Modern creationism makes no sense

Post Reply New Topic

...modern science originated within and under Christian theism.

That doesn't contradict my statement at all--not even a little.

Just wanted to say that I didn't intend to bash the theory of evolution. I just don't think that the theory is "a law" (thats why its called a theory) and that alternatives are possible (like a Creator that designs). Sorry if anyone thought I was bashing the theory.

So for example, two species with similar DNA, well, that could be because similar proteins are needed to be made for each species to function and so they don't neccessarily have to be that one evolved into another.

So for example, two species with similar DNA, well, that could be because similar proteins are needed to be made for each species to function and so they don't neccessarily have to be that one evolved into another.

Actually, the founding fathers of modern science such as Isaac Newton, calculus; Louis Pastor, bacteriology; Gregor Mendel, genetics; Charles Babbage, computer science, et al., were all devout men of faith who worked inside the creation framework as outlined in the Bible, not inside the evolutionary framework.

Evolution is neither a scientific fact nor a natural law, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the law of gravity - because such laws explain well-proved and observed actions that are subject to the laws of nature.

Nor is evolution a scientific theory because scientific theories require the possibility and evidence of repeated observations.

No evolutionist has ever been able to show the whole evolutionary cosmology sequence being tested, observed, and repeated without any outside interference; that is to say, something shown to be either creating itself from nothing or changing itself from one kind of thing to another.

Just wanted to say that I didn't intend to bash the theory of evolution. I just don't think that the theory is "a law" (thats why its called a theory) and that alternatives are possible (like a Creator that designs). Sorry if anyone thought I was bashing the theory.

So for example, two species with similar DNA, well, that could be because similar proteins are needed to be made for each species to function and so they don't neccessarily have to be that one evolved into another.

These issues are already very often considered given that there are instances where there is convergent evolution. The issue is that still, the basic idea of evolution explains a lot more than any other reasonable theory.

In Alabama, a state PAC recently went on the air with an ad attacking one of the Republican gubernatorial candidates for supporting the teaching of evolution in schools and for saying that parts of the Bible aren't true.

The candidate, Bradley Byrne, responded with a lengthy press release vehemently defending his belief in creationism and the infallible truth of the Bible.

"As a Christian and as a public servant, I have never wavered in my belief that this world and everything in it is a masterpiece created by the hands of God," Byrne wrote. "As a member of the Alabama Board of Education, the record clearly shows that I fought to ensure the teaching of creationism in our school text books. Those who attack me have distorted, twisted and misrepresented my comments and are spewing utter lies to the people of this state."

He went on: "I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that every single word of it is true ... My faith is at the center of my life and my belief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior and Lord guides my every action."

Watch the ad:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlAjTQO11V0[/youtube]

The group behind the ad and others attacking Byrne's conservative credentials is called the True Republican PAC. Interestingly, as the Montgomery Advertiser reported last month, the PAC has gotten most of its money from the teachers' union -- or, more accurately, from a collection of other PACs heavily funded by the union.

According to the Advertiser, members of the Alabama Education Association have a beef with Byrne for his past attempts to ban the employees of two-year colleges from serving in the state legislature.

Just showing that religion and science doesn't have to contradict.

Just wanted to say that I didn't intend to bash the theory of evolution. I just don't think that the theory is "a law" (thats why its called a theory) and that alternatives are possible (like a Creator that designs). Sorry if anyone thought I was bashing the theory.

Depends on what you call reasonable. Do you mean from an athiest's point of view?

Well.... no, I mean that the vast majority of educated and scientifically minded people tend to believe in evolution and all of the opposing ideas are generally labeled to not be science at all with good reason. Even people of religion will often accept evolution given the difficulty in rejecting it and seeming intellectually honest.

I don't like the idea of eating my relatives and if some of my ancestors were alive today, people have no problem eating them.

I don't like the idea of eating my relatives and if some of my ancestors were alive today, people have no problem eating them.

That's not really a reason to think the idea is false.

Even further, um.... even the creationist alternative basically says that if you have sex, you'd be doing it with one of your relatives, so... I don't think the weirdness factor is *that* horribly bad.

Go have sex with a monkey then if you believe it is your relative.

(according to creationism, we are all descendants of Adam and Eve and thus relatives)