Scientists can handle more than one theory at a time. Each theory addresses a specific set of facts. The facts dealt with by the theory of evolution and the different hypotheses concerning origins are different. What you are bringing to the discussion is neither scientific nor evidentiary.
And if science doesn’t even have any good theories about origins, how can they tell us that we’re wrong? Based on what?
You are advocating a particular narrow religious belief, not science. You are supporting your contention with scripture and divine revelation, not scientific evidence. To date you have presented no scientific evidence to support your contentions.
Science has approached the problem using the scientific method and has made some progress. That progress has not reached the level of a theory yet, but it is at least attempting to address the question with evidence, rather than divine revelation and belief.
And once again you are showing that you are anti-science. I don't know how you can claim to support science when you avail yourself of every opportunity to dispute both scientific methods and findings in favor of divine revelation.
Not so narrow. The Old Testament is Scripture for an awful lot of people in this world.
I don't know how you can claim to support science when you avail yourself of every opportunity to dispute both scientific methods and findings in favor of divine revelation.
Scientific findings confirm the account in Genesis that the universe had a beginning which scientists in the early 1900's tried so hard to deny.
Science confirmed that the earth was formless and void at one time, just like Scripture says.
Science claims that many animals came from common ancestors, which is not in conflict with God creating kinds and animals descending from them.
There are many areas where the findings of science verify Scripture, whether atheists and evos like to admit it or not.
Evos and atheists reject divine inspiration because they think that science is true. So why condemn someone who rejects some of the findings of science because they believe divine revelation is true? Why condemn someone for doing something you do yourself; that is accept what you believe as true and reject what you believe is false?
And once again you are showing that you are anti-science.
You really do need to stop lying about me.
But, since you’re here, could you be telling us what science text books it is that have been prepared for the day when the Creationists force the state and local education boards to approve religiously oriented science classes in the public schools? Those text books have to be prepared before anything else can happen, you know. And have the books been reviewed and accepted by the various regional accreditation associations? Then there’s the curriculum outline and the course of study workbooks and the other teachers’ aids. Have those also been prepared and submitted for acceptance to the state ed departments and the accreditation associations?
It doesn’t end there. Students have to be trained and certified by colleges to become the teachers of this new kind of exciting creation science of which you speak. Is that happening? And, what schools would it be that are preparing the teachers who will be conducting these classes? Can you name any? Almost assuredly, these schools would have to be bible-thumper colleges. State colleges and universities wouldn’t be conducting any these classes. Would they?
So, are you able to relate to us any of those things? Or are you just blowing smoke? To this point all you’ve been doing is throwing out propaganda talking points that would do no credit to anyone better than a Liberal. The rhetoric you’ve been inflicting on the forum is approximately equal to what one would have heard at IWW district convention in the Thirties.