0 members (),
612
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/allan-j.html James S. Allan
Creationist Genetics Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland M.S. in agriculture from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa B.S. in agriculture from the University of Natal Former senior lecturer in genetics at the University of Stellenbosch International consultant in dairy cattle breeding http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/anderson-k.html Kevin Anderson
Creationist
Ph.D. in Microbiology from Kansas State University
NIH Postdoctoral Fellow, Dept Microbiology, University of Illinois
Former assistant Professor of Microbiology, Mississippi State University
Research Microbiologist, USDA, Ames, Iowa
Published over 20 technical papers on genetics and molecular biology of bacteria
Director of Van Andel Creation Research Center, Chino Valley, Arizona
He has given numerous presentations at scientific meetings around the world and is currently the editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly. http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/batten-d.html Don Batten
Creationist Plant physiologist Ph.D. in plant physiology from the University of Sydney B.Sc.Agr. with first-class honors from the University of Sydney Consultant plant physiologist and research scientist New South Wales Department of Agriculture (Australia) research scientist for 18 years Published various scientific papers Staff member of Answers in Genesis you can select from the dropdown yourself. (select person) Agard, E. Theo Allan, James Anderson, Kevin Armstrong, Harold Arndt, Alexander Asimov, Issac Austin, Steven Barnes, Thomas Batten, Don Baumgardner, John Bergman, Jerry Boudreaux, Edward Byl, John Catchpoole, David Chadwick, Arthur Chaffin, Eugene Chittick, Donald Cimbala, John Clausen, Ben Cole, Sid Cook, Melvin Cumming, Ken Cuozzo, Jack Darrall, Nancy Darwin, Charles Dawkins, Richard de Beer, Gavin Dewitt, David DeYoung, Donald Dobzhansky, Theodosius Downes, Geoff Eckel, Robert Faulkner, Danny Ford, Dwain Frair, Wayne Gentry, Robert Giem, Paul Gillen, Alan Gish, Duane Gitt, Werner Gould, Stephen Jay Gower, D.B. Grebe, John Grocott, Stephen Haldane, J.B.S. Harrub, Brad Hawke, George Hawking, Stephen Hollowell, Kelly Holroyd, Edmond Hosken, Bob Howe, George Hoyle, Sir Fred Humphreys, D. Russell Huxley, Aldous Huxley, Julian Javor, George Jones, Arthur Kaufmann, David Kennedy, Elaine Klotz, John Koop, C. Everett Korochkin, Leonid Kramer, John Lammerts, Walter Lester, Lane Livingston, David Lopez, Raul Marcus, John Marsh, Frank Mastropaolo, Joseph Mayr, Ernst McCombs, Charles McIntosh, Andrew McMullen, Tom Meyer, Angela Meyer, John Mitchell, Colin Morris, Henry Morris, John Mumma, Stanley Parker, Gary Patterson, Colin Peet, J. H. John Rankin, John Rosevear, David Roth, Ariel Rusch, Wilbert Russell, Bertrand Sarfati, Jonathan Simpson, George Snelling, Andrew Standish, Timothy Taylor, Stephen Thaxton, Charles Thompson, Bert Thomson, Ker Vardiman, Larry Veith, Walter Waddington, C.H. Walter, Jeremy Wanser, Keith Whitcomb, John White, A.J.(Monty) Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest Wile, Jay Williams, Emmett Wise, Kurt Wolfrom, Glen Zuill, Henry
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Well gentle readers, I think I have pointed out that the people who believe in evolution have actual science to support their view but not creationists. The big problem is that there is no real evidence to support creationism. I realize that I am not going to convert Paul or any other dedicated creationist, so I will drop this thread now. I hope that you have looked at this and realize that evolution is the only answer to how we got this way.
By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Well gentle readers, I think I have pointed out that the people who believe in evolution have actual science to support their view but not creationists. The big problem is that there is no real evidence to support creationism. I realize that I am not going to convert Paul or any other dedicated creationist, so I will drop this thread now. I hope that you have looked at this and realize that evolution is the only answer to how we got this way.
By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.
Bill Gill WOW, Bill , I never knew that ! Creationism is not science it is religion. why would creationism have a need to be a science anyway? I never have claimed that creationism was a science , I have always just claimed that evolution is not correct. but thanks , So now all we need to do is win a case in court the next time we find evidence that evolution is false. we don't need to try and convince anyone other than the courts who must be non - biased and base their finding's on facts. that's the way I see it , or we could just use some that we already have. so the judges are passing judgment that creationism is not science , but are they passing judgement that evolution is science? the last I heard evolution was still a theory , has that been changed by the courts? or is evolution still just a theory? I believe that given that evolution cannot show how life first began , then evolution start's with life , and creation is the only way that life was possible , otherwise mix up whatever you want in a jar and send a bolt of lightning into it , and make some life. if the supreme court is saying that evolution is science then evolution need's to be capable of providing proof that life can be created from non life in a lab , otherwise the finding's can be reversed. in the supreme court. it would be nice if you would post a link to the case that you are talking about , I can't seem to find it. thanks in advance. if evolution is just a theory and not a fact and cannot be proven and creationism also cannot be proven to be a fact then neither should be taught in schools , or both should be taught in schools. and the teachers should be fired if they show any biased opinions towards either. they are there to teach not to influence. let the student decide.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104
Senior Member
|
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 104 |
.
By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.
Bill Gill Not science... yet. Until scientists find the right organic goo compounds to make their own life. Then the science of 'creationism' can begin. And THEN begins the moral, and ethical explosions. Think it's a point of contention now? Boy, I can't wait until the lines between science and religion blur. In the end; Can't we all just get along? All in all, that is one helluva neat experiment. Evolution is a fascinating subject. For the sake of argument, I don't believe in creationism, or big bang, but I do have quite a bit of faith in evolution (faith because I don't know much about it, but enough to believe it happens, and is testable as displayed here). If god did create life, it was as a goo, just waiting for a double helix or some such to form (and it wasn't 6014 Earth years ago). Double helix can form from random particles suspended in plasma... kinda like it does in lightning strikes. God is probably just a scientist having fun, it would explain all the tangible laws. But I digress, and am probably just baiting the trolls.
Laziness breeds innovation
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Kitzmiller vs Dover School DistrictAnd as an aside, the judge in this case is a conservative, appointed by Bush. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA it says district court , Bill. what we need is the Supreme Court case.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
It's already been there and lost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._AguillardThere was a pile of litigation in the 1980's when Big Bang theory rose to prominence in media. It was actually interesting sciences response especially the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_MonsterMany scientists have joined the church because if they were going to have to teach creationism then we will also have to teach there is a flying spaghetti monster. I am proud to admit I am a card carrying member of the pastafarian church. The court ruled that creationism in any form is not science which is the stance I uphold. As per discussions with Rev K nor is psychology or spirtualism science and it can never be made such no matter how much you try and talk around it because it fails the basic science tenants. So in USA there is snowballs chance in hell that creationism will ever be taught as a science at school. I know from a religious level that move will also be resisted perhaps Rev K will explain the "end of days" scenario from his church which I believe involves Catholic religion being mandated to be compolsary.
Last edited by Orac; 12/18/12 03:06 AM.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
it says district court , Bill. what we need is the Supreme Court case. And the Supreme Court finding was referenced in this case. All you have to do is to check the document. It has some pretty good case law about the fact that you can't teach religion in a public school. Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819 |
Correct Bill Gill :-)
The issue is dead in USA you would have to overturn a mountain of supreme court findings.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
Interesting case: The jurisprudential legal landscape throws up some points worth pondering. One thing that does seem certain is that this sort of wrangling is well established and will continue for considerable time to come.
Recently there have been signs that the same sort of thing is making its way into the UK.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
|
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962 |
Yes, it is pretty well established, and the contention will fuel many a courtroom day. I can remember in grammar school having to sit through a prayer each day before we were dismissed for lunch. It engendered some of the first discussions I had with my mother about who or what god was. I was amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who did not believe in prayer. The next year the policy was stopped, and we were released for lunch without a prayer, and the world did not end. Now this brouhaha over "Intelligent Design" is just a transparent attempt to reintroduce religion into the schools. Luckily we have had the good sense to rebuff it thoroughly.
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
my problem with teaching evolution is the fact that it teaches children who have a belief in creation that their belief is wrong. this case should have found that neither is a science. the courts found that teaching both was not necessary because creation is not a science. that is a fact. all that needs to be done is to take another case to the courts and have the teaching of evolution removed from schools. constitutional right's were used as the tool to deny the teaching of creation in schools , have a look at this. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . . The Establishment clause is immediately followed by the free exercise clause, which states, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". These two clauses make up what are called the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.[1] The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. the act of the courts clearly shows that evolution is a science. it is not a theory or a religious belief system like creation is. it has been proven to be a fact something that creation can not prove. I do not believe that evolution is a fact. I do not consider any of the evidence in favor of evolution to be so strong as to prove that evolution is a fact. I believe that evolution is a theory , a hunch , a belief system , as far as the courts are concerned evolution should be a religion. the courts in fairness should deny teaching of evolution in the school systems because evolution is not a science it is a belief system. 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
I can remember in grammar school having to sit through a prayer each day before we were dismissed for lunch. I remember the same type of stuff , only I knew why we were doing it. I was amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who did not believe in prayer. I am amazed at the insensitivity of the school system to people who do believe in creation. Now this brouhaha over "Intelligent Design" is just a transparent attempt to reintroduce religion into the schools. Luckily we have had the good sense to rebuff it thoroughly. I feel as if "Evolution" is just a court ordered demand that introduced anti religion into the schools. so , it boils down to what people believe in. our school systems teach anti religion. but they use a religion to do it. darwin wrote a book. moses wrote a book. the courts chose darwin's book.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
it has been proven to be a fact something that creation can not prove. Designating something as science certainly does not maintain that it has been proven. my problem with teaching evolution is the fact that it teaches children who have a belief in creation that their belief is wrong. This might apply to one section of religious belief; it most certainly does not apply to all those who believe in creation. the courts in fairness should deny teaching of evolution in the school systems because evolution is not a science it is a belief system. Has the court denied the teaching of creationism, or simply ruled that it should be taught as a religious belief? Fairness would then dictate that all related religious beliefs should be given equal teaching time. Should they all be included in the science curriculum?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
darwin wrote a book. moses wrote a book. I think there's fairly good evidence that Darwin wrote a book. Apart from what one might choose to believe, is there any evidence that Moses wrote one, or even that he could write?
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696 |
.
By the way, the United States Supreme Court agrees with me. Creationism is not science it is religion.
Bill Gill Not science... yet. Until scientists find the right organic goo compounds to make their own life. Then the science of 'creationism' can begin.
Mike Kremer said:- I don't really understand the above sentence. Because...when the scientists find the right combination of goo chemicals to replicate primitive life. Then the (science) of 'creationism' will die! -and not live....because is is supposed to be God who started and organized creationism ???. Is'nt that the religious basis of creationism? If not ...please explain it to me. I thought natural Evolution starts with the right combinations of chemicals replicating life. So...Evolution dos'not need God, does it?
. . "You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
Then the (science) of 'creationism' will die! -and not live....because is is supposed to be God who started and organized creationism ???. LOL , creation is not a science as far as I'm concerned. if you have ever bothered to read Genesis here's is the Book of Genesis on the Vatican web site. http://www.vatican.va/archive/bible/genesis/documents/bible_genesis_en.html THE BOOK OF GENESIS Chapter 1 [1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. [1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. [1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. [1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." [1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so. [1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day. [1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. [1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. [1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so. [1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good. [1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day. [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. [1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, [1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. [1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." [1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good. [1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." [1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day. [1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so. [1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good. [1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." [1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. [1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." [1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. [1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. [1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. there's one thing that people seem to forget or just never thought about. 1 day for God could be millions / billions of our years. after Adam and Eve sinned they were cast out of the Garden of Eden before they could eat of the Tree Of Life and live forever. When God Rested. God rested in his time frame not our's. we may very well still be in the seventh day.
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570 |
1 day for God could be millions / billions of our years. True, if you are willing to accept wild speculation. On the other hand if you accept Genesis literally, such speculation is not encouraged by verses 3 - 5.
There never was nothing.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Megastar
|
Megastar
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136 |
[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. [1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. [1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. God must have caused the earth to spin to separate the light from the darkness. On the other hand if you accept Genesis literally, such speculation is not encouraged by verses 3 - 5. I'm not sure why you think that. it basically says that the first day was created in the first day that God applied the work he applied to make the first day. then a few days latter we see this. on the 4th day. [1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, [1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so. [1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars. [1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, [1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day. we know that the earth is older than the moon , but how did Moses know that?
3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Megastar
|
OP
Megastar
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858 |
Ah, then the story in Genesis is allegorical rather than true. That is it just represents the true story with a nice lie. So that means that none of it is just as written. So God had plenty of time to build the universe the physical way. That is he started with a void i.e. nothing, and created everything from it via the big bang. Then when there had been time in our way of counting time he kicked off evolution to bring us life as we know it. So you do believe in evolution after all.
Bill Gill
C is not the speed of light in a vacuum. C is the universal speed limit.
|
|
|
|
|