>
>
>On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Steve Clark wrote:
>
>> >Evolution is basically a religious philosophy.
>>
>> Randy, do you know enough about evolution science to make this claim?
>
>Can you say oxymoron? And no I have not been indoctrinated in the atheism
>of evolution to the level of a Phd.
>
Really Randy, you're quite amazing. Steve gave you a polite, patient
reply, more than you deserved considering your implication that he
is either an atheist or actively supporting atheism.
>>
>> illuminate how truth can be a complicate thing. It will deal with how the
>> church misused scriptural knowledge to silence Galileo. Look for it.
>>
>
>I have heard on the nightly news a source of information I seldom trust
>that the Pope endorced evolution. Is the Pope the Church? Well not the
>church I belong to. It might suprise you to know the Galileo was a bible
>believing Christian.
Wow, what a big surprise.
>
>Truth is not complicated but lies can get that way when trying to
>camouflague them as truth.
>
you should know.
>Here is a list of some of the outstanding Bible-believing scientists who
>founded the following branches of science:
>
>Antiseptic surgery, Joseph Lister
>Bacteriology, Louis pasteur
>Calculus, Isaac Newton
>Celestial Mechanics, Johannes Kepler
>Chemistry, Robert Boyle
>Comparative Anatomy, Georges Cuvier
>Computer Science, Charles Babbage
>Dimensional Analysis, Lord rayleigh
>Daynamics, Isaac Newton
as opposed to nightnamics I suppose
>Electronics, John Ambrose Fleming
>Electrodynamics, James Clerk Maxwell
>Electromagnetics, Michael Faraday
>Energetics, Lord Kelvin
>Entomology of living INsects, Henri Fabre
>Field Theory, Michael Faraday
>Fluid Mechanics, George Stokes
>Galactic Astronomy, Sir William Herschel
>Gas Dynamics, Robert Boyle
>Genetics, Gregor Mendel
>Glacial Geology, Louis Agassiz
>Gynecology, James Simpson
>Hydrography, Matthew Maury
>Hydrostatixs, Blaise Pascal
;-0
>Ichthyology, Louis Agassiz
>Isotopic Chemistry, William Ramsey
>Model Analysis, Lord Rayleigh
>Natural History, John Ray
>Non-Euclidean Geometry, Bernard Riemann
>Oceanography, Matthew Maury
>Optical Mineralogy, David Brewster
>
>And on it goes. All of these founders were Bible believers and believers
>in creation. Creationists are not scientists?
Randy, can you document that any of these were Scientific Creationists
in the way you define the term. Just saying they are creationists is
deceptive. Almost everyone on this list is a creationist in the broad
sense. I wager that all or almost all of the above are creationists
in the same sense but not in the sense you mean. Quite a few of
these guys were dead before Darwin published OoS.
>Creationists invented
>science! Therefore, to say that creationists are not scientists or that
>creationism is not science is not only totally false, but it is ludicrous
>as well. Creationism violates none of the laws of scinece as evolution
>does, but is in complete harmony with them.
>
Which laws of science does evolution violate? Please be specific.
BTW, you may also want to show how Creation does not violate
conservation of energy. Please show your work.
Brian Harper | "If you don't understand
Associate Professor | something and want to
Applied Mechanics | sound profound, use the
The Ohio State University | word 'entropy'"
| -- Morrowitz
Bastion for the naturalistic |
rulers of science |