What you need to know?

I have recently obtained a brochure written by John Ankerberg and John Weldon. The brochure is 'Creation vs. Evolution: What you need to know' (quick reference guide).In reading through this guide the author makes the following statement:
Evolutionists Claim #20 The theory of evolution has been a great boon to scientific progress.
The Scientific Facts Declare #20Whatever its limited scientific benefits, evolutionary theory has hindered the progress of science in numerous ways and been more destructive to the welfare of science"Since the author gives no examples of this, my question is how has ToE hindered the progress of science?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darwin Storm:
TC, did you teacher in highschool tell you there was no god because of TOE? If so, that teacher should be fired. However, in the biology classes I have taken in both highschool and and college, there was never a discussion or opionon of religion brought up in class. The only thing we discussed in talking about TOE was the evidence for it, its impact and influence on biology, and how those effects have influences on genetics.

---

D Storm has a good point! At no time that I can remember, did ToE state that there is no God, or God could not be. To me, the ToE just makes sense, and currently there isn't a better explanation. Creationism on the other hand, is too far fetched for me to believe.After reading this brochure through, I read the small print on the back. The author holds degrees in philosophy and theology, while the Co-Author holds degrees in comparative religion and contemporary religious movements. How can I believe in Creationism, when the people who write these articles don't even carry the proper credentials?It would be a good study to see how many hours a Creationist spends trying to nullify ToE, compared to the amount of hours actually spent performing scientific experiments and research. I would expect it would be something like 10:1 or greater.If you were to walk in a book store and purchase a book on Creationism, you would find the word evolution pop up hundreds, even thousands of times. Yet, if you were to buy a text on Evolution or Biology, you would be hard pressed to find the word Creationism anywhere.How much has Creation Science contributed to the advancement of Science and Technology?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Creationism on the other hand, is too far fetched for me to believe."
--What are the factors creationism is missing to make it as plausable as Evolution theory, try to retain a bit of an ignorant assertion such as 'it doesn't explain anything' or something along those lines, serious specifics if possible.

---

1. Noah's Ark? - A complete study and experiment of how this could have been done.
2. Creating Eve from a Rib of Adam? - A rational Scientific Explanation of this possibility.
3. Reliance on an omnipotent being. The Creationist argument relies on the existence of God. If you personally accept that God exists, this is fine, but to be a credible scientific theory it becomes necessary to first demonstrate that "God" exists and is capable of performing this act of creation.
4. Simple explanations of Glaciation. How this could have happened in a few thousand years.
5. Speed of Light NOT being constant.
6. How we can see the light from stars that are Millions of light years away, if the universe was created thousands of years ago.(see#6)
7. A COMPLETE invalidation of all Radiometric Dating Techniques.
8. Why we can't find any fossilized humans along with the Dinosaurs.
9. The creation of mountain ranges in a short period of time.Please leave out the 'God DID it' explanations. Provide cold hard facts that are validated by leading scientists who hold respectable positions and credentials. Scientific papers discussing all your theory's including all peer reviewed material. If Creation Science is the answer, then this should be easy, and the evidence for such should outweigh all the evidence pointing towards the Theory of Evolution.

​

[This message has been edited by no2creation, 03-29-2002]