• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Facts Found From Creation Science

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
One post that I found by clicking on the Mathematics category has the title, The Golden Ratio. You have probably heard of the Fibonacci sequence of numbers. Every number in the sequence is the addition of the two that came before it: 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, 3+5=8, 5+8=13, 8+13=21, and so on. What is interesting is that if you ignore the zero and divide a Fibonacci number into the one before you get 2, 1.5, 1.67, 1.6, 1.625, 1.615, 1.619, 1.617, 1.618, etc. After the first few, the answer is always close to 1.618. This number is a very special number and it has been given the name the “golden ratio.” It’s interesting to learn how often this number appears in art, music, nature and science.

And this proves what? That the basic process for producing the Fibonacci sequence (which approximates the golden ratio) is easily done?

The “Archaeoraptor” fake
In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis“, found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a forgery. Comparing the photograph of the specimen with another find, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing came to the conclusion that it was composed of two portions of different fossil animals. His claim made National Geographic review their research and they too came to the same conclusion.[7] The bottom portion of the “Archaeoraptor” composite came from a legitimate feathered dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor, and the upper portion from a previously-known primitive bird called Yanornis.

Both of the fossils from which this fake were made (by fossil sellers, not scientists) were legitimate fossils relevant to bird evolution. That is one of the sadder aspects of this fake: it damaged two very valuable fossils, which the seller could have sold with great profit anyway.

So one fake fossil is made from two legitimate fossils that substantiate evolution. Hardly a good argument against evolution.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
that's not the point of the website. It's to show what creation science produces.

People who work with evolution or learn it to earn a biology degree may do so, but they never do completely understand what evolutionary science produces. Maybe it's a means to an end. Or it's a way to make mutations acceptable.
I've wandered through quite a few Creo websites in my time, and all I find is ignorance and self-serving codswallop.

'Creation science' doesn't do science ─ conducts no original research, performs no experiments (as Michael Behe expressly acknowledged at the Dover trial in 2005). Instead it exhibits and promulgates profound and willful ignorance of geology, cosmology, the theory of evolution, physics, biochemistry, genetics, and most other factual things.

How can you pretend to do science when you're already said that no conclusion is acceptable if it disagrees with (the Creo view of) the bible? The bible repeatedly says the earth is flat and immovable and the sun and stars go round it and the sky is a solid dome to which the stars are affixed, and they'll fall to earth if they come loose, for instance.

And of course there have been scientific hoaxes over the years, but as @sayak83 has already pointed out, they were uncovered by scientists, not by 'creation scientists'. In a manner wholly unlike religion, scientific method includes checking and rechecking one's earlier findings and setting out to make corrections where necessary.

If ever there was wilful disregard for the truth, if ever there was an environment perfectly designed for cognitive dissonance, if ever there was candy-coated nonsense on a stick, it's creationism.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Hoo boy, I thought this is going to be a hum dinger of a thread, but then realized the website is ten years old. Gulp.

I'm going by a website promoted by my friend who runs scienceagainstevolution.info . Here's what he says about it,

"This month’s website review presents material which seeks to show that “We have been bombarded with partially true, false, fraudulent and scientific information which, when examined more closely, we discover the real truth about evolution and creation.”

The approach the website takes is to present posts from a variety of publications about various creation facts. At the end of each post, you will find information as to the source of the article and keywords that help the reader in finding related information by using a search box located on the main page of the site. The posts are also placed into different categories that can be searched by links on the main page, which is just a blog post site with archives spanning the dates of July 2009 to May 2010 powered by WordPress.

The top page of the blog post has the title, MORE SCIENTIFIC NON-SENSE. Here you will find posts about many Scientific Hoaxes, including Piltdown Man, the Biogenetic Law Fraud of Ernst Haeckel, the South Korean Stem Cell Fraud and others.

By looking at the archive posts, you will find the theme that evidence of creation facts can be found in many different areas of study including astronomy, earth’s ecology, nature, fossil record, geology, mathematics, anatomy, history and biology.

One post that I found by clicking on the Mathematics category has the title, The Golden Ratio. You have probably heard of the Fibonacci sequence of numbers. Every number in the sequence is the addition of the two that came before it: 0+1=1, 1+1=2, 1+2=3, 2+3=5, 3+5=8, 5+8=13, 8+13=21, and so on. What is interesting is that if you ignore the zero and divide a Fibonacci number into the one before you get 2, 1.5, 1.67, 1.6, 1.625, 1.615, 1.619, 1.617, 1.618, etc. After the first few, the answer is always close to 1.618. This number is a very special number and it has been given the name the “golden ratio.” It’s interesting to learn how often this number appears in art, music, nature and science.

As with most sites discussing creation and evolution, there is much to explore on this site. Just select a category on the main page that you find of interest, or use the search box to serve as a guide to various topics. Also, the references on the various posts can provide more detailed information."

Unfortunately, the website is about ten years old. Still, I've read it, and surprisingly, it's still relevant today. After all, it's creation facts. Thus, it may be fortunate. Gotcha. He got me.

For example, the first story is about an asteroid passing closely to earth. Evos like to think we will die by an asteroid if not by global warming. They scare everybody into reading their NYT article. I was discussing a recent NYT story and laughing about it a couple of weeks ago. Now, I know it's just evos scaring everybody into reading about "their" science. The last story I post here is a good one. Sure, it is a fact that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but it becomes unavailable if it is sucked into a black hole. Isn't that considered a loss for us? It's still there, but it's unavailable. Can this theoretically create the end of our universe? Can someone explain?

"The Sky Is Falling Again
Um, never mind. On March 12, 1998, on the front page of The New York Times, a headline read: “Asteroid Is Expected to Make a Pass Close to Earth in 2028.” Brian G. Marsden, director of the Central Bureau for Astronomical Telegrams at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, predicted that on October 26, 2028, an asteroid about a mile in diameter would come within 30,000 miles of Earth. That’s within spitting distance, spacewise, which evoked comparisons to the asteroid that crashed on the Yucatàn peninsula 65 million years ago, allegedly wiping out all the dinosaurs. “When you first discover a comet, or any kind of body, you start measuring its position,” notes Robert Park. “From that you extract its trajectory. The more measurements you make, the more accurate your trajectory gets.” Marsden issued his warnings based on very early trajectory measurements. Now he anticipates the asteroid will pass Earth at a safe distance of 600,000 miles."

From December 2017
Asteroid expected to make closest pass by Earth in over 40 years

Asteroid Watch

Birds didn't come from dinosaurs. Now evos are saying birds came from reptiles. Sheesh. Remember, creationists knew this ten years ago, but people still believe it today.

"Piltdown Chicken
The finding was initially trumpeted as the missing link that proved birds evolved from dinosaurs. In 1999 a fossil smuggled out of China allegedly showing a dinosaur with birdlike plumage was displayed triumphantly at the National Geographic Society and written up in the society’s November magazine. Paleontologists were abuzz. Unfortunately, like the hominid skull with an ape jaw discovered in the Piltdown quarries of England in 1912, the whole thing turned out to be a hoax. The fossil apparently was the flight of fancy of a Chinese farmer who had rigged together bird bits and a meat-eater’s tail.

The “Archaeoraptor” fake
In 1999, a supposed ‘missing link’ fossil of an apparently feathered dinosaur named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis“, found in Liaoning Province, northeastern China, turned out to be a forgery. Comparing the photograph of the specimen with another find, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing came to the conclusion that it was composed of two portions of different fossil animals. His claim made National Geographic review their research and they too came to the same conclusion.[7] The bottom portion of the “Archaeoraptor” composite came from a legitimate feathered dromaeosaurid now known as Microraptor, and the upper portion from a previously-known primitive bird called Yanornis.

Editor’s note: I know that nonsense is spelled wrong. I hyphenated it for effect. Recently “global warming” has come to light as a complete hoax (post coming). Hoaxes, frauds and half-truths have been around since the fall of man from grace in the Garden of Eden. Today (the last 200 years), evil men diligently work towards enslaving you to take your money, your freedom and if possible your soul. You have a choice, either follow the truth or sell yourself into bondage.

This blog will continue to expose pseudo science. Make sure that you scrutinize all science that is contrary to GOD’s WORD. Take off your (if you are wearing them) evolutionary glasses and look at look at true science through GOD’s WORD and you will never be lead astray by hucksters who try to minimize GOD’s WORD which rightfully proclaims that HE created everything seen and unseen. The science says that there can be no other explanation. See Romans 1:20-23 if you are looking for an excuse.

Ed."

"Study Shows the Universe Is Closer to the End Than Expected

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Every known system degenerates. Metal rusts, food rots, and flowers wither. Even something as large as the universe will eventually run down. How much usable and still-ordered energy remains in the universe?

Australian researchers have generated a new estimate, one that includes the energy-destroying effects of “supermassive black holes.” Their computations indicate that the universe is perhaps 30 times more run down than similar estimates published just last year.

After adding in “the contributions of black holes 100 times larger than those considered in previous budgets,” co-authors Chas Egan and Charles Lineweaver reported in the Astrophysical Journal that the universe is at least an order of magnitude more run down than secular astronomers once thought.1

The largest contributor by far to universal entropy (a measure of usable energy) is generated by supermassive black holes, according to the published study. Evidence of these, as well as the smaller “stellar” black holes, has been found mostly in galactic cores. Black holes rapidly randomize ordered forms of energy and matter, turning them into heat that then dissipates."

http://www.creation-facts.org/
A good deal of this has nothing to do with evolution. o_O
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Asteroids coming close to earth is like yelling, "The sky is falling." We may as well ignore the articles NYT and other liberal news sources tell us because the chances of it hitting are pretty astronomical.

What does this have to do with evolution?

No, what does entropy of the universe mean to atheist scientists? What do they tell us? Creation scientists say different as in the article.

What does this have to do with evolution?

As for the fake fossils, it comes from the evolution and atheist scientist camp. The people involved used it to further their own careers. Why would people who work with evolution need to fake evidence if evolution just happens? If we all got satisfactory answers to our evolution questions, then Christianity and creation scientists would fall by the wayside.

Guess who exposed the few fraudulent fossils that some have tried to pass off in the past? Oh yeah, it was scientists. Luckily, that’s how science works.

What does creation science produce? For one, it produces great scientists.

Is this a joke?

"It is false to say that you cannot be a true scientist if you believe in creation.

.There are many scientists that believe in God(s) that are capable of putting their biases aside while doing good science. Francis Collins is one of them.

The very founders of the scientific methods and the scientists who developed some of the most important foundational principles of modern science were primarily creationists. Creationists find themselves in the company of great men of science such as Robert Boyle, George Washington Carver, Michael Faraday, John Ambrose Fleming, James Joule, Lord Kelvin, Carolus Linneaus, Matthew Maury, Joseph Clerk Maxwell, Gregor Mendel, Samuel F.B. Morse, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, William Ramsay and Leonardo da Vinci. Many scientists, such as Carolus Linnaeus, George Washington Carver and Matthew Maury, claim to have received their inspirational ideas directly from the Bible.

Such as?

There are also many creation scientists today who are top in their fields. Their, belief in creation and a young earth has not proven to be a hindrance, but actually an asset to their scientific endeavors.

The discoveries of these great men of science are a testament to their belief in the Creator of a designed universe. Their Confidence to pursue scientific discoveries was and continues to be a natural outcome of their belief that discovering how the world works is possible because the universe is the product of an intelligent and all-powerful Designer of order."

http://www.creation-facts.org/scientific-law/great-scientists/

Notice how none of them had to invoke any god(s) in their explanations of the natural mechanisms that exist in the universe? That’s quite telling.

OTOH, Darwin and his ideas produced the Holocaust, Social Darwinism, genocide, Planned Parenthood and the like. It's also producing GMO products for our food stores and to "help" solve (worsen) our environmental problems. I'll pass on the soda and gmo food and snacks you are offering, thank you.

Talk about non-sense (sic).
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Every creationist gets credibility when they debate evolutionists and science.

I would seriously use my ignore button for the first time on any forums concerning creationists.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
It's the Chinese sellers who tried to dupe the scientists into buying a fake.

Exactly. Now, you're getting it. If evolution was true, then people would not have to resort to fakery. I believed in evolution for a couple of decades until I finally started looking into what the creation scientists were saying. Some of the largest institutions like the Smithsonian, my alma mater Cal and even the USG backs atheist science. This is why when I compared evolution science, i.e. atheist science, vs creation science, I knew who was telling the truth. Suddenly, the Bible had new meaning for me as the Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.

What asteroids have to do with your point, I have no idea.

Right, again. Asteroids do not have anything to do with anything because the chances of it hitting earth are astronomical. Thus, there is no reason for a news organization to run it as scientific news. Yet, we see this kind of story on a regular basis. You and I know it can happen, but the chances of it are so remote that there is no point.

All the rest are simply points you have been repeating for a long time now. Dealt with earlier by many others. I will simply note of Theodosius Dobzansky, one of the greatest evolutionary biologist and Orthodox Christian

Theodosius Dobzhansky - Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

And yet, :facepalm:. Sure, Dobzhansky was able to shape modern synthesis, but what did it lead to to? What did it produce?

You are yet to produce any facts by your so called creation scientists. Everything the guys you quoted used the scientific method for their discoveries, regardless of their beliefs.

You are still clouded by evolution. It's the lie so big that many people believe it. The facts are all in front of you.

You didn't answer my question, but you know that evolution tells you that it continues to cause major changes. This is contradictory to what else you know, and that is our universe is running down due to entropy (This is a fact! Zing!). Any system needs to gather a great amount of energy from the universe to cause major change, so how can evolution continue to work?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Not one of the scientists on your list is a "creation scientist". They may have mistakenly believed the creation myth in the Bible, but they never used that myth in their science. You have yet to demonstrate that there is a single significant "creation scientist". That all of your scientists never use the creation myth shouts volumes.

It's not creation that is a myth. I can expose a myth. What you can't expose are the media myths that they feed you on a constant basis.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Oh, what are the most recent great scientists?

It seems rather weak to quote scientists before the modern era... makes it look like he's arguing that this belief has completely died with history since there are more great scientists living today than ever before.

Charles Babbage, Frank Marsh, Duane Gish, Henry Morris, Andrew Snelling, Carl Wieland, John Hartnett, Mary Schweitzer, John Sanford, Ken Ham, and the list goes on. Some, like Mary Schweitzer, can't have their names published because they would lose their funding and jobs.

Of course it's false to say that you can't have strange beliefs. It would be impossible to be a great biologist and believe in some type of creation, but not at all impossible to be a true scientist with a set of beliefs that contradict findings in another field, such as this alternative to science called "creation science".

I would say one can't be a "great" biologist and believe in some type of evolution. The ones who are great probably stopped believing a decade ago and discarded it as not necessary for their work.

It makes for a good story. Repeat it enough and someone will believe that everyone still believes in it or uses it as proof.

Exactly. So why does the media continue to repeat the evolution myth in their news articles? Why do they have to continue to tell me the earth is 4.6 billion years old or the universe is 13.7 billion years old? Why do they have to tell me that dinosaurs dies out 245 million years ago? All of the above are evolution "facts," so why bore me with facts?
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
What does this have to do with evolution?

You should be able to tell me. I can only guess that the NYT and other media think it's a way for people to read their science article.

What does this have to do with evolution?

It's part of evolutionary thinking on the origins of the universe. Puhleeze. Your evolution is just biology arguments are tired and weak.

Guess who exposed the few fraudulent fossils that some have tried to pass off in the past? Oh yeah, it was scientists. Luckily, that’s how science works.

Creation scientists exposed the fraud in the past and today. These were major ones like this one of the Piltdown Chicken and the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Now, why do they not cover these ground breaking stories in major news organizations?

Is this a joke?

No. Unless the jokes on you. I've used examples from these people in the past here on RF.

It's still the creation scientists who were great in the past as it is today. After all, you can't answer the question what does evolution produce? Nor can you answer how major changes can happen when our universe is winding down due to entropy.

There are many scientists that believe in God(s) that are capable of putting their biases aside while doing good science. Francis Collins is one of them.

The good ones do not put their religion aside. As I've said, they put evolution aside. Francis Collins may be great, but he and his group are destructive to Biblical authority and are leading so many people astray.


See post #29.

Talk about non-sense (sic).

The nonsense is with people who continue to believe in evolution when it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even a few atheist scientists have put evolution aside.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
You should be able to tell me.

I can only guess that the NYT and other media think it's a way for people to read their science article.

Why? This is your thread and your claim.

The NYT isn’t claiming that it has anything to do with evolution. But you seem to be.

It's part of evolutionary thinking on the origins of the universe.

Evolution is about the diversity of life.

Puhleeze. Your evolution is just biology arguments are tired and weak.

Your argument that evolution should explain anything and everything is tired and weak.

Creation scientists exposed the fraud in the past and today.

They were exposed by scientists who were doing proper science, regardless of their personal beliefs.

Kenneth Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner were some of the scientists that definitively demonstrated Piltdown Man to be a fake. That was way back in 1953. G.S. Miller expressed skepticism about it way back in 1915, among other scientists.

Are Timothy Rowe, Richard Ketcham, Cambria Denis, Matthew Colbert, Xing Xu and Philip Currie “atheist scientists” or “creation scientists?”

Forensic palaeontology: The <i>Archaeoraptor</i> forgery

These were major ones like this one of the Piltdown Chicken and the "Archaeoraptor" fake. Now, why do they not cover these ground breaking stories in major news organizations?

It must be a vast conspiracy.

No. Unless the jokes on you. I've used examples from these people in the past here on RF.

Scientists who allow their personal biases to interfere with their work are not doing proper science.

It's still the creation scientists who were great in the past as it is today. After all, you can't answer the question what does evolution produce? Nor can you answer how major changes can happen when our universe is winding down due to entropy.

I can’t answer a question that doesn’t make sense. Sorry. Could you rephrase?

The good ones do not put their religion aside.

Then those would be the bad ones. Allowing personal beliefs and biases to interfere with scientific analysis is not scientific. In fact, the scientific method was/is designed to REMOVE personal biases from the equation.

As I've said, they put evolution aside.

Then they are putting aside demonstrably factual explanations for the diversity of life on earth in favour of their personal beliefs. That is most definitely not good science.

Francis Collins may be great, but he and his group are destructive to Biblical authority and are leading so many people astray.

It’s not a scientist’s job to lead people to God or preserve Biblical authority. I don’t know why you think it would be.

Francis Collins does it right. These “creation scientists” that you talk about are doing it wrong. They start by assuming that everything in the Bible is accurate and then trying to make everything fit into some ancient text. That’s not proper science. I don’t know why you think it is.

See post #29.

Post #29 doesn’t tell me what “inspirational ideas” any scientists took directly from the Bible.

By the way, Ken Hamm is not a scientist.

The nonsense is with people who continue to believe in evolution when it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Even a few atheist scientists have put evolution aside.
It doesn’t. The theory of evolution doesn’t contradict any known laws of physics. If it did, it wouldn’t be a valid scientific theory.

Does evolution contradict the second law of thermodynamics? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
CF001: Second Law of Thermodynamics
CF001.2: Thermodynamics universal
CF001.1: Disorder by neglect
Does Life On Earth Violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
Not only did you contradict yourself in the last two sentences, you've hit the nail on the head, Einstein.

I guess this is the level of debate we can expect from JB. :D

And SkepticThinker most certainly did not contradict himself. It's pretty obvious that he only contradicts what you wrote and what you think.

I suppose you also think that your position and arguments are rational. Which is puzzling.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Two oxymorons in the title of this thread

Creation and science

Facts and creation science.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Exactly. Now, you're getting it. If evolution was true, then people would not have to resort to fakery. I believed in evolution for a couple of decades until I finally started looking into what the creation scientists were saying. Some of the largest institutions like the Smithsonian, my alma mater Cal and even the USG backs atheist science. This is why when I compared evolution science, i.e. atheist science, vs creation science, I knew who was telling the truth. Suddenly, the Bible had new meaning for me as the Bible is not a science book, but science does back up the Bible.



Right, again. Asteroids do not have anything to do with anything because the chances of it hitting earth are astronomical. Thus, there is no reason for a news organization to run it as scientific news. Yet, we see this kind of story on a regular basis. You and I know it can happen, but the chances of it are so remote that there is no point.


And yet, :facepalm:. Sure, Dobzhansky was able to shape modern synthesis, but what did it lead to to? What did it produce?



You are still clouded by evolution. It's the lie so big that many people believe it. The facts are all in front of you.

You didn't answer my question, but you know that evolution tells you that it continues to cause major changes. This is contradictory to what else you know, and that is our universe is running down due to entropy (This is a fact! Zing!). Any system needs to gather a great amount of energy from the universe to cause major change, so how can evolution continue to work?

"If evolution was true, then people would not have to resort to fakery."

ROFL... as if it was the scientists who created the fakes, instead of scientists who uncovered the deception. You ARE aware that fake 'Christian Artifacts' were commonly sold throughout the Middles Ages, right? So according to you, if Christianity was REAL then people wouldn't have to resort to fakery.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Exactly. Now, you're getting it. If evolution was true, then people would not have to resort to fakery.

Huh? No scientist resorted to fakery. Someone attempted to fool the scientists into buying a fossil that wasn't valid. The shame is that it was made from two fossils that *are* valid and relevant to evolution.


Right, again. Asteroids do not have anything to do with anything because the chances of it hitting earth are astronomical. Thus, there is no reason for a news organization to run it as scientific news. Yet, we see this kind of story on a regular basis. You and I know it can happen, but the chances of it are so remote that there is no point.

No, asteroids have nothing to do with evolution because evolution is concerned with biology, not astronomy.

Yes, the odds of an asteroid hitting the Earth are small. But it does happen. We know of cases historically and much larger impacts that are prehistoric.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky

You didn't answer my question, but you know that evolution tells you that it continues to cause major changes. This is contradictory to what else you know, and that is our universe is running down due to entropy (This is a fact! Zing!). Any system needs to gather a great amount of energy from the universe to cause major change, so how can evolution continue to work?

There's a pretty big power source about 93 million miles away that puts a LOT of energy into the Earth's ecosystems.
 
Top