Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science.

I'm curious as to how you would define "religious" in this context.

“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas”, the editor wrote."

This so reminds me of Kirk Cameron's "If you circumnavigate the intellect, the subject of evolution seems to disappear" statement.

For clarity's sake:

Let’s see if any creationists actually contributed anything that is used still today…

Francis Bacon
Gerardus Mercator
Galileo Galilei
Johann Kepler
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Isaac Newton
John Dalton
John Kidd
Joseph Henry
James Joule
Gregor Mendel
Louis Pasteur
P.G. Tait
Alexander MacAlister
George Washington Carver
Nicolae Paulescu
Richard Porter
William Ramsay
J Rendle-Short

Bolded are the scientists who lived before the publishing of The Origin of Species in 1859. Italicized signifies an old Earth creationist. Underlined are those who lived through the early introduction of evolutionary theory, before the advent of genome sequencing (completion of the human genome in 2000) and radiometric dating (1960s). The remaining two are doctors, not scientists.

---

Using the same definition of Religion as Micahel Ruse was using when he made the statement.

You may think it sounds like something Kurt Cameron would say, but the statement was made by an Atheist, so I am not sure what your point was.

Actually you are way off on your "Old Earther" list, every Scientist I listed is a young-earther. The list I looked at had over 200 names on it and had the Old-Earthers identified (their view on the age of the Earth was from their biographies and auto-biographies). I purposely didn't put any of them (like Richard Owen) on the list. So whereever you got your facts from, they are wrong.

As to the Human Genome project, and Radio-metric dating- these are terms that are often tossed around by Atheists, but the more you learn about them the more you will realize that they don't support your views at all. The Human Genome project actually destroyed many of the tenants of Evolution because it helped put Mitochondrial Eve at around 6000 years ago, and X-chromosomal data around the Earth supports the 3 daughters of Noah theory. The project also helped to show just how much information we DO NOT share with other primates. Animal genome research also helped to blow up the Evolutionary Taxonomic system because many animals that appeared closely related homologically were not genetically. Genetic research has also helped to demonstrate that the fossil record does not move "simple to complex" as expected by Evolutionists (since many morphologically simple organisms are just as complex as humans genetically). So I'd quit tossing that term (HGP) around if I were you.

---

The Supreme Court decision which held that creationism:

The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. The legislative history demonstrates that the term "creation science," as contemplated by the state legislature, embraces this religious teaching. The Act's primary purpose was to change the public school science curriculum to provide persuasive advantage to a particular religious doctrine that rejects the factual basis of evolution in its entirety. Thus, the Act is designed either to promote the theory of creation science that embodies a particular religious tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored by certain religious sects. In either case, the Act violates the First Amendment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-...llard.html


Not that Shitwit will care but for those of you who are more interested in law than in fucking religious mumbo-jumbo.

Oh so you let a bunch of people with law degrees determine your Science do you? Not surprising at all. I'd rather listen to people who are educated in the field. The Supreme Court also decided that Tomatoes are vegetables not fruit- so it's obvious they are not really to into the whole science thing. Darwinism is a Religion too, so your point is moot.