How come creationists don't have a problem with the theory of relativity or germ theory?

The same scientific principles and epistemological methodologies that were used by scientists to devise those theories are the same ones which were used to create the theory of evolution.








So if you think scientists are lying to you about the evidence for evolution, how come you don't think the same way about the theory of relativity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory or atomic theory?|||Anyone who would use a straw man fallacy by making up a creationist's opinion in order to criticize it is not worth debating. Learn how to argue without being fallacious.The science is the same. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position.



Edit: As works in progress, many scientific theories just keep getting revised. For example, we base our current evolutionary theory of when humans diverged from apes on the fossil record. But every time a new fossil is found, the date gets pushed back.



In any case, this means is that any information given in student text books is considered to be “true” only at the time the book is published. (Now you see why you always have to buy the newest editions of those expensive college texts?)



Here are a couple ...



There are 109 Elements in the Period Table ... New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered.



Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.|||Let me put it like this...just because a person may use the English language (or whatever other one you choose) to tell a lie, doesn't mean the entire language is invalid.





Simply because a scientist utilizes, as you put it, "The same scientific principles and epistemological methodologies" that are valid in one instance, this does not make them valid in all instances.





If one were to be quite factual in the explanation of the "evolution" of the evolution theory, it would be shown that the evolutionary theory is a varied and extremely broad collection of ideas from many different individuals and institutions, not just one. Just as it can be said of the Creationists...there are many different philosophical and ideological variations. Jeez, you can't even get two Baptists to agree on everything let alone the entire religious world.|||Because those aren't the ones that conflict with their beliefs.



I bet if creationists had a bone to pick with relativity, we'd be flooded with asinine misrepresentations and lies about how it does or doesn't work, how it's supposedly false, or that it, too, is some kind of conspiracy against religion.|||Someone should really do a study to see if rhetorical questions actually make the person realize anything new or if they're pointless.





I'm pretty sure you know the answer to your question. That's why I say that. And I'm just interested in if this is an effective strategy. Unless your goal is to annoy... then good job lol|||How come evolutionists, who don't believe in God, have no problem with saying "God bless you" when the person next to them sneezes?





...or "thank God" when something amazing happens?





...or plead "please, God" when they're in a fox hole?





iamnotbut....I know [the Great] I AM|||Why is it that people so smart that can figure out all that stuff ignore what is right in front of their faces and see that always kind produces kind. Even their stupid degrees are because they went to a school of that kind and it produced the same. Get real.|||The theory of relativity was devised by mathematical means. Cell theory was based on observations.


Evolution was based on observations and guesses (natural selection only selects from what is available. Darwin was wrong).|||Simple, they start with the premise of creationist beliefs then attack anything that contradicts it. That's how a belief works. It is not intellectual dishonesty, it's just how beliefs work.|||how is babby formed, how is babby formed, how girl get pragnat|||god did not create the world in 6 days, and we werent one of the first things he put on earth at all.


this just proves that the story was WRONG, so why bother listening to creationists. theyre wrong.|||Oh...they would have an issue with big chunks of General Relativity if they actually understood the implications.|||They conveniently select what they think scientists are right about to fit into the existence of their God.|||Because they doesn't discredit their magical creation myth like evolution does.|||Or the theory of electronicism...|||Gravity is just a theory!!!!!!!!





*floats off sulkily*|||Creationists are funny like that.|||They used to have a problem with the earth going around the sun. Didn't make sense.|||it doesn't inconvenience them or their beliefs.|||First Cause|||I don;t have a problem with evolution. God did create us though. We can still only guess at and imagine how it was done.|||You still think evolution is science?





All through history evolution has been discredited by scientists.





Darwin understood that his beliefs were not scientific.





He wrote;





“I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science . . . . It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw(s) and holes as sound parts.”


Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, )New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) p. 456, 475).





And scientists spent the next 150 years proving him right (i.e. that his speculations ran beyond the bounds of true science) by disproving his ideas.


First, 4 of Darwin's contemporaries challenged Darwin's idea;





1. Charles Lyell (1797 – 1875) wrote "No geologists, who are in possession of all the data now established respecting fossil remains, will for a moment contend for the doctrine in all its detail, as laid down by the great chemist to whose opinions we have referred. But, naturalists, who are not unaquainted with recent discoveries, continue to defend the ancient doctrine in a somewhat modified form. (The Principles of Geology Ch 9 pg. 145 par 2)


2. Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) conducted experiments with peas which showed that one species could not transmute into another one. (The Evolution Handbook - TEH p. 20)


3. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (i.e. life cannot arise from non-living materials). (TEH p. 20)


4. August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) cut of the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. (TEH p. 20)


Then, in 1953 Stanley Miller sparked a non-oxygen mixture of gases for a week and produced some microscopic traces of non-living amino acids and proved that the act of producing amino acids would produce right-handed amino acids which clog the body machinery and kill the life form (TEH p. 265).





TEH - The Evolution Handbook by Vance Ferrell contains over 3000 scientific facts and is available in book form and online at www.evolution-facts.org|||'Theory' is a nicer word for not completely true.|||Because youre a fruit.