Creation Museum a House of Cards Sitting on Old Old Earth Rocks

Just kinda glanced through those creation museum websites and while I don't see they make many specific points (if you want to know what evidence they have you have to pay admission ), but they all have one thing in common - other than the YEC thing. They all make comparison between real science, which does not contradict the Bible and it's teaching on a young earth and the false science of evolution and an old earth. I just find it fascinating how theologians with little or no science background are able to tell the difference between "true" science and "false" science and those of us that spend countless hours studying science and receiving degrees are so far off.

HBD

Calling them "theologians" is as insulting as calling the folk at ICR "scientists". "Biblical Christians" treat the evidence found in Bible stories the same as they treat reality; they simply misrepresent what is actually printed and make up fables to explain away the evidence.

jar---whats the link to that list you once presented of all of the Christians who do support evolution as a valid explanation and yet who all were Christians?

http://theclergyletterproject.org/

I would say that there are more christians that have no quarrel with evolution in general than there are those who find it problematical ... and that those who do have been brainwashed by propaganda.

Certainly this letter project demonstrates that evolution can be accepted within the christian faith umbrella.

IMHO

... but they all have one thing in common - other than the YEC thing. They all make comparison between real science, which does not contradict the Bible and it's teaching on a young earth and the false science of evolution and an old earth. ...

Indeed.

	F.U.N.D.I.E.S.*	Other People
beliefs ok with science	beliefs valid	science valid
beliefs NOT ok w/science	science wrong	beliefs wrong

* F.U.N.D.I.E.S.* = fundamentalists under numerous delusions involving evolution & science

Enjoy

Remember that there is a difference between "Christians" and "Chapters of Club Christian".

While a denomination may have no problems with evolution or age of the earth or any other matter of fact there can still be ignorant members that never read the Chapter bylaws.

Finally, some clarity!
I didn't know that the PHDs like Walt Brown, Dr. Jason Lisle, etc were not real scientists.

Just so I have it right... if these doctors are against the theory of evolution, then they are not "real" scientists.

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

What post do you think you're replying to?

---

Finally, some clarity! I didn't know that the PHDs like Walt Brown, Dr. Jason Lisle, etc were not real scientists. Just so I have it right... if these doctors are against the theory of evolution, then they are not "real" scientists.

Well, a scientist has to do science. My stepson has a degree in teaching, but he doesn't have a job as a teacher and never has; in fact he works as a security guard. So would it be accurate to call him a teacher? No, he's a security guard.

In the same way if someone gets a qualification in science, but spends all his time bullshitting rather than doing science, then it is reasonable to say that he is not a scientist but a bullshitter.

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

Because it's easy to discount very small insignificant trivial things.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I didn't know that the PHDs like Walt Brown, Dr. Jason Lisle, etc were not real scientists.

Too funny. Walt Brown a scientist? No way. And do you even have a clue what PHd stands for?

Just so I have it right... if these doctors are against the theory of evolution, then they are not "real" scientists.

Yes.

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

They are at best simply ignorant, if they claim to be scientists they are liars and the most likely reason is that they know thar is money in them thar Creationist and Biblical Christian pockets that is easy to mine.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Jar,
I can see why you have an issue with a guy getting a worthless PHd from that little school in mass (MIT). Mechanical engineering has nothing to do with science or plate tectonics (his specialty). The Air Force Academy usually scrapes the bottom of the barrel for physics professors

Your close-mindedness is sad. I feel pity for people like you. You allow yourself to be blinded by the fear of finding a God, or admitting there are somethings that we cannot understand.

Your close-mindedness is sad. I feel pity for people like you. You allow yourself to be blinded by the fear of finding a God, or admitting there are somethings that we cannot understand.

Too funny. I happen to be a cradle creedal Christian who has helped found and build churches, taught adult and child Sunday School, educated in a Christan school, raised in a Christian family.

Evolution is actually pretty easy to understand,

And yes, an engineer is NOT a scientist and any one claiming to be a Creation Scientist is at best a liar, more likely just a con man.

Plate Tectonics is not Walt Browns specialty, it is the Snake Oil he tries to sell to the willfully ignorant Christian Cult of Ignorance..

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Just so I have it right... if these doctors are against the theory of evolution, then they are not "real" scientists.

An appeal to authority is usually a logical fallacy ... unless it can be shown that the person is actually an expert in the field and that their position is similar to other experts in the field (in which case you can just provide the information without the appeal).

Just because a person has a PhD that doesn't mean that he is a biological scientist or has any expertise in the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_%28creationist%29

quote:

---

Walter T. Brown (Aug 1937) is an American engineer and young earth creationist, who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation. The Skeptic's Dictionary considers him to be one of the leaders of the creation science movement.[1] He proposes a specific version of flood geology called hydroplate theory.

According to his self-published book, Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a B.S. from West Point and he served as an officer in the US military until he retired in 1980.[2] Since retiring from the military in 1980, Brown has been the director of the Center for Scientific Creation and has worked full-time in research, writing, and speaking on origins theory.[2] In 1998, Brown was appointed to a committee reviewing Arizona's state science standards. However, evolution was retained in the Arizona state science standards after a final decision in August 1998.[3][4] He currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona.

---

Mechanical engineering is not a field of science, to say nothing about not being related to biology in general and evolution in particular. His "expertise" on evolution is no better than the person next door without a degree.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle

quote:

---

Jason Lisle is Director of Research at the Institute for Creation Research. He was previously a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis.[2]

Dr. Lisle is a creationist with a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from University of Colorado in Boulder. Lisle earned his undergraduate degree from Ohio Wesleyan University summa cum laude with a double-major in physics and astronomy and a minor in mathematics. His postgraduate research concentrated on solar dynamics, utilizing NASA's Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO)[3] to monitor the surface of the sun. His dissertation "Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism" is available from the University of Colorado[4] and he has also published numerous papers in legitimate scientific journals concerning convection cells in the sun.[5]

Although some creationists claim that a creationist would be unable to earn an advanced degree from a secular university because of institutional prejudice against their beliefs,[6] Lisle's academic progress was not hindered by his creationism. While members of his Master's thesis and Ph.D.dissertation committees might have been aware of his young Earth beliefs, their evaluation of his work was based on his research and not his personal beliefs.[7]

---

In other words his field of science is not related to biology in general or evolution in particular, and his field of "expertise" is the behavior of the sun, and he too has no more "expertise" in evolutionary biology than the neighbor next door without a degree.

If either of these gentlemen claim to be PhD's with expertise on biological evolution, then they are lying, and such a claim would be a hoax.

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

One, because virtually every one is not an evolutionary biologist and evolution is NOT their field of expertise.

Two, because those few who have actually studied evolutionary biology (like Jonathan Wells) are few and far between, and their purpose in studying this field is to find and expose it's weaknesses being fully committed a priori to creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/...%28intelligent_design_advocate%29

quote:

---

Wells said that "destroying Darwinism" was his motive for studying Christian theology at Yale and going on to seek his second PhD at Berkeley, studying biology and in particular embryology:

Father's [Rev. Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.[3]

Wells's statement and others like it are viewed by the scientific community as evidence that Wells lacks proper scientific objectivity and mischaracterizes evolution by ignoring and misrepresenting the evidence supporting it while pursuing an agenda promoting notions supporting his religious beliefs in its stead.[29][30][31][32][33]

---

So far he has been ineffective in his religiously motivated aspirations.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

There are more scientifically literate people named Steve (or some variation on that name) that support evolution than there are scientists of any stripe that "doubt" evolution.

See the Steve Project.

http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve

There are more clergy type people that accept evolution as the best explanation than there are scientists of any stripe that "doubt" evolution.

See the Clergy Letter Project.

http://theclergyletterproject.org/

And, as DrA says, if you don't actually practice the science of the field you do have a degree in then you are not actually a scientist in that field.

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

Because they are easily discountable on a rational basis founded on evidence rather than belief. The opinions of people, whether actual scientists in a specific field of inquiry or the average joe (joan) (wo)man on the street are still surprisingly ineffective in altering either reality or the evidence of reality.

Enjoy

Sarcasm aside, how can you discount the number of DRs from secular universities that doubt evolutionary theory?

And in a spirit of debate on the value of information, how can you discount the massive amount of evidence that the earth is old ...

see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
and Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?

and that there never was a "Noachin" flood ...

see Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
and No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

Does belief in Jesus depend on belief in ancient Judaic Myths?

Enjoy

I can see why you have an issue with a guy getting a worthless PHd from that little school in mass (MIT). Mechanical engineering has nothing to do with science or plate tectonics (his specialty). The Air Force Academy usually scrapes the bottom of the barrel for physics professors

As a BSME and MSME from MIT who knows what it takes to get a graduate degree there, I am certain that Dr. Brown knew his stuff when he graduated. He'd have to be very well educated in thermodynamics, physics, mathematics, and more. Presumably he was the same at the AF Academy.

People change.

Dr. Brown forgot all his thermodynamics. Glenn Morton had to school him on first- term undergraduate thermodynamics. He forgot all his physics and Jellison had to point that out. (Personally I think Jellison left out a very important fact, the impossibility of getting the asteroids' orbits into the plane of the Solar System in Brown's fantasy, but when there are so many errors you just can't cover them all.) He's so loony the loonies think he's loony.

He's not what he once was.

Oh, and he has no education or qualifications in geology or plate tectonics. He can't even figure out a simple problem in strength of materials (rock) (see first link above).

Mechanical engineering is not a field of science

To be fair, you need a good grounding and more in many relevant areas of science (but not necessarily biology) to get an earned PhD from MIT. Brown has that degree and used to know his stuff. He either forgot it or abandoned it when he ran off the rails.