Summations Only

Not just strange but miraculous.

So Faith, perhaps you can provide a link to where Creationists hide the model, method, theory, process, procedure, evidence and facts that support Creationism or at least tell us which of the many mutually exclusive stories in the Bible contain the model, method, theory, process, procedure, evidence and facts that support Creationism?

quote:

---

Sigh. It's an illusion of science that deceives people into thinking it's science. Only creationists are in a position to recognize that fact and spend time opposing it.

---

Well, I'll tell you this; you could make yourself rich beyond the dreams of avarice if you could find a way to convince juries that what criminal forensic investigators do isn't science and doesn't produce reliable results. But I think we both know that, deep down in your heart of hearts, you know as well as we do that it is, and it does.No, what you do is called special pleading. All other scientific results are fine, just not those that dispute your peculiar religious beliefs.

What is it precisely that puts creationists, in particular, in such a unique position to recognize this "fact?" The only thing I can think of is their "literal" reading of Genesis 1 - 2. Not exactly scientific criteria...HBD

Any idea why so many silly ideas from such an obvious and clear truth that is outlined so thoroughly in Genesis 1 & 2?HBD

Not strange at all. But exactly what sort of "scientific achievement" is involved here is the sort of question I would have about such a claim. I'd guess: some of it is true science, some isn't. Please don't refer me to a link -- unless you also give the information in your own words. If you can say in a few words how many are directly concerned with the EvC type ndebate versus doing actual science please do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I believe should have been quite clear from what I said, the Bible was ignored so none of it came from Genesis at all.

Pretty simple really. Only creationists have explored the problem far enough to see that the science claims are false. They start by recognizing the contradiction between the bogus historical sciences and Biblical revelation and therefore have the motivation to prove the fantasy sciences to be fantasies.

What evolutionists and old earthists do is NOT the same thing as criminal forensics.

I think a major sticking point in this whole discussion is what constitutes evidence. Rather than me telling you what I think qualifies as evidence, I would rather you and Dawn describe what you think the criteria is for evidence.It seems that you accept some types of indirect evidence but not others; what would be the objective criteria to distinguish acceptable and unacceptable types of indirect evidence?I also think that since this is a discussion about "the science in creationism," we should define what separates scientific evidence from non-scientific evidence. In the broadest sense, evidence can be defined as "anything presented in support of an assertion." But does that mean any opinion, experience, assertion or logical argument can be considered to be scientific evidence?For example, I do believe in the power of prayer and I would cite my person experiences as evidence that prayer does work. However, I do not consider my personal experiences to be scientific evidence. Do you agree or disagree and why? and what is it about personal experiences and such, that would make them scientific or nonscientific?This should provide a framework for some discussion on what suitable evidence is.HBD

According to Kent Hovind his positions were 100% Biblical! and there was some of the most ridiculous claims ever coming from that Biblical creationist. What about Morris, Safarti, Comfort and Cameron... all devout, 100% Biblical creationists. Who are the new Biblical creationists who have done such a outstanding job of representing the science in Genesis? Ken Ham?HBD

Do you have links to the published papers where their methods and results are described in detail?HBD

I am curious as to what you consider to be evidence. It seems that the nature of evidence is a major sticking point in this discussion with both sides clamoring on about "show me the evidence", "we have presented the evidence" but neither side accepting the others evidence. I would like to hear from you and Faith as to what you consider to be evidence. See Message 415 for a more detailed post about what I am asking for.HBD

I reject the distinction between scientific and other kinds of evidence. If facts exist that support a conclusion that can be called scientific then those facts are scientific evidence.I've often said that the strata and the fossils themselves are evidence for the Flood, good evidence, but that obvious evidence is denied by believers in evolution. You can't reasonably deny evidence for an event you don't believe in on the basis of having your own interpretation of that evidence. Until it is acknowledged that the strata and the fossils ARE perfectly good solid scientific evidence for a worldwide Flood, your request for a definition of evidence is a cheat.The obvious observable fact of the geologic column, its enormous range throughout the world, its separated layered sediments which are exactly what we know water does, river water, sea water, etc., the frequent very tight contact lines between the sedimentary rocks, the lack of any erosion of the surface of any of the layers sufficient to have been caused by a long period at the surface of the earth, everything I've shown about how the tectonic disturbances occurred only after all the strata were built up to their maximum height/depth, at which time the Grand Canyon was cut and all the major disturbances and erosion occurred everywhere... all superb evidence for Noah's Flood.And the presence of billions of fossils within those strata, representing the death, and arguably very sudden death, of all the living things of the earth, which is exactly what the Flood was intended to do, all preserved under the normally very rare conditions that allow for fossilization ... more superb evidence for Noah's Flood.As opposed to the interpretation of Time Periods attached to slabs of rocks and the limiting of what supposedly lived during that time period to the kinds of living things buried in those slabs of rock, including some in the layers before that layer;, the claim that the contents of the rocks somehow define the kind of climate and other qualities of that "time period" and so on and so forth ...Yes I think it's ridiculous but even dignifying it as a viable theory there is no reasonable justification for preferring it to the Flood theory that accounts for the exact same facts with the same inclusiveness.Evidence is only evidence as it supports a theory, otherwise it's just a bunch of facts. The same facts in this case work as evidence for both the Flood and the Old Earth/evolution. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Do you think that the work of Bonanno et al/ (2002), 'The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS' - http://www.aanda.org/...ull/2002/30/aa2598/aa2598.right.html -
provides a solid foundation for the view that the age of the Sun is 4.570.11 billion years, or that the conclusion, based on the fact that the Sun is fusing hydrogen to helium, that its main-sequence stage will last for roughly ten billion years - The Final Stages of the Evolution of a Sun-like Star | Astronomy 801: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, and the Universe - is based on a solid foundation?