Quote:

---

There are many scientists themselves that are indeed creation scientists:

---

Quote:

---

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

---

Quote:

---

It is telling that many of the people listed died over 100 years ago, some of them died before Darwin was even born. If scientists believed in creationism prior to 1900 I would not hold it against them.

---

Quote:

---

1.) the observable fact: a river is moving along a terrain

2.) sollution one: religion.... we can claim that the reason the river moves how it moves is because of something called "spirit of the river" a holy power or some sort of supernatural god will. this makes the river bend and stream and break his way thru the landscape

---

Quote:

---

intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god.

---

Quote:

---

it has been shown more then often that animals included into different environments and raised by other species will addapt their behavior.

---

Quote:

---

The point of the post is that there are scientists that believe in creation. This means that the two are not mutually exclusive or that religion and science are at odds with each other and this was the point of my lists

---

Quote:

---

Actually, no. This is not correct. You would need to know at least the original amount of energy put into the stone (the original velocity of the stone). Without knowing this you cannot accurately determine the starting place of the stone's throw. For example, if a kid throws a stone and you only see it just before it hits the ground (i.e. at the point where the force of gravity is overtaking the inertia of the stone) or if someone fired the stone from a sling shot (more initial inertia) and you see it at the point just before it hits the ground then you are only seeing the stone (in both cases) with approx. the same amount of energy. You cannot therefore know from how far the stone was thrown or shot. There are just too many variables in this situation.

---

Quote:

---

For generation after generation the same type of bird nests in the same way without deviation. This observation would indicate that birds did not all begin nesting on the ground and then evolve into tree nesting animals. Instead, this observation would lend itself to the idea that a Robin has always built its nest in the same manner.

---

Quote:

---

I am sure you have heard the old phrase, "You can't get something from nothing!" How can a mutation (and a random one at that) add information that was not there before?

---

Quote:

---

Are you actually saying that the birds that crack nuts under the wheels of cars have experienced a mutation and that those that do not have not experienced this mutation? In other words, if we were to take an egg from one of these birds, hatch it in an incubator and then release it (where there aren't any of its kind, but there are streets, cars and stop lights) that this bird will start to crack nuts under the wheels of cars at stop lights? I don't think so.

---

Quote:

---

I believe that time dialation can explain this, and that relatively the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old.

---

Quote:

---

If the Milky Way galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains about 200 to 400 billion stars, why are there so few stars in the sky?

---

Quote:

---

In that case, a mutation can lose information, add it to the gene pool and be called new information. Its relative to the genome.

---

Quote:

---

Its just an observed fact that mutations don't add information.

---

Quote:

---

Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology, 5th edition, 1999, pages 230 - 231

That's a college textbook, I believe. Creationists don't dispute bacterial resistance via mutation, science does.

---

Quote:

---

And now we get down to the best proof of evolution:

Everyone believes it! Or at least most of them do, so let's all just jump on the bandwagon.

---

Oww how I grow tired of these kind of remarks. Our motivations goes more than just a bit further than 'ow let's believe in evolution because it makes us look as cool as all the others who believe in evolution'.
If you use that kind of reasoning then it's no wonder you believe in creation. What's your problem with science anyways? Again, I've seen so little details about the creationism theory that have a more plausible answer to certain questions than science seems to have, let alone evidence in favor of the creationists theory.

As for the list of scientists that I've never even heard off before (most of them, not all), such a list says little to nothing to me. Yes, I know it wasn't your intention to post a big list to be able to support your claim stronger, but you did decide to post it.
I could post a list of scientists that do not believe in creationism next to it, and your list would by far not be as long as mine would be. Infact, I could post a list of christians believing in evolution next to it, and that list could very well be longer already than your list of scientists that 'believe in creationism'. Whatever that exactly means per scientist can be very different. It doesn't say they believe in creationism as been written literally in the bible, or wether they believe that life in the beginning has been created by (a) God?

Quote:

---

intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god.

---

Quote:

---

Not religion and science. Only creationism and science. When I estimate that there are about 6 million scientists in the world (10 scientists per 10,000 people), your list means that about 0.001% scientists and engineers believe in creationism. Thats even well below the usual 2% whacko rate.

---

Quote:

---

The fact that you can't observe the back side of the moon does not mean that the back side of the moon does not exist.

---

Quote:

---

As a kid I owned an electronics experiments kit, consisting of a number of components like transistors, capacitors, batteries, lights, a loudspeaker, and so on. The components were placed in plastic cubes with magnetic contacts along the edges, so you could build all sorts of electronic devices by just placing the cubes together in the form of the desired circuit.

I noticed that when shuffling the cubes so that they fell together in a random order, mostly nothing happened, but sometimes the loudspeaker would produce a tone, like clicking, beeping or humming, or sometimes the light was flickering. The random cluster of components formed circuits like oscillators, phase shifters, or amplifiers.

---

Quote:

---

We can see more than 2000 stars with the bare eye, but due to the illumination with electric light we normally only see about 300..400. With a good telescope you can see and count all the billions of stars that are not too close to the center of the galaxy. You can even see single stars in other galaxies, like Andromeda.

---

I wasn't taking into account the fact that some of them are just going to be too hard to see without an aid.

That explains it.

Quote:

---

new information means that a new feature (replacing an old one in an individual) is added to the gene pool, as in the Milano mutation.

---

Quote:

---

I am not sure what you want to prove with that quote. Mutations happen by randomly changing DNA sequences, but also by inserting parts from foreign DNA or from the own DNA.

---