Posted on 08/28/2013 7:42:51 AM PDT by Kip Russell
I just eliminated the other three and picked CO2 because I know PEW is a liberal stink pot.
You’re babbling.
I'm sure all of your Ph.D. colleagues educated in the nonsense of the philosophy of evolution, as well as all of your professors back in Ph.D. school, would be just as surprised to learn that as you would be to find out that the scientific method includes OBSERVATION. Conjecture about what happened in the past is historical science, not the the kind that passes the test of the scientific method . Perhaps your “wise” professors should look into it instead of blindly following the atheist ramblings that promote a godless Socialist/Communist society.
There's a reason why it's just a theory and not a law.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
Romans 1:22
Not only do scientists use the idea of Creation in their work, but we wouldn't be able to perform our their without it.
“Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science
Don't believe anything you read at sites that promote evolution or tell you that the Earth is millions of year old; they have a financial interest in trashing science and do not care about the truth.
The bottom line question that you have to ask yourself is: do men that have an ever changing theory know more than God?
I'm sorry if I'm talking above your level of comprehension. I try to make myself as clear and comprehensible to lay people as possible, but sometimes, science is a tad complicated.
Oh, please. Quoting or paraphrasing to me from websites like Answers In Genesis (AIG) or the plethora of other creationist quackery websites is *not* going to make me renounce science or the scientific method.
Science is based on observation and hypothesis testing. If we can’t observe, measure, and test something, then it isn’t science. OTOH, if our methodology shows us a clear, consistent picture that holds up through repeated testing, then we accept the concept as fact.
The scientific fact is that we can no more ignore evolutionary theory in the study of biology than we can ignore the electromagnetic theory in the study of physics. For instance, efforts to understand why people keep getting the flu year after year would go nowhere without the basic understanding that the flu virus is constantly and rapidly evolving. No one is trying to establish the fact of evolution; we’re trying to understand the specific details of how the virus evolves and the implications of its continual evolution.
I have seen no evidence that creationists at AIG type sites actually use or understand the scientific method. Furthermore, I have seen little evidence that they are even Christians. A big part of being a Christian is about accepting a moral code that lying con men who push creationism and anti-science simply do not embrace.
Evolution is rarely part of everyday actual science even among those who believe in it:
Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately (Schaefer 2004, p. 102).
~Professor Henry F. Schaefer III, the Graham-Purdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia
“rarely deal directly with macroevolutionary theory, be it biological or physical. For example, in my 25 years of neuroscience teaching and research I have only VERY rarely had to deal with natural selection, origins, macroevolution, etc. My professional work in science stems from rigorous training in biology, chemistry, physics, and math, not from world views about evolution. I suspect that such is the case for most scientists in academia, industry, and elsewhere”
~Conrad E. Johanson, Ph.D., Professor of Clinical Neurosciences and Physiology and Director of Neurosurgery Research at Brown Medical School in Rhode Island
So... you continue to quote from Answers In Genesis as if that site is any more credible on the subject of biology as Planned Parenthood is on the subject of human fetal development.
Just in case the above sentence is too complicated for you to follow, I am saying that everything you find at AIG is a pack of lies.
Schaefer is not an evolutionary biologist. Therefore, I do not expect him to have any personal experience with just how much we life scientists depend on evolutionary theory to guide our work. In addition, I cannot verify from any credible source that Johanson ever said such a thing. I highly suspect that he was, in fact, quote-mined, which is an extremely under-handed tactic of taking actual quotes and editing out anything that doesn’t fit the quote-miner’s agenda. However, since I cannot find his original quote, there is the possibility that the quote was invented out of thin air by some creationist con man. Looking at Johanson’s actual CV, I see that he has published several mouse and rat studies—which would be odd for someone who thinks that the underlying framework of modern biology is *not* evolution.
Stop using AIG as a source. AIG was developed by liars and con men. They misquote scientists in a vile manner. Furthermore, I would say that they not only are not Christians themselves, but that they want to make all Christians look stupid—just like the Westboro Baptists want to do. Personally, I do not like or appreciate groups that set out to make Christians look like barely literate heathens, and there is no way on earth I would support them with *my* money. BTW, what I say about AIG goes for *any* creationist con men’s website.
My impression is that you have no interest in real science; you mainly want to punish scientists for persisting in studying science instead of trying to invent ways to pigeonhole scientific facts into the narrow confines of a morality lesson. Try to accept that none of the Bible is a scientific document, you’ll be a lot happier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.