Is evolution or creation science?

[Guest]

.... If evolution were not taken into account in the studies I'm aware of, then I have no doubt that the health of many folks would be needlessly jeopardized. As sort of a pointer, think about the interactions between various drugs and the genetic makeup of animal populations used for testing. Then consider that test animal populations are subject to the founder effect. And so on and so on....

All This Is Science And Except For The Noise, Has Nothing To Do With The Evolutionary Mythos

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4

IMO The "Founder Effect" Clearly Points Back To The Founder, The LORD Jesus

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

Rather Than To Any Speculation Of Evolution

Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. Romans 8:21-22

And Sin Is The Corruption

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Romans 3:23

And Jesus Is

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23

The Answer

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

~

Dear One, No So Called "Knowledge"

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

Will Stop The Creator's Return To His Jerusalem

He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. Revelation 22:20

Are You Ready?

[Guest]

.... Humanity evolved from Adam and Eve 6000 thousand years ago and this explains the incredible diversity throughout life. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN....

:24:

Shackled By Visions Of Father Rock And Mama Tree

And Time Without Beginning

Some Just Didn't

Know

~ Oh Yes

Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: Isaiah 42:5

~ Oh Yes He Can

For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. Isaiah 45:18

Oh Mighty Grasshopper Yes He Can

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: Isaiah 40:21-22

[nChrist]

To any and all creationists,

Throughout this thread I've seen some claims about evolutionary theory that I've heard many times over on Worthy and other places that supposedly show how evolution is false. Three that I'm curious about are

1. Hoaxes. The idea that the great evidence for evolution is founded on hoaxes.

2. Anomalies. There are anomalies in nature scientists have observed that fly in the face of evolution.

3. Twisting Facts. The idea that scientists twist the facts to make them fit into evolution.

While these claims have been made, I have yet to see any examples given. So I'm curious, what are these hoaxes that evolution is founded on? What are these anomalies that show evolution must be false? What are these facts that have been twisted to fit evolution?

For a start, try a Google search for either or both of these:

evolution hoax

evolution fraud

We're talking about intentional deception, not just junk science that's FALSE. There is a significant body of historical information on the theory of evolution that is hoaxes and frauds, and this can't be denied. The number of cases that would fit in this category are almost countless, but the above two searches should get you started.

[nChrist]

Man evolved from monkeys = silly beyond reason. This is the ultimate question, and the answer is: IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Perhaps you will be glad to know that science (i.e., evolution) shows that man did not evolve from monkeys, or perhaps that's Monkees!

However, we do share a common ancestor. Apes and old world monkeys separated about 40 million years according to the latest info I'm aware of at the moment.

Thanks, but I already knew beyond any doubt that man DIDN'T evolve from monkeys or apes. Man was Created by Almighty God exactly as recorded in Genesis 1 and 2.

So Repeat:

Man evolved from monkeys = silly beyond reason. This is the ultimate question, and the answer is: IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN.

You also need to do the Google Search for:

evolution hoax

evolution fraud

[Guest]

.... something fraudulent that scientists use today to base their understanding of evolution off....

It's All About Time

And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31

And The Excuse For Why You'll Never See Evolution In Laboratory Experiments

You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, "He did not make me"? Can the pot say of the potter, "He knows nothing"? Isaial 29:16 (NIV)

[Guest]

I thought that that google is not serious scholarship

Seriously? Google Research

David Blackwell is, to mathematicians, the most famous, perhaps greatest, African American Mathematician. He earned his Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics in 1938, Master of Arts in Mathematics in 1939, and his Ph.D. in 1941 (at the age of 22), all from the University of Illinois. He is the seventh African American to receive a Ph.D. in Mathematics. He is the first and only African American to be any one of: a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a President of the American Statistical Society, and a Vice President of the America Mathematics Society.

Chronology:

David Harold Blackwell grew up in Centralia, Illinois, a town of 12,000 on the "Mason-Dixson Line." He was raised in a family which expected and supported working hard and a little faster than most folk. Blackwell says he was fortunate to attend a mixed school rather than the all black school. While he was growing up, "Southern Illinois was probably fairly racist. But I was not even aware of these problems -- I had no sense of being discriminated against." As a schoolboy, Blackwell did not care for algebra and trigonometry ("I could do it and I could see that it was useful, but it wasn't really exciting.") Geometry turned him on. "The most interesting thing I remember from calculus was Newton's method for solving equations. That was the only thing in calculus I really liked. The rest of it looked like stuff that was useful for engineers in finding moments of inertia and volumes and such." In his junior year he took an elementary analysis course and really fell in love with mathematics. "That's the first time I knew that serious mathematics was for me. It became clear that it was not simply a few things that I liked. The whole subject was just beautiful." Four years later he had a Ph.D.

Dr. Blackwell was appointed a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study from 1941 for a year. At that time, members of the Institute were automatically officially made visiting fellows of Princeton University, and thus Blackwell was listed in its bulletin as such. This caused considerable ruckus as there had never been a black student, much less faculty fellow, at the University [most notably it had rejected Paul Robeson solely on race]. The president of Princeton wrote the director of the Institute that the Institute was abusing the University's hospitality by admitting a black.

At the Institute he met the great von Neumann who asked Blackwell about his thesis. Blackwell, "He [von Neumann] listened for ten minutes and he started telling me about my thesis." Colleagues in Princeton wished to extend Blackwell's appointment at the institute. However, the president of Princeton organized a great protestation.

When it was time to leave the institute, Blackwell knew no white schools would hire him, and he applied to all 105 Black schools in the country. After instructorships at Southern University and Clark College, Dr. Blackwell joined the faculty of Howard University from 1944 as an instructor.. At the time, Howard University "was the ambition of every black scholar." In three years, Blackwell had risen to the rank of Full Professor and Chairman.

Never Is :24:

[Isaiah 6:8]

Okay, the way this thread has run its course is proof of my point.

The second an evolutionist sees data he does not agree with, he rushes to prove the data is wrong. The second an creationist is presented with data from an evolutionist he as well rushes to prove said data wrong.

No one person (including myself) has not done this during the thread.

Is that science? Rushing to prove another wrong? NO IT IS NOT. Science is about data. Hard facts. Not emotional responses to data that forces it to fit their pre-concieved ideas.

That is the point of this thread. I have tried this thread with three different wordings, and each time it has degenerated into a "This fact, vs that fact" not the point of the thread. You see, even if you think evolution is science, it is very clear that every person here, is not scientific about how they approach it. They are all biased to the point that real science can not be discussed.

[nChrist]

For a start, try a Google search for either or both of these:

evolution hoax

evolution fraud

We're talking about intentional deception, not just junk science that's FALSE. There is a significant body of historical information on the theory of evolution that is hoaxes and frauds, and this can't be denied. The number of cases that would fit in this category are almost countless, but the above two searches should get you started.

Okay I did the search and quickly skimmed a few sites. Honestly, most of it is laughable. But before we tear into them, I want to make clear that I'm looking for stuff that disproves evolution, stuff that had/has the main-stream science hooked, something fraudulent that scientists use today to base their understanding of evolution off of, not what the pop-culture or the media deems important (like "Nebraska Man" where the media and pop culture had a field day while no one in the scientific community accepted it, and even the scientist who found it was skeptical and called for further analysis before saying definitively what it was), or some rogue scientist's pet theory about evolution (like Haeckel's embryos, he was found guilty by evolutionists, scientists never used his data to show that evolution is correct, his drawings are not part of textbooks, and none of modern evolution is based on Haeckel's fraudulent works).

In essence, I'm looking for fraudulent works that if shown to be false puts the theory of evolution in doubt. There is quite a few claims made on the internet. Since there are so many, are there any in particular that you think stand out? After all, I can't look up every single claim, that would take way too long.

Yes, it is laughable what bogus baloney they tried to pass off as serious science at one time. You can't dismiss it just because it didn't happen today. MUCH bogus baloney has been debunked and is more than laughable - let's say SILLY laughable. SILLY is the nature of trying to sell the idea that man evolved from monkeys. A lot of what so-called scientists say TODAY is also bogus baloney and will eventually be debunked as SILLY laughable. As you've already noted, there's a huge amount of fraud, deception, or otherwise BOGUS information historically. You can't dismiss it simply because there's too much of the BOGUS BALONEY to look at in a timely manner. This is why I rarely believe a single thing that evolutionists say who are trying to push man evolving from monkeys. I already know beyond any doubt that man DIDN'T evolve from monkeys. Frankly, I find the thought to be beyond SILLY laughable. This post should serve as an answer to several other posters. Finally, you would be surprised to find out what used to be in textbooks from various times in the past that is no longer VALID. The real problem was that it was never VALID. So, just look in the searches and you'll find too many cases to count. If you want to widen your search, add

evolution bogus

evolution baloney

[Isaiah 6:8]

You say science is about data, yet whenever data comes up you brush it off to the side. Seriously, your notions about the Sun being over 100 times in diameter a million years ago, waterfall ages that must be the upper limit to Earth's age, or that crazy biblelife.org site, are all as flawed and faulty as saying 1+1=500. It is not unscientific to correct faulty ideas, far from it, it's a key component of the peer-review process in science.

I did not really want to debate that point. I read the whole paper, that SamVines posted. In a nutshell it said this " We don't know our measurements are faulty" When I posted that it was taking into account the few hundred years of measurements taken by astronomers on the ground. You proved my point however when the first thing you and SamVines did was attempt to disprove it! You did not for once say "oh, I did not know that" However, do you ever try as hard to disprove your own data? I doubt it. I know I don't.

As for the waterfall ages Your response to that shows your pure unscientific, bias. The waterfall example was an example of looking at all the data. I even stated as such. You and Sam latched on to that though and tried to disprove something I never said was proof. You went after me for something I did not say! Lets look at what I said and why I said it. I said it because you have put forth just as erroneous data as evidence with out looking at other possible explanations. You have stated that your data was evidence. I stated that I could state data that was evidence of a young earth, then I stated that there were also other explanations and that it was not really evidence. Yet you and Sam latched on and started attacking evidence that I did not put forth. Showing your bias and intellectual dishonesty.

You can see what I actually wrote.

Sorry I did miss that I was not clear about that, I am sorry about that. However I have seen you state minimal evidence to ascertain something that we have never seen is possible. A lack of one gas on a moon or a planet I can not remember which. You stated that just because one gas was not found that it was evidence of silicon based lifeforms.

If I said a much stronger thing about evolution being wrong, you would tell me the evidence was too weak. Such the fact that it would only have taken Niagara falls 6,000 years to wear down to its current shape from water erosion was evidence of the earth being young. You would state that it was only evidence of the fall themselves being only 6000 years old. you see there are many options to why this is true however if I state that as evidence you would say it was not based on other possible explanations. So yes it is evidence but not a fact. You have shown you choose to belive what evidence you will and ignore other possibility.

Again the following shows you miss my point, yet again.

Even your ERV response, as I know you've repeatedly used that example, simply doesn't address the data scientists use to support and form evolutionary theories. Not all points are equal, you actually have to look into what people are saying and see if the arguments hold their weight.

The point is this, whether you like it or not there are to points of view as to what they mean and how they fit both models. As you said before about the geocentric verses sun centered earth. The data supports both points of view, but then what is the real meaning.

This ridiculous notion that if the evidence is "interpreted" it cannot be science is really opposite to how science works; interpretation is integral to the scientific method as scientific theories, by definition, explain/interpret facts. You may say that makes science a world-view, and in a certain sense that is true; Science starts with certain axioms and goes from there to figure out and understand the universe.

Yes, however you should never interpret your facts through raw emotion. That is what happens in both creation and evolution. If you interpret data by what you want it to be, then it negates it as science. If you interpret data to figure out what model it fits, no matter what one that is, then it is science. How ever you have proven, over and over again that you jump to your preferred model every time and its based on an emotion of you are right and evolution is true and the Bible at least the early part of Genesis is not. Its based on emotion, and I admit my emotion on the subject.

However you and Sam and others like Don Fannuchi, (who I have caught lying about facts to prove his point) refuse to admit you look at this emotionally.

Again case in point, you tried to disprove something that I already disproved. This shows an emotional response, not a logical one.

Ultimately, you and every other creationist needs to decide whether or not science is a valid way to understand the world around us.

Ahh.... Now you are stating as a fact that evolution is science, and I am not speaking of speciation, which is observed and scientific. You see you seem to just trust that evolution must have worked when there is no other explanation or data. Just as we say that God must have worked when there is no explanation or data. For instance we know that there sexual reproduction and yet you admit there is no evidence on how this happened by evolution. Also I have noticed that you distance yourself from big logic holes that evolution presents, and you take it by faith. For instance for life to evolve and develop as you claim, it had to start by some means. You have your pick, both are unproven. God or Abogenisis. You see this is something that you like to ignore and back off from, and say it is not related but yet it is, as they are both unproven, and have to be taken by faith, as the only evidence we have for either of them is that yes, there is indeed life on this planet, and it had to come from somewhere.

Case in point.

I've noticed that the instinctive response a lot of creationists have is that 'of course we like science, look at all the cool things science/technology has brought us'. But when you consider that in science you must leave your faith behind, you cannot rely on the Bible or biblical authority, that your ideas must coincide with naturalism,

No, they must not. You see naturalism is not Science. It is Philosophy and or a religion. So no we Do not have to line up our ideas with a philosophy that runs against everything we believe. So you want us to trade one religion for another? Again not very scientific.

Philosophy .a.the view of the world that takes account only of

natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.b.the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws ofscience and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

5.Theology .a.the doctrine that all religious truth is derived from a study of

natural processes and not from revelation.b.

the doctrine that

natural religion

is sufficient for salvation.

http://dictionary.re...owse/naturalism

most creationists scoff at the ideas and axioms of science's philosophy; after all it is a man-made philosophy/methodology that doesn't recognize God's authority, what would you do with any other philosophy that didn't recognize God's authority? Science just has data and facts gathered and interpreted by man, the Bible has the truth in God's Word, what else do you need to know?

No Most creationists scoff at the idea of God not living his fingerprints. We have no problem with science, with the scientific method. I for one love it and study things and understand a lot of science. So tell me how does choosing to believe that there is a God and evolution is not true, effect things such as, the discovery of penicillin, Electricity, Higher math that lead to computers?

Matter of fact one of the my favorite historical scientists, that established what is known as a bastion of science today, the "Royal Academy of Science" Who helped establish the scientific method, Robert Boyle was a Christian who was inspired by the Lord to do what he did, and as well he was a missionary and read the Bible in some of if not all of its original languages, and even commissioned the first translation of the Bible into Gaelic for the Irish. Sir Issac Newton, The Wright Brothers, George Washington Carver, Luis Pasture, Galileo, Joseph Kepler. These were all men of Science, and without whom we would not have science as we know it, and every one of them were Christians working from a Genesis based outlook on life.

Matter of fact it was Luis Pasture who proved that life could not spontaneously generate from trash. He is called the father of microbiology, and yet when I was in San Francisco, looking in a museum display about the history of microbiology, his name was not mentioned? Why do you think that was? You see the museum display was also promoting evolution as fact, and it would be an embarrassment to include the man that showed that life can not come from non life.

So you see you do not need a "Naturalistic" Outlook on life to be a scientist, or scientific in thought. Again you stating such shows your emotional bais that does not allow you to look at this objectively or scientifically.

[Guest]

The

In the beginning God Genesis 1:1(a)

Truth

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6

Is Not Philosophy

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

____________

_________

______

___

.... But when you consider that in science you must leave your faith behind, you cannot rely on the Bible or biblical authority, that your ideas must coincide with naturalism, most creationists scoff at the ideas and axioms of science's philosophy; after all it is a man-made philosophy/methodology that doesn't recognize God's authority, what would you do with any other philosophy that didn't recognize God's authority? Science just has data and facts gathered and interpreted by man, the Bible has the truth in God's Word, what else do you need to know?....

Beloved, The Trouble With Scientism

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

Is Jesus The Christ

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

And His Cross

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8