It is commonly assumed that creationists are a bunch of unscientific, superstitious hoboes who are trying to undermine true science.
Does a belief in creation and God hinder scientific research? Well, let’s look at the facts: Sir Francis Bacon, establisher of the scientific method, believed in creation; so did Johannes Kepler, author of New Astronomy explaining the three laws of planetary motion; Sir Isaac Newton, formulator of the laws of gravity, motion, and calculus etc.; Louis Pasteur, father of microbiology; James Maxwell, laws of electricity and magnetism; Raymond Damadian, inventor of the MRI. All of these scientists in the past and more today believed in creation and it did not interfere with their work.
Evolutionists themselves (at heart, although they don’t admit it) resurrect the old idea of spontaneous generation (it’s raining frogs and fish) in their belief that life arrived by lightning bolts. This is the latest one I heard, you never know if it’s current view or not since they have to keep scrapping their theories. The Darwinists are also being unscientific. If you watch programs like Nova, you always hear of so and so’s theory being “scientific heresy,” despite all evidence in support of it. They reject anything that doesn’t fit their infallible dogma without even considering it. Nobody seems to connect these numerous cases with evolution vs. creation, even though there is much scientific evidence for creation and against evolution. Oh, wait a second; evolution itself hasn’t even been proven yet. Question: Where are the “numerous missing links” Darwin had predicted? All the “ape men” have been debunked. They come out with a new one every year though.
But that’s another thing the Darwinists cannot stand: questioning their theory. But we’ll get to that some other time.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
I beg your pardon.
Consider the following list of WHOLE species - some of them cousins, some of them ancestors, that led us on the journey from Hydrogen to Human:
Homo habilis (Man with ability)
Homo rudolfensis (Rudolf Man)
Homo ergaster (Working Man)
Homo erectus (Upright Man)
Homo floresiensis (Flores Man — discovered 2003)
Homo antecessor (Explorer Man)
Homo heidelbergensis (Heidelberg Man)
Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal Man)
Homo rhodesiensis (Rhodesia Man)
Homo cepranensis (Ceprano Man)
Homo georgicus (Georgia Man)
Homo sapiens idaltu
April 11th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
All of those are either completely ape, completely human, or a hoax. (or bad science, as “Lucy” showed)
May 31st, 2006 at 7:52 pm
Man, you really have those names down. Did you memorize those?
June 28th, 2006 at 7:16 pm
Oh yeah, and you only listed the wannabe ape-guys. You didn’t trace the entire descent of man from hydrogen on upward.
Now this I wanna see.
June 28th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Man why have I not herd of all these so called monkey men? Hey Did Rudolf man have a glowing red noise? My Dad is a working man are you calling him a premitive form of man? And there are plenty of Explorer men today. Have you seen the discovery channel? And dude it has been known for some years now that Neanderthal men where old men with back probs. Oh and if you wont a picture of a Georgia man I can get you one. They are allot in the next state over from me.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:06 pm
GavinO, that’s hilarious. Let’s see if I can add some more.
Man with ability–I’ve got talents.
Upright Man–Last time I checked, I walked upright.
Flores Man–I have a friend who is into botany.
Heidelberg Man–That would be Oleivienius; you can find his writings on any reformed pew bench.
Rhodesia Man–He’s the guy who lives on that island in the Meditaranean.
Ceprano Man–He had a really high voice.
If you look around you, you can think of more human ancestors.
July 10th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
You just have to Latinize the names to make them sound more “scientific.”
August 26th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Just as I said Ax, all these creatures are either completely ape or completely human. It’s just been anounced that homo floresiensis is just a pygmy with a condition of microcephaly.