Originally Posted by dannyj View Post
Originally Posted by Bob21 View Post
Originally Posted by BoSox View Post

Bob, I think that Wave got you on a trick question.

I have been meaning to ask you this question for a while now and just thought of a second one so ill ask now. When you first joined up on this board you often mentioned that you give speaking appearances at various college campuses, when you did this, did you share your concerative views (sounds like trouble) at those engagements like you do here? Since your speaking days must now be on hold due to excessive crowd control are you elligible to collect unemployment?
Bosox, no I never brought up my conservative views. I spoke on creationism, and pointed out all the problems with evolution. I’m a young earth creationist. But you want to see some college kids and even professors get stirred up, you should have seen some of those seminars.

I gave my seminars with a slide presentation and never brought up reigion or the Bible. I just used science. I did point out how all the major fields in science were developed by creationist, and could not have come from an evolutionist world view. So while many scientist today believe in evolution, their science is based on creationism.

Here’s a little know fact. Isaac Newton was a young earth creationist and wrote more on the Bible, than on science. Many people see Isaic Newton as the father of modern day science.

Bob - evolution as you know, is still called a theory instead of a law. But many (most?) believe it is a scientific law. They confuse microevolution or variation with macroevolution and believe that over a long enough period of time (millions or billions of years) it is possible. Time doesn’t make the impossible possible.
Agreed. But under the strict scientific definition, evolution really isn’t even a theory. It’s a model of how we and everything in the universe came into exsistence. The same is true with creation.

There are only two models to explain our existences: 1) through some act of a Creator (call it the creationist model), or 2) through the natural laws of science that exist today (the evolutionist model). There is no third way, no matter how hard you think about it.

Each model is outside the scientific process. Why? Because we can’t recreate creation since it happened in the past and isn’t happening now. And we can’t study evolution since the time scale is too long, as you’ve pointed out. They both take an element of faith, so by definition they both are somewhat religious. All we can do is look at things now and develop a model that we think best explains our origins.

I believe it’s fairly convincing from genetics, the fossil record, physics (specifically the second law of thermodynamics), astronomy, etc, that the data supports the creationist model better than the evolutionist model. It’s a fascinating area I’ve spent years researching. And I was an evolutionist the first 35 years of my life.