Isaiah 6:8

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/au/creationists-real-scientists

I agree, Its because we have lost focus on who are provider is, The Lord Dave Ramsey said this in the video. He is speaking of the shift in mentality from God providing to the government providing.

Only energy for this one. Fusion principles, do not require evolution to work.

I would agree, I thing evolution is non science. Both should be taught side by side as belief systems. The premise that not being taught evolution halts or slows down scientific progress is a real stretch. As there is no evidence for that. This even being brought up shows the emotive response vs a rational. "They are not scientific, they do not know anything they can not be scientific and its all because of there non scientific belief " Not very scientific would you say?

You brought it up, now you are backpedaling. You are the one who said that those would not be science, remember? First off I beg to differ, and you never did read that article. Also you never said that, you brought in many fields of science and said they would all be wrong. Again you are trying to take back what you have said and its not working. I disagree, as creationism has predictive power as well as is falsifiable. You have lost me by what you mean on this. Hmm.. To much to explain but try this on for size http://christianansw...g/aig-c005.html Possible explanations. The site even says its only possible explanations not the explanation. In a nutshell, light is consistent, however time is not. If time is not consistent there is a possibility of earth basically being in a state of time travel. This makes sense since all the science shows that have dealt with time travel, and books I have read have stated that if you traveled at the speed of light, by the time you got somewhere you would not have aged but the people you left behind would have aged many years, and yes, this is supported bye relativity. I am not sure on the mechanics of this but its a thought. Because the LHC is not only used to try to find the elusive "God" particle, but researching hot to use fusion as a source of energy among other useful things. So that is a non point, and your whole premise is false.

Server issue, I have to run Watch this space for the full article.

I am not sure whether medical research does not benefit from acceptance of evolution, but the rest of the sentence is a non-sequitur. Just to make an example, cosmology is not necessary to understand how computers work or plants and animal function. how planes fly, etc. Is that enough to say that we can get rid of cosmology? Maybe we should, since it predicts that the big bang took place 13.7 billion years ago and has zero energy (thereby not requiring ex-nihilo creation of net energy). Computer science is not necessary to understand how the planets orbit the sun, how telescope operates, how plants and animal function, therefore we do need that either. Actually, computer science is dangerous, since it might be able in the future to produce a conscious computer showing that our so called soul is also a computational process. Many fields of science are not necessary for the majority of the other fields, obviously. Should we reject them all? If not, why cherry picking evolution (which explains neatly biology) if not because of a-priori religious bias? What about neurosciences? The vast majority of neuro-scientists believe that what we are is reducible to the functions of our brains. No soul whatsoever and no free will, really. Actually, I consider this discipline even more corrosive against religion than evolution. Let me guess, we can have science also without neuroscience. Physics shows clearly that atoms decay at a fixed rate and the speed of light in vacuum is constant, thereby setting the age of many things in the universe and on earth in the billion years range. Physics makes also predictions concerning matter sprouting spontaneously from nothing and the possibility of parallel universes which nullify the cosmological and fine tuning arguments. Should we get rid of physics, too? The same with geology, which is not really necessary to explain how planes fly or telescopes operate, either, so it should not be a problem to get rid of that too, since it shows clearly that no world wide flood ever took place. I am afraid, there will be nothing left at the end. Ciao - viole Now now Viole now your saying your premise is not true/ you started this I put the statement that did in bold and underlined. Viole can you please answer the following as you seem to have forgotten that science by your terms can not exist or go forward with out evolution, all fields your words not mine. Actually if it were not for Christian creationists such as Robert Boyle, we would not have what we have now. The point is this, you can have science with out evolution. You can be smart with out evolution.You can make scientific progress... without evolution. How would it imply that? Really, all we know? You are stretching a lot and exaggerating a lot. This is an emotional response not a scientific one, please provide actual proof not wild emotional. statements with no bearing on fact. I have inserted in red some of the people who helped start or were extremely important to what we know of those fields. You can not take away from what they learned, as it is the foundation on which we have been building. I would agree if that was a fact, however it is not a fact. Okay, and... Again there is Zero Correlation between thinking the earth/universe is thousands of years old and a lack of scientific progress or interest. Also it is painfully apparent that you did not read the whole article. I'll post in full in a moment so you don't have to click out to it. It is very interesting to note that it appears that many atheists/evolutionists can seem to understand the most complex of terms but if something is explained to them that goes against there ideas they seem to suddenly have a hard time understand what was written and decide that it is nonsense because it is incomprehensible to them or as you put it this time a "Non-sequiter"

Also

I see evolution doing the exact same thing. Like not being able to prove where reproductive organs come from, and yet they are vitally important to life as we know it. For instance all the missing links... http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/apemen-missing-links Okay still not proof. Proof of a large population, well then, how did that large population start. What are the odds of literally thousands of humans suddenly all evolving at the same time all the exact same features so they could interbreed? A speciation change in the lab. Nope that is not evolution, I do not see any lizards into birds in the lab. Only an E-Coli bacteria becoming a slightly different "E-Coli" bacteria. Creationist agree that sort of change does happen. However this is part of a bait and switch, and I will not bite. Here try this out. Himm. Ignorant seems to be your favorite word. I have provided links and evidence which you did not like but did not bring counter evidence, D-9 has in the past you have not until just now. Also you refused to even look at my article that I posted on the scientific method, and then call me ignorant.

Exaeus, are you going to reply to this comment? Hmm again, you must have missed somethings in the new article... First was it because creationism was being taught a young universe? Nope Also where did they get there education So again nothing wrong with the schooling in the US as presented. It was another article on immigration not on the quality of our schools. Really not a good way to make a point about evolution being the cause of our failings as a science powerhouse. Given how you're stooping to such antagonistic ad hominems, Isaiah, I think it's safe to say that you resent the claim that religion makes people unscientific. You want to be seen as scientific and progressive, yet you also want at the same time to cast aside science when it doesn't fit in with your preconceived beliefs. Well, I guess I'd be frustrated too if I ever found myself in in the same Catch-22 as you. First of all, that was not an attack. It was an observation. Second of all, You have not yet really argued ever from fact on any subject here, and it is getting old. You can attack the person again and again but you can not bring facts to the table. I have.

Boy your really did not understand that whole line of reasoning. Let me clarify Take two books. Say "The Hobbit" and "Lord Of The Rings" Evolutionist look at both of them and say wow, look two books. They have similar wording, and the way the are put together is the same. Therefore the must have evolved from a common book ancestor some time back, for that is the only way the similarities can be explained. A Creationist looks at same two books and says. Hmm. must be the same author. You keep saying this but have yet to provide data. What are you talking about? If you mean that creationism is reproducible in the lab, no its not. Neither is evolution. I am fully aware of what creationism and evolution state, you do not seem to have understood my point.

Again, the point was this. We had science progress with out evolution, we still have science progress with out evolution and we will have science progress with out evolution. Evolution ties nothing together even Biology Please provide proof how it does with links please.

And yet I have heard Creationist say the same about Creation... So no its not the glue here is the thing. Creation and evolution basically say two things about the same facts (I keep pointing this out) and here it is in a nutshell. Evolution " We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common ancestor" Creation "We see similar things in all the animals, so they must have a common creator" Slight change in viewpoints but both work when it comes to biology.

Actually Just realized you seem to be just fine with "Making observations" but are offended when I make some of my own, Pot, meet Kettle, Kettle Pot.

Hmm again, you must have missed somethings in the new article... First was it because creationism was being taught a young universe? Nope Also where did they get there education So again nothing wrong with the schooling in the US as presented. It was another article on immigration not on the quality of our schools. Really not a good way to make a point about evolution being the cause of our failings as a science powerhouse. Given how you're stooping to such antagonistic ad hominems, Isaiah, I think it's safe to say that you resent the claim that religion makes people unscientific. You want to be seen as scientific and progressive, yet you also want at the same time to cast aside science when it doesn't fit in with your preconceived beliefs. Well, I guess I'd be frustrated too if I ever found myself in in the same Catch-22 as you. First of all, that was not an attack. It was an observation. Second of all, You have not yet really argued ever from fact on any subject here, and it is getting old. You can attack the person again and again but you can not bring facts to the table. I have.

Sorry I do not have the energy to retype the huge reply earlier, but I would be in staunch disagreement on this last comment. If you mean Cosmology, creation of the universe stuff, then yes, however regular astronomy, such and such object is at such and such place and behaves in such and such manner, is not under debate, at least that I know of. Well, basically the entirety of modern astronomy debunks YEC, no matter what field of astronomy you go into. Not to mention cosmology and the big bang are large parts of modern astronomy. You essentially don't have modern astronomy without them. They explain things like the distribution of population I and II stars, which in tandem with a constant speed of light (which I talk about below) suggests that our Sun is at least a second generation star - modern astronomy puts it as a third generation star. If you accept that astronomers can determine the position of objects and how they behave, than you would have to conclude that the speed of light has been more or less constant in the last 13 billion years - as indicated by looking at the spectra (light) of near and far objects and the proportions of spectral lines. This is in hot contention among Christians as readily observed on Worthy and sites you yourself have recommended to me. I myself have run across many Christians that reject Relativity, a major part of astronomy since about 1919 with the successful prediction of gravity wells bending light. There is a lot in modern astronomy that is in opposition to what creationists believe. "Stellar evolution" is perhaps another one of these modern astronomy fields that is rejected. You were not mentioning different fields of astronomy that would be under contention. You said it almost indicating we were so backwards as to belive in a geocentric solar system. as for the light measurement. I have thoughts on that but its almost 5 in the morning and my brain abruptly gave in on me and I can not make a coherent reply.

Actually if it were not for Christian creationists such as Robert Boyle, we would not have what we have now. The point is this, you can have science with out evolution. You can be smart with out evolution.You can make scientific progress... without evolution. How would it imply that? Really, all we know? You are stretching a lot and exaggerating a lot. This is an emotional response not a scientific one, please provide actual proof not wild emotional. statements with no bearing on fact. I have inserted in red some of the people who helped start or were extremely important to what we know of those fields. You can not take away from what they learned, as it is the foundation on which we have been building. I would agree if that was a fact, however it is not a fact. Okay, and... Again there is Zero Correlation between thinking the earth/universe is thousands of years old and a lack of scientific progress or interest.

Wow, that was not a great proof. That link was about immigration and how immigrates veiw education and how they apply themselves, in.... Drumroll please The United States Educational System! See article. So do you have any proof outside of you hating the thought of Creationism/I.D. being taught? Oh and the winners.... Born and raised in the US. http://www.societyfo...ment.doc?id=309

Wow, that was not a great proof. That link was about immigration and how immigrates veiw education and how they apply themselves, in.... Drumroll please The United States Educational System! See article. So do you have any proof outside of you hating the thought of Creationism/I.D. being taught?

Really, well considering creationist Christians were some of the founding fathers of those fields including Robert Boyle, How does this work? Proof please. I don't need to know a whit about evolution to learn how a frog jumps or how electrical current is moved through the nervous system. As for as Chemistry, really how much do I need to know about evolution to use everyday chemistry in baking? That is chemistry. You don't need to know evolution to produce plastics, and glass? Quite an emotional response from all of you on a "Science" question.

We're good at making a profit, we hire a lot of immigrants [in the sciences]. I live near a medical center which is positioned in a rather small town. We have quite a bit of ethnic diversity for such a small area and it's due to the medical campus. My neighbor [when i live in apartments near the campus] was from South Africa but he lived previously in the UK. He came here because he can make more money as a Dr. When you look at the movers and shakers in the sciences they're not biblical fundamentalists. We have Dr. Francis Collins who's the head of the Human Genome project and a devout Christian, but he's not a biblical literalist. Keep in mind people will mock and bash science and scientists all day long but they'll turn around and embrace it as if it's the best thing since sliced bread...it's an odd thing to see. Now there are plenty of folks who don't subscribe to this view but from my experience if you're in Texas, Alabama, Arkansas etc you're probably going to be interfacing with the young earth crowd more. Please see this thread, If it was not for "Biblical Fundamentalists" Science as you know it would not exist. Okay, again, this subject is about IS evolution Science. I state it is not, and since you two are taking it off track I am going to close it until I can get back to the point. (it is my thread after all)

In another thread, it was put forth that America could not keep its science edge because people believed in a young earth. Personally I find that insulting, as that one field of study is not needed to... build a computer, Build an airplane, build a rocket, or chart the planets movements, or to find new medicines, or many other fields. Also the following people were Christians, and as far as I know creationists, though history does not leave us what they believed on that, but since evolution really did not have a hold as it does to day its safe to assume. Sir Issac Newton, Robert Boyle, Johannes Kepler , George Washington Carver, The Wright brothers and Samuel Morse. So you are saying they could not have done what they did if they did not believe in evolution? No Science does not need evolution, in any way shape or form.

To quote starwars... "Stay on target.... Stay on target...." Or in other words stay on topic. Viole I'll start another thread, however I will only start it, likely not reply to much as I have way to many things to keep track of, however you are insinuating that if you are a creationist, you can not be a scientist and there fore science will fail. This is untrue, not based in fact or logic, and is a sniping remark and uncalled for. You know better.