The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

ironingbored

J C wrote: »

....God COULD have 'created' life by 'evolving' it.....but He said that He Created it DIRECTLY....and at roughly the same time....and any objective evaluation of the evidence will support Creation!!!:D

How do you know what "God" said? Please tell me this is parody.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Why exactly?

The Channeled Scabland formations require fast water flowing over the area. A world wide flood would not have done that (if the water could flow away some where it would be a world wide flood). It would have sat on the land up to 10km high for over a year, and also effected the surrounding land as well.

So not only does it not explain the formations, but you have to then also explain why the "world wide flood" some how ended up being localised in a small area in the state of Washington.

No, I accept that the Lake Missoula Flood occurred post-Flood. I was referring to the Lake Missoula Flood controversy. That should teach you how biased evolutionists are toward anything that might open people's minds to the idea of a catastropic Flood, as the writer indicated.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The matter that now constitutes our being was formed in a supernova. Should we build a moral theory out of that also? Should we build a moral theory around the theories of gravitation? What goes up should morally come down? Please.

Why should anyone accept a moral or social philosophy built around evolution?

....of course they shouldn't build a moral or social philosophy about Evolution....because it NEVER happened!!!!

....and could I ask The Theistic Evolutionists WHY they believe that a Loving God would use an 'Evolution Mechanism' that even Materialists find to be morally repugnant.....a mechanism that is so brutal, that no responsible moral or social philosophy can be built around it!!!!!

......no responsible Evolutionist would touch Social Darwinism with a (metaphorical) 'forty foot pole'.....and yet Theistic Evolutionists seem to accept that God used just such a brutal and immoral mechanism to produce Mankind!!!!!:eek:

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Science should inform us with the truth, but leave us our choices. We what we were and how we came to be is set in stone. What we can be is entirely up to us.

......Creation Science informs us with the truth....and what we choose to believe is entirely up to us...

.....we can choose to be saved......or we can continue to remain unsaved!!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What simple-minded nonsense. Mutations are more likely to be detrimental than helpful. That is well known. On a single-person basis it is only natural to not want to undergo mutagenesis.

.......and mutatgenesis is not any more acceptable to Evolutionists on a multiple-person basis either!!!!!:D
.....I don't know of any POPULATION of Evolutionists who would undergo Mutagenesis ...do you???!!!!!

......not showing much FAITH in their claims to have arisen by Mutagnesis and Evolution.....are they?????:D

....the Evolutionists are certainly not 'putting their money (or their bodies) where their mouths are' on this one!!!

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What you are doing is painfully clear and entirely dishonest. A low, even by your standards. Where are the answers to my scientific questions J C? They grow in numbers every day while you try to pin Columbine on a scientific theory.

....I have comprehensively answered all of the scientific questions that you asked .....and some of the moral questions surrounding Evolution....that you didn't ask!!!!!:eek::)

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And how did the flood alter samples from before the flood? Even if there were contact between the flood waters and the samples this would firstly be detectable and secondly would not cause the reservoir effect as the samples would already be dead prior to contact.

We know the limitations of C14 dating, we know the error level. Taking all of this into account, the world is still over 20,000 years old.

See:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1053/

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
....God COULD have 'created' life by 'evolving' it.....but He said that He Created it DIRECTLY....and at roughly the same time....and any objective evaluation of the evidence will support Creation!!!


ironingbored
How do you know what "God" said? Please tell me this is parody.

...yet ANOTHER new Evolutionist on the thread.....HOW MANY OF YOU are out there???

....anyway, to answer your question, we know what God said about Creation Week by reading Genesis 1 and 2.:D

....and WHERE are ALL the Christians on the Christianity Thread.....do you have no opinion on the martyrdom of your fellow Christians????

....or do you think that you are immune to martyrdom because you are (Theistic) Evolutionists....could I point out that the question that was asked of Cassie Bernall was whether she believed in God.....and NOT whether she believed in Evolution!!!!!

....and the current harassment of Intelligent Design Proponents.....is because they believe that GOD evolved Humanity....and NOT because they believe in Direct Creation.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I accept that the Lake Missoula Flood occurred post-Flood. I was referring to the Lake Missoula Flood controversy. That should teach you how biased evolutionists are toward anything that might open people's minds to the idea of a catastropic Flood, as the writer indicated.

Yes Wolfsbane most scientists are ant-flood ... not anti Biblical Flood mind, just anti-flood in general ... :rolleyes:

seriously, what are you talking about? Are you honestly suggesting that the scientists were highly skeptical of the original claims not because (at the time) there was little evidence for how it could happen as put forward, but because they don't like the idea of floods, Biblical or otherwise? (catastropic, just like JC's "useful" is a matter of opinion)

ironingbored

J C wrote: »

...yet ANOTHER new Evolutionist on the thread.....HOW MANY OF YOU are out there???

....anyway, to answer your question, we know what God said about Creation Week by reading Genesis 1 and 2.:D

....and WHERE are ALL the Christians on the Christianity Thread.....have you all such low self-esteem that you care not about the martyrdom of your fellow Christians????

....or do you think that you are immune to martyrdom because you are (Theistic) Evolutionists....could I point out that the question that was asked of Cassie Bernall was whether she believed in God.....and NOT whether she believed in Evolution!!!!!

Believe you and me there are many right-thinking secularists who are of the opinion that organised religion is a scourge that holds back humanity.

Genesis? You must be seriously trying to insult my limited intelligence by claiming that the bible is a serious piece of literature. Listen, I know it's difficult to face up to the fact that what you've believed in for the last x amount of years is complete bs. It's a bit like the disappointment you feel as a kid when you realise Santa Claus or the tooth fairy don't really exist. But that's when you're a kid. An adult believing in fairytales is quite a more serious and sadder state of affairs. It's like the emperor's new clothes. Someone has got to end the facade.

Most Christians just don't have the intellectual aptitude to debate in a serious manner.

Your fourth point/statement is just utterly idiotic.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

See:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1053/

"If, as many creationists propose, there was a vast water vapour canopy around the Earth before the Flood, then this would have shielded the atmosphere from much of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the amount of C14 in the pre-flood world would have been very small, perhaps even negligible."

And if my aunt was a man she would be my uncle.

why don't they just claim the Earth was surrounded by lead? :rolleyes:

J C

ironingbored
Believe you and me there are many right-thinking secularists who are of the opinion that organised religion is a scourge that holds back humanity......a scourge, no less ?.....and how do these 'right thinking' secularists propose to go about eliminating this scourge???


Genesis? You must be seriously trying to insult my limited intelligence by claiming that the bible is a serious piece of literature. Listen, I know it's difficult to face up to the fact that what you've believed in for the last x amount of years is complete bs. It's a bit like the disappointment you feel as a kid when you realise Santa Claus or the tooth fairy don't really exist. But that's when you're a kid. An adult believing in fairytales is quite a more serious and sadder state of affairs. It's like the emperor's new clothes. Someone has got to end the facade. .....just replace the words 'Genesis' and 'the Bible' with the word 'Evolution'....and the rest of your comment will start to make sense!!!!!:pac::):D


Most Christians just don't have the intellectual aptitude to debate in a serious manner. ....I'm inclined to agree with you on this....at least in relation to the Christians who also claim to be Evolutionists!!!!:D

Your fourth point/statement is just utterly idiotic....could I point out that the question that was asked of Cassie Bernall was whether she believed in God.....and NOT whether she believed in Evolution.....so Christians are NOT immune from martyrdom....even if they are Evolutionists!!!!!

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

"If, as many creationists propose, there was a vast water vapour canopy around the Earth before the Flood, then this would have shielded the atmosphere from much of the cosmic radiation. Therefore, the amount of C14 in the pre-flood world would have been very small, perhaps even negligible."

And if my aunt was a man she would be my uncle.

why don't they just claim the Earth was surrounded by lead? :rolleyes:

....we don't claim it....... because the Earth WASN'T surrounded by Lead.....but it was possibly surrounded by water!!!!
....and as any good plumber (or doctor) will tell you ......lead and water should not be mixed!!!!:D

....and your statement that 'if your aunt was a man she would be your uncle'.....shows an innate ability to make logical conclusions that is rarely otherwise expressed by you.....
........especially when it come to 'affairs of the heart'.....like your belief in Evolution!!!:pac::):D:eek:

ironingbored

From the creationism website:

"Dr Humphreys proposed that God first created the earth out of water.1 He based this on several Scriptures, e.g. 2 Peter 3:5 which concludes that the earth was formed out of water and by water. After this, God would have transformed much of the water into other substances like rock minerals."

Sorry? Dr. Humphreys? Doctor of astrology? Alchemy? Scientology?

I think that even debating with creationists almost gives them an air of credibility.

ironingbored

"a scourge, no less ?.....and how do these 'right thinking' secularists propose to go about eliminating this scourge???"

Just think of all the good that people could do if they put the same effort into understanding the world, into science, etc. as they do into reading fictional books from the Middle East and pretending to know what the "divine creator" expects from us: perpetual fawning and senseless sycophantism. That is one creature on a helluva ego trip. "I created the universe but I'm gonna kill a load of people because they don't believe in me!" If my seven-year old was that petty I clip him round the ear.

robindch

J C wrote: »

....surely if language evolved then when you cross the border between Finland and Sweden you would get some intermediate dialect.....but instead you SUDDENLY get Finnish.....whose nearest related language is found only in the Middle East!!!

Complete rubbish.

Languages evolve constantly, with, say, Latin evolving into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Moldovan and others. Linguistic creationism is an idea which is as obviously and splendidly false as biological creationism. You can find out more on linguistic cross-pollination in this article on creoles.

And, Finnish's cloest relative being in the Middle East -- LOL! :pac::D

The closest language to Finnish is Estonian, just an hour or so by boat from Helsinki.

robindch

Continuing with their Wedge Strategy, but slightly too late for the start of the new school year, our friends over in the DI have published a new creationist book for schoolkids, as chockful of evasion, misdirection and outright lies as you'd expect.

Ars Technica reviewed it here and found it wanting.

AtomicHorror

I go to the pub for a few hours and you crazy creationists lose the run of yourselves. How is it you can write so much and yet fail to answer any of the big questions?

J C wrote: »

....of course they shouldn't build a moral of social philosophy about Evolution....because it NEVER happened!!!!

....and could I ask The Theistic Evolutionists WHY they believe that a Loving God would use an 'Evolution Mechanism' that even Materialists find to be morally repugnant.....a mechanism that is so brutal, that no responsible moral or social philosophy can be built around it!!!!!

......no responsible Evolutionist would touch Social Darwinism with a (metaphorical) 'forty foot pole'.....and yet Theistic Evolutionists seem to accept that God used a just such a brutal mechanism to produce Mankind!!!!!:eek:

How does any of this have any bearing on the veracity of evolution?

J C wrote: »

......Creation Science informs us with the truth....and what we choose to be is indeed entirely up to us...

So you just took what I said earlier and inserted the word "creation". We can all make broad sweeping statements without backing them up. Creation science is BS. Hey look I can do it too.

J C wrote: »

.....we can choose to be saved......or we can continue to remain unsaved!!!!

Prove it.

J C wrote: »

.......and mutatgenesis is not more acceptable on a multiple-person basis either!!!!!:D
.....I don't know of any POPULATION of Evolutionists who would undergo Mutagenesis ...do you???!!!!!

Relevance?

J C wrote: »

......not showing much FAITH in their claims to have arisen by Mutagnesis and Evolution.....are they?????:D

How so? As I said, prior to evolution and abiogenesis our constituent atoms were forged in a supernova. Know any evolutionists who want to experience a supernova first hand? How we came about has no bearing on how we want to be or should be.

J C wrote: »

....the Evolutionists are certainly not 'putting their money (or their bodies) where their mouths are' on this one!!!

You're not making a point of any kind. How does any of this have any bearing on the veracity of evolution?

J C wrote: »

....I have comprehensively answered all of the scientific questions that you asked

With the small exception of pretty much all of them. A selection of the very recent stuff you keep ignoring includes:

J C wrote: »

AtomicHorror: Perhaps I could set the creation scientists a little project. Firstly, give me a hypothesis that would support creationism specifically. A testable, falsifiable and above all simple hypothesis. Secondly, propose an experiment which might test the hypothesis.

If the positive outcome of either would be an equally good fit for the theory of evolution then it's no good. This needs to be something unique to Creation.

Hypothesis......that NEW functional information ALWAYS has an ultimate intelligent source.

Not unique to creationism.

J C wrote: »

Falsify.....by finding one repeatably observable example of NEW functional information being produced WITHOUT a demonstrable ultimate intelligent source.

This does not falsify your hypothesis as is essentially just an "absence of proof" argument. You'd still be able to argue that an intelligent source started the process a few steps before our observation.

For what it's worth, we have observed your falsification numerous times:

Lenski et al 2008
Genetic algorithms
Dozens of directly observed speciation events
Disease mutations, in particular influenza and HIV

Of these, only the first has yet to be repeated as to do a full repeat would take several decades.

J C wrote: »

Hypothesis....the production of specific functional biomolecules with chain lengths in excess of 100 is statistically impossible using non-intelligently directed means.

Not specific to creationism. Also does not falsify evolution. Remember, evolution does not deal with the origins of the first biomolecules.

J C wrote: »

Falsify....demonstrate how a specific functional 100 chain biomolecule could be produced using non-intelligently directed processes and without consuming the supposed 'Big Bang Universe' in the process!!!

Genetic algorithms once again. Simulated complex functional information from simple components. Also genetic comparisons showing existing and extinct intermediate forms.

Got anything unique to creationism that has not already been falsified?

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards.
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?

How do we measure the above?

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C, still waiting on examples of people in the creationist leadership/PR arm also working in high profile science jobs. I promise I won't use my connections to the Atheist Conspiracy to get them sacked.

I really promise.

AtomicHorror wrote:

J C:.....you are BOTH dogmatic and changing!!!
.....you cling onto anything that props up your Atheistic Dogma!!!!

...and if something new comes along that you can use to support your dogma....you run with it....and if it doesn't you will reject or ignore it!!!

Were that the case then we would have expected the scientific community to be atheistic first and then to find the evidence for it, disregarding that which did not fit the model. Rather as the creationist community has started from the assumption that scripture is infallible and has disregarded or "re-interpreted" whatever does not fit their framework.

However, quite to the contrary, science was primarily the preserve of the religious for many centuries before a series of scientific findings, and the refinement of scientific philosophy, resulted in most scientists coming to the conclusion that to assume any given religion to be correct is irrational. Quite a gradual process.

Any comments on the above?

Also there is the small question of you providing a mathematical proof that evolution is categorically "impossible". This is easily the fifth time I've asked you to provide that.

J C wrote:

.....and some of the moral questions surrounding Evolution....that you didn't ask!!!!!:eek::)

There's a reason I didn't ask. You know why too. Morality is irrelevant to the veracity of scientific theories or to veracity in general. Otherwise all the nasty stuff in the papers would be lies and the world would be full of puppy dogs and kittens.

The morality issue is a tactic you use to divert us from dealing with topics you can't answer to. Answer my above questions or please just go away.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

See:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1053/

Oh wow.

creationontheweb wrote:

Carbon-14 (C14) or radiocarbon as it is often called, is a substance manufactured in the upper atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays.

Seriously? C14 is manufactured by cosmic rays? Did they even proof read this piece of trash article?

Look, there's no escaping the fact that C14 results are reproducible and testable. The results account for variable c14/c12 ratios because they are calibrated off a wide range of samples of known age. So the method would still take into account your (very speculative) water canopy (for which there is zero evidence) as well as the effects of the Flood (for which there is zero evidence) or whatever other magic you'd like to invoke. As long as a sample wasn't metabolising sea water, and correcting for all known errors, C14 is accurate to within 700 years. So best case scenario for you is 25,000 years minus 700 years of error equals 24,300 years. The Earth is thus a minimum of 18,000 years too old for your hypothesis to be correct. Unless you can explain to me another mechanism by which this could become inaccurate.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

...yet ANOTHER new Evolutionist on the thread.....HOW MANY OF YOU are out there???

You're in the minority for a reason J C. Just not the one you assume.

2Scoops

wolfsbane wrote: »

See:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1954/

This seems to suggest that whenever the Bible mentions a unicorn, it is in fact a wild ox. But this patently false, since wild ox do not have only one horn, and do not fit the description used in the Bible for the unicorn. Also, why call a wild ox a unicorn - surely they could just call it a wild ox instead of a unicorn? Similarly, it couldn't be a rhino since they could just call it a rhino. And we can't forget that a unicorn is part of 'horse Kind' and so can't be an ox or a rhino.

Anyway, that what that website says. What do you think personally Wolfsbane? And what about you J C? A mistranslation or do the unicorns really do/did exist?

AtomicHorror

creationontheweb wrote:

Unicorn (‘one horn’) stories have been told in many parts of the world, including Syria, China, India, ancient Greece and medieval Europe. Although always having one horn, its body (usually shown in European stories as a horse, albeit with cloven hooves) has also been depicted in many other ways, including resembling a sheep, a goat or even something like a hare.

creationontheweb wrote:

Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.

Yeah. Right.

sdep

In response to the question: Can anyone give a single instance where 'creation science' has made a specific prediction that was counter to the predictions of evolutionary theory, and that has turned out to be true?

wolfsbane wrote: »

This prediction was for rapid magnetic reversals of the earth's field - necessary for creationism to account for the many reversals observed in the rocks, but contrary to the needs of evolutionary time:
Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it.9 And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal.10 This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model. from:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/760

Likewise in this:
Mercury’s Magnetic Field is Young!http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5976/

Really - what has this to do with evolution? Evolution describes how biological species form and has nothing to do with theories of planetary magnetism. That said, this latest offering comes down to no more than over-interpretation of results, misrepresentation of the predictions of conventional scientific theories, and algebraic sleight of hand. I would go further, but I'm afraid the only due response to a COTW copy and paste job is to stick up the relevant debunking link from Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html) and move on.

wolfsbane wrote: »

And here's a comparison of the Evolutionary and Creationist expectations regarding dinosaurs:
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/

Normally, I don't welcome having links flung in lieu of argument; it smacks of other people getting me to do their homework for them. This one, though, is so silly that it had me entertained. Thank you.

sdep

wolfsbane wrote: »

As you say, there certainly is a debate amongst the religious on creation/evolution. JC, myself and Creationists in general stand on the historic Christian position. Others have moved to various positions in an attempt to reconcile with the modern scientific consensus understanding. Some retain a belief in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, and take the Genesis account as metaphor. Many modern religionists decribing themselves as 'Christian' have long ago abandoned the idea that the Bible is infallible or inerrant.

Just to point out that the Archbishop may or may not be a decent man, but he certainly is not a Christian in the original sense of the word. He would be on the Zadducean side of formal religion.

I'm aware that this is your case. Others within Christianity who don't claim Biblical infallibility and inerrancy tell us that theirs is the true historic position. Unfortunately, they have chosen to absent themselves from this thread, so the 'debate' ends up as an esoteric battle over bones, biomolecules and black holes when really it ought to be about theology.

sdep

2Scoops wrote: »

I see the G*****a G********s have mysteriously appeared in the thread tags. :eek:

We don't mention Them!

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Just to point out that the Archbishop may or may not be a decent man, but he certainly is not a Christian in the original sense of the word. He would be on the Zadducean side of formal religion.

And creationists are not scientists in either the traditional or modern senses of the word. The notion that a scientific debate is occurring is fiction. There is a debate, certainly.

The Mad Hatter

J C wrote: »

...."Wicknight" mutating into "WickPPnight" is a DEGRADATION of information...and a few more 'mutations' like that one, and the words would lose ALL meaning...and become functionless!!!

.....ditto with biological mutations!!!:D

....and BTW 'functional information' is FUNCTIONAL...i.e it provides a USEFUL function for the organism.....otherwise it is non-functional 'gobbledy-gook'!!!!:D

swá, ðu fóta forebirþ wé awrát þus?

Because if our language hadn't mutated into what we use now, we would.

Sorta looks like gobbledy-gook, doesn't it?

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And creationists are not scientists in either the traditional or modern senses of the word. The notion that a scientific debate is occurring is fiction. There is a debate, certainly.

You should report these imposters to the scientific establishments that employ them - for example:
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, UK. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3505

Dr Danny R. Faulkner, Full Professor at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3510

Professor Maciej Giertych, head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1702

Dr. McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory, Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4032/

Dr. Wanser is professor of physics, California State University, Fullerton.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4031/

Dr Baumgardner, technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4024/

Werner Gitt, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Germany.
http://creationontheweb.com:80/content/view/4047/

wolfsbane

sdep said:

Really - what has this to do with evolution?

If it is true, evolution CANNOT have occurred - unless you claim several thousand years are enough.

wolfsbane

2Scoops wrote: »

This seems to suggest that whenever the Bible mentions a unicorn, it is in fact a wild ox. But this patently false, since wild ox do not have only one horn, and do not fit the description used in the Bible for the unicorn. Also, why call a wild ox a unicorn - surely they could just call it a wild ox instead of a unicorn? Similarly, it couldn't be a rhino since they could just call it a rhino. And we can't forget that a unicorn is part of 'horse Kind' and so can't be an ox or a rhino.

Anyway, that what that website says. What do you think personally Wolfsbane? And what about you J C? A mistranslation or do the unicorns really do/did exist?

Perhaps you can point me to where the Bible speaks of a horse-like creature with one horn? If you had read carefully, you would have noted the Bible has a Hebrew word that is of uncertain meaning:
The word used in the Hebrew is ראם (re’em). This has been translated in various languages as monoceros, unicornis, unicorn, einhorn and eenhorn, all of which mean ‘one horn’. However, the word re’em is not known to have such a meaning. Many Jewish translations simply left it untranslated, because they were not sure which creature was being referred to.

Archaeology has in fact provided a powerful clue to the likely meaning of re’em. Mesopotamian reliefs have been excavated which show King Assurnasirpal hunting oxen with one horn. The associated texts show that this animal was called rimu. It is thus highly likely that this was the re’em of the Bible, a wild ox.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

You should report these imposters to the scientific establishments that employ them - for example:
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for Veterinary Science, University of Cambridge, UK. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3505

Dr Danny R. Faulkner, Full Professor at the University of South Carolina — Lancaster.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3510

Professor Maciej Giertych, head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1702

Dr. McIntosh, Reader in Combustion Theory, Department of Fuel and Energy, University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4032/

Dr. Wanser is professor of physics, California State University, Fullerton.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4031/

Dr Baumgardner, technical staff member in the theoretical division of Los Alamos National Laboratory. http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4024/

Werner Gitt, director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, Germany.
http://creationontheweb.com:80/content/view/4047/

Scientists who are also creationists. Very good. Not the same thing as creationists being scientists by definition really is it? Hypothetically, if I work in a cafe as a waiter to pay off PhD debts, does that make waiters scientists too? How many of these guys are actually engaged in "creation science" research?

AtomicHorror

A question out of curiosity, and forgive me if it has been asked many times. Genesis says:

Genesis 7 wrote:

8 Pairs of clean and unclean animals, of birds and of all creatures that move along the ground,

9 male and female, came to Noah and entered the ark, as God had commanded Noah.

So, basically two of every land animal in existence? Is it therefore the creationist contention that all of the species of dinosaur were represented on the ark?

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

See, for example:
New evidence of Noah’s Flood from Mexicohttp://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5639/

That is one huge leap to be making there. A dinosaur covered in sediment? Surely evidence of Noah's Flood!!!! :eek::pac:
Sorry, but anyone with a clue about even basic geology or palaeontology could tell you that article is complete and utter nonsense.

Written by Tas Walker. Oooh a degree in Earth Science and English. In other words a little bit of everything but nothing particularly specialized. Small wonder the article makes virtually no sense.