reason as to why this is the case is, I think, because Creationists, in general, have already decided that they are right, because they are coming at the problem from a religious viewpoint.The Bible says X, and the Bible is the word of God, and God can't be wrong, so it doesn't matter what the evidence shows or what 150 years of research has produced.Creation "science" is based upon revelation, rather than evidence, and this is why they find it so easy to ignore evidence. The evidence is secondary to revelation in importance within the tenets of Creation "science".IOW, when all is said and done, it is perfectly acceptable in Creation "science" to ignore evidence and fall back on, "All evidence points to X, but that can't be true, because if X was true, it would contradict the Bible. Therefore, X isn't true, and we interpret the evidence to mean Y."It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to fit nature into Creation "science".------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

​

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-07-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i wasnt saying anything about the bible. i was just saying that our incompetent leaders need to be more open. along with you atheist evolutionists.

---

I accept the evidence for evolution, and I am not an athiest.In fact, 40% of scientists believe in God.Besides, what's wrong with being an Atheist? Several of our country's founders were Athiests.

Um, TC, If you read the Behemoth part of the King James version of the Bible, the words "tail" and "stones" are used, and many Biblical scholars translate these words to mean "penis" and "testicles". Certainly, the passages make sense when read this way. At the time of the translation of the KJV, that's what these words meant in daily usage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Sorry, creationism is a religious belief, evolution is a scientific theory."
--Who ever said Creationism was anything more than a belief, and who ever said evolution was not a scientific theory? Actually 'e'volution is fact, 'e'volution even plays a part in the theory for a young earth. If someone says othewize, they are either incorrect, or should emphesize their wording.

---

Um, TC, christian1 did, in message #310:"Creation is a religion, Evolution is a RELIGION, Science is what we can observe and test to be true. My religion is proved over and over and over and over and over and over and evolutionists cannot offer even an shred of solid proof. Yet they call evolution "science". Please do not get this mixed up."He says that Evolution is a religion, and implies that it shouldn't even be called science at all.Your argument seems to be with him, not Toff.------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"