A literal 6 24-hr days?

[Helen]

You mean like the stereotyping of YEC's as ignorant, deceived, stupid, etc.???

 

[The Galatian]

It would be wrong to characterize creationists as stupid or othewise mentally deficient. I think Kurt Wise summed it up well, when he said that the evidence was less important for him than his understanding of God's Word.

I think most creationists are like that. I would certainly not be dumb enough to call you stupid, Helen.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by Helen:
You mean like the stereotyping of YEC's as ignorant, deceived, stupid, etc.???

Exactly like that, which is why I don't stereotype them as such. In my mind people are individuals and their beliefs do not necessarily speak to their intelligence. Are you trying to imply something Helen?

 

[A_Christian]

Satan has his ways of pulling people away from GOD. He uses whatever is handy.

Interesting fact. DNA if PROTECTED from HEAT,
AIR, WATER, and BACTERIA (according to a 1991
Nature Magazine article) must break down
entirely within 10,000 years. Obviously, DNA
that is subjected to any adverse conditions WILL
breakdown MUCH sooner------even in less than a
year.

The truth is that they have found DNA in amber
from insects that are suppose to be 10 million to
30 million years old. Why does the DNA have
to be that old?------because the amber has been
judged by evolutionists to be that old. This
must mean that someone IS WRONG. Perhaps it
isn't the creationists. But I know someone will
dream up something to put down creationism and
exult evolution. Seems odd that there would be
"Christians" bent on supporting that which is
making GOD a liar-----even when there is data
that would make even an atheist wonder.

 

[Meatros]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Satan has his ways of pulling people away from GOD. He uses whatever is handy.

Interesting fact. DNA if PROTECTED from HEAT,
AIR, WATER, and BACTERIA (according to a 1991
Nature Magazine article) must break down
entirely within 10,000 years. Obviously, DNA
that is subjected to any adverse conditions WILL
breakdown MUCH sooner------even in less than a
year.

The truth is that they have found DNA in amber
from insects that are suppose to be 10 million to
30 million years old. Why does the DNA have
to be that old?------because the amber has been
judged by evolutionists to be that old. This
must mean that someone IS WRONG. Perhaps it
isn't the creationists. But I know someone will
dream up something to put down creationism and
exult evolution. Seems odd that there would be
"Christians" bent on supporting that which is
making GOD a liar-----even when there is data
that would make even an atheist wonder.

Where is this 'article' located? Also, it's not evolutionists you would be disagreeing with, I believe they would be paleontologists (sp?). Your appeal to emotion doesn't hold sway with me because I do not take Genesis to be literal. So please don't try to sway people with that sort of faulty argument.

 

[A_Christian]

Meatros:

My appeal to "emotion", seems to hold enough
sway to get you to ask about the article---doesn't it bucky...

Well not to leave you hanging

"The Past Comes Alive", by Bryan Sykes "NATURE"
Volume 353 August 1st, 1991, Page 381, column 2.

Might also check out "Creation Ex Nihilo",
Volume 14 Number 3 "DNA DATING:FASCINATING
EVIDENCE THAT THE FOSSILS ARE YOUNG" by
Carl Wieland, M.B., B.S., Page 43

 

[The Galatian]

My guess is that you were confused by Syke's conclusion that mitochondrial DNA has one mutation about every 10,000 years.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

We don’t know if Darwin was a full-fledged atheist when he was working on his evolutionary ideas (he never developed them his grandfather did) but we know the men in the family were not believers, and that Darwin slid easily away from even a nominal belief rapidly as an adult. So whether you want to fight about the term ‘atheist’ or not is moot. He was not a believer.

Actually, agnostics, atheists, hindus, christians, budhists, moslems, even Baptists have all contributed to all areas of science, including evolutionary theory. Good science can be done regardless of one's religous beliefs. So all this rhetoric about atheists and unbelievers is wasted effort. Truth is never God's enemy!

And because light traveled faster in the past, the light from out own quasar on day one only took a few seconds to get here. The light from the distant stars was also seen in plenty of time to support a young creation. Nor could any of the stars have shone without radiodecay reactions going on!

The last I heard, Barry was still working on how to relate gravity to his theory, which means his theory is incomplete. Why do you seek to use an incomplete theory as if it were settled and factual? Astronomical evidence proves light wasn't faster in the past anyway, not in the last 10 billion years. Its all in the thread below labeled "Setterfield and the Variable Speed of Light model". Neither you or Barry have a cogent reply to the objections I and others raised there.

By the way, stars could shine for a million years with no nuclear reactions at all. The gravitational energy release from the collapsing cloud of interstellar gas would suffice for that brief an interval. Kind of makes one wonder why God even bothered to invent nuclear energy, if the universe is only 8000 years old and due to be destroyed any year now.

The sea salt is primarily due to the material the bursting waters of the flood brought up with them and has settled down to today’s rate.

So why aren't these salts present in the Greenland ice cores?

Coal seams are the results of catastrophic wave action primarily during the times of Babel and Peleg which washed vast amounts of vegetation into gullies, cracks, and the like.

It is not possible for the earth's coal to have formed that way. There is simply way to much coal! That much coal had to accumulate over vast eons of time.

The Hawaiian chain formed rapidly and has settled down.

Your words are strangely disconnected from what is possible. We are talking about forming whole islands from volcanic eruptions and then wearing them down through erosion over and over and over again, each one in its turn, many of them now represented by coral reefs that grew upwards as the land subsided.

The ice layers are the results of heating and cooling cycles associated with storms which are NOW associated with seasons.

Has anyone ever gone over the layers and said here, here is evidence of transition from seasonal cylcles to storm cycles? What did they say was the evidence for that? Did it make any sense? Evidence is the coin of science, not rhetoric. The data was tested for being annual and passed all the tests.

and the list goes on and on of things you have been told, Paul, which you refuse to even consider.

But you've regularly presented, as now, ideas that are strangely disconnected from what is scientifically feasible or supported by the evidence.

However in order to stick to your constant repetition of ‘evidences’ for long ages, you have to deny a number of passages in the Bible and their clear implications. Yet you say you believe and follow in the One whose Word it is. That would be fine if you were ignorant of the truth, but you are not. You are rejecting of it. Consider Romans 1, please.

This from someone who asserts that some stars were created before day four of Genesis, who finds evidence for world shattering meteor storms just because fire from heaven destroyed somebody's house in the book of Job, who finds evidence for continent wide disruptions because the Bible happens to mention people divided the earth among themselves in the days of Peleg. Do you really believe the biblical writer would describe the tearing apart of all the continents with just one short sentence? Just how arbitrary an interpreter are you willing to be?

Your particular interpretation of the facts or the interpretation you have been conned into believing is in clear contradiction to the truth God has presented in His Word. However, Christianity will survive evolution just as it has survived other attacks in the past.

Mainstream science is not my "particular" interpretation. God's word is true when properly interpreted, and the evidence from science is your interpretation is wrong. This has happened before in the history of science and religion. I am not alone in this, many christians agree with the findings of science. This is going to be how Christianity survives, should our Lord tarry.

As far as your history of blood-thirsty animals is concerned, that is also in direct contradiction to Genesis 1:29-30

It is a profound truth that all animal life is dependent either directly on plant life or indirectly on other animal life that is dependent on plant life. I remember this being pointed out as an awesome truth in grade school. I don't see any problem for me with Genesis 1:29-30.

You are accepting as fact an interpretation of data in terms of long ages and common descent. And, in accepting the evolutionary ideas and interpretations as fact instead of the interpretations and ideas that they are, you have to necessarily deny other actual data, such as the measurements of c, h, and atomic mass, which have all been charted as changing in the past.

They have not; instead they are more precisely measured or reinterpreted. C in particular is measured as being constant for the past 10 billion years by astronomical observation.

You have to deny the fact that there is no way for a cell to produce, let alone know how to use, a de novo protein.

Which, by the way, has been documented to occur.

You have to deny the fact that all natural selection can do is reduce the genetic pool of any population.

Leaving the arrival of new genes for other mechanisms, such as mutation.

You have to deny the fact that the result, eventually, is over-speciation and subsequent endangered species. You have to deny the fact that the vast majority of mutations which are expressed are somewhere from harmful to lethal.

And these are culled from the herd by natural selection. Funny, you insist on metioning mutation ONLY when it comes to mentioning the arrival of problem genes and mentioning natural selection ONLY when it comes to discussing the need for new genes. In this way you are not just saying the theory doesn't work, you are fundamentally misrepresenting the theory. Its as if you said I can't type because my feet don't coordinate on the keyboard and I can't walk because my fingers are ill suited to sustain my body weight. You do have rhetorical skills!

And yet still you prefer to put your faith in the limited knowledge of your patient, etc., scientists rather than God Himself. And yet you say you continue to serve Christ, the Creator of all this. The same Christ who told us how He did it in Genesis 1.

Let's try to be more precise about the words we bandy about. I don't put faith in science, even though I believe a lot of science. Remember the distinction made by James about how the devils even believe things about God without having faith in God. In that sense, my faith is in God.

Nor was it a straw man for BobRyan to refer to the Bible. When you signed on to Baptist Board you agreed to the rules which stated that the Bible is held in high regard here among Christians. As such, it is a perfectly adequate and acceptable reference and your reference to a biblical argument as a ‘straw man’ only goes to show in what little regard you hold the Bible, not that Bob’s argument was a straw man at all.

Given the strained interpretations you have already proved you can and do adopt, it is reasonable to say this verse applies:

Luke 11:46 But He said, "woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.."

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However - the question has to be asked in connection with the subject title of this thread HOW WOULD that atheist - evolutionist - EXPECT to find "proof" of a literal 7 day week at creation?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros
How does anyone believe in a literal 7 day creation/Young Earth? As I've outlined the amount of meteors that have hit the earth pretty much rule it out, especially when you take into consideration the amount of damage they've done.

Wrong again Meatros. Speculation and fabrication on your part do not form "a kind of proof" against God's Word.

The events that took place during the world wide flood "have no video". Your "claim" to have found certain meteors OR to have "proven" that a 7 day creation could not happen - is just another example where "proof-by-speculation" when accepted as "science" becomes it own "mythology" and in your case - you allow your mythology to eclips God's Word.

Not a problem for an atheist - but one wonders how an actual Christian gets into such a compromised state.


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we go to the atheist to find our story of "origins" instead of God's infallible word - SHOULD we be surprised that they rely simply on "guesswork"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros -
Can you debunk their 'guess work'?

In some cases it is quite easy and obvious. But as you note, pure fabrication and speculation on their part - can not always be "disproven". When you place the burden of "proof" on the one speculating - you are getting closer to "Science". But placing the burden of "proof" on the one "listening" to the myths is like saying "PROVE that I did not see an alien from outer space yesterday". It can't be "proven" that you "did not see one".

However that is not a position that the scientific method would take. RATHER it would try to see if the "CLAIM" could be PROVEN. The fact that "it can not be falsified" merely shows it NOT to be science at all - but just a claim. As indeed the mythology of evolution is - just a "claim" in the wind.

Meatros
All you've done is try to attack the credibility of Christians, which is something you don't have the authority to do.

I challenge those few Bible believing Christians that accept evolution to SHOW that it is consistent with God's Word - and its teaching on the Gospel.

The fact that they can't do it - does not make "me" the bad guy for simply pointing it out.

Meatros
You claim it's only atheists who do this scientific work-but you can't prove it.

Wrong again.

I point out that only atheists have a "consistent" basis from which to argue the point of the myths of evolutionisms dogmas.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we be suprised that instead of FALLING DOWN - the atheist sees us RISING UP from beastly blood thirsty carnivorous savage animals?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just stating the obvious - but for the seriously challenged - even admitting to the obvious is a "problem" as we see below

Meatros
Strawman, unless you can prove this-which we already know you can't.

your statement is not even credible. Evolution is "defined" as a building process whereby more complex forms appear out of less evolved - less complex living systems. Your "deny all things at all costs" approach - does not serve your argument at all.

Admitting to the "obvious" will only help your case. It will not hurt you. Try it.

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Should we be surprised that EVEN when their "myths" are seen to have flaws and no "Explanation" can cover - they respond with "WELL we are HERE so we KNOW it HAD to happen something like this story says".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You pick your gods - atheists all pick evolutionism - and it is obvious as to why they do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meatros -
Prove this, or else you are bearing false witness. I'm tired of your unsubstantiated rants, provide some proof not inflammatory assertions. One big flaw in your argument is Darwin, he wasn't an atheist.

Darwins fall into an anti-God belief system is well documented. However - my claim was "not" that only atheists subscribe to the mythologies of evolutionism - my claim is that it is "obvious" why Huxley and atheist with his same "goal" see an ideal tool in the myths of evolutionism. Both Atheists and Bible believing Christians admit the obvious - that evolutionism is the antithesis of the Gospel and so therefore of Christianity itself.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And so the point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" to show test that the world was in fact Created in a literal week as God said?

Our atheist evolutionist friends have no incentive at all to seek to discover in nature - that which the God of nature declares in His Word.

But you would think that Christians would be better informed than their atheist opposition in that regard.

What evidence are the evolutionist Christians seeking regarding "Creation Week" the "literal 24 hr days"? Or do the "start" with the assumption that "evolutionism is fact" and God's Word is "myth" and STILL call themselves Bible believing Christians? What do they do?


Bob

 

[Meatros]

Wrong again Meatros. Speculation and fabrication on your part do not form "a kind of proof" against God's Word.

Per usual, you demonstrate that saying it is a lot easier then proving it.

Not a problem for an atheist - but one wonders how an actual Christian gets into such a compromised state.

Actually I think you are blinding by your predjudice against anyone who doesn't believe the same as you do.

In some cases it is quite easy and obvious. But as you note, pure fabrication and speculation on their part - can not always be "disproven". When you place the burden of "proof" on the one speculating - you are getting closer to "Science". But placing the burden of "proof" on the one "listening" to the myths is like saying "PROVE that I did not see an alien from outer space yesterday". It can't be "proven" that you "did not see one".

However that is not a position that the scientific method would take. RATHER it would try to see if the "CLAIM" could be PROVEN. The fact that "it can not be falsified" merely shows it NOT to be science at all - but just a claim. As indeed the mythology of evolution is - just a "claim" in the wind.

Totally dodging and ignoring is easy. Instead of your empty rhetoric, how about you provide some evidence. I think it's completely funny how you didn't even address the issue. Your rhetoric is offensive and it doesn't add a thing to the discussion.

I challenge those few Bible believing Christians that accept evolution to SHOW that it is consistent with God's Word - and its teaching on the Gospel.

The fact that they can't do it - does not make "me" the bad guy for simply pointing it out.

Still attacking the credibility instead of the argument. It's a lot easier to use inflammatory rhetoric then it is to prove your case.

Just stating the obvious - but for the seriously challenged - even admitting to the obvious is a "problem" as we see below

Prove it.

Darwins fall into an anti-God belief system is well documented. However - my claim was "not" that only atheists subscribe to the mythologies of evolutionism - my claim is that it is "obvious" why Huxley and atheist with his same "goal" see an ideal tool in the myths of evolutionism. Both Atheists and Bible believing Christians admit the obvious - that evolutionism is the antithesis of the Gospel and so therefore of Christianity itself.

It is to laugh at your inflammatory rhetoric and hate speak. Prove your assertions, otherwise you are breaking a commandment-which you have proven before that you don't take seriously. You are blinded by your hate and you can't defend your position and I'm seriously tired of hearing your long winded attempts to judge others. You are not God and your attempts to play God are pathetic.

 

[Meatros]

And so the point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" to show test that the world was in fact Created in a literal week as God said?

Rhetoric only, no substance. I bet you couldn't even define what evolution is.

Our atheist evolutionist friends have no incentive at all to seek to discover in nature - that which the God of nature declares in His Word.

Again showing your ignorance. I'm not an atheist and I don't think anyone here is. You are bearing false witness and you have the nerve to criticize other Christians??

What evidence are the evolutionist Christians seeking regarding "Creation Week" the "literal 24 hr days"? Or do the "start" with the assumption that "evolutionism is fact" and God's Word is "myth" and STILL call themselves Bible believing Christians? What do they do?

I'd explain it to you, but I'd have to use big words and I don't think you'd understand.

 

[BobRyan]

Meatros - I raised several points in my post.

Did you actually say 'anything' in your response?

It appears you did not address a single point.

What's up? Are you really "tired" of answering the points raised against your bias?

Bob
And so the point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" to show test that the world was in fact Created in a literal week as God said?

Our atheist evolutionist friends have no incentive at all to seek to discover in nature - that which the God of nature declares in His Word.

But you would think that Christians would be better informed than their atheist opposition in that regard.

What evidence are the evolutionist Christians seeking regarding "Creation Week" the "literal 24 hr days"? Or do the "start" with the assumption that "evolutionism is fact" and God's Word is "myth" and STILL call themselves Bible believing Christians? What do they do?

The unnanswered post remains --

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Oh please Bob, you don't even know what the theory of evolution is.

 

[BobRyan]

Once again - the subject title (so faithful avoided by our evolutionist bretheren) is yet to be addressed.

The question remains - what evidence do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" for the literal 7 "evenings and mornings" of creation week? And failing to find that evidence - they THEN turn to mythologies that contradict God's Word. What did they FIRST seek? Anything at all???

Failing to "show" abiogenesis EVEN in the controlled lab environment ... failing to "Show" any evolutionary principle BEYOND the Creationist concepts of minor mutation within a "kind" - what "Evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren claim they "Sought" in harmony with the Word of God regarding the 7 literal evenings and mornings?

Even our Atheist friends do not claim that "7 evenings and mornings" consisted of billions of years at one time according to physics. Why would our evolutionist bretheren make such a claim?

Bob

 

[Meatros]

Failing to "show" abiogenesis EVEN in the controlled lab environment ... failing to "Show" any evolutionary principle BEYOND the Creationist concepts of minor mutation within a "kind" - what "Evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren claim they "Sought" in harmony with the Word of God regarding the 7 literal evenings and mornings?

First off, abiogenesis isn't evolution, so we can throw that one into the garbage. Second prove that a Creationist came up with the specific concept of microevolution.
Third, please by all means describe what a "kind" is.

 

[BobRyan]

Abiogenesis is the ONLY proposition of evolutionism for the origin of life (outside of aliens from outer space that is).

So we can "throw all attempts to dodge that point into the garbage" as you note - and of course many of us do.

There are in fact no evolutionists as the founders of any of our sciences including that of Biology. The very instantiation of families and Phylum - of course presented to us by a "creationist".

Bob

 

[The Galatian]

Abiogenesis is the ONLY proposition of evolutionism for the origin of life (outside of aliens from outer space that is).

So we can "throw all attempts to dodge that point into the garbage" as you note - and of course many of us do.

Abiogenesis is, as you seem to understand, not part of evolutionary science. And we don't yet have compelling evidence for it. However, in Genesis, God tells us that's how He created life.

And for the time being, that's good enough. It should be good enough for you, too.

There are in fact no evolutionists as the founders of any of our sciences including that of Biology.

Hmm... Molecular biology. (Watson and Crick, Pauling) Thermodynamics (Boltzmann) Evolutionary science. (Darwin, Wallace, et al) Solid-state physics (Shockley) Astrophysics (Penzias and Wilson,Hawking) ...

You say I'm cheating here? I'm counting only the sciences that have been founded after Darwin discovered natural selection? Right. But that's how it works. You won't find many people who accept solid state electronics before it was discovered, either.

The very instantiation of families and Phylum - of course presented to us by a "creationist".

Linneaus, to be exact. He is on record as believing he should have placed humans and apes in the same genus, but was afraid of what the religious people would do.

What Linneaus didn't know what why living things sorted so neatly into hierarchial groups like a family tree. But now we do.

Creationists sorted out the geological column, too. But they didn't realize the implications of that either, until Darwin.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[QB] And so the point remains - what "evidence" do our evolutionist bretheren "seek" to show test that the world was in fact Created in a literal week as God said?
[/qb}

Well one thing, BobRyan, as a mainstream Christian who is not a scientist, I am reduced to getting my science facts from scientists. As I read what they share with us, they analyze the evidence to see where it leads them. They don't bother with anything else. They report the evidence leads them to a world that is over 4 billion years old and a universe that is somewhere around 13 to 14 billion years old.

What evidence are the evolutionist Christians seeking regarding "Creation Week" the "literal 24 hr days"? Or do the "start" with the assumption that "evolutionism is fact" and God's Word is "myth" and STILL call themselves Bible believing Christians? What do they do?

I'll share what I do! In my own case, the evidence I have read about over and over presented by mainstream science concerning the age of the earth and universe is convincing. Some of it is absurdly basic . . . such as seeing the great galaxy of Andromeda 2.8 million light years away with my own eyes, and looking at a good atlas with a topographic map of the sea bottom around the Hawaiian Islands.

So I'm not left with the alternative you suggest, to disbelieve the evidence and believe that the earth is only 6 to 8 thousand years old. I'd have to sacrifice my intellectual integrety to do that.

So what does that leave me? Here are a few options I believe to be left:

a) Deny that the Bible is anything at all to be heeded

b) Accept that the Bible is inerrant and to be followed but that it must be reinterpreted to go along with the findings of science.

c) Accept that the Bible is God's inerrant guide for us but in religious matters only, it is not an inerrant guide in matters of science.

d) Accept that the Bible is not inerrant and yet can and should still be considered God's chosen means of revelation concerning Himself.

I'm trying to be all inclusive here, if I've left out a logically possible position worth mentioning, please somebody post it for all our benefits. For the purpose of this excercise, bear in mind my restriction that the mainstream view of the nature of the cosmos is accepted.


I'm leaning towards "d", myself, based on the evident fact that God did not see fit to keep the transmission of the scriptures inerrant, anyway, so its kind of a de facto situation for us now.

 

[BobRyan]

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abiogenesis is the ONLY proposition of evolutionism for the origin of life (outside of aliens from outer space that is).

So we can "throw all attempts to dodge that point into the garbage" as you note - and of course many of us do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation
Abiogenesis is, as you seem to understand, not part of evolutionary science. And we don't yet have compelling evidence for it.

Again ignoring the obvious. Evolution's ONLY solution to "HOW life got here" is to posit "life from non-life" life from non-living material.

Our atheist evolutionist friends (and Creationists) all admit with integrity that this is the only avenue open to the evolutionist.

And all agree - as you note - we have no evidence of such a thing being "possible" EVEN if we try to "contrive" it in the lab. Can't be done.

Galation
However, in Genesis, God tells us that's how He created life.

Gensis says "God FORMED MAN out of the dust of the ground" on DAY 6 - EVENING and MORNING (once cycle of EVENING and MORNING) was Day 6. Impossible to miss.

God "SPOKE and IT WAS".

This is a form of "abiogenesis" that our atheist evolutionist friends DO NOT posit. And Creationists are also quick to admit with integrity that the atheists DO NOT posit that kind of abiogenesis. Atheist evolutionists can NOT harmonize "God SPOKE" and "God FORMED man of the dust of the earth" on DAY 6 - with their views of evolution. BOTH Creationists and Atheist evolutionists quickly admit that point with integrity.

Wonderful that both the Atheist and the Creationist are free to "Admit the obvious" in that regard - and yet - obfuscation of even that simply point is required by our evolutionist bretheren inside the church.

Galation
And for the time being, that's good enough. It should be good enough for you, too.

Obfuscation of that point should be "good for me too"?? why?? Because you "need" to misdirect and obfuscate instead of just admitting the obvious on that point?

Come on - why would that be a compelling argument at all?

quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are in fact no evolutionists as the founders of any of our (major) sciences including that of Biology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation
Hmm... Molecular biology. (Watson and Crick, Pauling) Thermodynamics (Boltzmann) Evolutionary science. (Darwin, Wallace, et al) Solid-state physics (Shockley) Astrophysics (Penzias and Wilson,Hawking) ...

#1. Evolutionary mythology is not actually a "science".

#1. Biology was not a "science founded by Darwin".

#2. Astrophysics was not a "science founded by Hawking".

My point is that Physics (Newton) was not founded by an eovlutionist, Biological sciences (Aristotle, Da Vinci) were not "founded by Evolutionists. EVEN the system of Taxonomy was given to us by a "Creationist" in his efforts to DETAIL the "Creation of God".

IN fact no major branch of science was given to us by "Evolution" NOR are any of them BASED on the mythologies of Evolution.

Galation
You won't find many people who accept solid state electronics before it was discovered, either.

Nor will you find that those hard science "are based on Evolution".


quote:Bob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The very instantiation of families and Phylum - of course presented to us by a "creationist".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Galation "Linneaus, to be exact. "

Truth!

Linnaeus loved nature deeply, and always retained a sense of wonder at the world of living things. His religious beliefs led him to natural theology, a school of thought dating back to Biblical times but especially flourishing around 1700: since God has created the world, it is possible to understand God's wisdom by studying His creation. As he wrote in the preface to a late edition of Systema Naturae: Creationis telluris est gloria Dei ex opere Naturae per Hominem solum -- The Earth's creation is the glory of God, as seen from the works of Nature by Man alone. The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God's creation[/b, and it was the naturalist's task to construct a "natural classification" that would reveal this Order in the universe.

Galation
Creationists sorted out the geological column, too.

Indeed - a little honesty goes a long way toward establishing the credibility of the evolutionist's argument.

Bob