gadgetlady

There might be some of this going on. I've also had people tell me they don't have the time to get into it, or they're tired of debating this issue in yet another forum because they've debated it before. It certainly CAN be tiring, and to properly address it you do have to have a lot of time. I don't have a problem with anyone reading it, regardless of whether they get offended or not. In fact, I like to expose people to the evidence behind creation science because most people are not aware of how viable a proposition it is. Because evolution has been rammed down their throats their entire lives, they have a knee-jerk reaction to hearing about creation science (similar to the "those idiots think dinosaur bones are carved out of rock, ha ha ha, I won't even consider their theories" mindset).

You are totally misunderstanding me. I didn't say I was offended; I said others were and therefore were not willing to post here. I'm pretty thick-skinned. I go against the grain on a lot of topics. I'm a born-again Christian, I homeschool my kids, I'm pro-life and have been a pro-life speaker and debater, I believe in creation science, I'm a libertarian, and the list goes on. I'm not offended that people don't believe because of what I posted. But I still think they're wrong

This isn't the first time I've rec'd PM's supporting my opinion on controversial subjects. I've seen a lot of bashing on different threads and some of it has been quite hurtful. If I were someone who was easily offended or couldn't handle being attacked, I wouldn't post either. If you're not very thick-skinned, even words from people you don't know can hurt.

Sometimes it's honest debate. Sometimes it's not. I have no problem laying out facts and debating if people are willing to listen. But when people start saying things like: "It is patently absurd, and quite frankly I have zero idea how any learned person would even give it much thought, let alone believe it. I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person, but honestly it is so over the top crazy that I am entirely unsure how anyone with any schooling could give any credence to such a theory. Creationsim is a danger to the minds of young people, and a threat to all rational, logical, scientific thought." . . . that's pretty much bashing in my mind. It may be a nice way of bashing (note the "I'm not saying you're not an intelligent person" - well, yes, you are), but it's still bashing.

Oh - I didn't realize TOM was the judge. Or are you the judge, and you decide TOM wins? I have been getting a number of PM's from people who support my opinion, and they'd disagree with your assessment of who wins this one. Guess what? They're afraid to post because they think they'll get bashed.

The question wasn't whether there was a long list of people supporting it; the question was whether there was a long list of degreed scientists who support it. And the answer is yes. Both living and dead. Not idiotic, blinded-by-faith, anti-intellectuals, but wise, profound, degreed scientists, living today, studying the information we have today, reaching conclusions today. There are many scientists who have abandoned their previously-held evolutionary beliefs based on the evidence. You can continue to blindly discredit it by claiming that the field of creation science once believed that dinosaur bones were carved out rock (a ridiculous statement that I have never, ever heard, despite years of studying the field), but that doesn't change the facts. There are very real, very credible, brilliant people who choose to believe that creation science and/or intelligent design theory fits the facts of the world around us better than evolution theory does. Study it and dismiss the evidence if you choose; that's your prerogative. But that doesn't make the evidence go away.

I do, indeed, choose to believe in God and the Bible. But I don't do so blindly; I do so with faith AND with research. I also believe that others blindly accept the theory of evolution as truth and therefore it is a religion, of sorts, to them. When I was in high school and studied evolution, it just didn't ring true to me. I didn't know a darn thing about creation science (I didn't even know it existed), and I didn't believe in the authority of the Bible at that time in my life. The whole molecules-to-man, fish grew feet and decided to walk theory of evolution just plain didn't make sense to me. Besides theories of origins, which I understand you don't agree with me (or the Bible) on, what other scientific theories or facts does the Bible contradict (in your opinion)? There are many scientists who not only believe in the concept of God but also believe in God. From http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html: Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus: "…A tidal wave of new books… threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2 As Science Digest reported: "Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3 One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design. "The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5 Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6 Partial list of Creationist scientists (past and present) 600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science). 150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys. (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.) Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating) Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology) Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info] Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info] Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine) Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method) Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info] Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics) Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration) David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy) Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info] Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info] Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology) Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics) Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info] Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology) Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator) Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info] Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve) Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info] Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info] John Grebe (chemist) [more info] Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction) William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog) George F. Howe (botanist) [more info] D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info] James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics) Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables) John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info] Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info] Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info] Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System) Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery) Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info] Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography) James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics) Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics) Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph) Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope) Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info] Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer) Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations) William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases) John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science) Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis) Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry) James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform) Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy) George Stokes (helped develop science of Fluid mechanics) Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info] William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable) Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info] Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics) Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology) A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info] A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info] John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology) A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.

No, that was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Big difference.

So he was wrong. I've met a lot of people who are wrong about a lot of things. That doesn't prove creation science and/or intelligent design is wrong. It just proves that you know someone who didn't study the matter very well. I think it speaks more to who your friends or acquaintances are than it does to the theory

I don't know what you were reading, but I have previously listed some sites that are very intelligent, comprehensible, and scientific discussions of creation science and/or intelligent design. You might want to try some of those links. What evidence can you clearly, clearly see with your own eyes that speaks to the age of the earth. I don't know how old you are, but having lived likely have a decade or less, what clear evidence is there pointing to the age of the earth? Can you look at a rock and tell me how old it is? Can you look at a mountain and tell me how long it took to form it? Do you know how long it takes to make a fossil? Do you know how long it takes and what forces create strata in rock?

Thanks for the question, laurend. I don't think you're attacking at all. I will repeat what I said earlier about theories of origins: I don't believe any of them are definitively proven or perhaps even capable of being proven, but I choose to believe the theory of origins that is, to me, most supported by the evidence. As to being a Christian, I believe there is more proof than most people realize. There are many great theologians that were once athiests, agnostics, and members of other faiths; in their search to debunk Christianity, they became Christians. If you'd like links to their testimonies, I'd be happy to provide several. They are very interesting reading. Let me ask you a question: Read the following scriptures and tell me who they're taking about. Don't cheat -- don't go look them up. Just give me a gut reaction based on your knowledge of the Bible as to who they're talking about: "They have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing." "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting." "He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not." "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven." "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." "See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." "I told them, "If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it." So they paid me thirty pieces of silver."

I really don't like to post and run, but I'm running short on time. And this article says it better than I ever could. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/light.asp Wheetsin, I have to say I GREATLY appreciate your posts. Honest questions are wonderful on both sides and lead to greater understanding. What drives me nuts are the closed-minded comments from people who have never researched the issue. I understand researching the issue and disagreeing. But blind faith in a belief and disparaging the opposition when you haven't even bothered to explore the issues is just plain ignorant.

Regardless of whether it was the tooth of a pig or a primate, the models drawn from a single tooth were a complete form. How do you draw a complete BEING from a single TOOTH? It's ridiculous whether it was a pig's tooth OR a primate's tooth.

Thanks, laurend. I do understand scientific methodology. But your post absolutely cracks me up. Evolution-believing scientists don't try to disprove evolution. Rather, they jump through hoops to keep it alive, and amend the theory time and time again to match any evidence that is discovered that disputes it. History is full of pieced-together "proof" of evolution (Nebraska Man, anybody?).

OK, I can spend a lot of time cutting and pasting like a lot of others have done, or I can just direct you to some sites that may answer some questions. So I've chosen the faster method (sorry; I'm getting lazy): http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Specific to the archaeopteryx issue: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp http://www.icr.org/ http://www.answersingenesis.org/ There are also a number of very well written books, including my personal favorite, "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". You might check out the list of technical books on the Answers in Genesis site, which includes detailed studies of radiometric dating, genomes, flood geology, and a number of other topics. If you have an open mind, the information is out there and quite interesting.

(shrugs) You asked. It was not uncommon in "old" times for people to marry family members. From similar people marrying together over time. If a black person and a black person have a baby, that baby will most likely be black. If an asian person and an asian person have a baby, that baby will most likely have slanted eyes. Sure am. It's easy to ridicule the belief, but there are quite a few highly educated people that believe it, too. I myself graduated from college Cum Laude in 3.3 years (we were on a trimester system) with a B.S. in Political Science and a minor in Mathematics. I went on to attend the Ph.D. program in Political Science at a major university (I didn't finish; life changes). I have studied this issue for many years and find it to be a very compelling theory. Have you spent any time researching the claims involved or have you dismissed it entirely without any research?

Green, I expect cheap shots from you. Don't fret.

LOL! I have a cellular card with a very slow connection. From what I've read, Darwin really did mean that the savages were closer to beasts than civilized people. This is not the only time he addressed the issue.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Evolution is a theory, meaning it is not proven. There are many, many scientists who don't believe it. Everyone believes in the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or entropy. It is a law. It's the same as the law of gravity. No one disputes it.

Sigh. So little time right now, and so much to say. I WILL be back. Scientists have NEVER been able to change one KIND of organism into another KIND of organism. They have been able to demonstrate small mutations over time, but they have never turned a cat into a dog, or a fish into a bird, or any organism into a whole other type of organism. Darwin's theory posits that whole kinds changed into whole other kinds, and yet all scientists are able to do is to demonstrate that small mutations occur over time -- mutations that do not effect the TYPE of organism you are dealing with. Further, Darwin indicated that the fossil record would be flush with evidence of transitional forms, yet scientists have yet to find ONE such transitional form. With billions of fossils, not ONE. What does that say? They're just REALLY WELL hidden? Or perhaps not there at all.

Huh? Evolution theory holds that no intelligent designer interfered and applied external stimuli or forces. If there was external design interjected, it is not evolution.

I don't believe in evolution because it is a theory which is not even well supported, much less can't be proven. I don't believe any theory about origins can be proven, but I prefer my theories to be consistent with the world we live in. For a start, evolution THEORY violates the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Order doesn't come from disorder. Oops. Perhaps I have read a book or two in my time.

No, I'm just the village idiot, really. I never read and I don't have any edumacation at all.:faint: Perhaps you might provide me with proof of evolution so that I might become a believer like you.

What money? The peso? :faint: It's not science unless you can duplicate it in a laboratory. Try as they might, scientists have never been able to take one species and turn it into another. Bottom line, Darwin's theory is still just a theory with a heck of a lot of holes.

Wait, isn't Darwinian evolutionary theory Darwin's idea? Doesn't the mindset of the author of the theory have an effect on the theory and it's development? If later evolutionists re-tooled his theory to make it less offensive, that doesn't mean that the roots of the theory are not racist. I thought, to evolutionists, that "The Origin of Species" was their "Bible."