Why doesn't the evolutionist quorum acknowledge that many scientists are among the ranks of creationists?

Question

Nobel prize winning mathematicians do not accept the odds that it could have "Just happened", Comparing the chances that life "just happened" to an explosion in a print factory producing an un-abridged dictionary of the English language. Around 800,000 words, with definitions, pronunciation, alternative meaningetc.---Fat Chance!
Biologists see the complexity of organisms as not possible to have happened by chance.
Carbon 14 datings are used "Selectively" at best.
"Uniformitarian" rock strata are turned upsde down or even missing altogther, or even shuffled.
Back up the speed of the earth's decrease in speed and you'll find a two to four-hour day, at only 200,000,000 years. Oops!
The hyperbolic fall in the earth's magnetism would make the cosmic ray intensity in times past far less than acknowledged. And yet we, who maintain a scientific "show me some real" -not theoretical- "evedence" are hooted down as real yo-yo's and "un-scientific".
SHOW ME!

Answer 1

there has always been a minority of scientists with creationist views

unfortunatly many good theories in astronomy and biology and geology are seldom in journals because the peer review process often tends to stifle minority opinions... hardly a scientific approach to a quest for truth..

also unfortunately much of what goes under the name of 'science' includes naturalist philosophical assumptions taken axiomatically before looking at the data.... the jury has been selected and the trial is over

Answer 2

Thank you for the Earth's rotational speed bit. That's an outright lie, and Creationists have only been able to demonstrate that Creationists are liars.

Currently the day lengthens by about 1.5-2 milliseconds per century. Using the upper end of the range means 2 milliseconds per century (2 seconds per 100,000 years or 20 seconds per million years). Multiply by 4,500 and you get 90,000 seconds in 4.5 billion years. That would seems to indicate that the day was -1 hours long, but that used the top of the range. It also assumes that the rate is constant. The length of the day DECREASED by 2.68 milliseconds after the Banda Aceh earthquake.

Your 2-4 hours in 200,000,000 year number is pure garbage. I would like to know your source, so I can point out all the individual lies that made your fictional numbers. I cited my sources. Your turn. SHOW ME!!!

Answer 3

Check out the real odds. About 90% of top scientists are atheists. http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

Your math odds are way off. Care to provide a peer reviewed paper on them. Same goes for the Biologists. Nice broad statement that isn't true.

I work in the geology industry. That statement is wacko. Things do get turned over, but not regularly and it can be explained.

Carbon 14 is selectively used because it only works on things that were alive and less than 50,000 years ago. There are many other dating methods and they all agree.

The revolution of the Earth slowing is caused by the Moon moving away. That isn't even close to linear. Oh ya, and the geologists that you just said didn't know what they were talking about figured out that the Moon was moving away by looking at rocks that show millions of years of tidal activity way before there was a mirror there to bounce a laser off of so we could actually measure it.

Go read Answers in Genesis and stop making your self sound so silly by posting to nonsense you see there publicly.

Answer 4

Creationist "science" is false science. Creationist "science" has an agenda. And that is to convince people that evolution is fake, and that a supernatural being created everything. No science that considers the supernatural as evidence is true science. Having failed at having evolutionary science banned from classrooms, creationists have come up with a new agenda, and that is the invention of "creation science." They dress up their religious dogma in scientific terminology. They have no persuasive arguments of their own, so their plan is to attack selected particulars of science and pretend to a science of their own. Few legitimate biologists, geologists, or anthropologists are willing to go along with this.
If you look up any of your "examples" on a non-creationist science/evolution website, you can find the answers. You'll also find how creation science blurs and distorts the information it gives to suit it's purposes. (Another sign of false science.)
I'm sorry, but I'm going to take the word of the tens of thousands of legitimate scientists (biologists, geologists, and anthropologists) all over the world who accept evolution as FACT over the word of some fundamentalist Christians who treat a 2000 year old book written by uneducated men (who have NO knowledge of science) as scientific and historical fact.

Answer 5

There are really smart scientist who believe in "intelligent design" or some form of it(probably not as many as you claim), but when you say creation most people think of the young earth creation.

That said, do you have better evidence than just saying "it couldn't have happened by chance" which is basicaslly where you are getting at. 15 billion years is a long time for things to happen(4.5b for earth)

Answer 6

The vast majority of "scientists" who are strong proponents of creation are people who were always of that opinion and then went into science to try to shape the science to fit their preconceived ideas. And some of the stuff they come up with is so far off the charts of reality that the rest of the scientific community thinks they're nuts.But hey whatever floats your boat.

AD

Answer 7

95% of US scientists agree with evolution (1997 Gallup *).
"Just happened" is *not* evolution - Google "natural selection".
(Sigh... Wake Up, Sionarra! It's 2007; not 1007!)

Answer 8

I've got some wonderful land in south Florida to sell you.
A really nice bridge in New York, too.

Answer 9

Do a google search for the "Steve list". Then come back and read your own question again.

Answer 10

Fossils cannot be radiocarbon dated. Fossils are by definition composed of substitutionary minerals.

So I see that you don't even know what you're talking about, soooo...