Is "junk science" the new creationist catch cry..?

Question

Does that mean "as opposed to all the acceptable sciences"..?

Why do creationists misrepresent science, and then attempt to tear down this ficticious representation with childlike analogies and distorted logic..?

When creationists argue against science, they are NOT arguing against mainstream scientific principles and understandings, but are instead using lies to denounce lies..

Doesn't this only make them look foolish and ill informed..?

Pastor art, if you were really part of the mainstrean scientific fraternity, you too would embrace modern mainstream scientific principles and understandings of the natural world.
You are a fraud and a liar..

Lion of judah, I think you should change your name to Lemming of judah..
You have offered nothing other than a rant, and clearly have a low intellect which you try to offset with agressive postings.
You too, are a fraud and a liar.

Rap, your pre prepared and lengthy post discussing the vagaries of evolution have little or nothing to do with my question, and the old "evolution debate" has been done to death, and always results in misquotes, quotes out of context, and complete fabrication using psuedo science, just like you have here.
This may impress those who have little or no knowledge about REAL mainstream scientific understandings about evolution, and who will embrace anything discrediting science and promoting their deity belief practices, but it only make you look incredibley ill informed, if not purposefully manipulating the truth to protect your promised afterlife.
Again, misquotes, quotes out of context, and fabricated psuedo science does not make a compelling argument to anyone who has a basic understanding about science, which you clearly do not have..
You too are a liar and a fraud..

Answer 1

okay are you sure that you are not talking about evolution when you talk about junk science. no measurable facts, no way to test, but just have to believe. notice like most people that believe in evolution you are just willing to insult then put any piece of empirical evidence up to be challenged. oh what there is no empirical evidence for evolution. you have a fossill record that shows no evolution changes, which darwinist all agree to. here are some qoutes for you. or are the words from evoluntist a misrepresention of science?

Darwin himself said in his book The Origin of Species:-

"Why then is not every geological formation full of such intermediate links. Geology assuredly does not reveal any finely graduated organic change, and this is the most obvious and serious objection that can be urged against the theory".



The noted palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that:-

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ........ All palaeontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt" (Gould, 1977).

Also Dr T S Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections, Oxford University said:-"In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms." (Kemp, 1999).

Evolutionist David Raup, Curator of Geology at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History also said:- "The evidence we find in the geological record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be ....We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than in Darwin's time ... so Darwin's problem has not been alleviated" (Raup, Field museum of Natural History Bulletin).

The prominent British evolutionist Richard Dawkins speaking of the Cambrian fauna, has made the following comment: "And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists". Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1987).

Everybody knows that organisms ... get more complex as they evolve.’

‘The only trouble with what everyone knows, says McShea, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Michigan, is that there is no evidence it's true.’1

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:

‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

’I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

‘So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job …’


Steven Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, was objective enough to point out:-

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]


George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:-

"...Every palaeontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360

Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species (Kemp, 1982)

Answer 2

Because it goes against their beliefs. The sad part is that they make christianity as a whole look bad. I know many christians who don't have a problem with the theory of evolution. If you want to see junk science go look up kent hovind, and the duo kirk cameron and ray comfort.

Lion of Judah: You have absolutely nothing to back your claims. Show me some valid "creationist science". Oh wait, you can't because "creationist science" consist of lies and misrepresentations of the theory of evolution. They think that if they disprove evolution they can get people to believe in their religion by default. It's not science, if dishonesty by greedy charlatans.

Matt A: Science doesn't change? Are you serious. Science is always changing according to new findings. If there's a current theory that doesn't go along with the new findings it gets discarded. When you fundies provide real evidence to disprove it other than because it doesn't agree with what scripture says then scientist might start taking you guys seriously.

Answer 3

Junk science is science based on theories that are not verifiable. Science doesn't change, it is fact. However, the principles of evolution continue to change over time. The big bang theory changes. Maybe we should still bleed people, because that was considered science.

Christians use science to try to disprove the evolution theory. The fact is neither evolution or creation belong in science. But the only way to get one out, is with the acceptance of the other. I dont see where evolution benefits any scientific community. The constant study of it is a waste of time and money. It is a constant effort to try to disprove God, and that will never happen. We are sending billion dollar satellites out with the sole purpose of disproving God. How can anyone in their right mind say that this money is wisely spent.

Answer 4

But not to each other.

Idiots can convince each other of anything, since none of them actually know enough to refute anything. They just agree with each other.

Unfortunately it is not illegal to be stupid, and free speech interpretation by CONSERVATIVES means anyone can try to convince others of anything. So they use lies to convince lesser brains of the "evils" of science.

Funny thing, Republicans push democracy, as long as they can be in control to rip everyone off, and they can lie cheat and steal. That is the best reason for high taxes, that so many people do that.

Answer 5

Your Additional Details to Pastor Art were completely false. Just sayin.

Answer 6

It is Evolution that is "junk science" with it's psuedo fabrications brainwashed into people.
All this garbage about what you call mainstream reminds me of lemers stampeding off a cliff.
And don't you dare call us liars, it is you that are liars, don't like it? tuff. get over it, because the only way you are going to stopm us is to kill us and since you are all cowards and don't have the guts to face in a face to face confrontation, then sit back and take it.
Now,put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Answer 7

well they must have noticed how their pet 'creation science' projects were called junk science over the years. it shows they're paying some attention to criticism, at least.

Answer 8

Like they care. As long as they don't have to learn the evidence.

Answer 9

Yes.

Answer 10

Isn't "creation science" an oxymoron?

That's like "Santa expert"!